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

131–138 of 138 posts

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

#131

Post by spaginal »

marcusverus wrote: post #85
noelsusman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court was set up to spy on foreigners and Americans. To get a FISA warrant on a US citizen you have to show probable cause that the person is an agent of a foreign government engaging in intelligence activities.

In practice the bar is so incredibly low. Carter Page was wiretapped based on nothing but the word of a foreign intelligence agent. Page had previously aided the US government in an investigation of a Russian asset. There was no other corroborating evidence. Suggesting that Page was committing or contemplating the commission of a crime. When hearsay from foreigners is sufficient 'probable cause' for a FISA warrant, t…

Love or hate Trump, doesn’t matter. Americans have been able to peek behind the curtain if you will, and see how these secret courts are operating, and it doesn’t inspire an incredible amount of confidence.

Seeing as they knew what buttons to push and strings to pull to obtain these warrants, one has to wonder how many other times this script has been played.

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

#132

Post by dang »

davidw wrote: post #83
cheeseomlit wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden engaged in blatant corruption. Investigating him is not "cheating".

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!

Please don't do this here.

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

#134

Post by watersb »

busymom0 wrote: post #119

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 record…

Thanks for the clarification; I think it is a significant observation, quite apart from any measure of sympathy I may feel regarding those targeted in this investigation.

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

#135

Post by m463 »

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…

In respect to privacy laws, I've always wondered if the only way we will get any reform is if some politician or other high public official gets persecuted and uses his/her power for change.

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

#136

Post by hutzlibu »

alasdair_ wrote: post #112
bsder wrote: post #103

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? 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. Y…

Yes, this is what I mean. Of course in that case I would speak as well. And probably most would, without lawer as time matters.

One idea of the police was to be servants of the people and not a power tool of the elite.

The "never speak to the police" paradigm would mean to me that police is all evil intended. And that would be the case, I dont think the solution is just more lawers.

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

#137

Post by NopeNotToday »

busymom0 wrote: post #116
coolspot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two different things here. The person I replied to said that every reddit was ignoring this specific article "I searched this article on reddit". My point was to show that that specific article was covered across 37 different subreddits. My conclusion would be that this specific NYT article didn't get much traction on any subreddit, due to the lack or relative upvotes.

That said, there are dozens of FISA posts on many of the political subreddits, typically linking to others sites, not the NYT article. The T_D has been very vocal about the FISA abuses, as they should be. Apparently T_D can't link to this specific article due to subreddit specific rules. So I can't really compare this specific NYT article. Plus comparing the # of upvotes across subreddits has a lot of other issues.

IMO, this recent abuse is due to the lack of transparency in the entire FISA process. There shouldn't be secret courts ordering secret wiretaps on Americans with no oversight. The whole program should be scrapped. Tell your reps to vote it down next time.

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

#138

Post by ailideex »

openasocket wrote: post #51
ailideex wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Just because something is illegal does not mean it should be illegal - and as far as dumb ass things to be illegal goes I think lying to the FBI is high up on that list. There is already obstruction of justice which is significantly more reasonable a crime to charge someone w…

Lying to an investigator actually isn't obstruction of justice, according to the statute. Obstruction of justice is a blanket term for crimes falling under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73. The only one that comes close is § 1510: Obstruction of criminal investigations. From the name it sure sounds like lying to investigators would fall under it, but if you read the text it only covers certain specific acts of obstruction lik…

> Lying to an investigator actually isn't obstruction of justice, according to the statute.

Great. It should not be.

Post reply on HN