Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FBI tried to ambush my source

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 164 posts

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#61

Post by lapcat »

robonerd wrote: post #54
alasdair_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why protect this asshole? Because future sources need to trust you. Protecting sources needs to be absolute, or some of them will wonder what it takes to constitute “betrayal” in the future. Not betraying a source that has wronged you is fantastic signalling to future sources.

You'd trust this guy?! He has spooks crawling all over him. This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source, and the journalist won't even name that lawyer. An NSA/TLA/etc leaker would need a death wish to approach this journalist now, having read this story.

> This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source

The lawyer introduced the journalist to the source. So at the very least, the source seems to have trusted the lawyer too.

It also sounds like the lawyer provided the journalist with the audio recordings of phone calls about the ambush.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#62

Post by JKCalhoun »

zionic wrote: post #51
JKCalhoun wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe it’s a fundamentally American viewpoint to prefer freedom over security Hmmm, I'm not convinced. I would have had no problem agreeing with that sentiment over two decades ago, but some extremely bad actors have made it clear that "allowing a few bad things to happen" can be orders of magnitude more brutal than I once thought possible.

Are you not convinced this is correct, or not convinced it’s an American viewpoint? You could argue you disagree with the concept, but I don’t think you could honestly argue it’s not a traditionally American position.

I suppose I'm not even sure it is an American position. If it ever was, I don't think it is now, or has been for several generations. We're not farmers or fur traders anymore — we have complex and large societies.

Honestly I think trying to suggest anything is "an American viewpoint" dismisses too much nuance. We're neither all cut from the same cloth nor are our origins similar.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#63

Post by robonerd »

anonporridge wrote: post #15
GiorgioG wrote: post #4

I hope stories like this open the eyes of folks who are die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. They are not on your side. They are on their own side. I don't doubt that most folks at these agencies are hard-working Americans who believe they're doing what's best for our country. Having said that, this kind of unchecked power is dangerous.

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of poli…

I think ranked choice voting is too nerdy for much of the general public to understand; not the principle of it but the actual practice of how to tally votes and calculate the winner. Given the choice between a voting system the public demonstrably tolerates even though it isn't mathematically fair, and a voting system that is mathematically fair but is likely to cause confusion and distrust in elections, I prefer the former.

You could change my mind by showing that ranked choice voting systems can be taught to even the most common of midwits.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#64

Post by crayboff »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #56

It is a fascinating read. Still, I am not sure if it is a good sign that the story presented, if true, seems more intriguing than average "Blacklist" episode. I would normally default to blaming X ( in this case Holder, Pompeo and Trump as they are named in the story ), but the reality is those are just people, who just happened to use that power. The issue is that unchecked power apparently will exist until a truly…

As much as I enjoy blaming the Trump administration, this story didn't actually name Trump/Holder/Pompeo. This all happened under Obama's admin with Comey

Your point still stands though regardless

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#65

Post by ajross »

phpisthebest wrote: post #60
ajross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power But the crime is "release of classified material". That's not a rubber stamp, it's a clear allegation of criminal activity. I think your real feeling is that this material "shouldn't" have been classified (based on what you believe it contained -- the reporter never got it). And maybe that's true! But the facts i…

My comment has no bearing on the facts of this case, or my opinions on state secrets The fact of the matter is the warrant system, a non-adversarial system based on flimsy assertions and often out right lies by police and agents is not now, and likely never has been a check on government power

And I disagree, because virtually every successful resistance to police or prosecutorial misconduct (and there are many!) comes right down to a successfully argued fourth amendment violation. The fourth amendment is, quite frankly, the single most powerful check on law enforcement power in our society. And people who claim otherwise really need to spend some time resisting governments that don't have an equivalent.

