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

FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#201

Post by immibis »

xhrpost wrote: post #120
INTPenis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question from a clueless european here, who should they vote for? To us on the outside, getting filtered news that trickles down, it just seems like there are no candidates. One is 79 and one is 83, where are all the young politicians? Why does the media choose to only emphasize a few of them at the time?

If there's one thing both parties agree with, it's that you can't ever vote for a third party because that's effectively voting for the other major candidate. So the problem of not having more than 2 choices perpetuates indefinitely.

Whichever choice has the least favour is malleable. Right now, by switching up their candidates and policies, the democrats can't do any worse than they're already doing, which is losing. If the democrats next time, then the republicans will have 4 years with nothing to lose.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#202

Post by selectodude »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #149
Hikikomori wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not really overreach if they get a warrant and find the things they were looking for.

[flagged]

Fabricated by whom? Like, out of whole cloth? Did the files not exist in the bathroom?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#203

Post by jimt1234 »

srean wrote: post #70
mikeweiss wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only works if they aren't U.S citizens... Which if they're working for the gov means they are. This administration is creative they will find other more 'legal' ways for retribution so the punishment sticks.

ICE is now close to being Trump's private police, funded by tax payer's money and beyond accountability.

Close? That's been the case since ICE started rocking face masks and getting deployed only to "blue" cities.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#204

Post by BryantD »

NewJazz wrote: post #164
giancarlostoro wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nothing, there was the time the FBI raided James O'Keefe's house to find Ashley Biden's diary. I feel weird writing any of that out, because its sounds batshit, but they did that. Some people may not like James for any given number of reasons (NPR did a hit peace saying he doesn't qualify for journalism protections - which to me is a matter of opinion not necessarily fact), but since when do federal agents rai…

Wasn't the diary stolen, and thus the property was stolen? If you have proof or reasonable suspicion that someone has possession of a stolen property, shouldn't law enforcement be able to retrieve that?

O'Keefe had already returned it, as I recall.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#205

Post by immibis »

peab wrote: post #194
njovin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's fair to say we're chilling - there have been fairly organized (although admittedly not very large) protests around the nation related to the killing of Nicole Renee Good. I live in southern California and there were at least 6 within easy driving distance this past weekend. Whenever ICE goes into a new city, they're meeting more and more community resistance. The protestors have mostly been very…

I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable. But I don't understand those who protest the presence of ICE as a concept. Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

"I don't understand why people protest the Gestapo as a concept. Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?"

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#206

Post by captainclam »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #114
alsetmusic wrote: post #31

It'd be real cool if all the second amendment (guns) people cared as much about the first amendment (free speech and freedom of press). "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens. But people are being targeted for what they say, for disagreeing publicly. That's real. And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.

> "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens That never happens because the parties vested in that right resist every single time. Effectively. With real numbers. Not media campaigns or propaganda social media mechanisms. Largely without protesting, with no need to get into degrees of legality in doing so. You don’t get to say “that never happens” as if it isn’t the explicit goal of an entire political…

Not asking adversarially at all here: what do you mean by resisting with "real numbers" without media campaigns, social media, or protesting? What do the vested parties actually do to secure their second amendment rights? Do you just mean having large voting blocs?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#207

Post by kuerbel »

fwip wrote: post #106
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must accept that 3 letter agencies have full root access to any Tim Apple or Google device and will use it if they already went far enough to do an FBI raid on a reporter.

Counterpoint - if they have full root access to any phone, why did they need to do the raid?

To intimidate other reporters

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#208

Post by parineum »

dkdcio wrote: post #112
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that PRISM involved root access to any devices and this link does not claim that it did.

I was expecting this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... still doesn’t really prove much

It actually proves that they _don't_ (or didn't) have that kind of access because they first publicly asked for the access and then rescinded that request when they, not officially but widely accepted, acquired access through some kind of hack/bug/exploit given to them by, probably, the IDF or an Israeli private company.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#209

Post by baggachipz »

bregma wrote: post #180
iamtheworstdev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The following question is "what will they do with the names of the people they pull?". I'll take a shot at the answer -> Charge them with treason. Because that's the country we live in now, and most of us are just sitting by passively watching it happen.

Don't be ridiculous. Charging someone can be fraught. They will simply and quietly disappear.

But I would think they'd like to publicly make an example of them. So, disappear most, publicly flog the rest.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#210

Post by irishcoffee »

kasey_junk wrote: post #90
everdrive wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, but you can't tell a judge "yes, I broke the law, but it's OK because the government broke the law first."

It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal. This government brought sham charges against the Fed president, what are they going to do to a run of the mill federal employee?

> It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal.

It is not illegal to talk to a reporter, it is illegal to share classified intel with someone who doesn't have a clearance and a need-to-know.

Do I think they should have raided this persons house? Absolutely not. Is it illegal to share classified information, absolutely.

"For my friends everything, for everyone else, the law" or whatever the saying is, applies here. In this case, the reporter did nothing wrong, but the raid on the home of the reporter can be justified according to the law, so it isn't illegal. Should it be? Probably.

Legislation is good, rules are good, the classified rules seems to make sense if you subscribe to Hanlons Razor at the least. Sometimes though, laws just don't make sense and shouldn't be codified.

For example:

MCL 750.335 - "Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00."

This shouldn't be a law.

Post reply on HN