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

FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 151 posts

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#111

Post by Turing_Machine »

krapp wrote: post #83
giancarlostoro wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing some of the things that have been done before the Bush Administration. Operation Northwoods is alarming as it is, and that's back in the early 60's.

Sure, but the FBI demanding warrantless access to browser history in order to fight terrorism, and expecting to get it, is a direct result of Bush administration policy.

The FBI is an executive branch agency, under direct control of the President, who, for nearly the last 8 years, has been Barack Obama.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#112

Post by wallace_f »

update wrote: post #99
ktRolster wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is to be done Pay more attention to the election and government processes. Inform people. Most people don't know about civil forfeiture (even the name is enough to bore many people), so they don't know cops are stealing from people. A people that doesn't pay attention to the government gets screwed by the government every time, no matter what rules are in place. That's why Lawrence Lessig is trying to change th…

> Most people don't know civil forfeiture Most people don't care about X (civil forfeiture, whistleblowers, Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act, etc.) > Pay more attention to the election and government processes. Yes but this completely ignores the fact that most Americans are apathetic to these issues. What I learned this year was that (as another poster put it) "Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppr…

Unfortunately, I've also learned the same in the last year.

My interactions with people after reaching adulthood have also taught me that people have different inclinations, ethics, intentions and internal reward systems. Some people gain satisfaction by helping others, or doing 'good;' while some others, gain satisfaction from hurting others, or feeling superior to them. Unfortunately I've met a lot of terrible people, and that makes me wonder what we should reasonably come to expect in who we collectively elect?

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#113

Post by prutschman »

oh_sigh wrote: post #105
EdHominem wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what case proved that assertion? Because in non-corrupt situations it's not your responsibility to explain yourself to not be robbed by the police.

Getting your money back would be very simple - just show you withdrew it from the bank and it was deposited normally. If you can't show you withdrew it from a bank, show it was earned from a job and show pay stubs. If you can't show it was earned from a job, get testimony from people who employed you. If you can't do any of that - you may be a drug dealer or drug/cash runner. I'm fine with you having some kind of mor…

How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to (try to) get your $11k back?

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#114

Post by wallace_f »

tn13 wrote: post #86
hx87 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes aren't the problem--it's the fees, law-enforcement-as-revenue-service, and other hacks to get around the lack of tax revenue that makes government nasty. I'd much rather pay taxes and zero out all government fees, civil forfeiture and non-criminal fines.

I lived in India for many years. India has idiotic laws but the government simply does not have enough money to enforce any laws. As a result we can simply ignore the laws and get about our business. (That also explains corruption and inability to scale a model). For example my house was not connected by road. When we tried to build our own private road we realized we had to take clearance from 8 departments which wo…

>The problem is if you are going to have a higher number of cops per capita, they need to catch someone to justify their existence. The only reason we have "War against drugs" because there aren't any other wars that politicians are fighting with. Almost all problems are solved (compared to say India).

Insightful comment.

I hope for a future where we focus on using government to govern ourselves in a way in which we reward people for doing bad things, and punish people for doing good things. Right now it seems to be a tool that is mostly focused to benefit those in power, at the expense of others. One cost of this is that the definition of what is unacceptably unjust is becoming increasingly inane. Our liberties are eroding.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#115

Post by wonkaWonka »

mirimir wrote: post #106

This isn't about "browser history". It's about traffic logs from ISPs.

Yeah, that seems to be the sound of it.

  > By Ellen Nakashima
Did she make a mistake when reporting? Seems like an editor should have caught the error in the headline.

Meanwhile, maybe it's an effort by this media outlet to downplay, and run interference in favor of government entities, so that people roll their eyes at the misinformation and simply presume the government as incompetant.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#116

Post by oh_sigh »

prutschman wrote: post #113
oh_sigh wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting your money back would be very simple - just show you withdrew it from the bank and it was deposited normally. If you can't show you withdrew it from a bank, show it was earned from a job and show pay stubs. If you can't show it was earned from a job, get testimony from people who employed you. If you can't do any of that - you may be a drug dealer or drug/cash runner. I'm fine with you having some kind of mor…

How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to (try to) get your $11k back?

I'm sure there were people lining up to defend him pro bono because he was a national case...

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#117

Post by ridgeguy »

wallace_f wrote: post #112
update wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people don't know civil forfeiture Most people don't care about X (civil forfeiture, whistleblowers, Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act, etc.) > Pay more attention to the election and government processes. Yes but this completely ignores the fact that most Americans are apathetic to these issues. What I learned this year was that (as another poster put it) "Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppr…

Unfortunately, I've also learned the same in the last year. My interactions with people after reaching adulthood have also taught me that people have different inclinations, ethics, intentions and internal reward systems. Some people gain satisfaction by helping others, or doing 'good;' while some others, gain satisfaction from hurting others, or feeling superior to them. Unfortunately I've met a lot of terrible peop…

If you consider the incentives and selection filters that operated on those who successfully sought elected office, it's a little discouraging.

We might do better drafting from a pool of otherwise qualified people who really don't want the job!

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#118

Post by ridgeguy »

Leon wrote: post #104
im3w1l wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you use Tor, keep an eye on the drama that is going in that project now.

Can you explain?

Jacob Applebaum, one of Tor's developers, left recently under a cloud [1]. I've seen a statement by Mr. Applebaum that Tor operations will not be affected as a result of his departure.

[1] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/statement

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#119

Post by ridgeguy »

nitrogen wrote: post #65
labster wrote: post #61

I don't understand why the FBI isn't prepared to just act illegally in terrorism cases. If they're so damn sure that there's going to be an attack, just do the warrantless search and prevent the attack. And just be fine with the fact that they won't get to prosecute the bad guys -- the attack was thwarted, and that's good enough for me. And if they don't find anything? Well, Lucy's got some 'splainin to do!

We don't want them acting illegally just because they feel it's necessary, but if someone really, truly believes they are stopping an attack by doing so, maybe let them do it that way and face the consequences . That's what the real heroes in movies do; they save the day, and then accept the punishment for their misdeeds in the process. A real hero would be willing to spend some time in jail if it was the only way to…

Exactly right. Maybe there's a rare edge case that calls for illegal activity. If so, and if law enforcement does it, they need to explain their actions so we can determine whether they were right and should be excused or wrong, and should be sanctioned. No transparency, no accountability, no progress.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#120

Post by update »

mmanfrin wrote: post #108
update wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people don't know civil forfeiture Most people don't care about X (civil forfeiture, whistleblowers, Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act, etc.) > Pay more attention to the election and government processes. Yes but this completely ignores the fact that most Americans are apathetic to these issues. What I learned this year was that (as another poster put it) "Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppr…

if you're under investigation by the FBI for espionage Espionage ? Jesus Cripes the rhetoric in this election just gets more and more out there.

> The judge in my case was clear about a number of issues. First, the very definition of “espionage” is incredibly broad. Espionage is the act of “providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it.” Period. My judge also said that there did not have to be mens rea, or criminal intent, for there to be guilt in an espionage case. And the concept of “harm to the national security” was irrelevant.

--John Kiriakou (He was the first CIA officer to be convicted for passing classified information to a reporter) [1]

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

[1] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/all_whistleblowers_shoul...

Post reply on HN