I refused to be an FBI informant once. They threatened to make up false charges on me. I held my ground.
They harrassed me at home twice, talked to my employer and made a huge stink trying to create pressure.
I didn't cave and they eventually went away, because I committed no crimes and they knew it.
As a security researcher I sometimes make contact with controversial people in order to get information, like a journalist might. They wanted those contacts. Too bad.
I think people here will probably underestimate how common your story is in the security industry.
Just from DEFCON connections, I'm on a first name basis with a roughly four different FBI employees who are constantly trying to recruit myself or friends as informants.
We discuss, openly, what a bad deal it is to be an informant and how I don't have any useful information for them anyway. But they persist. Thankfully lightly. Nothing like what you mentioned, but I fully believe that your story happens. And regularly.
I feel like this is a good time to remind you, and everyone: never talk to federal agents. FBI, Fish and Game, Secret Service. Don't. They can say you told them anything, and guess what? It's a felony to lie to them. They will push a pre-written statement in front of you and if you refuse to sign it they will threaten you with saying you lied to them. Don't. Talk. To. Feds. Ever.
I didn't get to this complete turnaround easily. It took years of systemic, post-911 malfeasance (and endless accompanying lies) by pretty much every fed LEO/IC agency, to nurture this mindset in me.
As an analogy, Punching Jim down by the corner store punches everybody in the face who talks to him, so everyone has stopped talking to him. But how is Punching Jim supposed to fulfill his job as a therapist if his patients are constantly afraid of being punched? The answer is that Punching Jim might just be a bad therapist, and maybe it's good for therapists that punch people in the face to have fewer patients.
Nobody forces the FBI to have the system they have. We could have laws that make interrogation different. We could have laws that change the consequences of accidentally lying to federal agents, that raise the legal standard for consequential lies. The FBI could get rid of the no-fly list, they could stop threatening innocent security researchers to get info. We could get rid of "gotcha" interrogation techniques that are explicitly designed to try and trick people into signing away their rights.
They built this system, and nobody but them is to blame for it. If the FBI wants people to talk to them, they just need to stop punching people in the face. A lack of informants is a problem they created and that they can solve.
I speak for myself here, but it is not that I would recommend against talking in principle. Only, in practice the system is set up for talking to be universally a bad idea.
If the system puts in place some better checks and balances for people to fight abuses (as the one in the post on top), I will gladly go back and do my civic duties to stop crime.
So, how are they supposed to investigate if nobody talks? They are supposed to fight for better checks and balances, so people can start talking again.
Maybe in the US. That's not really what you learn in Europe. Talking to police doesn't get you in trouble. Lying to police also isn't illegal (unless you make up stories to damage others).
I've been in many European countries and have travelled a lot to the US. I've never experienced a disconnect between police and the general population as stark as it is in the US. And it has also affected me. Seeing police anywhere tends to comfort me, in the US it makes me nervous. To be clear, I've never had any negative experiences with police anywhere myself, but stories about bad cops are just so prevalent in the US.
I have no experience with law enforcement in the US, my comment was related to my experience where I live, Brazil.
My dad taught me early on that talking to cops would likely get me into trouble, as they want to make an arrest, and it does not matter if you are guilty or not, as long as they get you to confess. Later experiences taught me that my dad, a well known and liked cop in our town, was not someone to be trusted either.
I have seen court filings where investigators misinterpreted things people have said in an interview, then weeks later accused them of lying and filed charges of obstruction.
Imagine it: You agree to an interview because you are a witness to a crime, tell 100% the truth, but then they take notes, misinterpret their own notes (either intentionally or due to incompetence), and then charge you with lying/obstruction.
I've seen it happen to completely innocent people. Sadly, the best advice is not to talk to investigators.
They offered: "Politicians are not happy. Someone has to pay for it. If you help us we can make sure you are not that someone"
And yeah, I was terrified. It was a mistake to talk to them in the first place.
They got in my door by telling me they wanted my opinion on some activity they felt is a threat to a visiting president then things took a fast turn asking me about my research and contacts.
FBI is 100% allowed to lie to you but if you lie back to them they own you. They also like to catch you unprepared and off guard. Don't fall for it.
Say something like:
"I'm sorry this is not a topic I feel well prepared to talk about right now. If you have a court order I will honor it but even then I am going to need time to collect my thoughts and ensure I am speaking accurately. I'll walk you out"
Then get a lawyer to coach you on what you can and can't say. If they catch you in a lie even by accident they can -force- you to be an informant.
I’ll never forget the time I kicked the door down of a brothel to see if anyone was inside while it was on fire. Police came to my house, asked me to help them in an arson investigation, I invited them in, and told them what happened... it was only when they started taking photos of my jacket I was wearing that day that I realised I was the main arson suspect. That’s when the adrenaline hit... and when it does, your brain gets muddled and so it’s damn easy to get caught out with not be accurate when recalling facts... but yeah, it’s easier not to lie when you tell them to go through a lawyer.
Wait, you mean the gang of armed thugs that extort money from people at the point of a gun, throwing them in a tiny rape cage if they disobey, and will abduct their own citizens to dose then with megadoses of psychedelics for weeks straight, while simultaneously operating a massive imperialist war machine...might be guilty of racketeering?
Come to think of it, you might be on to something!
Federal agents, while technically only possessing something akin to an even less accessible version of qualified immunity under the Bivens doctrine, in reality are basically never going to be held responsible in any sort of substantive way from those they victimized on the job, unless they literally kill a bystander or something and even that isn't a sure thing.
Regardless of what it is how many here jumping for joy if instead of a "noble security researcher" those tactics were being used against people peddling untaxed goods, rubber stamping commercial motor vehicle inspections or some other "you need to extrapolate out at least a few steps to find a victim" type crime? The government only gets away with this stuff because people turn a blind eye when its done to people they don't like.
no, the government gets away with this stuff because they have power. people turn a blind eye because it doesn't matter if they don't, because they don't have power.
The government gets away with this stuff because people can't coordinate their power, which looks basically the same as powerless people turning a blind eye. You guys are describing two facets of the same thing, but the people do in fact have more power than the government.
They can coordinate their power; it's called "government". Government employs about 15% of the labor force in America, and that's not even including contractors for whom government is the only customer.
Any large-scale coordination will necessarily eclipse the individual and take on a life of its own; you can't really have it both ways.
I'm curious, do you know what happens if you tried to make yourself useless by publicly announcing that FBI is trying to make you an informant? Has anyone tried that as a way out?
I've had similar experiences, though, not with FBI, with DHS at DEFCON, to the point where I've been handed DHS business cards prior to hopping on flights out of Las Vegas on my way home, and them calling me on my personal (non-work-published) cell phone a few days later.
First name basis with FBI employees and you didn't do your duty and publish all the information you have extracted from them including names and face pictures. What the hell?! FBI befriends you, that is just their way to get informants. The be your friend manipulation. They are trained to manipulate you. You fell for it hard!
If you think doxxing low ranking federal law enforcement for the high crime of doing their job is _your duty_, then I don't have much to say to you. Antagonizing your government over low stakes is not freedom fighting.
You can be civil with people who don't share the same agenda as you. Shocking thought in today's society, I guess.
I'm guessing publishing that information would create exposure to federal criminal charges of endangering FBI agents (not sure of the exact name of the charge). Then the FBI really would have leverage to either gain a new informant for as long as the statute of limitations lasts or throw the researcher in prison with a criminal record.
- you will be asked/pressured to do things - to be places and talk to people you weren't planning to. Best case scenario it's at the cost of your time, worst case scenario it's at the cost of your personal safety.
- you will be expected to report on what other people, including your friends, said or did. Even if they are not doing anything illegal FBI might want information to pressure them into being an informant.
I wasn't in a situation like that, but I expect it would have a huge chilling effect on me - I'd start self-censoring interactions with others our of fear they mention something benign, but gray area legally that I would laugh at otherwise, but now would be required to report and get them in trouble.
This wouldn't have to be something big - I'm sure at some point in time a friend of yours recommended a movie or a tv show that isn't available in your region, implying they have pirated a copy.
Would your first reaction be to notify FBI?
And what's the upside for all this if you're a law abiding citizen? The FBI pinky swears they won't come after you for violating the kinds of laws law abiding citizens break.
> INTERVIEWER: Tell me a little bit about how you felt about working for the FBI. What motivated you and what you thought you were, what ends you thought you were serving?
> WILLIAM O'NEAL: Well, in my community, the policemen were, I mean, it was the quickest way to gain respect. I mean, I think I grew up wanting to be a policeman, admiring and respecting policemen, although I always thought it was outside of my reach. I, my neighborhood was not unlike most people that grew up in Chicago, most young people, we were very mischievous and did a lot of juvenile-type, petty, criminal-type things, but stealing a car and all of a sudden having the FBI, having a case with the FBI, the thought of be--having, really going to jail got my attention. And, so when he asked me to join the Black Panther Party, and he used terms, he never used the word informant. He always said, "You're working for me," and I associated him as the FBI. So all of a sudden I was working for the FBI, which, in my mind, at that point, I associated with being an FBI agent. So I felt good about it. I felt like I was working undercover for the FBI doing something good for the finest police organization in America. And so I was pretty proud.
You're potentially risking your life but certainly trading your reputation and taking on stress for not a particularly worthy amount of money.
Plus then you're on the government's radar and they think you're money-motivated, not patriotism-motivated. Everyone involved in any cases brought with your help will think poorly of you. This might turn into cases brought against you. You will never get a government job. Your identity will probably be exposed as an informant at some point -- usually through public court records.
If you actually are patriotism-motivated, go join the agency. There is no upside to informing on people.
I just watched “White Boy” on Netflix. The FBI was using a 15 year old boy to get information on drug dealers. He has been in prison for almost 30 years after the FBI had no use for him.
At first, I thought the boy who was informing was with the good guys taking down drug kingpins. By the end of it, I realized the FBI were just manipulating and using up this young kid.
During my last polygraph (I've had a lot over the years), I was accused by the FBI examiner of being a terrorist. Although we are not supposed to discuss these things, my boss told me later that they had done the same thing to him. The accusations rose to the level of abuse and the examiner was yelling at me and threatening my livelihood and future for several hours. Apparently, once he was satisfied that I had done nothing wrong, we were done. He offered his handshake to me as I left the room. I shook his hand, but I felt soiled afterward.
how accurate are polygraphs? they seem to be uniquely American (though i can't pretend i know that as a fact). I always thought they are really just worthless window-dressing on par with the tsa.I.e it's a lot of bluff and only a bit of substance. Can your experiences substantiate what i'm saying or am i being biased?
Polygraphs are intimidation devices with no scientific merit. They don't work. By making people believe that they do work, sometimes interrogators are able to get people to admit things they otherwise wouldn't.
Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in court and civilian employers are not allowed to administer them to employees. Regardless, the US Government still uses them for security clearance.
your answers and the fact that no one is defending polygraphs indicates to me that i'm not far off the mark. In which case, why on earth is the FBI messing around with it? My conclusion, corroborated by this story is that they are not so professional as they would like you to think. This is compensated, probably with interest, by being very heavy handed. But surely that is no way to run a large agency.
The FBI is nowhere near as professional as people are led to believe. The lie detector test isn't even unique, we are not even a decade removed from evidence showing nearly all their forensic techniques were utter shams.
Somewhere between zero and very depending on how good the person doing the interrogating is and how much the person being questioned knows about the techniques being used against them.
It's basically a good cop bad cop routine without the expense of the good cop and half as many human factors to screw it up.
>Somewhere between zero and very depending on how good the person doing the interrogating is and how much the person being questioned knows about the techniques being used against them
With your "very effective" conditions, I'd argue that an innocent person would quite often respond the same as a guilty person, making the process unreliable in a different way.
