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

421–430 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#421

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

vel0city wrote: post #385
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain why they pursued Julian Assange then. Based on your own logic then Assange did not have any requirement to protect classified information yet he was Public Enemy number one. I know people who personally sat on the Edward Snowden board and spent years of their life trying to create a case within the intelligence community against this guy

> Explain why they pursued Julian Assange then. There is a difference between someone essentially just handing you a pile of classified documents and you going around soliciting and encouraging people to break the law and mishandle the documents to give to you.

> mishandle the documents

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2011-09-28/the-dangerous-cult-...

> The low point in Leigh’s role in this saga is divulging in his own book a complex password Assange had created to protect a digital file containing the original and unedited embassy cables. Each was being carefully redacted before publication by several newspapers, including the Guardian.

> This act of – in the most generous interpretation of Leigh’s behavior – gross stupidity provided the key for every security agency in the world to open the file. Leigh has accused Wikileaks of negligence in allowing a digital copy of the file to be available. Whether true, his own role in the affair is far more inexcusable.

> His and the Guardian’s recklessness in disclosing the password was compounded by their negligent decision to contact neither Assange nor Wikileaks before publication of Leigh’s book to check whether the password was still in use.

> [The Guardian] made no mention either of Leigh’s role in revealing the password or of Wikileaks’ point that, following Leigh’s incompetence, every security agency and hacker in the world had access to the file’s contents. Better, Wikileaks believed, to create a level playing field and allow everyone access to the cables, thereby letting informants know whether they had been named and were in danger.

Jonathan Cook does a good job of telling this story.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2013-07-29/the-assassination-o...

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2022-05-04/persecution-julian-...

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#422

Post by Nicook »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #357
irishcoffee wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You've misunderstood the parent. They're saying watch out what happens to anyone in the Journalist's book who did not share classified information . You seriously think this administration is going to get a list of 1,200 government employees who are (legally) informing reporters of the goings-on and just... Let it go? Those people are about to get punished. And since we're at the point of an unaccountable, unidentifi…

its pretty clear, even from the journalist's quote, that some of the things they informed her about was not done legally (classified information).

Now is overclassification a problem too, yes but that's bureaucracy.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#423

Post by lurk2 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

> Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day, but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia.

CNN tells viewers its illegal to read Wikileaks emails (2016)

“Also interesting is—remember—it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBppdC1h_Y

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#424

Post by rendaw »

perihelions wrote: post #328
snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

> "So in this case the government is raiding the home of someone who did not commit any crime, in the hopes of getting at people who might have." That's unequivocally a lawful basis for a court-ordered search warrant. They must have probable cause that the person being searched has evidence of a crime; not necessarily that the search target and the criminal suspect are one and the same. Search is investigative; not p…

I agree that's what GP wrote, but I think GP's point is that it's not illegal for journalists to have classified documents, so it does not qualify as probable cause.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#426

Post by imzadi »

10xDev wrote: post #411
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that Renee Good was shot because she was protesting after she happened upon ICE operating in her city. More than just weekend protests are happening. Few people in any of the blue sanctuary cities ICE is terrorizing actually want ICE to be there and those who don't frequently make themselves heard, sometimes resulting in their tragic end. Yes, some protests happen when it's convenient for the protes…

If you compare this to what is happening in Iran, US citizens are docile. A "peaceful protest" is an oxymoron.

I think the problem is just how big the US is. People outside of the US really don't understand this. For instance, I'm about 2300 miles from DC, also known as 3700 km. It just not logistically possible for me to march on the capital. I do what I can locally, a lot of us do, but with everything so spread out, it is hard to make an impact.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#427

Post by zzzeek »

testing22321 wrote: post #388
riotnrrd wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes an act of Congress to change the name. Trump just made one of his dictatorial proclamations.

It was originally named the department of war, and changing it to defence was just newspeak anyway. Of all the things trump has done, I actually like this one. At least he’s being honest about his intentions for what this department does.

i dislike every action by a president that blatantly breaks the law, and yes that includes ignoring the tiktok ban

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#429

Post by bink »

naravara wrote: post #347
tuna74 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't this be basic knowledge for journalist?

Why would it be if nobody trains them on it?

There are several groups out there that train journalists (and others) about digital security.

https://freedom.press/digisec/

https://tcij.org/initiative/journalist-security-training/

https://ssd.eff.org/playlist/journalist-move

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#430

Post by Supermancho »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #379
mikkupikku wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Search is investigative; not punitive. Let's be real, it can be both. A legal, valid and justified search can be done in a manner calculated to inflict maximum pain. Raiding in the middle of the night instead of when they step out their door in the morning, ripping open walls when all they're really looking for is a laptop, flipping and trashing the place in a excessive manner, breaking things in the process, point…

What recourse would an American have against a punitive search? And what if something turns up which would retroactively justify it?

> What recourse would an American have against a punitive search?

None. The endless videos, from better-years-gone-by of people refusing to answer questions at the border then having drug dogs run all over their car to scratch it up was my first exposure to federal agents acting maliciously.

Post reply on HN