5 ms·

At the risk of not taking it seriously enough, does this woman sound a little overly paranoid to anyone else? They call and ask to speak with her, and suddenly

• Kinnard 10y ago
  I hope by now it's clear how hard it is to be "overly paranoid" about our government.
  • kordless 10y ago
    Being paranoid doesn't mean you should speculate wildly about intent. Maybe they also think she's an alien. Maybe they don't. Without more data, spinning around on it won't help and may possibly make the problem worse.
    • r3bl 10y ago
      Well, she is a core contributor to Tor, but I don't see any possible reason why the FBI could not say that they just wanted to ask her a couple of questions about Tor to her lawyer(s). I've been following her on Twitter for a couple of months now, and from me "getting to know her" from social media and her blog, I don't see a possible legal reason to ask her a few questions that could not be shared with her lawyer. After all, like she stated, her work is very transparent, so everything she's working on is available to the public.
  • joesmo 10y ago
    Yup. It's impossible to be overly paranoid about any government. Too bad the people who didn't realize this when it mattered are no longer with us because they're imprisoned, dead, or missing. Maybe growing up in the US where such occurrences are rare only because of the humongous population but still happen with regularity makes people soft or stupid or both. Seems to me like parents who fail to teach their children this are doing them a disservice.
• rudolf0 10y ago
  Yes, she sounds quite paranoid. More paranoid than is justifiable from the limited communication made by the FBI so far. That said, this seems pretty unacceptable. Regarding her attorney: >Five minutes later, Burnett called back and said, “I don’t believe you actually represent her.” Burnett stated additionally that a phone call from me might suffice, but that the FBI preferred to meet with me in person. After a pause he said, “But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.”
  • marcoperaza 10y ago
    What's wrong with that? The FBI is totally free to walk up to anyone and ask them questions. And yes, they're quite good at finding people since that's a big part of their job.
    • ocschwar 10y ago
      If they consistently decline to ask those questions to your lawyer, and drop the matter within hours of a foreign country giving you a long term resident worker visa, you're right to be concerned.
      • marcoperaza 10y ago
        Sure, but publishing an opinion piece blasting the FBI for things they did in your imagination is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with what the FBI actually did.
        • ocschwar 10y ago
          There is plenty wrong with hinting that they want to take you into their warm embrace without a lawyer present.
          • marcoperaza 10y ago
            That's called getting arrested, if that's what they're planning at all. You don't have the right to set the time, place, and company for your arrest. They'd want a shot at a 1-1 interview. Convincing crooks to spill the beans is a valid part of their tactics. Yes, you have the right to have a lawyer present; they have to stop interrogating you once you ask. You also have the right to not have a lawyer present and answer questions anyway. The FBI of course hopes that crooks are stupid enough to exercise that latter right.
• chatmasta 10y ago
  Her name is literally Isis, and she is a core developer of Tor. If those aren't enough buzzwords to get the FBI swarming around her house, I don't know what is. I don't blame her for being paranoid, but I don't understand why she refused to talk to them at all. From the post it seems like she was okay with a phone call, but they wanted to meet her in person. So perhaps she was scared of being detained. That makes sense I guess, but if they really wanted to detain her, it would have been easy to do at the airport.
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I don't blame her for being paranoid, but I don't understand why she refused to talk to them at all. One possible explanation: because "Don't Talk to the Police".
    • chatmasta 10y ago
      If she wants to find out what they want, then she's going to have to talk to them. Of course, she can terminate the conversation by invoking her miranda rights at any time.
      • eric_h 10y ago
        Her lawyer should be able to do that just as easily.
      • avar 10y ago
        No, if you want to find out what the police want from you, you direct them to talk to your lawyer, you don't talk to them yourself.
      • jessaustin 10y ago
        Can we all come live in your world? It sounds so much nicer than real life.