As much as I hate queues at the airport, I believe that TSA and Co. are effective. Sure, they cannot catch anyone but people demonstrating that in tests tend to be much more knowledgeable than would-be attackers. Just knowing that you could get caught is enough to put off many. There's a reason why the terrorist attacks we've seen in recent years (especially in Europe) have been largely focused on vehicles , trying to blow up a plane has become much more risky with TSA.
So I don't think it's mainly window-dressing. It's not perfect but enough to scare off most bad guys.
I think you misunderstood my comment? I don't think it's useless. It's annoying and not perfect but airport security has improved safety of aviation by a lot in my opinion. The lack of any successful onboard attacks on aircrafts in the past decade (when other terror attacks happened frequently in Europe) are a good indicator for that.
ben gurion is widely acknowledged as being one of the most secure airports in the world. And they get by without all these stupid rules about shoes and liquids etc.
Hopefully to clear some things up about polygraphs in America:
1. You almost never go through them unless you're in the process of obtaining a security clearance (I'd be quite surprised if the UK didn't do something similar for their clearance process). In fact, I have never heard of any other instance where someone was required to have one, as they are generally not admissible evidence in courts.
2. It is my understanding that the accuracy of polygraphs is mostly down to the skill of the person reading the device and giving the test (hence why they aren't usable as evidence).
To point number 1: Depending on what sort of work the subject is doing with the clearance, he/she may never get a poly, or he/she may get one every time the clearance is updated (usually 5 years). If the subject happens to be living with a foreign national, and somebody writes a "letter of compelling need" for the subject (meaning the subject will retain the clearance in spite of the risk), then the subject will get a poly every year.
The poly is not limited to one session. The examiner will keep asking the subject to come back until they are satisfied with the results, or until the subject quits their job. Depending on the personality type of the subject, it can be extremely stressful, or just routine. Many engineers are "Type A" and that is the type most susceptible to stress.
> who do you report law enforcement misconduct to?
These rights are privately enforced. There is no public federal enforcement. You have to do what this gentleman is doing. Sue in the courts.
It is becoming apparent that the U.S. needs an independent agency focussed on transgressions by law enforcement / a civil rights enforcement bureau. One could keep it purely civil, to avoid conflicting with the DoJ. But in the same way that criminal prosecution is specialized enough that consolidating it in the DoJ makes sense, investigating law enforcement is specialized and conflicted enough that consolidating it under an independent agency makes sense.
>It is becoming apparent that the U.S. needs an independent agency focussed on transgressions by law enforcement / a civil rights enforcement bureau.
YMMV, but:
Many agencies have an Auditor General with a cadre of agents whose entire role is to investigate and publicly report on what that agency does wrong. Sadly, I can't think of any Auditor General's office with the power to punish. So if the agency is acting unconstitutionally or illegally because the governor or agency director wants them to, it's on the public to push for change. That's a hard ask.
For issues with state agencies, contact your District Attorney or state Attorney General. I've never done this, but it's stuck in my mind as the path to go. If other people want to report their dead end stories of doing this, I'd welcome the lesson.
The DAs work with law enforcement on a daily basis. They are in some ways considered law enforcement themselves (they have detectives and investigators working directly for them). My experience is that they don't care.
I've contacted the AG about stuff in the past. He was a complete idiot. I contacted him about a state law that was being violated by a state government policy and he said he would forward the complaint to the FBI. Why? It has nothing to do with federal law!
That's kind of what's going on here. There's a state law making it a felony to reveal specific information of citizens except in specified situations. They are revealing that information contrary to law, so a violation of the statutory right to privacy.
You're thinking Attorney General. The correct title in the U.S. is Inspector General, and they fall under OIG, the Office of the Inspector General.
Note: outing classified to an Inspector General not cleared, will still get you thrown in prison. Even pointing in a direction to start asking questions or getting cleared may carry legal consequences that OIG has no authority to protect you from, even if in the end you are in the right.
I've often thought the OIG should be charged with and have authority to countermand and investigate executive agency oversteps through unfettered access to all information regardless of classification in the Executive branch, but it'll never happen.
What you just described is one of the biggest downsides of accepting a security clearance - and, happily, the First Amendment prevents such consequences for those of us (like me) who have never done so.
I very much respect my friends and colleagues who have made the other choice, but it's a lifelong sacrifice of liberties that are otherwise present.
The nature of Auditors General or Inspectors General is explicitly that they cannot punish. If they could, they would essentially just be another layer of management. The tradeoff for not being able to punish here is having unlimited powers to ask for documentation and to investigate.
The system is set up under the assumption that the institutions themselves cannot have systemic issues and all problems are really the work of individual employees acting outside of what they're supposed to do, and so you're supposed to sue them in their personal capacity. Then the Supreme Court basically slammed that door effectively making remedies impossible to obtain. Deetz: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/civ...
> agencies have an Auditor General with a cadre of agents whose entire role is to investigate and publicly report on what that agency does wrong
This was the case with prosecutors. Then in 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant consolidated them under the DOJ [1]. The common portion of their work, criminal litigation, was specialised and conflicted enough that the benefits of densifying its practitioners outweighed the cost of distance from the field.
I argue a similar problem persists among our Auditors and Solicitors General. Yes, there are advantages to having them in house. But there are disadvantages, too, and the bad outweighs the good.
> For issues with state agencies, contact your District Attorney or state Attorney General.
State agencies often have their own IG or similar office, and DAs may not have jurisdiction over state agencies. Some states have centralized agencies that have general oversight of illegal activities in state and sometimes local agencies, as well (Bureau of State Audits in California, for instance.)
It is mostly captured, policywise, and supports outrages committed by police.
It is a improvement over what there used to be, but not much.
What has made the biggest difference here is a succession of cases where it became undeniable that the police were raping and framing. They have taken shame and attempting to reform themselves, which is a surprise to those of us who over the years had to deal with the bigoted, prejudiced, violent pigs.
There is a lot of opposition within, and without, the police here. Time will tell.
You could easily argue that any law enforcement officer who feels targeted or offended by that is admitting to being bigoted, prejudiced, and violent... Or at the very least knows their profession contains enough bigoted, prejudiced, and violent members that they're being tarred with the same brush, while presumably turning a blind eye to it all instead of outing the pigs from the inside.
Except I'm offended by it, but I'm not a law enforcement officer, but did have many dealings with them in my youth due to my wayward ways - some police officers were massive dicks (dog handlers seem to be rather unnecessarily aggressive), but then some were amazing and gave me chances that let me turn my life around.
Hence my objection to the pejorative term often applied to all police offers equally - it only advances a "them vs. us" mindset, which is not at all true for my country if you're not an active criminal, a country I share with the user I was replying to.
"Pig" is a pejorative term, I used it in connection with the violence, bigotry, prejudice, adn stupidity (forgot to mention that), the raping, the framing....
I did not use it as a replacement for "peace officer". I know what I said and I meant it
>I did not use it as a replacement for "peace officer". I know what I said and I meant it
That seems to be quite clearly the intent.
Anecdotally around my region people refer to corrupt police officers as pigs, so when someone says something derogatory about 'pigs', it's colloquially understood as "the violent bad ones that extort and over-step, not the ones that help you find your dog."
Around my region, people who yell "pigs" at the cops, haven't stopped to ascertain whether or not the officers they're yelling at are the violent bad ones who overstep. They're just yelling "pigs" because they're wearing the uniform and driving the car.
Noting that I left out extort because that's incredibly rare here, and prosecuted very quickly if it ever does.
The courts protect FBI and police. [0] Impossible to get a real win from a lawsuit. Getting money is not a real win. [1] No changes will be made. The dude who got murdered by police and caused a riot of criminals stealing and burning down buildings, not even that caused the police to change.
I should add a white person got killed the same way before that. No riots. No news. No screaming crying people in the streets demanding justice. No change then either. The family of that person didn't even get money from it.
You point is true for all organisations that cover many issues, and do not concentrate on one single small issue. You end up not donating to anything, even if your donation would have a large net positive.
Tagging money for specific issues is problematic because the organisation doesn’t change its budget percentages for small donations (money is fungible), and organisations find tagging difficult to manage [TODO insert article link here].
I've been in organizations that allowed earmarked donations for certain funds / projects. The ACLU can totally allow earmarked donations for projects they are undergoing.
Ex: A policy of %80 towards earmarking & %20 towards the general fund to help boot up new projects / general admin would be totally fine with many donators.
Organizations that say that they let you donate to fund specific issues are fooling you, unless the amount you plan to donate is huge. The reason is that money is fungible. Let's say I need $200k to fund issue A, and $200k to fund issue B. You say that you want to support only issue B. Fine, I just put your money in the issue B bucket and move a corresponding amount of unrestricted funds into the issue A bucket. Unless almost everyone restricts their donations they can always do that. They can backfill any unrestricted money to fund any of their priorities that are, for some reason, less popular with donors.
That only works if earmarking for issue B is not common, but if some media story suddenly made earmarking for issue B 50x the general fund / issue A, by people in aggregate, your not going to be able to do that well.
What you talk about is much like the arguments against voting, while such logic makes society lose it's prisoner's dilemma for change.
Call them and ask. There is usually a fund manager who can direct the money into different causes at the benefactors wishes. Now, if you only donate a minimal amount that will go in to the general fund. They wouldn't expend the same energy for a $35 donation that they would for a $3500 donation.
If it's a civil rights case and there's merit to your claims, you might be able to find public interest lawyers to help out for much less than that. Call around, there are firms in most large cities.
I've contacted one. They said we have a case, but that the federal courts don't really care about rights violations unless there were substantial financial impact. In theory, the DOJ is supposed to investigate our complaint and take injunctive action to correct any agency policy, practice, or pattern that violates the rights of defendants/people. We'll see how that actually works, but I won't hold my breath.
ACLU has mostly shirked their core mission and embraced whoring around their brand recognition for political gain in recent years. Basically the NRA but for the other side of the isle.
They, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation, have actually had some success fighting states for discriminatory laws that deny 2nd Amendment rights to specific populations. After all, the Constitution wouldn't work if it doesn't apply to everyone, but states have spent a lot of effort putting up roadblocks to everyone from legal immigrants to medical marijuana patients and states would selectively refuse to renew CCWs and licenses without cause or bar legal gun owners from receiving Section 8 vouchers and imposing categorical bans on legal gun owners attempting to foster or adopt children. In a sense they are the exact opposite of the NRA, who haven't done much to address the lack of equal access to the Constitutional right for quite some time when the complainants don't fit a particular mold.
That's not really true. The NRA has fought for shall issue and even constitutional carry, which removes the discriminatory possibilities under may issue schemes. They worked with an African American in the Chicago handgun ownership case, the PA mother arrested after crossing into NJ, etc. They have shied away from ambiguous or complicated cases, regardless of demographics.
> This country was founded on checks and balances.
No, it wasn’t. It was founded on an impotent central government. It later adopted checks and balances when it decided it needed a much more powerful central government and what it was founded on was unsuitable.
But just because US Gov 2.x lasted longer than 1.x doesn’t mean everything in the 2.0. release was perfect; its certainly needed many minor and bugfix releases, and there’s no reason to think that it might not at some point need another ground-up rewrite.
Articles of Confederation. It was in force for 6 years before the founders dumped it and drafted the Constitution. The main problems were the inability for congress to levy taxes, regulate trade international and interstate, and congress wound up having to beg the states for money.
The DOJ does have a civil rights division that investigates issues in state and local law enforcement agencies. But politicians seem to have no taste for proper oversight of the federal law enforcement agencies. For example, Biden's Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines shielded CIA agents who hacked Senate Intelligence Committee computers. The hacking occurred while the Senate Intelligence Committee was attempting to perform oversight of the CIA's use of torture.
> So who do you report law enforcement misconduct to?
In the case of the FBI, the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (essentially, the FBI’s “Internal Affairs” unit), DoJ Inspector General, your reps in either House of Congress, or members of the Judiciary Committee (in either House) or the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (in the Senate) or the Oversight and Reform Committee (in the House).
