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

441–450 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#441

Post by rich_sasha »

1123581321 wrote: post #376
SubiculumCode wrote: post #83

Keep your eyes on protecting the midterms from interference... re ICE / militias etc. I encourage governors to call up their State's National Guards to protect their State's electoral systems from Federal intrusion and extremist militia groups. This move is founded in the most republican of urges: State Sovereignty. (btw, I'd even consider that as a move in Minneapolis, right now).

I don’t think National Guard around polling places would be good for turnout. Voting in advance, from home, is a solution already in place for most.

"Oops, sorry, your postal votes were kept in this warehouse over there. Yeah, the one that went on fire.". There's even a documentary about it called "Succession".

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#442

Post by lurk2 »

perihelions wrote: post #394
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> "And what if something turns up which would retroactively justify it?" US constitutional law prohibits the introduction of evidence obtained illegally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule ( "Exclusionary rule" ) There's no "retroactive" exception. The core point of this rule is to deter police from intentionally violating people's rights, under the expectation that what they find will, "retroactively",…

> Won’t work.

How would you know when it did? You can’t “retroactively” justify an arbitrary search under the exclusionary rule, but this doesn’t exclude evidence tangential to a legally-executed warrant during the execution of that warrant. For example, suppose someone is suspected of illegally possessing wildlife. A search warrant is issued on the residence. No wildlife is found, and in fact no wildlife was ever on the premises. If officers find large quantities of cocaine during the search, they aren’t precluded from making an arrest, because the warrant used to gain entry and conduct the search was legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#443

Post by rmah »

fzeroracer wrote: post #217
peab wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

ICE as an agency was created in 2003. Most of the posters here are older than it by a significant factor. We can live without it and create another agency to enforce immigration laws that isn't thoroughly rotted and filled with criminals.

Yes, but it's essentially just a re-branded INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). They were conducting raids to catch undocumented immigrants (often at workplaces) for as long as I can remember (i.e. back into the early 1980's). IIRC, spanish speakers called them "la migra".

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#444

Post by timeon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122
shermantanktop wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One final resolution is the guillotine, dangling upside down on a meat hook, or a bunker fire. Those are extreme but we have to wonder what will stop a specific leader from pushing so far that they meet such a fate. This personality type does not stop unless they have to.

> One final resolution is the guillotine Did you miss the lesson from the actual guillotine? It’s just another escalation in the cycle. The parties switch from raiding to guillotining each other. The guillotine doesn’t solve the problem, it just raises the stakes.

So what is 2A for? What is price of shooting children in schools for?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#445

Post by soraminazuki »

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…

> The government pursued Snowden because he was legally obligated to protect that info. They did not pursue Barton Gellman because he wasn’t.

Former administrations, to their credit, exhibited some degree of restraint that the current administration lacks. However, they indicted Julian Assange and plenty of people back then have warned precisely about the kind of things happening today.

- The Indictment of Julian Assange Is a Threat to Journalism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19653012

- Traditional journalists may abandon WikiLeaks’ Assange at their own peril https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19639165

From the EFF back then:

> Make no mistake, this not just about Assange or Wikileaks—this is a threat to all journalism, and the public interest. The press stands in place of the public in holding the government accountable, and the Assange charges threaten that critical role.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/governments-indictment...

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#446

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

bink wrote: post #429
naravara wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That doesn't obviate the practical reality that "nobody trains them on it". Someone can be available to train them but, if that resource is not utilized, then the fact remains that they weren't trained.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#447

Post by scoofy »

This shit needs to stop. If you have any Republican representatives right now, you might consider writing them every day.

We can disagree on tax policy, immigration policy, even very strong issues, and I'm happy to fight about those issues and respect disagreement. But in the last month, the president has invaded a foreign country without even notifying congress, has used literal thug tactics to try to get lower interest rates, and now he's obviously illegally entering the home of a reporter to take information which is clear violation of the first and fourth amendments.

This is unamerican. It's a violation of the clear principles of the constitution. It's against the law. It's trivially deserving of impeachment.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#448

Post by rolph »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #271
eli wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, though the government routinely searches the personal property of innocent people if they think that search will yield information about a suspect. The issue here is the American tradition of a free press and the legitimate role of leaks in a free country. The PBS article is a bit better on context: > The Justice Department over the years has developed, and revised, internal guidelines governing how it will res…

> the government routinely searches the personal property of innocent people if they think that search will yield information about a suspect. If that's true, it's a direct violation of the fourth amendment. I'll paste it here for convenience: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall iss…

there are some places where no one should go skulking around, no matter what the problem might be.

if someone goes snooping around my 1000yd backstop without signing in at the range house, they are suicidal.

there is a lot of signage, and curtailage, and a darwin prize

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#450

Post by eszed »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #22
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was one of the main plot points in Andor. The rebellion had to raise the temperature faster, more dramatically, in order to wake people up. To make the frogs realize it was hot and jump out. Lonni Jung: "You realize what you've set in motion? People will suffer." Luthen Rael: "That's the plan." Luthen believes that to succeed, they need to anger the Empire and make them come down hard on the citizens, which in t…

Woah woah woah! I still haven't watched this. (I know, I know...)

Watch it. Best TV show I can think of, ever. By that I mean that the writing and acting and production values are top notch; it's entertaining throughout - some of the other greats are not (The Wire falls down here, sometimes; Keislowski's Dekalog, likewise - though its best moments are better than anything else); and Andor nails its cultural moment, by being directly about, well, all of the Important Stuff we're talking about in this thread. Also, it's a tragedy; it's about sacrifice and loss, and the human consequences of following your convictions - regardless of the side you choose. (That last note's a personal taste, but I'd stand by the former points as being reasonably objective.)

I sat through it going, "how the hell did they manage to make a work of art out of a Star Wars series?", which even makes it better. You don't have to care about Star Wars AT ALL to appreciate Andor, but if you do, watching Andor -> Rogue One -> Originals back to back makes the earlier stuff better.

You'll think I'm over-selling it. Please watch it, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Post reply on HN