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

The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#111

Post by giantg2 »

landemva wrote: post #104
giantg2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, term limits can be good in many ways, and random selection can reduce the people chosing it for the wrong reasons. But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system. I'd almost think the better solution is to use mini-juries to evaluate warrants so the judges aren't…

> mini-juries to evaluate warrant Typically this is a 'grand jury' in USA.

That's just for filing charges, getting an arrest, right? This would be for search warrants.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#112

Post by giantg2 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #103
giantg2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, term limits can be good in many ways, and random selection can reduce the people chosing it for the wrong reasons. But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system. I'd almost think the better solution is to use mini-juries to evaluate warrants so the judges aren't…

> But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? A Citizen . Rights and responsibilities , etc. > Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system. Of course. That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils. T…

"A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc."

Haha OK. Why not do that for police and judge positions too? Then you'd eliminate the need for this.

"That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils."

That's one opinion.

"This would also be lessened if there weren't a way to get out of it."

In one way I agree. In practice I don't. Forced incompetence is generally going to lead to really poor outcomes. By theway, how are Putin's conscripts doing?

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#113

Post by boomboomsubban »

saiya-jin wrote: post #102
azinman2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the page that the GP specifically called out? And yes, none of it is related to MKUltra or the linked topic… which makes it all the more infuriating that this comment is still up and not flagged for removal.

Yes that site is antisemitic and is not even trying to hide it. I was just referring to comment that didn't even bother to read the document. Page 119 of that doc doesn't refer to anything re MKUltra or docs disposal, just some unverifiable antisemitic gibberish. Unfortunately I can't report that post even with karma above 3500, hopefully somebody else can

Are you sure? To flag comments, you need to click the part that says "x minutes/hours/days ago" and then flag will appear. I flagged the comment hours ago.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#115

Post by uog2jeeY3Jaiphu »

azinman2 wrote: post #61
uog2jeeY3Jaiphu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

I don’t know what the context of this is (or its legitimacy), but what you’re implying is extremely offensive… especially to the Jewish members of my family who did fight in WWII under extremely anti-semitic leadership who would send them on missions first (not last!) that they thought were the most dangerous.

I'm sorry that PDF hurt your feelings. I didn't anticipate that. The notice, as well as other materials associated with it seem rather philo-semetic to me. The reaction to it here implies (to me) that it was likely not intended to be made public.

Now that you bring up your grievance about it, though--I do wonder if one of these tools the FBI uses for surveillance is the ADL, as is evident in other declassified documents. You know how the FBI was using Twitter to implement its agendas and goals? Just a thought.

Anyhow, I didn't intend to discount anything any individual in your family experienced. The notice and individual experiences are not mutually exclusive, though. The notice is easily verifiable for anyone interested: https://web.archive.org/web/20190220195545/https://www.nytim...

My apologies for any hurt feelings. Be well.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#116

Post by uog2jeeY3Jaiphu »

saiya-jin wrote: post #84
azinman2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what the context of this is (or its legitimacy), but what you’re implying is extremely offensive… especially to the Jewish members of my family who did fight in WWII under extremely anti-semitic leadership who would send them on missions first (not last!) that they thought were the most dangerous.

That... is not anyhow related to the discussion, nor an argument for/against anything on this page. And thank you for your ancestors bravery.

I added further context to a sibling comment. Have a good day.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#117

Post by tzs »

ren_engineer wrote: post #54
philippejara wrote: post #41

"In another incident, the FBI ran searches using the “names of a local political party,” even though a connection to foreign intelligence was “not reasonably likely.” The DOJ explained the errors away by saying FBI personnel “misunderstood” the search procedures, adding they were “subsequently reminded of how to correctly apply the query rules.”" Fascinating, FISA was created iirc in part in response to nixon's spyin…

93% of DC voted Democrat in 2020, surrounding areas about 80% Democrat. Not sure why anybody would be surprised by this. The people in charge are fine with it and only promote people with similar ideology. Anybody in the FBI who might change things gets assigned to some FBI field office in the midwest and their career is over. Similar situation in the Pentagon and most other DC/Federal government institutions

> 93% of DC voted Democrat in 2020

A minority of DC voters work for the government, and only a small minority of those work at the top of their agencies or departments. The people in charge are appointed by nationally elected people, or promoted by the people those nationally elected people appoint.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#118

Post by wpietri »

deely3 wrote: post #101
wpietri wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every system suffers abuse issues. Which is why I think we should look for systems that minimize that.

Seriously, do we have any idea how such systems will work? Is it even possible to build such system?

Of course we do. Corruption and anti-corruption are well-studied topics. There are wide differentials in corruption levels across space and time. E.g.: https://risk-indexes.com/global-corruption-index/

Incorruptible systems aren't possible, but there's a wide library of patterns that make corruption easier and harder, and there are surely more to discover.

Re: The FBI’s most controversial surveillance tool is under threat

#119

Post by boomboomsubban »

uog2jeeY3Jaiphu wrote: post #114
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds fake

It's real: https://web.archive.org/web/20190220195545/https://www.nytim...

For a start, those two documents disagree on when the 47th convention happened, one printed in 36 and the other saying it happened in 37.

Besides that "Rabbi's push for exption from draft" is fairly different than "Rabbi's made a secret deal, support the war and you won't be drafted. Don't tell the gentiles."

Plus, I don't see how this is an example of intelligence agencies doing something and failing to cover it up, so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.

Post reply on HN