May also be worth going to media and/or NGOs, though which, if any (especially of the latter) are most likely to be useful varies a lot by who you are and what the exact details of thr misconduct are.
Private litigation may or may not be useful (both governmental and personal immunities come into play) and can be very expensive (though NGOs may help with this.)
I agree with the options you mentioned. It's just that I've dealt with a similar issue at the state level and none of that works.
A trooper knew he was holding an incorrect charge against my wife. The charge carried with it pretrial restrictions that would not have occurred under the correct charge (a "leash law" violation). IAD didn't care. The investigation even tried to explain the trooper's lie to the judge about why he was amending the charge as just a misunderstanding... yeah, ok. Neither state reps replied to my two letters. The governor claims he can't get involved in a court issue even though I only wrote him about the practices of the state police (which he oversees) leading to violations, and that the policy should change. I contacted the ACLU, but this is not a big enough issue for them.
The only thing with any traction is an investigative journalist who is pitching the story to their editor.
I'm not holding my breath, but I am either in the process of submitting or waiting to hear about: a complaint to the Bar about the ADA having information that it was an incorrect charge and allowing it to stand, the DOJ to investigate the practices of the state police knowingly holding false charges, and a response from my latest letter to the governor.
I would guess that would be the most expedient route, if you can get them interested. If you work for a big employer in their district, and are comfortable with it, having your employer reach out to them might help.
> This assumes one gets back more than a form letter and that the actual rep reads your letter.
Well, the first more than the second; a rep doesn’t have to read your letter to be briefed and direct staff followup, which may itself produce results.
But how often does your concern meet their eyes/ears/etc? I seem to only get form letters, some of which aren't even appropriate responses to my concerns.
If it's a form letter, you're just going to be lumped in with the others of similar concerns.
I'm not aware of any summary reports on the effectiveness of the OIG, but I've read that its structured to try to minimize the most obvious types of corruption (for instance, by also reporting to Congress and not just to the agency head). I'm sure there's plenty of mileage variation depending on the circumstances and political environment.
This is basically internal affairs for the FBI. Report here. Personally, I would make a report here no matter what, just to start a paper-trail of them harassing you.
A friend of mine (mid-West redhead) spent years in China doing research. She came back to the US to do her PhD, and FBI started hassling her, asking if she was spying for the Chinese. Finally ended when she called that agent's superior and implied the agent was coming on to her.
That is so ridiculous. They stopped because she accused them of sexual harassment, not because they were out of line? Like is that all a real Chinese spy would have to do to get the FBI of her back?
Which is totally not how you recruit a source - sounds like some FBI officers think that acting like an OTT cop from TV show (Constable Savage for UK HN's of a certain age.) is how it works.
The way malwarebytes was handled is another example great the FBI has just alienated a large potential group of sources and this FBI idiot by bullying Mr Chebli has alienated a lot of Lebanese Americans who might provide information in future.
Why not ask for something impossible for them to agree to so they leave you alone? For example "I'll become an informant if you pay me 2 billion per contact and 1 million per week while being an informant". Will that not work?
Besides why didn't you go for a lawsuit? They threatened and harassed you. They threatened your employment, your livelihood.
Not to mention you claim to be a security researcher and the first thing on your mind wasn't to record them and take down their details to publish later on internet.
It's a good punishment. It would prevent those who visits you to do certain work and with their face and name everyone will know what they are, where they live. In case people want to visit and leave some very justified feedback about the FBI.
It's perfectly legal to record them since they entered your home/property. Always, always record!
I bet they left a card so you could contact them. Even publishing that alone is good.
FBI is very afraid of the public light because of this in my opinion illegal stuff they do. FBI must have positive PR. Bad PR means less trust, less informants, etc.
A a security researcher you are supposed to know this stuff. How to deal with FBI, etc. I'm disappointed.
This is hilariously bad advice. Keep in mind that the FBI needs a good relationship with people out in industry and doing research.
Most of the attempts to recruit informants are benign, as I mentioned in my own story elsewhere in the thread. It boils down to being in Vegas the same few days and having a drink and killing time talking about how great America is (yes, FBI agents generally do love their country). It's good PR for everyone involved.
There was a similar, much more terrifying, story was in the New Yorker about six months ago.
An Iranian physicist, Sirous Asgari, visited some US universities. On his next entry into the US he was detailed by the FBI as he entered and handed a completely-invented indictment of numerous crimes, and they demanded that he become an informant.
He refused, since the indictment was completely phony. The FBI, furious, ensured he was charged with everything under the sun.
Even though the government lost its case against him (due to clear lies by the FBI), he was then thrown in an ICE jail, through utter Kafkaesque bureaucratic hand-offs. Had to endure near-prison revolts as the inmates tries to keep themselves free of Covid. A judge almost granted him release due to the dangers of getting ill, but then he caught Covid and nearly died, so his petition was rejected. He was finally swapped as part of a prisoner-swap deal with Iran. And yet he seems to be persona-no-grata now in Iran, as the assumption is that he must now be working for the FBI.
There's the story of the Ibrahim family, too. The mother, Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, sued over being wrongly put on the No-fly list. Her daughter — a US citizen — was to testify at her trial but was denied boarding her flight because she too had been put on the no fly list.
> Dr. Ibrahim’s oldest daughter Raihan Mustafa Kamal was denied boarding in Kuala Lumpur yesterday when she tried to board a flight to San Francisco to observe and testify at the trial in her mother’s lawsuit.
> Ms. Mustafa Kamal, an attorney licensed to practice law in Malaysia, was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen. Ms. Mustafa Kamal was with her mother when Dr. Ibrahim was denied boarding on a flight from K.L. to San Francisco in 2005 (after having been told that her name had been removed from the “no-fly” list) under what now seem eerily similar circumstances. The DHS had been given notice that Ms. Mustafa Kamal would testify at the trial as an eyewitness to those events she witnessed in 2005.
Happy that the ACLU is taking this on. It shouldn't matter, but if you look at the filed complaint[1] Ahmad is a US citizen. This treatment seems clearly unconstitutional to me.
Also, this excerpt from the complaint:
>In response, the agents pulled out two newspaper articles about Hezbollah and told Mr. Chebli, “We know you are a Hezbollah agent and were sent here by Hezbollah.”
The complaint is absolutely disgusting to read. One (I suspect uncontested) fact alleged in the complaint really stood out to me:
> As a result, he was stranded in Lebanon for over a month, during which time the U.S. government confirmed that he had been placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Chebli was then able to obtain a one-time waiver to fly home.
If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? And if they're safe enough to fly on that occasion why are they, upon landing (presumably safely), once again considered unsafe to fly? The No Fly List logic just doesn't quite add up for me...
> why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once?
Because it was never about him being dangerous. It was about creating a condition where he felt trapped. And if you are a US Citizen stuck in a foreign country international news orgs notice that. Investigations get started. Questions get asked. And this thing that is wildly unconstitutional gets asked about in a public court. But if it's a US Citizen in the US it can be conveniently swept under the rug. The investigations now not so urgent.
It's probably less about logic and more about law, the US government can't refuse entry to US citizens and would rather prevent a court case that inevitably ends in the No-Fly list being ruled unconstitutional.
> If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once?
Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy?
But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.
Maybe people can now understand why putting the Capitol rioters on the list was a horrible idea and people should vote out any politician who suggested it.
Those people are, by the definition you've used, perpetrators of an actual crime. (at least 375 have been charged, as of a few days ago) Not comparable to the traditional victim of the no fly list at all.
People who have been convicted of something, or who are on parole, are by definition not a part of the constitutional argument about the no fly list. The judiciary and the department of corrections can keep them off a plane if that's needed, that's their role, and if a no fly list is needed for that, no problem.
Suspected rioters travelling to and from riots, whose arrest is imminent, would appear to be the most sympathetic use of extrajudicial law enforcement action to keep people off a plane via a no fly list. I don't think there's a big problem there. It is a case that has nothing to do with the standard due process arguments against the no fly list.
I agree that using the no fly list to prevent anyone who was present as a protestor in DC from flying, regardless of whether they were suspected of having committed a crime, would be excessive. I saw shortly after the riot that the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested TSA and the FBI put protestors identified as having entered the Capitol building on the no fly list. That position, working under the assumption that people who entered the Capitol building during a riot while federal law enforcement was trying to secure it committed a crime and ought to be indicted, doesn't seem crazy.
I wondered that but reading Wikipedia it's more of a no travel thing despite the name. Mexico won't let you through and Canada has its own no entry list that includes the USA one.
I think there might be an issue with these too. It's titled a no-fly list, but I think they have additional restrictions too. I'm not sure if they deny entry based on it too.
It's a subset of the larger TSC database. I don't know if they treat citizens on that list differently, or if he's even on the more restrictive part of that list.
There's plenty of federal case law that makes it pretty much a right for citizens to enter the US.
"...the right to return to the United States is inherent in American citizenship.” Fikre v. FBI. Which was about this exact issue. They can put you on the no fly list, but if you get to the Border, there is an absolute right for citizens to enter, even without a passport.
Of course, the courts might not get around to enforcing your right to enter for a few months or years, and it might cost you a fortune in lawyer fees
But is there any case law if they're in the more restrictive parts of the TCS database? Haven't citizens been held at the boarder for not unlocking their phones, even though they aren't on a list?
Holding someone at the border is not the same as denying them entry from the country sadly.
I think its a rather gaping hole in the constitution that has been ruthlessly exploited. Warrantless searches at the border were allowed to be exempt from the 4th amendment since customs agents needed to be able to inspect goods coming in to apply tariffs appropriately and prevent contraband.
Snooping through people's personal papers and phones is pretty far outside of that mandate if you ask me.
The takeaway is that if you have the time, you are free to tell them that you won't be providing a password. They are free to hold you for a 'reasonable' amount of time (reasonable could mean many hours). And they are also legally allowed to seize your phone and allow you entry to the country.
I thought for at least a while (2004ish) they were actually denying entry unless they could search devices. Maybe they were just confiscating them. It was a long time ago.
He is very lucky to be a US citizen. The FBI has treated non-citizens much much worse.
For example [0], the FBI arrested Syrian-Canadian engineer Maher Arer while he changed planes in USA. The FBI imprisoned him without charges, denied him a lawyer, and then kidnapped him and delivered him to a prison in Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. His wife finally got the Canadian government to intervene and get him out. The head of RCMP (Canada's FBI) resigned in shame for letting it happen. All of the US people responsible continued with their lives as before. A few of them apologized.
While it's terrible enough in either case, it does make a big difference that he's a citizen. Countries have another level of responsibility towards their citizens than to their residents. It shows in how AFAIK no country has even talked about restricting inbound travel for their citizens during the pandemic while even permanent residents have been blanket denied.
Australia has severely rate limited the number of incoming passengers, including citizens. One year on, there are still tens of thousands of Australians unable to get home that want to do so.
But those are travel restrictions, not restrictions of entry. For Australia it doesn't make a big difference but they still cannot turn away citizens at their borders. They can detain people or quarantine them but not send them back. I'm not sure if there's any country where denying entry to your citizens is legal.
It seems that citizens (and even permanent residents, which was not the case in e.g. Japan for several months) are free to enter. Sure, number of planes and seats are limited, but that's a different matter from denying entry at the border.
That's like saying you can take as many cookies as you want when the plate is empty. There are citizens and residents who have been unable to get home for over a year!
NZ allows both citizens and permanent residents to return home - however we have limited space in managed quarantine that limits how many can return at a time - and if you're just coming home for a holiday, not permanently, or you left for a holiday or biz trip, they will charge you for the whole process
They denied the flights, they did not deny their citizens entry - a different distinction, even if the immediate effect for an individual plays out similarly.
That's evidently not true. Or at least grossly misleading. Countries can and are refusing to allow all people who want to get onto flights bound for the country they're citizens of.
