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

We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#111

Post by alasdair_ »

snowwrestler wrote: post #7
mc32 wrote: post #5

If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary citizens. Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national. Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, t…

It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a specific investigation. You always have the…

>It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents.

18 USC Section 1001 is notoriously broad - for example, your local postman is a federal agent, it doesn't just pertain to law enforcement officials. You don't even need to lie directly to the agent - for example if you fudge your hours on a timesheet and that timesheet gets sent to the federal government for some use or other, you "knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States."

It doesn't matter if you're not under oath. It doesn't matter if you've been read your miranda rights - any material lie that is made to a federal employee within their jurisdiction is an offense.

Sadly, this means that in almost every case, the only reasonable thing to do is to refuse to talk to the agent and to ask for an attorney if they insist.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#112

Post by alasdair_ »

bsder wrote: post #103
hutzlibu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent? I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid. But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class justic…

> Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent? Yes. It's much closer to the end of his talk where there is an erroneous contradicting witness and you can wind up convicted of lying to the police. He also points to things like "Possession of a lobster can be a felony". You simply can't know all the laws, so getting a lawyer forces the police to narrow the…

>That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to "cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?

I agree with the basic advice. That being said, if a cop knocks on my door and says the neighbor's kid is missing, I'm still willing to take the minute personal risk of being implicated in order to help the police in their search.

Yes, technically I could have been the last one to see the kid alive and this could make me a suspect, but I also couldn't live with myself if I knew something but withheld it and something bad happened.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#113

Post by alasdair_ »

pc86 wrote: post #82
cryptonector wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't avoid lying to them if you speak to them, even if you're completely innocent. This should be required viewing for just about everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE They will use any unconscious fib about any detail, no matter how irrelevant, to impeach you in court. The simplest thing to do is not speak to LEOs at all when they approach you.

It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement. Lying a local PO is not (necessarily) a crime, however it's possible that your state has a statute making it a crime. So at the local and state level, lying law enforcement is possibly, but not certainly, a crime. Lying (even unintentionally!) to a federal LEO is a crime in every jurisdiction.

>It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement

It's actually much broader than that. Making a material false statement to any federal agent (for example your local postman), about something in his jurisdiction (say, the mail) is enough to qualify.

Note the "material" part. If you lie about the color of socks you are wearing, it doesn't matter.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#114

Post by merpnderp »

snowwrestler wrote: post #79
merpnderp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone talk to the FBI? They don't record interrogations, but rather rely upon the memory of the investigator who has up to 3 months to record what was said. And if his memory doesn't match what you claim you said, you are automatically lying and guilty. It's such an obvious route of official abuse of power, I'm not for getting rid of the FBI and starting over. How could you trust anyone who was willing to…

It doesn't matter if agents record your conversation. At trial, the recording will only be trusted to the extent that the agent's testimony as to its provenance is trusted. If your testimony is important to the trial, you'll be asked to deliver it again in person, or in a deposition; either way you will have an opportunity to prep with your counsel. In theory, a recording could be detrimental to you, as either the pr…

"If you get prosecuted for lying to the agent, again, you would have a chance to testify at trial, and for your counsel to try to impeach the agent in front of the jury."

Lol, your word against a federal agent's. How well did that work out for Martha Stewart and her literal army of top end lawyers?

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#115

Post by busymom0 »

yonaguska wrote: post #106
busymom0 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try comparing it to T_D posts on this topic. Without that, your comparison is useless.

T_D bans linking directly to sites deemed left leaning. Instead you would post an archived version of the article. It might be difficult to do that analysis given the hoops for posting. r/politics does the same for news deemed right leaning.

You are right, T_D only allows archive versions of NYTimes. With that said, they had multiple threads on this with 5-6k upvotes and thousands of comments since Monday. They even had a stickied post for the entire day on Monday as well as Wednesday when Horowitz testified. Their votes are throttled so I would expect the real number to be much higher.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#116

Post by busymom0 »

coolspot wrote: post #101
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what are those results, normalized for active users?

No, those are absolute numbers. /r/politics is default sub-reddit, so every user is subscribed to it unless manually opted out. r/politics/ - 5.6M members r/conservative/ - 275K members r/libertarian/ - 349K members

Like I pointed out in another comment, these numbers are useless comparison if it excludes T_D. T_D had multiple threads on this with 5-6k upvotes and thousands of comments since Monday. They even had a stickied post for the entire day on Monday as well as Wednesday when Horowitz testified. Their votes and sub count are throttled so I would expect the real number to be much higher.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#117

Post by mc32 »

busymom0 wrote: post #99
drak0n1c wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roger Stone as well - the only charges brought against him were for lying during interrogations. His ego and boisterous storytelling habit did him in. Being in and out of the White House over the decades and friends with various DC lifers probably made him overconfident. To a lesser extent this happened to General Flynn when he was charged, however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned…

> however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case. Not yet, they haven't abandoned the case yet. It was put on hold when Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer showed that FBI manipulated his 302 transcripts and the FBI replied that they would like to put the case on hold until the IG report is out. In General Flynn’s case, his lawyer’s latest submission (3 weeks ago) also shows that he…

What happens to FBI agents who tamper with evidence like that when they are caught?

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#118

Post by busymom0 »

jaywalk wrote: post #110
maps wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why do you bring in the left/right partisan divide into this? Because the right has been complaining about these specific FBI agents biased conduct in this investigation for years now and trying to turn this into a 'we all know fisa is bad' comes off as epic gaslighting. >The IG report did not find any evidence of political partisan spying, it only faulted the process of getting the warrant. This is beyond a white w…

James Comey did a victory lap, claiming he was "vindicated" by the report. Horowitz was asked in the hearing if his report vindicated Comey. He was adamant that his report vindicated no one . There is definitely a concerted effort to completely mischaracterize the report's contents, mainly because it has proven that the complaining from the Republicans has actually been correct all along.

Check out "Devin Nunes memo" and how media reacted to it last year. They called it a conspiracy theory. The IG report proved everything in his memo was spot on. Wikipedia still has the false info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#119

Post by busymom0 »

One important thing to note for people reading media sources on this topic - "Consensually recorded" in IG-speak means the CHS (confidential human source) agreed to wear a wire--not that the target agreed to be recorded. This is why AG Barr call this spying. The same with sending FBI into "briefing" to collect info on General Flynn.

Media is spinning this "consensually recorded" as if both parties agreed to be recorded and therefore not spying but that's not true at all.

https://oig.justice.gov/special/0509/chapter6.htm

> Consensual monitoring is the interception by an electronic device of any wire, oral, or electronic communication where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the monitoring or recording.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#120

Post by davidw »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #90
davidw wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the real world, he didn't: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trum... But in Fox news fantasy land... I'm sure he did!

This article/PR piece does absolutely nothing to dispute the fact that Hunter got the job because of his relation to Joe. They go after the prosecutor angle because it's all hearsay on both sides and thus easy to spin, but what's indisputably obvious is that Hunter collected those paychecks as a form of influence peddling between Ukraine and his father. You'd have to be hopelessly naive to think otherwise. Don't worr…

The notion that the 'correct' thing to do was withhold military aid in order to force a foreign government to investigate this is ludicrous though.

If there was wrongdoing, the FBI can investigate:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/12/trump-impeachme...

Also: if you're concerned about people's kids profiting off of connections in high places, you're going to be very upset when you look at Trump's kids.

Post reply on HN