The FBI tried to ambush my source • Hacker News Board

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#161

Post by sigmoid10 » Sun, Jun 05, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

asimpleusecase wrote: post #148

The story reads like a diversion tactic. What proof is there that there was an FBI team waiting around? A compromised source (the unnamed lawyer) introduces a juicy lead just a the peek of other litigation in the reporters life. But the juicy lead comes of nothing. Don’t have any way to know if there was anything real behind it. A confusing hall of mirrors emerged where the reporter was going to a meeting arranged by…

To me it seems this whole story is based on the "adrenaline junky" lawyer who is also an established liar. He could have just made up the juicy leak and then chicken out when he would have to deliver. So he sent an anonymous mail and later made up the FBI story. Lots of smoke and mirrors but in the end all of it could be explained by one guy with nothing to show for trying to get some fame through the journalist.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#162

Post by lazide » Sun, Jun 05, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #90

rzz3 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps you’re just getting older, and your income level is rising, and you don’t operate near any edges of the bounds of the law. Due to your perspective, freedom may have become less important that security. Of course there is always a balance to be found, and everyone’s perspective is different, but personally I’m a 1 or a 2 in the `freedom |—————| safety` scale.

I don't think I follow your point about income level. At first blush it sounds like you are suggesting the poor care more about freedom (or have more to fear from the FBI/CIA?). I am personally not worried about my own safety at all. Or maybe it's more fair to say that I worry no more about my safety than anyone would living under the nuclear sword of Damocles (never mind an environment out of kilter) — or that I wor…

Their point is you have a lot to lose by bucking the status quo, so consciously or not, why fight it? One could also argue that fitting in with society tends to produce better rewards than not, so those less likely to fight it do well?

Either way hard to not notice that cries to ‘f the man’ tend to die out as income and age rise.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#163

Post by ajross » Sun, Jun 05, 2022, 11:29 PM UTC

phpisthebest wrote: post #160

ajross wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You believe the 4th amendment is silent here, you believe the FBI is operating under authorization of the 4th amendment because a law was violated Uh... yes? If a law was violated, that's probable cause. It's sort of a definitional thing. What legal regime do you desire that manages to pre-decide on which laws are OK to violate before the collection of evidence occurs? This sounds like an argument against the whole…

Nice cherry pick of my comment, You need to read the entire section to understand what I was saying, which clearly you have no interest in commenting on. The Charge was the NSA is/was violating the 4th amendment wholesale (and other Laws that prevent them from targeting US Citizens), so in the over all context of this "investigation" the 4th amendment is in fact not "silent" as you claim, it very clearly prohibits wh…

> Innocent until proven guilty right?

We're not talking about a jury trial here! It's an arrest (attempt). The ability to detain people suspected of crimes and search their papers and persons is a core part of law enforcement. So much so, in fact, that the fourth amendment specifically calls it out and places limits on the ability. And to say it again: it is abundantly clear that those limits were not crossed in this case.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#164

Post by TheRealDunkirk » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 11:20 AM UTC

boardwaalk wrote: post #138

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be a big proponent of ranked choice voting, but then I finally stepped back and realized that it doesn't seem to necessarily produce more "inclusive" or "unifying" outcomes. Change my mind.

It's a little presumptuous to come in and say "I don't believe this, change my mind." I don't think anybody is going to bother to, frankly. You ought to put in a slight amount of effort and give some modicum of evidence.

“Change my mind” is a meme. Sheesh.