My country (.au) is currently limiting inbound international travellers to 3000 per week, with over 40,000 Australian citizens registered as trying to get home. Some of those people have been trying for close to 12 months to get home.
These restrictions mean that airline seat pricing is going insane. In pre Covid times, I'd regularly fly Sydney to SF round trip for $AUD1500-$2000 or so on United. A recent news report says they're now flying business/first class only flights with the cheapest one way LA-SYD tickets being $AUD21,000.
Can you imagine being on a trip last Jan/Feb with a return ticket for March or April, only to be told your return ticket keeps getting bumped for higher paying customers but you could always upgrade to a $21,000 ticket to get home. And your travel insurance says "Sucks to be you, you're not covered for pandemics, as outlined in section 374 on page 93 of your Product Disclosure Document you got when you paid your premium. Have a nice day!" So now you're stuck in the US, originally of a 90 day tourist visa waiver and not legally able to work, and there's no casual work available anyway because of Covid shutdowns, and you've needed to manage to find food/shelter for 12 months while waiting for a flight home. I know one of those people, and know of several more...
There is an important distinction here - they're restricting the number of inbound planes, as opposed to barring their citizens from entry.
Theoretically speaking, if a ship crew of only AU citizens would dock at an Australian port, they would not be denied entry given that they follow quarantine procedures, I assume?
This includes the USA, which is the country in question here. So yes, there seems to be a strong case that this is in fact breaking their own regulation and treaties.
This includes the USA, which is the country in question here. So yes, there seems to be a strong case that this is in fact breaking their own regulation and treaties.
The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not. As soon as you lawyer up (which is totally legal in his case) the FBI get really itchy about having to deal with lawyers and probably would've moved on to another target.
He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner. Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency.
> Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency.
We have had a steady stream of stories like this for almost 20 years now. Nothing substantial has changed. I don’t think the FBI is worried about PR around this at this point.
This could be substantially different for them. The guy is a citizen, works for an "All American" type company (Ford), etc. And the ACLU picked up the case.
I hadn't seen his story before, the ones I had seen were residents. Supposedly, there aren't very many citizens on the list:
"According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1]
Chebli's story does include the additional wrinkle of the recruitment, harassment, threats, etc, and thus first amendment violation petitions for relief.
If you are going to take something to the Supreme Court you want a Plaintiff who looks like a boy-scout to the press. You want to make sure that they can't retroactively dig up a reason for the guy to be on the no-fly list. It needs to be clear that the only reason that he is on that list is that he said "no, thank you" to the FBI
It's secret, so nobody knows for sure, but my guess is that most of the people on the list are not citizens, probably most are not residents either.
"According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1]
The recruitment and harassment beforehand is also somewhat unique.
The Clinton administration (with Senator Bidens support) targeted and removed “rights” of the weak and non-whites with the unconstitutional Omnibus Terror Act:
According to the wikipedia article you cite, the bill was neither voted on nor passed.
> Both bills were never put to a vote, although a significantly altered version of the House bill became law as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
> The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not.
Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you.
> He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner.
I somehow doubt it. Muslims (and antiwar activists) being placed on no fly lists were often in the news. That didn't stop it.
> Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you.
No, they are not obligated to do so. However, I believe he would have fully been within his rights to say "I am not prepared to talk to you, I do not feel comfortable continuing this interview without my attorney present."
Do people have attorneys in general? I suppose people the FBI are prone to harass should have the ACLU's number on their phone (or have the awareness that it's an organisation that can help them, just google the number on said phone..).
A friend of mine was in such situation in Russia. She is a journalist specializing on exotic countries and regions. She has applied for an international passport and was approached by an FSB (Russian FBI) agent. She agreed to meet with him and a lawyer. The FSB agent just disappeared and did not return calls. She has never heard from them again.
My point was that all law enforcement agents across the world are same at their core. They are very good at putting pressure on people and exercising people's bounds. So, I think, making things public, defending your rights actively and bringing a lawyer helps in any country.
Regarding the Black Lists - we have that in Russia too. They can even block you from using your bank account and it's very hard to get off that lists too.
She probably wasn't worth the effort. Pretty sure if the FSB considered her even moderately worth pursuing they would have exerted far more (and worse) pressure than the FBI does...
>"if the FSB considered her even moderately worth pursuing"
Following your logic they've contacted her just for the fuck of it. Looks like grasping at straws trying to prove that russian asshole got to be worse than the american asshole.
Or maybe they figured it was only worth trying once, and not really worth pursuing further when it became clear that she would not cooperate. It is not grasping at straws to claim that when the Russians want to make someone's life hard they are far less restrained about it than the Americans. American political activists face BS criminal charges and are sometimes placed on the no-fly list; Russian political activists find themselves poisoned with radioactive metals and with nerve agents.
>"Or maybe they figured it was only worth trying once, and not really worth pursuing further when it became clear that she would not cooperate."
Well then FSB had treated her way better than FBI treated Ahmad.
As for the main point - assholes (or let just say criminals protected by respective government) are still assholes. There is no reason to be proud that you did not fuck / killed as many.
"assholes (or let just say criminals protected by respective government) are still assholes"
Given the choice, would you rather be a dissident in the USA or in Russia? Would you rather be Ed Snowden (the US politely asks that he come home to stand trial) or Alexei Navalny (nearly died after Russian agents slipped poison into his tea)? You say there is no difference, so maybe you would like to just flip a coin.
It is beyond absurd to claim that the US is just as bad as Russia, and it is equally ridiculous to claim that no comparisons can be drawn and all crimes are just as bad. Of course the US has done things that are wrong, but what Russia does is much worse. It is not a matter of being proud, it is a matter of being rational.
>"It is beyond absurd to claim that the US is just as bad as Russia"
Bad in what way? If we are talking treating their own subjects I would say in average the US does much better than Russia. No argument here. Does not mean that it did not kill people for political reasons. Victims of Kent State shootings or Fred Hampton may attest to that. I am pretty sure if you dig deep enough you will uncover some more.
Internationally I think US kills and otherwise harms way more people than Russia. They just declare it legal and sleep well. Again victims might disagree.
How could he go to the media before getting banned? There's not much to go on, especially if he didn't have a recording.
The other part is, who will actually listen to that story? My wife was subjected to pretrial restrictions on a charge that the trooper knew was incorrect. I even have evidence supporting it. An investigative journalist pitching it to their editor, but other than that nobody cares. IAD thinks it's fine, the DA thinks it's fine (an ADA was also aware that the charge was wrong, but I don't think the complaint with the Bar will result in anything), and the judge misapplied the law and contradicted himself so that the issue could be ignored in court.
This story is making me reconsider contacting the FBI/DOJ about police misconduct.
I'm glad the ACLU is taking this on, but if Ahmad was a Trump supporting redneck from West Virginia who refused to be an informant in an investigation of the January 6th riot, they wouldn't touch it. And that's a big problem, because the old ACLU didn't care how unpopular and disgusting the client was. They cared that abuse of power against the unpopular is an inevitable slippery slope towards abuse of power against all citizens.
> They cared that abuse of power against the unpopular is an inevitable slippery slope towards abuse of power against all citizens.
They also have to care about having a case that will win and not lose and set bad precedent.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is stacked against them and they have to have cases that will provoke public outrage if it goes the wrong way to prevent the court from going too far off track.
Having sympathetic defendants is unfortunately something required for right now.
There is a reason why you know about Rosa Parks and not Claudette Colvin.
The no fly list seems to be clearly unconstitutional. You can't find out why you are on it, you can ask for redress but you have no legal ability to file actions on it apparently. You cannot ever overcome it because it is the magic "national security". For us citizens especially, why can I travel anywhere via any normal legal means? If I'm dangerous on an airplane and you can legally stop me from doing it, it seems it's another obvious extension to say I can't ride on a bus, a boat, drive a car?
There must be a good reason the no fly list has not come to the us supreme court - probably because the govt delays and then folds if anyone has a compelling case. But it must come to trial! I know there are dangerous terrorists in the world that want to kill me, and I don't want to enable them. But there's a lot more people on the no fly list in the us for very dubious considerations (probably, the number must be a secret too).
It isn't unconstitutional since you don't have a right to fly since it's a private endeavour, even though it's highly regulated. Clearly the are abusing it as punitive rather than preventative measure. it's stupid in this case that it's being used as a punishment for no good reason. Congress need to address this and give a much better definition for what can be used to "put you on the no fly list"
...or the courts need to wake up to the reality of life in the modern world, where being denied the ability to board an airplane can result in harm to a person's personal and professional life. My boss is great but there is no way he is approving a 5 day trip on Amtrak for my next in-person meeting in California, let alone weeks of travel by boat for the next conference in Europe or Asia (assuming these things resume after the pandemic). I have met people whose entire career would be destroyed if they could not fly freely and frequently.
If the courts are not prepared to rule the no-fly list unconstitutional, then they need to start awarding damages to people who have been placed on the list. Either the government proves in court that there was a legitimate reason to prevent a person from flying or they compensate that person for all the harm that ensues.
You can get put on a "kill list" as well as the "no fly list" even if you are a US citizen and the opacity and inability to remove oneself or correct the issue is the same.
good point, that's another terrible overreach. It was surprising how much obama in particular was involved with choosing people to be killed with drones.
While the kill list was still unconstitutional, arguably a war crime, and just an evil practice, requiring Obama's approval to be put on the kill list is marginally better than Trump who removed presidential oversight and let the CIA do as they please.
I would speculate that they are pretty quick to take citizens off the list as soon as they lawyer up, rendering any case that could get the whole thing thrown out moot.
What makes you think the no-fly list is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court doesn't take cases because a law is unfair, they take cases that violate the Constitution or written law. The Court has routinely deemed "national security" concerns as a valid reason for laws to exist, so long as those concerns aren't just makeup for a more discriminatory reasoning.
IANAL but it would not surprise me if the courts further restricted the ability of law enforcement to arbitrarily
modify the no-fly list in the future.
The processes around reporting were deemed unconstitutional, not actually putting someone on a list. The government slightly improved the process and would actually tell people if they were on the list, which was enough to satisfy the courts. After that the ACLU lost their follow-up suits and appeals.
I feel like the general concept should be disallowed. They aren't blocking people (based on the public cases) who are imminently expected to kill someone or blow up a plane by sneaking something on it. There are a million people on the list, there are not a million attempts to blow up planes, even in 10 years there are probably only a few. Why not disallow questionable people from using the internet, cell phones, driving cars, walking in public? You can destroy someone's opportunity to be part of the world, work in most companies, etc see their family or children with these choices. Therefore, I think because these are not criminal claims and are not substantiated as imminent threats they are against their liberty.
- You getting "moved" to small villages (e.g. as a teacher).
And if they couldn't affect you they went for your relative. E.g. your children being bared from studying at a university even if they are qualified and so on.
That is a fine film. The protagonists are, however, not ordinary citizens.
I'd highly recommend also watching Christian Petzold's Barbara [1]. It's an equally fine film, but it has a different focus.
Here, the heroine is an ordinary physician (played by Nina Hoss), banished from Berlin to some province. The film captures the nightmare for the ordinary citizen of authoritarian police states, including the depressing fact that nearly anyone in your life could be informing on you. We also see how cooperating with the state authorities can get you privileges, such as better housing.
It's only okay when it happens to people I don't like, so whoever is considered a nazi or a communist this week (delete as appropriate). Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, paradox of tolerance etc., you know the drill.
The paradox of tolerance in and of itself is okay. We've seen already what happened if intolerance was tolerated, and way more than once.
However, the tightly guarded boundary between "tolerant" and "intolerant", as well as "context thereof" must be defined precisely and not be moved around according to one's mood, or depending on whether someone is losing an argument, or whether someone is in an outgroup or in an ingroup.
A good application of the paradox of tolerance requires integrity, which is a threatened species among human traits.
