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

91–100 of 138 posts

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

#91

Post by blackflame »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #52
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

I’ve read plenty about these specific criticism of the FISA system in the media I consume, which is often decried as being “left-leaning”. Indeed the article here by the New York Times is a good example. So I doubt “the left” is suppressing this issue. The IG report is pretty clear that these issues had little relevance in the investigation of Russian hacking. And if our discourse can no longer achieve this (rather l…

"Little relevance?" They failed 4 times to get a FISA warrant until the magical Steele dossier appeared. It was the entire basis for the warrant. If Trump paid for a research paper on any of the democrat candidates and then used that paper as a basis to spy on their campaign, then the democrats would actually have a reason to file impeachment charges.

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

#92

Post by lurquer »

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…

And, how does one prove you lied? The recorded statement? No. There is, by policy, rarely a recorded statement. Rather, it's just your word vs. the agent's notes. That's absurd. How do you defend yourself when an FBI agent says you said X if (a) the agent, by policy, did not record your conversation and (b) if you dared surreptitiously record the conversation, it would be a separate crime?

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

#93

Post by drak0n1c »

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…

Roger Stone as well - the only charges brought against him were for lying during interrogations. His ego and boisterous storytelling habit did him in. Being in and out of the White House over the decades and friends with various DC lifers probably made him overconfident.

To a lesser extent this happened to General Flynn when he was charged, however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case.

Richard Jewell is a famous example of naive talking (not even lying) being used against him - there's a Clint Eastwood releasing this weekend about his case.

Regardless of which political side you prefer, these tools of circular prosecution have and will be used against anyone when anything ranging from a media frenzy, to executive pressure, to a couple ambitious agents deems it warranted.

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

#95

Post by NopeNotToday »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #78
NopeNotToday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what are those results, normalized for active users?

I have no idea how to compute active users. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the karma number meant anything, relative to each subreddit.

IMO, pro-Trump/anti-Trump news is keeping many other important topics off the front page.

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

#96

Post by cryptonector »

pc86 wrote: post #82
cryptonector wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't avoid lying to them if you speak to them, even if you're completely innocent. This should be required viewing for just about everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE They will use any unconscious fib about any detail, no matter how irrelevant, to impeach you in court. The simplest thing to do is not speak to LEOs at all when they approach you.

It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement. Lying a local PO is not (necessarily) a crime, however it's possible that your state has a statute making it a crime. So at the local and state level, lying law enforcement is possibly, but not certainly, a crime. Lying (even unintentionally!) to a federal LEO is a crime in every jurisdiction.

No, no, no. It doesn't matter whether lying to an LEO is a crime or not!! The mere act of lying to them will be used in court to impeach your story, and your testimony should you testify (which is one reason you wouldn't).

You almost certainly won't be allowed to impeach the LEO's testimony based on their lies to you or other subterfuge: it's essentially a given that they can do that as part of their investigations, and the court and jury will be very deferential to them and not to the defendant.

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

#97

Post by drak0n1c »

NopeNotToday wrote: post #49
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.

An important context is the amount of karma the popular posts get on those subreddits (proxy for engagement size), and the up/down ratio on the specific links.

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

#98

Post by aidenn0 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #87
mdorazio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty. But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as…

Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent? I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid. But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class justic…

I haven't watched it in a while, so I may get some specifics wrong, but it goes through various hypotheticals, until finally getting to the point where you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, but talking to the police gets you convicted. IIRC the example was you saying "I was out of town visiting my mom when the crime happened" but they have a (mistaken) witness putting you near the scene. The fact that you (supposedly) lied about where you were combined with other circumstantial evidence may be enough to convict you.

Note also that even an innocent person will almost always give contradicting accounts of a situation if interrogated for long enough.

[edit]

There were several such examples, including the one I remembered from 14-23 minutes.

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

#99

Post by busymom0 »

drak0n1c wrote: post #93
thanksgiving wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Roger Stone as well - the only charges brought against him were for lying during interrogations. His ego and boisterous storytelling habit did him in. Being in and out of the White House over the decades and friends with various DC lifers probably made him overconfident. To a lesser extent this happened to General Flynn when he was charged, however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned…

> however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case.

Not yet, they haven't abandoned the case yet. It was put on hold when Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer showed that FBI manipulated his 302 transcripts and the FBI replied that they would like to put the case on hold until the IG report is out.

In General Flynn’s case, his lawyer’s latest submission (3 weeks ago) also shows that he didn’t actually lie. FBI attorney Lisa Page edited his testimony and overnight, the testimony went from one thing to something he never said. Then FBI used that manipulates testimony to make him plead guilty because he had to sell his house and he went bankrupt from his past lawyer fees. The judge will most likely throw his case out now after this IG report is out which shows gross misconduct from FBI.

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

#100

Post by busymom0 »

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...

Durham is known as someone who never makes public statements. Over the decades, he has never made a public statement. So for him to come out and make this statement means he’s confident he has something which Horowitz didn’t. People need to realize Horowitz didn’t have much power- he couldn’t compel testimony, couldn’t subpoena people, he could only look at FBI and not other agencies, and he had to take people’s word - so if someone said they didn’t have a bias, he had to take their word. Durham on the other hand has all those powers and he can look at all agencies and also international intelligence (which he points out in his statement).

Also Durham is known as someone who’s gone after people from both parties so this isn’t something about political affiliation.

Post reply on HN