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

FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#11

Post by ryanlol »

rahuldottech wrote: post #2

> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War. We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which a…

Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately.

It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#12

Post by joncp »

rahuldottech wrote: post #4

I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…

> I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter.

Perhaps we need to define a new right: the right to obscurity. There are places and times when you can't expect privacy but still should be able to expect that your location and actions won't be linked to your identity for all eternity.

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#13

Post by judge2020 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #7
rahuldottech wrote: post #4

I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…

> I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. Me either. I mean, once people get used to just having cameras on them all the time, they'll basically just ignore the camera and act however they want. No real need for hidden cameras, just have to be patient.

I mean, the issue with cameras on everyone is that they all require small batteries, meaning always recording with them isn't really practical. There is already early-stage research into long-range wireless charging https://youtu.be/gn7T599QaN8 so maybe 15+ years in the future it would be practical to have always-recording devices.

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#15

Post by mschuster91 »

ryanlol wrote: post #11
rahuldottech wrote: post #2

> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War. We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which a…

Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?

The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of ". Do I continue or do I drop the case?

The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo, NYT) - but small operations like local papers, small radio stations, bloggers, they rather retreat than to lose their existence.

And it's not just about the money for lawyers that the losing party ends up with - it's also a huge loss of time and in case of actual criminal accusations (e.g. libel, or fraud if I go undercover as a journalist) the risk of jail time or a criminal record.

Journalists need better financing and the legal system a reform. As long as the standards of decent journalism are adhered it should not be a crime in any way or even carry the risk of that.

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#16

Post by ryanlol »

mschuster91 wrote: post #15
ryanlol wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?

The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of ". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo,…

I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests?

I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#17

Post by bilbo0s »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #8
rahuldottech wrote: post #4

I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…

>Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? Yes. Worse - the governments don't even have to spend the time and money setting up these cameras, the consumer is buying and setting up more and more surveillance devices on themselves and those around them (Cellphones, Google Home, Alexa, Nest cameras, Ring cameras, etc. etc.) than ever. All of it piped into commu…

That's the thing that perplexes me?

People buy internet connected cameras and microphones for everything from their phones, to their tv's, to their door bells, and then they get upset that their activities are law enforcement accessible on whatever company's servers? I mean, what did people think would happen? That's just the natural way to use that data. How else would such data be used? Maybe to find workman comp fraudsters? Could be used pretty liberally in family courts? Once non technical people begin to realize the data is out there and family court accessible. But it's not like it's gonna be used to get you your next promotion. (Maybe to prevent you getting your next promotion, but that's another thing entirely.)

For me, it just sounds like a really good reason not to be buying cameras and microphones and slapping them up all over the place. When people come to your home, they should feel they can speak and act freely. Especially since they won't be able to do so in public much longer.

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#18

Post by mschuster91 »

ryanlol wrote: post #16
mschuster91 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of ". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo,…

I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.

I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection.

Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well.

Additionally the amount of lawyer fees that can be awarded to the losing side should be capped. In Germany you're free to charge your client whatever you want as a lawyer (there are minimums to prevent dumping though)... but if your client wins, your client will only get a (highly capped) amount of these costs from the losing side and be on the hook for the rest.

Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

#19

Post by cmdshiftf4 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #17
cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? Yes. Worse - the governments don't even have to spend the time and money setting up these cameras, the consumer is buying and setting up more and more surveillance devices on themselves and those around them (Cellphones, Google Home, Alexa, Nest cameras, Ring cameras, etc. etc.) than ever. All of it piped into commu…

That's the thing that perplexes me? People buy internet connected cameras and microphones for everything from their phones, to their tv's, to their door bells, and then they get upset that their activities are law enforcement accessible on whatever company's servers? I mean, what did people think would happen? That's just the natural way to use that data. How else would such data be used? Maybe to find workman comp f…

>For me, it just sounds like a really good reason not to be buying cameras and microphones and slapping them up all over the place.

It's being sold as convenience and we can expect a lot more of it. The last decade has shown that the general populace will trade almost anything for the perception of convenience.

Post reply on HN