In fact the law does forbid certain forms of discrimination by "we the people." You cannot deny someone a job on the basis of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Redlining is illegal, discrimination in rentals is illegal (as the previous President discovered), etc.
Did the Stasi also permit you to lawyer up with the ACLU and sue them in open court?
What these FBI agents did, if true, was reprehensible. But surely we can come up with a better comparison than one of the most evil secret police regimes ever to exist.
The FBI doesn't "permit" you to lawyer up, the Bill of Rights does. Comparison of the tactics used is sound.
The FBI isn't "less evil" because they "tolerate" laws that they have no ability to ignore. They aren't tolerating them out of the goodness of their hearts, or out of a sense of morality. If they had the ability to ignore them, they would.
Edit: Re: responses
I'm not claiming that the FBI is incapable of violating the law, I'm objecting to the parent's claim that they are somehow "less evil" than the Stasi because they "allow" the law to be upheld, when they're not the ones allowing anything. Yes, when they are able to get away with breaking the law, they sometimes do. It's not clear how prevalent this is, because "able to get away with it" implies not getting caught.
> If they had the ability to ignore them, they would.
They do have the ability to ignore laws, lots of government organizations ignore congressional guidance all the time and it only ever comes back to bite them if someone objects loud enough.
The US legal system doesn't "prevent" people from doing anything, we just punish violations and for those violations to be punished someone who cares about the violation has to be aware of the violation.
It's a pretty common meme in cop shows today that "We can't wait for a judge to give us a warrant - let's bust down the door" to which the audience cheers since bad guy is obviously bad, but that is illegal and, it can potentially destroy a case IRL - but only if the defense finds out the entry was illegal.
I don't see how a legal system could prevent people from doing anything against the law. That's always a personal, moral/ethical choice. Aren't all legal systems going to be reactive because of that?
Being the first free generation out of Portuguese dictatorship I never understood this American belief that three letter agencies are angels following the law.
The Bill of Rights doesn't permit anything, but rather lists certain inalienable rights held by all persons on U.S. soil--or so the story goes. The worry that it could be construed as a list of grants was extremely controversial.
The comparison is certainly valid. Almost all the FBI's "terrorism" convictions over the last 20 years have been people set ip by a CI or agent, including the FBI supplying materiel.
The fact that there still exists, to some degree, a mechanism in the USA to challenge this in some cases is indeed something to celebrate, but the quite reasonable comparison is not just legitimate and appropriate but is a tool for trying to fix the injustice, not just retail (one victim at a time) but wholesale (change of law).
> The comparison is certainly valid. Almost all the FBI's "terrorism" convictions over the last 20 years have been people set ip by a CI or agent, including the FBI supplying materiel.
There's a quantitive difference between an FBI agent inviting an idiot to coffee, and fabricating a plot with him to blow up a post office, and an FBI agent getting in touch with an idiot who is plotting to blow up a post office, and offering to give him fake explosives.
The former might be entrapment. The latter is good policework.
Much of the anti domestic terrorism work which the FBI did was entrapment. The FBI plants were frequently under pressure to show proof that their assigned organisations were in fact terrorist cells.
The police would plant people in suspect groups who pressure the rest of the group to engage in terrorist activity.
This isn’t exclusive to 1970s USA. Similar things happened in mosques after 9/11 where Imans would know an FBI agent simply because he was the only extremist in the congregation.
And in the United Kingdom, there were long term plants in environmental organisations who engaged in ecoterrorism.
I've read several stories over the years and seen at least one documentary where it's pretty clear they were doing the former. It's generally chalked up as a win, gets good press / pr - keeps the funds going in that direction, and keeps the average headline reader scared enough to be fine with pariot acts and similar things going.
I do not recall any stories of the latter.. perhaps there is one or some - and perhaps things have occurred that saved the X Y or Z and we'll never know - and that's great.
However I think it's high time that people paid more attention to the details of these "be afraid / keep sending us budgets" stories and see that many are fabricated just to check off a PR box.
9 out of 10 sex trafficking headline stories are the same, and similar.
It's not just the top level of the DOJ - the local law agencies use the same playbook (especially vice squads) for the same reasons. imho.
They did also get involved with some bad people and rounded them up too, don't worry. But a lot of their work seems to have been ruining lives in order to look productive. Tragic!
How generous of my government to let me spend years battling them in court, while they get to violate my rights for the duration with little consequence if they end up losing. Much like a corporation getting fined or sued by the government is often just a slap on the wrist and the “cost of doing business,” the FBI has demonstrated time and time again that it doesn’t mind breaking the law to serve its goals. When the recourse for most people when the government violates their rights is to hope that some org like the ACLU will step up and represent you pro-bono, and that the courts will actually rule in your favor, and that even if they do you’ll still have a long time of suffering while the case goes through the courts... it tells the FBI that they can basically do whatever they want, because most people don’t want to deal with that crap.
I mean, the U.S. has been caught running interrogation black sites in our own borders, so the comparison extends further than even some of the other commenters are admitting.
> But surely we can come up with a better comparison than one of the most evil secret police regimes ever to exist.
So we have to be thankful that we are "allowed" to spend our life's saving on fighting a lawsuits against a trillon dollar government ?
For every such case there are probably 100 other people who folded. There is no difference between those cases and cases where stasi might have done the same thing. It is 100% same.
Apples to Oranges. OP was referring to the MO of acquiring collaborators, not the legal environment surrounding it. Which is the same MO used by the secret police in basically all countries behind the iron curtain.
Let's not mention people lacking money for a proper legal defense.
There are a lot of gradations between "guilty" and "not guilty" in our system, some of them very unpleasant.
For example, the author experienced involuntary exile while technically "not guilty." Many employers will fire an employee who is charged with a crime, without a conviction. A "not guilty" person can be arrested and held in jail until a court date which could get postponed repeatedly.
There are plenty of cracks people can fall (or be pushed) into.
We (America) have lots of folks that accept plea agreements because we put pre-trial folks in jail and treat them like criminals, which can easily ruin lives even if you are found not guilty.
Of course, you might not be talking about the US system when you refer to a decent system, so maybe you are correct.
I'd note that all powers not granted in the US Constitution are denied and federal police forces are definitely NOT allowed by the US Constitution.
Once again, it's just the garbage logic that EVERYTHING can potentially affect more than one state, so they have the right to control everything via the interstate commerce clause.
> None of these virtues matter when it comes to climate change. We can demolish your house, take your children and throw you in ocean if we have to to fight global warming and local cooling.
For example a Massachusetts official was talking about how they will have to "break the will" of people who are heating their homes or driving cars. Whatever that means.
What were the next few sentences after that? Did someone previously mention breaking the will of bad emitters? Was he trying to say "there are no bad guys to break the will of"?
As a masshole that doesn't even register on my "paternalistic-authoritarianism-ometer". At least he's aware that the public won't like what he thinks needs to be done.
Sure a NH or ME politically appointed administrator would follow that acknowledgement up with something about being bound to serve the will of the public/electorate but acknowledging public opinion is a thing that needs to be considered probably puts him in the top half of Massachusetts political appointees.
yes-ish. No government is immune to corruption but certain forms of government narrow areas of operable corruption whereas others can expand it. It's always there but just harder to exploit.
That's exactly what happened to someone I know who refused to work for an analogue of a three letter agency in Poland. This was 10+ years ago though, so it doesn't say anything about the current state of affairs.
The reality is that when it really comes down to it, the institutions are fundamentally unethical. And this is no surprise because governments are essentially very official mafias.
Additionally, if you're not not assuming guilt then there is one thing you can assume: leverage.
He's got a lot to lose which the article makes painfully clear:
- time with family
- personal reputation
- fulfilling personal/religion goals
- ... and a lot more
Personally, I think it enlightening to consider the opposite scenario: what about those on the fringe with nothing to lose? The FBI has a life changing program for you! They'll give you a sense of purpose, a feeling like you're part of something, and all the support you need to ... become the star of the next foiled terrorist plot.
Exactly. And in this guy's case, he also has a wife who is not a US citizen, so they can additionally threaten him with messing with her immigration status.
Leverage takes many forms, and need not have anything to do with being guilty of a crime.
Often it is a guy who has little time , loved ones, and is both disconnected with the community and weak jurisprudentially IOW doesn’t know how to defend himself.
I understand that as a US citizen I have more freedoms than most people throughout history, but the idea that it's really free for everyone is a little idyllic. Obviously this is a hyperbolic example and is a tiny fraction of the populace, but you can't possibly talk about due process and reconcile that with Guantanamo Bay. There are many more examples to fill spaces in the spectrum, that's just meant to be a single point to prove it's not really equal for everyone.
I'm with you on all of that, but that's not what the person I'm replying to is saying. They're saying that the subject of the article might be a bad guy so he probably deserves what's happening to him.
NOT at all. I'm just willing to believe that some Russian, Chines, "Muslims" or [insert anything here] are willing to do harm to our system. I am EXTREMELY happy that ACLU took the case so the truth has a chance to come out
I believe they were trying to say: "No fly lists should be reserved for people who are in jail ... and therefore the no fly list should not exist (since the people who shouldn't fly can't fly because they're in jail)".
But their statement was open to misinterpretation, and it's possible that I might be the misinterpreter.
I'm not the person you're replying to but I read their comment as saying the No-Fly List shouldn't exist. As in, if someone is deserving of government restrictions on their movement then they should be in prison, otherwise they should be permitted to move freely.
No, I said /meant the No-Fly list should not exist, at least of US persons. If you are too dangerous to fly, you should be either in jail or mental hospital.
Definitely not the obvious interpretation. Parallel structure of “should ... ie should ...” strongly suggests that the poster meant people in jail should not exist
> I worry that government officials who claim to protect all Americans equally can violate our constitutional rights with impunity.
At this point, is there any doubt of this? At least, insofar as "constitutional rights" comprise reasonable interpretations of the Constitution wrt. individual rights, without the sort of tortured, unaccountable interpretations that lead to things like the "100 mile rule".
>Generally speaking ANYONE can violate someone's constitution rights. It's what happens (if anything) as a result that is important.
I disagree. "What happens as a result" is a process that takes... 8 to 10 years before it reaches the supreme court.
For all practical purposes it's the degree by which those representing the government hold themselves to the laws of their country that matters.
The fact that in 8 years the injustice will be corrected for one or two people that invest an extraordinary amount of time and suffering to make that happen doesn't mean much.
This article in itself is also in the best interest of the FBI. "You've been warned. Decline our offer and the same will happen to you." And it wouldn't surprise me if that was an expected benefit when they engaged knowingly in this illegal activity.
Government agencies holding themselves to the law is what is important. And that's not what happened in this case. That means my constitutional rights are theoretical, as is my freedom to be left alone from government interference. I won't engage in a 8 year struggle for justice if they knock on the door trying to coerce me. I'll just fuck off to another country instead, where they won't do that. Way easier and a better use of my time.
This sounds deep, but these comments don't actually mean anything.
We live in a practical world where "rights" are implemented with enforcement and mass acceptance. Sometimes it doesn't work perfectly. We're doing our best.
Calling rights "theoretical" or whatever may be technically true, but it doesn't really matter in the real world. You're not coming across any kind of deep revelation by saying it.
>You're not coming across any kind of deep revelation by saying it.
That's subjective. From your perspective it might be obvious. Doesn't mean the same is true for everyone. It's solipsistic to assume otherwise.
>We're doing our best.
Not really. I'd say most people are barely putting in any effort in general and even more so in this case specifically. Maybe you and I are trying our best, but "we" the people aren't trying our best at all.
There are no mass protests, voting participation is low, I don't really see any large scale civil disobedience going on. The message is clearly "it's alright, they're Arabs." Can't really expect anything else with American exceptionalism and individualism.
Just a technical issue, right? Nothing going on there.
Second highest score and comment count and it's barely on the first page. There are over 10 submissions that have the same age and a much lower score and comment count that are all near the top of the page.
