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

Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#21

Post by matthewdgreen »

XorNot wrote: post #12
matthewdgreen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was curious about this so I visited ChatGPT and asked if there are documented cases in the UK where these things have happened, and I was met with a deluge of well-documented cases where corporations hired private intelligence firms to infiltrate activist groups and surveil critics and ex-employees, complete with links to primary and secondary sources which I briefly checked out just to make sure it wasn’t hallucin…

And then you didn't post your prompt, the links you looked at or really anything that would mean anyone could establish a common basis of reality or determine if actual nefarious action was happening. For example, "infiltrating an organization" is also just joining it, which is quite dissimilar to say, stalking if all they did was not actually believe in the organization, rather the say, menacingly post men and machi…

Why are you asking me for a prompt that would be effortless to formulate yourself, and why are you asking questions that would also be effortless to formulate yourself? It’s not because the information will be of higher quality when you filter it through me, it’s because you’re afraid that if you do these very easy things, you’ll learn that things are much worse than you believe.

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#22

Post by drdec »

Maxious wrote: post #10
cs02rm0 wrote: post #4

Bit of a mess of an article IMHO. Intelligence agency staff leave their roles, just like anyone else does. Unregulated? They're as regulated as the rest of us. Then you have the article casting aspersions on them for doing so, it must be about money and malign foreign influences. Of course foreign states use proxies; so does the UK. Why's that even mentioned as if it's implying ex-intel staff are the proxies - which…

US veterans have to seek permission to enter employment or invest in companies that do business with foreign governments https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Portals/102/summary_emoluments_c... Australia introduced a less onerous 1/5/10 year permission period but for anybody with "training in military tactics and use of software or technology with military applications" https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2024-05-07/n…

Former intelligence agents are not veterans

Not sure which country this looks bad on given that

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#23

Post by [deleted] »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #21
XorNot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you didn't post your prompt, the links you looked at or really anything that would mean anyone could establish a common basis of reality or determine if actual nefarious action was happening. For example, "infiltrating an organization" is also just joining it, which is quite dissimilar to say, stalking if all they did was not actually believe in the organization, rather the say, menacingly post men and machi…

Why are you asking me for a prompt that would be effortless to formulate yourself, and why are you asking questions that would also be effortless to formulate yourself? It’s not because the information will be of higher quality when you filter it through me, it’s because you’re afraid that if you do these very easy things, you’ll learn that things are much worse than you believe.

[deleted]

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#24

Post by throwup238 »

bigiain wrote: post #19
sa46 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US veterans have to seek permission Retired military personnel, not all veterans.

This is a very off topic tangent, but that makes me quite curious. What is the difference between "veterans" and "retired military personnel"?

“Retired military personnel” have completed their 20+ years of service and retired with full pension. “Veteran” refers to anyone who has served in the armed forces.

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#25

Post by BLKNSLVR »

avidiax wrote: post #15

> Private intelligence firms claim that illegally obtained information is routinely submitted to courts in the U.K., with the third industry figure telling POLITICO there are “ludicrous cover stories put in front of judges” where people are trying to “launder stolen information into court proceedings.” This sounds like "parallel construction" with fewer steps.

Outsourced parallel construction.

The world seems to be moving away from long-established (and established slowly over a long time) rules and regulations around law and due process due to it feeling slow and inconvenient.

Haven't crime rates been declining in the West for quite a while now?

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#26

Post by tc313 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #20
zdragnar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers have gotten into trouble using chatGPT for legal research because it hallucinated court cases. I'm certainly not trusting what a random person on the Internet says it came up with. That isn't to say the core assertion is wrong, but that I'll immediately dismiss one for which "chatGPT said" is the primary evidence.

I didn’t say that ChatGPT said. I said I used ChatGPT as a search engine because it’s incredibly easy and slightly better than Google. And then I visited the links it gave me to see the primary and secondary sources. Again, the only reason we’re having this conversation as though there’s a debate here is that people have decided to believe in one inaccurate version of the world instead of using the extensive tools av…

HN is a place where you typically post links to sources that support your claim. We could all Google it (or ChatGPT it), but we may not come out with the same results. Why not post your sources so that we can discuss a common set of evidence?

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#27

Post by aspenmayer »

bigiain wrote: post #19
sa46 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US veterans have to seek permission Retired military personnel, not all veterans.

This is a very off topic tangent, but that makes me quite curious. What is the difference between "veterans" and "retired military personnel"?

