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

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#101

Post by t-3 »

anonporridge wrote: post #26
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusse…

Yes, we also need multi-member, proportional legislative districts. https://www.fairvote.org/prcv . Single member districts are a disgusting thing for a society that claims to be a representative democracy. As a very simple example, rural liberals and urban conservatives effectively never get represented in our government, and that's still within the context of the false dichotomy of left/right. But single winner ran…

We don't need anything so complicated, we just need to return to the house and electoral college being periodically resized according to census data rather than fixed at 435. Those reversions would solve most electoral problems without even needing to touch hard issues of engineering fair an trustworthy alternative voting systems.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#102

Post by rosnd »

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…

Do you think that Americans are unusually stupid? Other countries manage this without any issues.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#103

Post by mistermann »

markovbot wrote: post #81
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…

> It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. what do you suggest we do about it? We have no meaningful recourse against the myriad of government abuses.

I think if a well organized and coordinated initiative began where people talked about it in a skillful manner, and documented the outcomes of those conversations, something could come out of that.

Unorganized, uncoordinated complaining on various internet forums, it seems not much comes out of this.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#104

Post by nullc »

I doubt the source existed, the lawyer sounds like a fantasist and both the reporter and FBI fell for his stories. It pretty much says right there in the story that the lawyer was usually full of shit-- "I have concluded that the American lawyer loved to play games with everyone ... The lawyer told Ridd that he frequently lied to me and my colleagues at the Times ... 'I lie my ass off every day'".

From personal experience being targeted with harassment and vexatious litigation by a fantasist conman, many of his victims and enablers will sometimes admit he often lies or 'exaggerates', but the reality is that he virtually always lies, that his documents are either completely uninteresting but misrepresented or interesting but obvious forgeries. When confronted with irrefutable proof of his deception his victims and enablers make excuses or treat it as a one or few time issue, failing to accept that it's just another example out of thousands. Risen's description-- including features like the corrupted USB stick-- resonate for me.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#105

Post by lapcat »

nullc wrote: post #104

I doubt the source existed, the lawyer sounds like a fantasist and both the reporter and FBI fell for his stories. It pretty much says right there in the story that the lawyer was usually full of shit-- "I have concluded that the American lawyer loved to play games with everyone ... The lawyer told Ridd that he frequently lied to me and my colleagues at the Times ... 'I lie my ass off every day'". From personal exper…

> I doubt the source existed, the lawyer sounds like a fantasist and both the reporter and FBI fell for his stories.

Except that Risen said he already met the source. The ambush was for their follow-up meeting.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#106

Post by JTbane »

toma_caliente wrote: post #25
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusse…

This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition. What systems would you prefer?

Just wanted to chime in that all ranked voting systems can be gamed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#107

Post by donthellbanme »

zionic wrote: post #32
mistrial9 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok but those agencies look for enemies, and you have just made yourself one, and anyone else that agrees with you essentially, by the conflict "us or them" language. Real reform has many avenues, but none of those include becoming like your own enemy, and vilifying the job. I am not a fan and not making excuses, but the wording here is impossible to agree with, except to start some kind of riot?

> but the wording here is impossible to agree with Why? You haven’t disagreed with my argument, only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit and hope for incremental improvements by submitting extra hard. These agencies only exist and operate (in theory) with the consent of the governed. In reality almost no one consents to this, so these agencies rely on mass apathy and i…

No post body was provided.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#108

Post by zionic »

tootie wrote: post #28
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.

If I'm reading the story correctly the villain is that lawyer who seemingly mislead everybody. The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities even if they were being overzealous. I've never been one to put full trust in any politicians or bureaucracy but the…

> The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities

Really? Wouldn’t most people think a Department of Justice should be actively hunting down and prosecuting those who illegally spy on US Citizens?

I mean they’re supposed to work for us, uphold our laws and constitution etc. If employees of executive branch agencies conspire to defraud citizens of the United States of their most basic rights (4th amendment?) isn’t that a crime they should be pursuing?

Instead they seem far more interested in suppressing evidence of the crime.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#109

Post by mistermann »

rosnd wrote: post #102
robonerd wrote: post #63

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…

Do you think that Americans are unusually stupid? Other countries manage this without any issues.

I think the most important distinction between the various scenarios is who was it that put these alternative approaches in place? Was it a consequence of public backlash and potentially against the will of the political class (which is what would be required in the US and Canada), or was it an initiative started by, or at least supported by, the political class?

Another important aspect: if the public isn't sufficiently intelligent, or isn't interested in such things, how did that state come about? Does the government play any role in setting educational curriculum? Does the media play in any role in what the public focuses on, considers important, etc?

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#110

Post by mlindner »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #50
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…

The FBI has been an enemy of the people since its creation. Throughout its history it has wholesale spied on the public, collected dirt on political opponents and has been used to discredit dissidents. This agency is used solely to protect power. Their stated mission is ancillary to the true purpose. With a history like that the whole agency should be disbanded. But, power will find another way to legally spy on oppo…

The government as a whole is the enemy of the people. It's why the founders put in place provisions to protect the people from the government (protections which the people over the centuries have kept removing).
Post reply on HN