I just refreshed the page and it's gone from the first page. 900+ votes, 350+ comments. Just gone.
Another empty statement, I assume. Man, I keep saying nothing today.
In what way was the discussion here "heated"? How do you measure it? It quickly becomes subjective, doesn't it? If you know what constitute heated, it's not hard to make it heated as a third party, I'd say. Or if you have access to the back end, you just make it heated and claim it is. It's all concealed after all.
Why even demote a heated discussion? What good does that do? "Ah people disagree, quick, let's remove it." Lots of room for play. Maybe you are right. Maybe I am.
>Be careful about jumping to some kind of conspiracy theory for explanations. It's not healthy.
You don't have to worry about my paranoia, I'm well aware of how it functions, why it does what it does and how to prevent it from going wrong. I'm comfortable with that. The opposite is just as true, by the way.
You on the other hand are claiming to know what is or isn't worth knowing for others, you have no problem calling the careful thoughts of others "conspiracy theories" and try to warn people about health issues, without any inquiry or verification if that applies or not. And when you're corrected or disagreed with you just decide to ignore it and go after another thing you think is wrong with someone else.
What is it you want? Growth of others? Or growth of yourself? Or both? Because from where I'm standing you're trying to give to me what I already have, but you don't take for yourself. I know what my self deception looks like. Do you in which ways you self deceive? Because from where I'm viewing it, you're oblivious to it.
And I wouldn't even have bothered bringing that up if you actually gave me something I could use. I doubt my observations, it's what allows me to see the world in all its shades of grey and see the wiggle room in the details. You only seem to be dealing in certainty and absolutes.
It keeps the world simple, that it does. And accurate enough for you to use with minimal anxiety and I'm sure it paid off for you, again and again confirming you are right. But that doesn't mean it reflects our complex reality any closer than my approach. You are simply more biased.
>The biggest mistake people make with this mental model is to assume it reasonable to transpose a philosophico-scientific principle to messy day-to-day challenges. It may also be used as a way to gloss over complex but crucial components in an argument, thus falling prey to confirmation bias—our natural tendency to interpret information in a way that affirms our prior hypotheses.
Anyway, take it or leave it. I just saw what you were doing and wanted to make you aware. It's up to you to accept that or not. As you learn more and more, you're going to hit the limitations of your linear approach more and more (like happened here). The only way forward is to switch paradigm.
thelean12, not to be snarky, but will you come to my aid if I have trouble with the govt, and I'm on the right side of the law? Who compensates me for the time/expenses spent?
And while I'm at it - how old are you, and what do you do for a living? Life's experiences matter.
(hint - if you run at the very least a small business, and have to deal with taxes and regulation, I'll see your comments in a different light)
It’s disingenuous and unproductive to frame discussions of “rights” in the legal/moral sense this way. A belief that individuals should be entitled to some “right” doesn’t imply a lack of understanding of the fact that an individual can be deprived of the same by force, and that this happens on a daily basis for millions of people all over the world.
It's kinda BS that cops and agents are required to know the law. It wouldn't be so much BS if you were compensated and had job security in the event that the state lied or was wrong like in germany.
> “Unwitting silent parole” allows the F.B.I. to issue foreign nationals a document that looks to them like a visa but in fact grants them permission to enter the country only for the Bureau’s purposes.
So anyone entering the United States could actually be walking into a trap. Good to know.
That's super easy to say. Personally, I know I'd be scared shitless if I ended up in a room, under false pretenses, with the door closed, and government agents questioning if I'm an enemy of the state. I doubt I'd have the presence of mind to just 'walk away' from the FBI.
I'd be scared too, still, I'd say I need to consult a lawyer and have one present, otherwise I'm not saying anything or even listening to them...
If you are in such a situation you are already in trouble due to power imbalance. In other places where you can't get a lawyer / have friends high up you might as well play along...
I suggest you avoid blaming the victim. This person though they lived in the freedom country and got East Germany, they were taken by surprise. Moreover an Arabic person asking for a lawyer is always a complicated proposition.
Giving advice that people may want to know/follow is not victim blaming. It is trying to be helpful to people that come after, by providing advice that may help avoid this type of event. Saying "this person would have been safer had they acted in this way" does not automatically mean "this person did something they should have known not to".
I didn't read it as blaming Ahmad, rather a reminder that you should have a lawyer present when dealing with law enforcement if possible, because it always comes with the risk of very grave consequences regardless of your innocence.
I'm neither in the US nor Arabic, but your second sentence sounds very problematic. How does this manifest? A person would say that they would like to speak to a lawyer, and then get ignored? Harassed until they relent?
A little bit off topic, but how does that work in practice? How do I find a lawyer instantly? Do Americans generally have a lawyer contact just in case?
I’d like to know this, too! You always hear that phrase: “call your lawyer!” I don’t have a lawyer. I hardly even know any lawyers. I think one of my friend’s wife is a family law attorney but who knows? Chances are, if I’m ever in a situation where I need a lawyer, the Yellow Pages won’t be handy. So how does this even work?
Any paperwork professional (eg accountant, realtor, other type of attorney) will be happy to refer you to an appropriate attorney because they'll make a referral fee off of it. Whether that attorney is any good is another question. However, generally all attorneys are decent at supplying impersonal "default no" answers, which is most of what you really need at first.
The bigger issue is that you'll then be paying at least $300/hour for their services. So now you're burning money to have this conversation just so the FBI can fantasize about being heroes.
Don't talk to the police without an attorney is good baseline advice, but also misses the mark in many ways. Any way you look at it, getting into government crosshairs (whether it's merely civil questioning or a literal gunsight while being used for target practice) is a perverse reverse lottery that survives because of regressive politics and the just world fallacy. And this won't change until there is reform that fully compensates suspects/witnesses/etc for their time, expenses, and other damages incurred as a result of erroneous law enforcement.
FWIW as much as I hate the term, having a relationship with an attorney that you could call for urgent representation is a form of privilege.
Not really. Most people wouldn't typically have a criminal defense lawyer in their phone unless they were accused of something in the past.
Invoking your right to an attorney basically just means the law enforcement officers have to stop interrogating you until you've either found a private lawyer, or been assigned a public defender.
hahah, a lawyer of which bar (today was federal) and specialized in which area of law again?
"call a layer" doesn't just suppose you have their phone number, but that you have the on a retainer, because without being arrested, there is no emergency representation procedure for you.
edit I'm laughing at the impracticality of it all, but it's unhelpful, here is the deal : if really you think it's lawyer time, call a random lawyer of your family or business, anybody with a bar exam, and they will refer you to a co-worker of their best guess your case is about. And also, if you call right there in front of the police, you have forfeited your client-attorney privilege because you purposefully placed your call in front of a third party (crap, I went cynical again).
You don’t. You tell them you won’t be talking to them without a lawyer, and they have to drop it until you find one. They can’t demand that you magically produce a lawyer on the spot.
Unfortunately people have to get an important idea in their head. The police are not there to help you for the most part.
In the UK we call the Police the filth for good reason. Law enforcement's job is to incriminate you. They are not there to "protect and serve" that is just marketing. That isn't true of every police officer and isn't true of every police force, but it is safest to assume that it is the truth.
If law enforcement are "wanting to chat" that means they are trying to push something on you. You don't tell them anything, you ask for legal representation and the answer to every question should be "no comment". Anything you tell them will be used against you in the court room.
It shouldn't be that way. But unfortunately that is the truth.
> an Arabic person asking for a lawyer is always a complicated proposition.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees adequate representation. Being accused of a crime by the FBI would qualify as a situation where that representation could be reasonably required if requested by the accused. Arab or not, citizen or not.
You can still make mistakes while not being to blame. Pointing out those mistakes doesn't change the fact that they're the victim, but it might help them or someone else later.
If I leave my car unlocked with an iphone on the dashboard and it gets stolen, I made a mistake, but I'm not to blame.
> Why? just say you want to call a lawyer and have him present.
Ok let’s go down this route. You say that and then they hand you a phone. Now what? You’re in an empty room, no internet access, no Yellow Pages nearby. What numbers do you press on the phone? I don’t even know a lawyer, let alone have one’s number memorized. That would really be a “they called your bluff” moment.
They can’t force you to produce a lawyer on the spot, and they can’t force you to call one in front of them. Your conversations with lawyers are secret and the police aren’t allowed to know anything about what you talk about. They have to reschedule the interview.
What if you are poor? You won’t be provided with a lawyer, since they aren’t accusing him of a crime. Most people can’t afford to hire a lawyer for something like this.
By saying that you want a lawyer, it makes the results of interrogations without a lawyer very hard to use in court. If you're dealing with investigators that know the law and want a conviction, they'll hold off on questions until a lawyer is present. If you can't get a lawyer to be present, then that's a potential impasse.
Yeah, but if you notice, they fucked up this guys life without ever even bringing him to court. They aren’t dealing with an investigation where they are going to bring charges against this guy... they don’t think he is guilty of anything.
They are trying to brow beat him into being an informant. Their threat is the no fly list, which they were able to use without needing to go to court.
Right, which is why I am confused why people are focusing on his not having a lawyer present during questioning. That wasn’t the issue... he wasn’t tricked into incriminating himself during questioning. A lawyer could not have helped him in this situation.
So why are people saying he should have asked for a lawyer? Sure, I guess, but that doesn’t help this situation at all. Why not suggest he should also eat a healthy breakfast before going to the FBI office? Yes, that is good advice in general, but doesn’t really matter for this situation.
I can't speak for other people, but I was giving a general answer to your "What if you are poor?" question. For most people who are interrogated, even if they can't afford a lawyer, it is in their best interest to request one because good investigators won't risk compromising their case to get testimony they can't use.
Then you decline to answer any questions without the advice of counsel. They can choose to arrest you or let you go, but they can't compel you to answer their questions without advice of counsel if you invoke that request.
Did you read what happened here? He refused to cooperate, and they put him on the no fly list. They didn’t charge him with any crimes, so they don’t have to worry about any testimony being inadmissible.
You are right, they can’t arrest him... which they didn’t try to do. They did something way worse, which was to put him on the no fly list and strand him out of country.
Avoiding being arrested was not the problem.
This isn’t an investigator trying to get information to bring to court, this is the FBI trying to coerce the guy into being an informant. They don’t care about his actual testimony at this point.
He did not consult with anyone even after threats...
Instead he sent his family to lebannon and flew there himself.
Would have been cheaper just to lawyer up...
Lawyer should be able to help at least track down which agents did this, call bureau to confirm investigation and complain if things are sketchy, help avoid the no fly list or help get you off it... advice...
The person in the article did not know they were going to be questioned by the FBI - they were told they had a "permit issue" at City Hall and were ambushed by the FBI there.
At some point, it became clear that the FBI was questioning them, right? That's the point where you decline to answer without consulting counsel. You don't have to bring a lawyer with you on every errand just in case it's a trap.
While I agree with the sentiment that no one can be prepared for an FBI ambush every day of their lives. This is a teachable moment.
Law enforcement often use tactics like this to convince citizens to voluntarily testify against themselves. It's not fair as the tactic preys on our natural desire to help. But it's important to train ourselves into the mindset that if you are talking with uniformed law enforcement, then you are being interviewed by them.
To whit, if you are being interviewed by law enforcement, your best option is to never answer any of their questions and repeatedly ask to leave. If you are not able to leave then you switch to repeatedly asking for your lawyer.
This echoes all of the times I've been taught how to "deal" with corrupt cops in third world countries (e.g. when to bribe & how much, how to not look "rich" and attract a shakedown, etc.).
This isn't something you ought to have to learn in a free and just society, just as you shouldn't have to know the going rate for a police officer in your town.
There is a lot of talk about the disparity of justice in America and how we are not actually so free after all. I believe most of this feels good to say because we know its true, but after we leave the seminar we go back to a standard civilian mindset.