I'm not sure that it is a distinction with a difference in this specific case, because to my reading, the only folks who might not be covered publicly were those who were not officially, formally, regularly, or directly employed by military agencies, while doing the work alongside those who were so employed. Contractors, for example, may not be bound by the clause if they were not previously a reservist, a civilian DoD employee, an enlisted solider, or an officer in the armed forces. I am narrowly reading this to steelman their position, and it seems there might be some narrow wiggle room there, but I'm not sure if that's what they meant of if they're quibbling simply to have something to say. They might be technically right though, you be the judge:

https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Portals/102/emoluments_clause_ap... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250422185437/https://dodsoco.o...

> WHITE PAPER

> APPLICATION OF THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE TO DoD CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND MILITARY PERSONNEL

[The following paragraph is from the conclusion, and I think this might be Justice Department interpretations, as I don't think these issues have been tested before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, nor do I speak for the military or Justice Department.]

> The Emoluments Clause to the Constitution applies to all Federal personnel. The Clause prohibits receipt of foreign gifts unless Congress consents such as in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7342. For retired military personnel, the Emoluments Clause continues to apply to them because they are subject to recall. The Justice Department opinions referred to in this paper construe the Emoluments Clause broadly. Specifically, the Justice Department construes the Clause to include not only gifts of travel and food, but also payments such as proportionate profit-sharing. To avoid an Emoluments Clause problem resulting in suspension of retired pay, retired military personnel should seek advance consent through their respective Service consistent with 37 U.S.C. § 908. It is prudent for retired military personnel to obtain advance approval even when there is uncertainty about the Clause’s applicability.

Perhaps there's some nuanced reading of "veterans" that includes folks who aren't armed services, although I think they would likely still fall under the purview of this clause, though I am curious about the factors at play here.

Edit: I think that if you are retired and fail to comply to the Gov's liking, all foreign payments are able to be counted against any military pension you may receive. I am less certain about how non-officers who have no pension are treated, or if they are still beholden to the clause after leaving the armed forces.

Here is additional material from the Commissioned Corps Personnel Manual:

https://dcp.psc.gov/ccmis/ccis/documents/CCPM26_9_1.pdf | https://web.archive.org/web/20250529163709/https://dcp.psc.g...

Found this slideshow that has this test:

https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/0/A7C0E4D79F3F6D07852585B600... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250505113229/https://www.oge.g...

> 4-Part test to Determine if the Emoluments Clause Does Not Apply:

> 1. U.S. cannot be a member of a foreign state

> 2. Organization must carry out U.S. foreign policy

> 3. U.S. participates in governance of organization

> 4. Congress approved participation, no concern about divided loyalty

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#28

Post by zdragnar »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #20
zdragnar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers have gotten into trouble using chatGPT for legal research because it hallucinated court cases. I'm certainly not trusting what a random person on the Internet says it came up with. That isn't to say the core assertion is wrong, but that I'll immediately dismiss one for which "chatGPT said" is the primary evidence.

I didn’t say that ChatGPT said. I said I used ChatGPT as a search engine because it’s incredibly easy and slightly better than Google. And then I visited the links it gave me to see the primary and secondary sources. Again, the only reason we’re having this conversation as though there’s a debate here is that people have decided to believe in one inaccurate version of the world instead of using the extensive tools av…

You'll have to forgive me that this line:

> so I visited ChatGPT and asked if there are documented cases in the UK where these things have happened, and I was met with a deluge of well-documented cases

does indeed sound exactly like you were using chatGPT as a primary source rather than a search engine, and thus are being met with cynicism.

Re: Britain's spies-for-hire are running wild

#30

Post by aspenmayer »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #21
XorNot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you didn't post your prompt, the links you looked at or really anything that would mean anyone could establish a common basis of reality or determine if actual nefarious action was happening. For example, "infiltrating an organization" is also just joining it, which is quite dissimilar to say, stalking if all they did was not actually believe in the organization, rather the say, menacingly post men and machi…

Why are you asking me for a prompt that would be effortless to formulate yourself, and why are you asking questions that would also be effortless to formulate yourself? It’s not because the information will be of higher quality when you filter it through me, it’s because you’re afraid that if you do these very easy things, you’ll learn that things are much worse than you believe.

> Why are you asking me for a prompt that would be effortless to formulate yourself, and why are you asking questions that would also be effortless to formulate yourself? It’s not because the information will be of higher quality when you filter it through me, it’s because you’re afraid that if you do these very easy things, you’ll learn that things are much worse than you believe.

Please have better faith in your interlocutor. We are not ostriches with our heads in the sand. Say your piece, so that then if we ignore it, you may find fault in good faith after. You're beating around the bush now, as you've been asked for sources plainly and directly, and have refused, which leads me to deploy the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

> Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor that serves as a general rule for rejecting certain knowledge claims. It states:

> > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

> The razor is credited to author and journalist Christopher Hitchens, although its provenance can be traced to the Latin Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur ("What is asserted gratuitously is denied gratuitously"). It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Post reply on HN