71–80 of 164 posts
I'm not really understanding what the newsworthy bits here are. There's an implication that this source had some kind of huge trove of data, but the reporter never got it and that's not what the story is about. Instead, this story alleges: (1) the reporter planned to meet with a source to get a classified leak, (2) the FBI got wind of it, and (3) they planned what amounts to a sting operation (I guess, it's complicat…
I'm not really understanding what the newsworthy bits here are. There's an implication that this source had some kind of huge trove of data, but the reporter never got it and that's not what the story is about. Instead, this story alleges: (1) the reporter planned to meet with a source to get a classified leak, (2) the FBI got wind of it, and (3) they planned what amounts to a sting operation (I guess, it's complicat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ad…
Not sure what this is supposed to mean exactly. It's pretty much a given that if you're reporting on national security, the government has its eyes on you.
"In January 2014 — just as the FBI was planning its ambush operation — the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear arguments over my subpoena in the leak case involving the mismanaged CIA program. At the time, I was facing the possibility of going to prison for refusing to reveal my sources if the Supreme Court did not rule in my favor."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 m…
Yes, I like this one a lot more.
> There are municipalities and states that have implemented both.
I think for low-stake elections that most people don't vote in anyway, experimentation is relatively safe. But I wouldn't want to try anything new with fiery federal elections, particularly not the presidential election. The risk of confusion resulting in costly civil unrest is too high.
> More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair
Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's... I mean that's the FBI's job. That leak is clearly illegal, it's a crime. Their job is to enforce the law. I’m not sure this is true, considering the programs in the “leak” might themselves be illegal. The problem with your position is it allows the following loop: Government makes it illegal to report government crime, then government commits crime. You can’t report the crime without breaking the law, so…
In theory a person who believes that the NSA is engaged in illegal activity can, rather than laking classified information to the press, take evidence of the wrongdoing to the FBI . Inspectors General are also a thing. They can also go to their congresspeople. In theory. That someone has to resort to leaking to the press to achieve accountability is a bug in the system, it's not how things are meant to work .
Leaking to the press is not a bug. Seeking maximum distance from what you denounce is sane. You have the same problems in the private sector, where you are directed to voice your complain to HR.
Secrecy is a poison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 WikiLeak…
FBI tried to ambush a suspected criminal* I don't understand the controversy.
FBI tried to ambush a whistleblower. You can say that whistleblowing is a crime, but what if the whistleblower has evidence of even greater crimes being committed? That makes the ambush a cover-up.
Maybe they tried that already and the reporter was a last resort. That's still a criminal act and it's the FBI's job to go after these things.
I just don't see what the big deal is.
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…
> 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.
Of course there is always a balance to be found, and everyone’s perspective is different, but personally I’m a 1 or a 2 in the `freedom |—————| safety` scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's... I mean that's the FBI's job. That leak is clearly illegal, it's a crime. Their job is to enforce the law. I’m not sure this is true, considering the programs in the “leak” might themselves be illegal. The problem with your position is it allows the following loop: Government makes it illegal to report government crime, then government commits crime. You can’t report the crime without breaking the law, so…
There are legal avenues for whistleblowing through IGs and/or Congress. You can't write a law that gives journalists special access to classified information and giving them arbitrary information is ok, how would that even work? (That's without getting in to the complications of defining 'journalist'). If you wanted to argue that leaking information of illegal government activity in certain circumstances is an affirm…