What I mean is that we walk and talk out in the world like America is just and the police will be fair with you; it is only when we sit down and examine the system that we realize intellectually that this is not the case. But this epiphany fails to carry down to the reptile brain once we stand up again.
Changing that "walking around" mindset is the first step of self-defense training. It is necessary when dealing with American law-enforcement.
Not so long ago, I got detained by TSA because I lost the address of my US destination. Note that I had previously been employed in the US and had no legal issues standing. That's also the day I vowed to never set foot on US soil again. Reading some comments here is a good reminder as to why.
As a US citizen, my encounters with the TSA and other agencies have also caused me a great deal of pause to say the least. For example, I have been living on a tourist visa in Mexico, and after being treated like a presumed drug mule each time I crossed to pick up mail, I now avoid crossing the border unless it is 100% required. The last time I tried to fly somewhere I was accosted by an agent and interrogated, forced to give my employer's number. I am pretty sure that cost me that contract. I think it was because I was tired and started to get angry about three questions in.
My experience with the IRS has been worse. They behaved the way I assume a loan shark would.
Ahmed Chebli's biggest error seems to have been to agree to meet FBI without having his lawyer present. CAIR (https://www.cair.com/know_your_rights/your-rights-with-law-e...) has long been warning people in the Muslim community to never talk to FBI without legal representation and in fact gives free representation in such cases.
Ahmed's case is relatively mild. There have been numerous instances of people in the Muslim community entrapped by the FBI into committing "crimes", and subsequently sentenced to long prison terms, where the perpetrator was often a person of low intelligence, just to show that the war on terror was producing results.
Similar situation happened to me back in the 80's when I was just a nerdy kid with a Commodore 64. I used to meet up weekly with a handful of other C64 nerds that all came together through a popular, local BBS. (I think one of the guys ran the BBS.) One day, riding home on my bicycle, a car stopped me, two guys got out and told me they were with the FBI, then started asking questions about the group. I was told to always cooperate with authority, and they were very friendly (they even complimented my cool Mongoose BMX bike!), so I just went along. They asked a lot of questions about others in the group, and sometimes about others' parents, which was weird - I didn't even know what my own parents did for a living back then! LOL
Anyway, next week, same thing. Same car, same spot around the corner from my house, same guys, same questions about people in the group, and the same responses from me. This went on for a few weeks when I finally told my mom about it. Next week: no car, no FBI guys, no questions. I figured they got what they wanted or they finally realized I didn't know my ass from my elbow.
Many years later, I talked to my mother about it. I didn't know it back then, but she was PISSED. She told me she called about a dozen FBI offices and screamed at each person she talked to. She said they were generally dismissive until she informed them that her college friend was a top reporter for the local newspaper (totally false, my mom didn't even go to college).
Also many years later, I talked to another guy from the group and discovered the exact same thing happened to him. Same FBI, same around-the-corner from his house, same questions, and same situation with his mom getting PO'ed when she found out (we all grew up in single-parent homes). The FBI guys even complimented him on his BMX bike, too, which is total BS because mine was way better. His was some lame knock-off from Sears or something. Mine was a Mongoose, man!!!
This all happened after the movie 'War Games' hit theaters and became sort of popular. The rumor has been that people were so spooked by the movie that thousands of FBI agents were dispatched across the country to gather intel, and to determine if it was really possible that some pimple-faced kid could start a nuclear war with a home computer and a 300-baud modem.
So yeah, if you get approached by the FBI, don't talk to them. Just have your mom go scream at them.
There certainly should be a 'reason', legal redress, and accountability for folks putting someone on such a list.
It would also clear up what even happened here. Did someone do this maliciously due to his lack of cooperation, or did they have an actual reason and when he chose not to cooperate the FBI chose a different path? If they actually thought he was an agent for some group, that would explain it / at least that could be refuted / proven outside some random office with folks whose incentive is something other than sorting out a no fly list... it certainly shouldn't begin and end under the circumstances described.
The FBI has a long-standing pattern of abusive and harassing behavior.
They harass potential employers of innocent people out on bail awaiting trial.
They even sent MLK Jr anonymous letters telling him to kill himself.
Of course, you can't sue them over any of this.
Policing in the USA is a national shame, riddled with illegal behavior from the local level all the way up to the top, with few or no repercussions for the perpetrators.
That abusive and sometimes fatal behavior that you describe as illegal may be prohibited by law, but systemic efforts to protect it regardless demonstrate that it is an intended consequence of modern American policing. We live in a police state.
The answer to any request for any conversation with any Fed of any type, flavor, or variety in any venue is "not without my lawyer," and ideally one with experience in handling FBI interviews. The risks are like dancing drunk in traffic with a blindfold on. It is just not sensible to talk to Feds regardless of whether or not you did anything illegal unless you are forced to.
Is it generally recommended to find a lawyer and have their contact on your phone? I have never been detained so I don’t understand the actual process. If I say I will not speak without a lawyer - can I go online and find one? Is my only option to request a free lawyer provided by the state?
You do not need to have retained a lawyer to say that. You haver a right to remain silent means you have the right to remain silent and not say anything. If you don't have one and still want one, you can get a public defender. It has to be a federal public defender in your district if you are hiring one because federal law enforcement does not handle state law.
The nature of the KGB-style interviews given by federal investigators is that they can be hours long over multiple sessions and you are not allowed by statute to record them. A white shoe caliber law firm will have attorneys record everything that is said manually in notes and keep the client on track to avoid accidental self incrimination. Everyone including super genius multi millionaires and saints who have never so much as received a parking ticket will incriminate themselves in the course of FBI interviews without extreme care being taken to avoid it due to the manipulative nature of the process. When normal people without lawyers self incriminate in the course of these interrogations, the feds then use this as leverage to get cooperation from the interrogation target.
Hence why one should never volunteer to talk to them about anything for any reason including if you are trying to help them to track down your mother's killer (probably especially if they're on that case, because you'll be target #1 for railroading).
I know firsthand the FBI will try to get your guard down so that they can interrogate you by claiming they need your help with an investigation. Most people will want to be helpful.
If the FBI ever asks you for help, immediately call a lawyer. It’s worth the retainer to find out who and what they’re really after and to avoid any entrapment.
If the FBI is being nice to you, it’s probably you they’re after. They probably never wanted to hire the author as an informant. They probably suspected he was a terrorist and wanted to interrogate him without a lawyer present. It sounds like their plan worked.
Be smart. Call a lawyer. Let them talk to the FBI for you.
You don't have to watch much TV (series, streamed) to imagine what is possible these days.
Frankly, if you cross the wrong connected person, you are effectively subjected to rules outside the normal law. It's very wrong, but it's certainly plausible and obviously real for some people.
Anyone familiar with USG CI procedures will only be surprised by how nice only using the No-Fly List is. The FBI tends to be a bit more professional than other agencies though. God have mercy on your soul if the ATF ever becomes interested in you.
>Although the FBI agents told me I could leave whenever I wanted, when the door closed and they started questioning me, it certainly didn’t feel that way.
I know easy to say in hindsight and safely behind keyboard , but you need to call them on that at the very first instance. Before any other words have left their mouth.
You realistically may NOT be "free to leave"; and if they demonstrate that by physically barring you from the door you need to repeatedly ask them if you are free to leave or being detained. Make sure the "lie" is obvious.
At that point, it is even more of a cue to shut your damn mouth.
And which is enforced well across the boundaries of the United States. For instance, European banks have to honor the US list of AML/CFT targets to ensure they have access to certain banking systems, which pretty much amounts to a license to operate.
Obama has killed more muslims (millions in countries ranging from Yemen to Libya to South Sudan to Syria to.....) than anyone else in the 21st century.
As for the “concern” of Uighurs, it is a funny coincidence that it is from the same crowd who openly advocated genocide in countries ranging from Iraq to (insert country) etc... These are well worth a read at least and you can then make up your mind:
While abhorrent, I have a sneaking suspicion this isn't as simple as the title and affidavit suggests. The FBI doesn't just randomly pick people to be informants. Their process is not the TV montage most people think of but a bureaucratic slog with a massive paper trail. If anything, it's likely to be some Kafkaesque mess instead of a spiteful plot to ruin this man's life, which is more concerning in some ways.
I find it surprising^, that our "democratic norms" don't have much to say about dealing with certain things: how to prosecute investigators, investigate high officials and other such tricky tasks.
Troubling enough that the ACLU & a lawsuit to remove this person from a no fly list seems insufficient. That doesn't necessarily do much to make sure that presumption of innocence remains functional.
People get tortured and executed for not sharing information, or actually not having any information in countries in the middle east. They wouldn’t hesitate erasing a family all together from the planet if they don’t share information.
And here is FBI, pressuring to get information.
Of course, western democracy is supposed to be better. It is better though.
A year-ish ago I said something stupid/irresponsible on the internet about how to (theoretically!!) easily go about hacking into police depts in America. (Obviously won't go into details, but the vulns are not sophisticated and still exist). Someone ended up calling the police because they thought I was a bad "hacker" guy, and because my opsec was bad, the subpeona revealed info that was linked to me personally. Well, the police mustve forwarded what they subpeonaed to the FBI or some other federal LEA because my phone and also my home network became the target of some not-so-subtle hacking attempts for a few months after that. Like, smishing and quantum insert on my browser. Not sure if it was so noisy in order to harass or maybe they just didn't care, or maybe they're amatuers. I guess law enforcement really dislikes when you point out how to pwn them. Haven't flown since. Been wondering what will happen when I do. You can make whatever you want of this story.
One important question that's missing from the article is: "Why do the FBI think that the author would be a valuable informant?". Other people have commented in this thread with their own experiences of having been threatened and coerced by federal agencies. These people for the most part provided concrete reasons why they would be targeted for such a job, mostly being professionals involved in computer security research, or having valuable contacts who are. Does the FBI have reason to believe that this individual has proximity to individuals who are at risk of committing illegal acts? Playing devils advocate, there's an awful lot that the article wants us to take at face value.
The amount of people shit talking the US government and the FBI while simultaneously speaking gloriously about the economic engine that powers it is comical at best, hypocritical at worst.
Why is this post so far down the front page (no. 16 at the time of writing)? There are older posts with way less points in the top 10, is there some weird HN algo ranking the posts?
I hate to comment on these types of things, but I noticed the same.
It's on the 2nd page right now with almost 1k upvotes within 5 hours. Meanwhile there are articles on the front page that are 17 hours old with half the upvotes.
It definitely seems like it's being suppressed, which is understandable for most political discussion. But as evidenced in the comments, this clearly affects a large minority of the tech industry.
This was his fatal mistake. It doesn’t matter why law enforcement wants to talk to you. It’s never for a good thing, and it is never in your interest to talk to them. It seems like common knowledge that you should never talk to the police, however it is so rare in practice that this video bears repeating:
In October last year, attorneys for American Muslims who were placed or kept on the No-Fly List in retaliation for refusing to spy on their communities argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to uphold a ruling that the men may sue the FBI agents for interfering with their freedom to practice their religion. The men initially sued to be removed from the List. After years of being prevented from flying, and just days before the first major hearing in the case, the men each received a letter informing them they were no longer on the List. A judge then dismissed the remaining portion of their lawsuit, which sought damages for the emotional and financial harm the men had suffered. Still, a federal appeals court reinstated the case. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
This is why law enforcement needs extensive citizen oversight, and those that are found to abuse the power society has trusted them with must face justice.
"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;"
Actually most states don't have "Stop & ID" laws, but some do. In states without "Stop & ID" laws, you only have to ID yourself when suspected of committing a crime, or suspected that you're about to commit a crime. Not sure how it works outside of the USA.
In France we explain to the children that when there is a problem, they should go to a policeman. Or immediatly enter the nearest shop, go directly to the cashier and explain they are lost.
Not that it worked with mine. I did twice the test when my kids were 6 or 8 and instead of doing what they were happily recitating in the evening, they started to cry their lungs out.
