Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Okay please stop this nonsense. It is not necessary or reasonable to expect any individual to be able to collect of provide evidence that the most well-financed, most-powerful spy agency ever known to exist has spied on them and that the government (DOJ) has illegally used information…
Non-falsifiable argument is non-falsifiable.
Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
71–80 of 105 posts
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
That he threatened federal agent(s)? That he knowingly claimed to be part of a [mostly] criminal hacking group? That he knowingly and willfully obstructed an investigation? He did stupid, illegal things, and honestly it sounds like he got off pretty light, to me.
Have you heard his "threats" against federal agents? God forbid journalists protect their sources. https://wikileaks.org/Assange-statement-on-the.html
tptacek previously linked[1] to Brown's threats, but it was a screenshot. Here's a partial transcription:
Brown called FBI Special Agent [RS] a "fucking
chicken shit little faggot cocksucker"
Brown stated "when I say [RS's] life is over,
I don't say I'm going to kill him, but I am
going to ruin his life and look into his fucking
kids"
Brown stated "I"m armed, that I come from a military
family, that I was taught to shoot by a Vietnam Vet
and by my father a master hunter ... I will shoot
all of them and kill them if they come"
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Under the doctrine of parallel construction, as revealed in the Snowden disclosures, there is no way for the court to know if illegal NSA wiretaps or other surveillance activities were involved. The fruit of the poison tree is now on sale at your local justice supermarket.
By that logic every single case that the FBI prosecutes is fruit of the poison tree. I am in no way in support of NSA activities, but in order to make your claim you need some proof unfortunately. If it were ever proven that the FBI regularly uses NSA warantless wiretaps to aid in convictions of US citizens there will be many cases overturned.
Sorry, but on this topic, the Snowden disclosures decisively shift the burden of proof away from me. Read them, then moderate.
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you heard his "threats" against federal agents? God forbid journalists protect their sources. https://wikileaks.org/Assange-statement-on-the.html
tptacek previously linked[1] to Brown's threats, but it was a screenshot. Here's a partial transcription: Brown called FBI Special Agent [RS] a "fucking chicken shit little faggot cocksucker" Brown stated "when I say [RS's] life is over, I don't say I'm going to kill him, but I am going to ruin his life and look into his fucking kids" Brown stated "I"m armed, that I come from a military family, that I was taught to s…
First Amendment law makes this murky. A legally actionable threat has to be "true": credible, specific, intended to convey actual fear to its target. Even if it's to a federal agent.
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you.
I think the point being made is that the law is enforced selectively and with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to further the interests of specific political groups.
It's striking that someone as intelligent as the comment parent could not see this.
Saying "the US justice system seems only to protect the status quo because it vigorously enforces email leaks out of shady private spying companies while ignoring torture" doesn't imply that car theft should go unpunished at all.
But then, if you're an HN celebrity, you can probably count on being able to say anything and get upvoted, and then having anything said against you downvoted. You could test this by masking the username on a comment until after a vote, but HN would never do that because the people who could do that are all people that benefit from this effect, and the powerful never cede power. (I hope to be proven wrong, but cynicism is rarely wrong in the world where we live.)
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Okay please stop this nonsense. It is not necessary or reasonable to expect any individual to be able to collect of provide evidence that the most well-financed, most-powerful spy agency ever known to exist has spied on them and that the government (DOJ) has illegally used information…
Non-falsifiable argument is non-falsifiable.
Sure it's falsifiable. The falsification test is that when the NSA/DEA/FBI are stormed by the citizenry in the same manner as their moral and spiritual predecessor, the Statsi, if those files contain no mention of doing such things, it is less likely that they occurred.
There is always a possibility that the NSA could exchange information entirely covertly between itself and the DEA, but I think this is unlikely to be totally ironclad.
The comment to which you reply is pointing out the very real asymmetry in ability between a citizen and the amalgamated federal government. It is, in fact, unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the much less able party when there is real evidence showing that the NSA->DEA information flow does in fact exist, and could potentially be used in any case.
It's not likely to have been used in this case, because Brown seems to have indeed made real threats and probably plead guilty because of that. But that doesn't change the unreasonability in the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes.
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Okay please stop this nonsense. It is not necessary or reasonable to expect any individual to be able to collect of provide evidence that the most well-financed, most-powerful spy agency ever known to exist has spied on them and that the government (DOJ) has illegally used information…
Non-falsifiable argument is non-falsifiable.
I don't have to prove to you that what is now widely disseminated public knowledge.
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-falsifiable argument is non-falsifiable.
Sure it's falsifiable. The falsification test is that when the NSA/DEA/FBI are stormed by the citizenry in the same manner as their moral and spiritual predecessor, the Statsi, if those files contain no mention of doing such things, it is less likely that they occurred. There is always a possibility that the NSA could exchange information entirely covertly between itself and the DEA, but I think this is unlikely to b…
First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability".
More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case. Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fact that you don't believe it's possible that any criminal investigation in the US is conducted in good faith.
Here, the argument that NSA secretly tipped the FBI off is especially outlandish because Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. The FBI had a gold-plated criminal informant. Why would they jeopardize their case with tainted SIGINT?
Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#79Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you. Well, for one the point is that you govern by example, and the example of giving the corrupt elit a "get out of jail free card" is bad for society. So, the comment could be read as: punish all guilty, don't selectively punish. Another point to be made reading the co…
This comment reads as if I thought torture should go unpunished.
I didn't read it that way, and I don't see why someone would.
In fact, I don't see any critique of your views in this comment. The comment is entirely a rewording and expansion of the original comment.
I think you're confusing the comment reading as if torture should be punished with the comment reading as if you think torture should be unpunished. That is, you're reading a comment that disagrees with you, and assuming that it implies you hold the opposite side.
I don't think you think torture should go unpunished. However, you seem to think that saying the justice system is corrupt because it punishes Brown while not punishing torturers implies that Brown should go unpunished. This is not the case either, and the original commenter need not believe that. The systematic corruption of the justice system is clear no matter what your views on Brown's guilt in this matter happen to be.
Can you say why it is you think the original comment argued in favor of not prosecuting car theft? So far you don't seem to have done so, but responded by asking why anyone wouldn't think so, which doesn't explain why you think so.