But in this case, as I mentioned, the fourth amendment is silent. This arrest was totally OK (or would have been, had it not been spoiled) and doesn't represent any kind of government overreach at all.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#67

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

crayboff wrote: post #64
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #56

It is a fascinating read. Still, I am not sure if it is a good sign that the story presented, if true, seems more intriguing than average "Blacklist" episode. I would normally default to blaming X ( in this case Holder, Pompeo and Trump as they are named in the story ), but the reality is those are just people, who just happened to use that power. The issue is that unchecked power apparently will exist until a truly…

As much as I enjoy blaming the Trump administration, this story didn't actually name Trump/Holder/Pompeo. This all happened under Obama's admin with Comey Your point still stands though regardless

It is possible that I was not sufficiently clear with the way I phrased it; I apologize for that. The story of this particular case technically does not involve Trump or Pompeo.

The linked article, however, does list the following paragraph:

"The Trump administration went to even greater extremes than its predecessor to target the press. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo reportedly considered kidnapping WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who at the time was living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Yahoo News reported last September that former President Donald Trump even raised the possibility of assassinating Assange. Pompeo was reportedly obsessed with targeting Assange after a massive leak of CIA hacking tools, known as Vault 7. WikiLeaks published Vault 7 documents in 2017, revealing that the CIA had the ability to hack the computer systems built into a wide range of consumer products, including cars, televisions, and home appliances. In April 2017, Pompeo labeled WikiLeaks a “hostile intelligence service.”"

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#68

Post by anonporridge »

robonerd wrote: post #63
anonporridge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of poli…

I think ranked choice voting is too nerdy for much of the general public to understand; not the principle of it but the actual practice of how to tally votes and calculate the winner. Given the choice between a voting system the public demonstrably tolerates even though it isn't mathematically fair, and a voting system that is mathematically fair but is likely to cause confusion and distrust in elections, I prefer th…

I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). It's simpler for voters and RCV is more likely that people will be lazy and only select one choice. But it does have the problem that many people will think it violates one person, one vote.

There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. Voters handle them fine.

More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair, so why are you afraid RCV will make it worse? I think it will be the opposite, since it is likely to cool the political polarization and encourage the election of more moderate politicians that a larger majority are ok with.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#69

Post by robonerd »

lapcat wrote: post #61
robonerd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd trust this guy?! He has spooks crawling all over him. This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source, and the journalist won't even name that lawyer. An NSA/TLA/etc leaker would need a death wish to approach this journalist now, having read this story.

> This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source The lawyer introduced the journalist to the source. So at the very least, the source seems to have trusted the lawyer too. It also sounds like the lawyer provided the journalist with the audio recordings of phone calls about the ambush.

The source coming from and trusting the lawyer doesn't change the fact that the lawyer was informing to the FBI and was an associate to this journalist.

> Eventually, he confessed to me that the FBI had been waiting in Bruges to trap my source. He said that the FBI knew about the meeting because he had told them about it, and that he had also told the FBI that the source wanted to provide me with NSA documents. He admitted that he had been informing on me.

The journalist has spooks all over him. Whatever you think of the journalist's intentions, you'd have to be a complete fool to get near him. At least he's been honest about this much, so future leakers will be forewarned.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#70

Post by the_only_law »

missedthecue wrote: post #52
zionic wrote: post #2

It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. I hope any employees of the above that read my post understand that you’re working for the wrong side. Absolutely none of their justifications hold water, and it doesn’t matter that they catch a few bad guys. Their very existence is antithetical to a free and open society. Edit: To expound upon this further…

What do you mean "tolerate". There was massive societal backlash against the NSA in the Snowden leak fallout but it's not like a bunch of angry people on the internet can unilaterally shut down a government agency.

> There was massive societal backlash against the NSA in the Snowden leak fallout but it's not like a bunch of angry people on the internet can unilaterally shut down a government agency.

Idk part of my is still convinced that the Chauvin decision was in part a way to placate the absolute destruction proceeding it. Particularly as much more cut and dry cases that don’t attract as much of a visocus response end with the cops getting away with gunning people down who we’re even criminals

Post reply on HN