Huh? I'm confused about what the "test" was. (Also, the poster above wasn't saying never ask the police for help, rather you shouldn't answer them if they are questioning you without your lawyer.)
In my country (South America) people (young people) is aware that police couldn't force to do a lot of things, like stop you, etc. However, due to personal and shared experiences, it is really hard to say no to policemen if they stopped you during the night and there is no one around... cases of polices abusing their power are daily so sometimes the best is to cooperate with them...
You are required to have a copy of your driver's license, vehicle registration, and insurance information in your car while driving on public roads in the United States.
I believe you can refuse to present these, but this will result in charges.
You are not required to submit to a drunk driving check (we call them field sobriety checks). A cop will tell you something along the lines of:
"If you don't do X, Y, and Z to prove to me you're not over the legal limit (of blood alcohol), then you aren't going home tonight."
This scares people into submitting to the test and in many cases they are then charged with drunk driving. However, you can refuse to submit to the test. Your license is immediately suspended and the cops will then begin the process of securing a warrant for a test under suspicion of drunk driving. Forcing them to do this however can take long enough that you become under the legal limit by the time their search is conducted thus avoiding a charge of drunk driving.
The reason or this stems from our bill of rights protecting us from the state compelling us to testify against ourselves. This includes providing bodily fluids like breath and blood as well as undergoing potentially incriminating tests like a field sobriety check.
Two years ago I was driving on vacation in the US with my family (we are French). I was in Paso Robles and wanted to turn left, where my GPS told me to. I took one turn-leftèonly lane too early (the next left was 50 m further down the road).
I had a look around, no cars at all, so I proceeded straight on to the next lane (the French way). I turned in the correct left and I suddenly heard "wow wow wow" and saw flashing blue lights. Shit.
A young policeman approached, had a look inside and started to talk to me rather fast and with a complicated accent. I asked him to please slow down.
He then realized that we are tourists, with a GPS, with two kids in the back - and he said "you are free to go, just be careful" and walked away.
So speaking to the police sometimes makes sense.
---
Another case was in France when, on a Sunday afternoon im my small city, on a deserted road, I stopped because an older person decided to cross the street when it was red for them. He .... was .... veeeeee...eeery ... slooooow sowhenhewasdoneIimmediatelystarted.
"wow wow wow", a police car was behind me. They asked me if I knew why they stopped me. To what I said that I do not know, but for sure this is not for speeding or for driving over that guy who crossed the street on his red.
They said that they were behind me, saw me stop on my green light, wait for the light to change to red and then start. They wanted to make sure I was not high or something.
Everyone was smiling, we had a chat and they we all left.
Speaking to the police again makes sense.
---
Ah, one more. I am driving to the Charles De Gaulle Paris airport, i got completely lost, it wasbefore a phone was everything but a phone.
It was the middle of the night, I saw a police car stopped next to a roundabout, so I walked to them and knocked on the window. It is a good thing they had a roof because they jumped so high that they could have left the car otherwise.
Your experience as an international tourist in a part of the US where the economy depends on tourism, and your experience in France, may differ from the kind of experience that that lawyer was advising people not to get themselves into. US citizens (especially non-white ones) often have nasty experiences with the police. For example, the police in my own city are infamous for electrocuting people in order to extract false confessions.
I used to be blase about the idea of talking to the police, but have had some experiences which make me more wary.
That said, as a foreigner, especially things like traffic encounters, it usually pays to exaggerate your foreign-ness - they usually can't be bothered with extra paper work.
I'm happy for you that your interactions with police seem to have been positive. I can only speak with regard to police in the U.S., but I suspect that if your skin was a different color you may have a had a different experience during your U.S. traffic stop.
That video is incredibly American-centric, let's swap some international stories. Mostly for fun :) I know it's anecdata, but I still think that counter examples prove a point.
I once got incredibly lost in Thailand. I was on a long haul bus, without realizing it and I missed my stop. The next stop was 100km away and I realized this after 40km after my own stop.
I asked the bus driver to immediately drop me off on the highway at around 21:00. The sun had already set, the night was pitch black and the only thing lit was the big highway the bus drove on. I followed the highway.
After 30 min. I saw a family of 4 outside. I went to them and said in my best "hints game face" that I was lost and needed to go to a certain place. They were kind enough to listen to me, not understand me one bit and it took us 30 min. to figure out that I was lost. They asked me to step on a moped.
I got on, was driven to the police station, was asked to wait, because they were all having dinner. One hour later, they came out, only spoke Thai (so using hands, feet, Google Translate) and they understood where I needed to go. They pulled up a car, asked me to go inside and they drove me to the location! Only up until this point did I begin to understand how lost I was. I was way in over my head and had no idea.
I have never ever thanked any person as much as I did during that night. The police officers, the family, the random people getting in on my conversations trying to help out. Not only that, the conversations were a lot of fun! They were really playful and warm.
I just wanted to put it out there that there are also good encounters with the police. I've had encounters as well that left a bad taste in my mouth (Dutch police -- also good encounters with them, mostly good), but it simply depends on the situation.
I don't think the above video is suggesting that you never interact with police, or saying ACAB. Rather, if you're being questioned by the police you should always refuse to answer without your lawyer present.
Funny thing, by pure happenstance, I watched this video last night, and others have noted, I try to watch it at least once a year.
As entertaining (and informative) as the professor is, and he really is, I find the follow on talk from the detective with 25 years of experience even more compelling.
He comes across as a really nice guy, someone you could trust, even more than Duane.
And he's sent thousands of people to prison.
Most likely the majority of those people did commit some crime, and perhaps did deserve their convictions. That's not the point.
There's a non-zero chance that a completely innocent person's contact with law enforcement can end up with a false conviction. If you role a 1 on a d20 and fail your 'save vs. law enforcement', even if you're entirely innocent, everybody is best served if you don't talk to them without legal representation.
> Although the FBI agents told me I could leave whenever I wanted
In that kind of situation, just leave right then and there. You can't be extorted if they don't get make their threats. If they don't let you leave, get your lawyer and shut up.
Don't talk to thugs and certainly don't get involved with thugs, badge or not.
I'm not sure if the FBI has special liberty but I can't help but think of a YouTube video [1] I saw from a lawyer which basically said "never talk to the police"
The dark irony is that white supremacists are allowed to fly, they are just followed and watched.
The FBI is a joke. They appear to be both incompetent (911, Capitol insurrection, Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation) and at the same time heavy-handed (Waco, "war on terror, Ruby Ridge). It is a brutal mix.
I agree with the premise of the article but ACLU might be shooting themselves in the foot asking for money with a full page popup before letting me see the thing.
I almost didn't read it as a result. Just sayin'.
(In b4 "turn off javascript" jamokes. YES, I know. I get it.)
All the legal folks in my family have suggested to me that when ever law enforcement wants to talk, the response should be "Sure, here is the number of my lawyer, why don't you set up a time that is convenient for all three of us."
I have heard people suggest that no one on the no-fly list should be able to purchase a weapon. This article points out the problem with using the no-fly list for that purpose.
(Note: IMO the way no-fly list is managed is unconstitutional)
Loosely related: are there any free college classes on US Law? Or which books should I buy? I feel like having basic knowledge about common law processes is just as essential as cooking, home improvement, etc.
Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About American Law is pretty good to get a general idea.
You can decide which law books you want to read from civil procedure to business law depending on your needs at a later stage but mentioned book is a great start.
This is why five eyes countries try to push for ending end to end encryption and other secure forms of communications. That's why services like Facebook continue to operate and so on. This way everyone can be an informant whether they like it or not, just by interacting with other people on the network. Bots will analyse whether someone you innocently talked to said something that bots found similar to the manner an enemy would sound like. From there they can automate invitations for interrogation or in more distant future, order a special mix of "vaccine" that will make such person infertile, or just simply take them out of the picture.
Today you may think that we have good leaders that would never do something like this, but remember not so long ago supposedly civilised country was shipping people on trains straight into ovens.
If we create means, then at some point someone will misuse them.
If youtube has taught me anything:
1) Do not talk to the police without a lawyer.
2) Do not talk to the police without a lawyer.
3) Do not talk to the police without a lawyer.
He may be accomplice or a strong suspect, the agents may be patriots or not. It doesn't matter. The FBI doesn't matter, this guy's words could also be fake and very likely doesn't reflect the full extend of the backstory.
However, the line between America, and what America stands for is very thin.
Cross that line one or twice, the nation becomes what countless young men died for fighting against.
This all feels very Soviet. I’m reading a book Mosaic of My Life by Larisa Zalesova about the life of a young girl during Soviet times. One of the chapters in the book almost reads exactly like this account. The No Fly List is equivalent to open air imprisonment, enforced extra-judically.
And don’t think if you’re not an Arab, 100% cold blooded white American then you’re safe. How many Trump loyalists were put on no-fly lists without any due course of law, any trial, or any recourse after Jan 6?
At some point in the late eighties my father became disillusioned in communism (basically, seeing people fleeing east germany instead of the other way round). Then he read quite a lot on the subject, and read Orwell and everything. He never became a full-fledged pro-capitalist, but he was very skeptical of socialism. I remember stories during my childhood about how bad and un-free the USSR was, since policemen could "ask your papers" on the street, and the government could act arbitrarily against its own citizens. Thus I grew up hearing a lot of such horrifying stories. Admittedly, I didn't pay too much attention to these stories, but none of them seemed at the time so horrifying as the stuff that I read today about the U.S.A.
This quite literally happens with the FBI on a regular basis. Most recently, the plot to capture in Michigan governor was in fact founded, organized, and mainly staffed by federal law enforcement.
They goaded a handful of 'regular' folks into signing onto their honeypot and 'busted' them for terrorism.
FBI comes out looking like heros; keeping them relevant and well funded during a time when law enforcement popularity is waning rapidly.
An ethnically Muslim friend of mine always is 'randomly' searched when they are traveling through an airport.
A white american-born Muslim friend of mine, traveling to and from the middle-east semi-randomly for their job, has never had a single problem. They travel with a lot of expensive camera equipment, and makes sure its taken care of; that is, they generally make a huge pain in the arse of themselves, because otherwise, their shit gets broke. They learned this by experience. This person has never had anyone look at them askew in an airport.
I donate regularly to the ACLU, and you should too.
While awful this is some kind of progress. Wasn't too long ago the FBI would just murder your family if you refused to be an informant for them[1].
"Although the FBI agents told me I could leave whenever I wanted, when the door closed and they started questioning me, it certainly didn’t feel that way."
You should just walk out at this point. Don't talk to them unless you have to and then not without your lawyer present. I think a lot of the harm comes from the fact they think they're close to bullying their victim into submission so they keep escalating their abuse. If they knew from the start it wouldn't work they might not go so far.
I'm not sure what your experience with law enforcement is before, but even if you and I know very well you can "leave at any point" and bunch of other facts, actually doing so when faced with someone like that in real life is really, really, really hard.
You don't want to give them the impression that you have anything to hide, so you try to cooperate even if you don't really want to, and just walking away feels like it would escalate the situation, even if you realize afterwards it wouldn't.
I agree it's counterintuitive to walk out without talking to them. In a normal interaction that would look suspicious and rude. That's why it's good to think about what you would and should do in rare and fraught situations before you encounter them so that you aren't just reacting on intuition or on autopilot if you do.
I think the advice of walk out and don't talk to law enforcement unless you must and then not without your lawyer is good advice even if it may be hard or uncomfortable to execute.
Sure, I added a source. I'm referring to the famous incident at Ruby Ridge where the FBI tried to pressure Randy Weaver into being an informant. After he refused they started an escalating cycle of violence culminating in federal agents murdering his unarmed wife and child.
They harrassed me at home twice, talked to my employer and made a huge stink trying to create pressure.
I didn't cave and they eventually went away, because I committed no crimes and they knew it.
As a security researcher I sometimes make contact with controversial people in order to get information, like a journalist might. They wanted those contacts. Too bad.