      • jonknee 10y ago
        Absolutely false, she can ask her attorney what they wanted. It's actually great to see someone following best practices even when it is not the easiest thing to do.
• loeg 10y ago
  I think maybe appropriately paranoid. If the FBI called me and wouldn't tell me what it was about, I'd be concerned too.
• rayiner 10y ago
  > Maybe just show up to meet them, with an attorney (of course!) and if they start asking anything serious the attorney tells you to shut up and you leave. Cooperation is for people who did something and want to create a reason for the government to go easy. The proper course of action here is to politely state that they can deliver a subpoena to your lawyer. > It sounds to me like the agents were doing their jobs in their normal, properly secretive if a bit ham-fisted way, and this person totally freaked out. Telling someone's lawyer that you'll interview their client without them by picking her up on the street is more than "ham-fisted."
• epoxyhockey 10y ago
  If the FBI comes knocking on your door, you have already been tagged, and likely thoroughly investigated for something bad. Or more simply put: There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. She has every right to be "paranoid."
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. Conducting a background investigation on someone else applying for a security clearance is arguably a "good" (or at least, not-bad) reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. (Also, criminal investigations in which you are not a target may also be not-bad, depending on the exact circumstances.)
    • zyxley 10y ago
      There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit and then refuse to tell your lawyer why they want to talk to you.
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        Not disagreeing with that, just that the more general comment I was responding to was an overgeneralization.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    • shepardrtc 10y ago
      Many years ago I had an FBI agent call me and ask if he could come and talk to me because he was doing a background check on someone who was going for Top Secret clearance. I said sure. He came to my work, asked a few questions, and then went on his way. Gave me his card just in case I remembered anything he might like to hear. Never heard from him again. Very polite, nice guy.
      • eric_h 10y ago
• vvanders 10y ago
  I'll have to dig up the source but anything you say to a federal officer(even if you believed it to be true at the time) that is false is a Felony. Small stuff that doesn't seem important can fall under this and then they have leverage against you.
  • yownie 10y ago
    basically if you lie you can be charged with "obstruction of justice" or "obstruction of a federal officer in executing their official duties"
    • vvanders 10y ago
      It's not a lie though, the distinction is subtle but important. Something like asking you what the closing stock price for GOOG was yesterday. If you said "I think it was 500" but say it was 505, boom insta-crime. There's been quite a few examples of the FBI then using the threat of prosecuting the above "crime" in order to get leverage so people will comply with things they may not have usually done.
      • wl 10y ago
        You should probably read 18 USC 1001 [1]. Your example doesn't work for several reasons. * The statement is about your belief, not the facts. If you actually believed that, it's not a false statement. * Even if the statement is a statement of fact and not belief (e.g. "The closing stock price for GOOG was 500 yesterday."), the statement has to be materially false. 500 vs 505? Close enough. * Even if the statement is materially false or fraudulent, (e.g. the stock price was really 50,000), the falsehood has to be given "knowingly and willfully." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
        • vvanders 10y ago
          Yeah you're right, hence my first note that I'd have to dig up the source :).
• woodman 10y ago
  > ...and this person totally freaked out. It sounds to me more like old fashioned FBI "bumper lock". This is when they attempt to provoke some sort of action on the part of a person under investigation. This very publicly backfired for them in the anthrax investigation, when one target killed himself under the stress and the other got super pissed off and met them head on with press conferences.
• blazespin 10y ago
  She contributes to Tor. She's like, an enemy of the FBI. Why wouldn't she paranoid?
  • r3bl 10y ago
    Well I contribute(d) to Tor (in small, almost meaningless ways like translating it and managing the translations), but I never did anything illegal. In fact, I've never even been to the U.S. Why should I be labeled as FBI's enemy if I never even entered the U.S. and when all I wanted to do is to give something give back to the world by allowing the people of my country to browse the web anonymously? It's not my fault if someone from any country in the world decides to use the project I helped with in an illegal way.
• yarrel 10y ago
  No.