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

41–50 of 138 posts

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

#41

Post by boatswain »

davidw wrote: post #22
RandomTisk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By cheating, you're referring to the 17 'unbiased' errors, 100% of which somehow simultaneously helped the Hillary campaign and pushed a sham special council investigation and impeachment on the people, all the while the media was pinky swearing there was more evidence than there actually was, right?

The orange man got caught attempting to use the powers of his office to cheat in the upcoming election. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...

Ukraine really was about 2016 not 2020.

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

#42

Post by mehrdadn »

ailideex wrote: post #13
snowwrestler wrote: post #7

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. 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. 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…

Isn't obstruction of justice only for a judicial proceeding? It wouldn't seem to cover so many of the other cases.

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

#45

Post by nkozyra »

datashow wrote: post #17

This is not the worst yet. Durham's investigation may reveal something even worse. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-joh...

Hm, I thought this last IG report was going to be the one that had the Deep State perp-walked to Guantanamo and The Hague. Now it's the next one? Then the next one?

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

#46

Post by merpnderp »

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…

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 work in that environment?

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

#47

Post by mehrdadn »

shireboy wrote: post #40
snowwrestler wrote: post #7

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. 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…

One problem with that line of thought is that law is so complex that just about anybody could easily be tripped up by an agent educated on the nuances of the law. While most agents are honest, truth-seeking individuals, clearly some harbor political bias and/or are being used for ideological ends. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria, Chief of Police under Stalin A system that is highly sec…

> One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process.

I don't think that logic follows? That statistic could just mean that they're actually doing most things legally and properly, which is the outcome you'd want, right? I'd be worried if a significant percentage of their requests were turned down.

Also, as a comparison point: apparently several federal judicial districts have a 100% conviction rate, and overall, federal conviction rates are pretty high. Do you see these statistics as implying the whole thing is just a rubber-stamp process altogether? [1]

[1] http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_67/federal_courts_jd67....

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

#48

Post by i_am_proteus »

thanksgiving wrote: post #15
snowwrestler wrote: post #7

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. 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…

> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”. The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something t…

> It's my best piece of advice — and the advice most consistently ignored. If you're dealing with the government, and you are in any doubt, why won't you just shut up? https://www.popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostl...

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

#49

Post by NopeNotToday »

pgo wrote: post #34

I searched this article on reddit to see how the usual left leaning subreddits are reacting to it and was surprised to see it is nowhere to be found. Truly both sides are living in their own echo chambers

So far, the article was posted in 37 different subs. The highest upvotes:

/r/politics - 155 karma

/r/libertarian - 49 karma

/r/conservative - 34 karma

I'm not trying to make any case for any side here. Just providing some numbers.

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

#50

Post by ryanackley »

deogeo wrote: post #21
JPKab wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show. We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war that cost trillions an…

I did not want to imply it's not a problem, but to highlight how untrustworthy the New York Times was, and still is. Compare this with their coverage of a different revelation of state secrets: the US pressuring the UK to sell out their healthcare in the UK-US trade negotiations. They focus entirely on how it's "associated with a Russian disinformation campaign", with a tiny little addendum that "the leaks seem accur…

The media outlet that a person finds unbiased completely gives away their politics. FOX news = Trump base, MSNBC, CNN = Trump opposition base. NYT = moderate liberal, WSJ = moderate conservative.

That is because every media outlet is biased. I have yet to find a news source that doesn't seem to lean in one direction or the other.

Post reply on HN