5 ms·

This is a non-story. Nobody knows what FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not. It seems before FBI just wanted to ask questions, but since

This is a non-story. Nobody knows what FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not. It seems before FBI just wanted to ask questions, but since Isis didn't want to be asked any questions the FBI now went and got a subpeona. That's it.

x0x0 10y ago
If that were true, they would have had no problems communicating through her lawyer initially. The previously linked article discussed the FBI threatening to grab her off the streets and interrogate her without counsel: "If we happen to run into her on the street, we're gonna' be asking her some questions without you present." and "We would strongly prefer to meet her in person. We have teams in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Atlanta keeping an eye out for her" [1,2] [1] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tor-developer-isis-agora-lovecruft-publicly-accuses-fbi-harassment-1558607 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tor-developer-isis-agora-lovecruft-... [2] https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/hacking/fbi.md https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/mast...
kafkaesq 10y ago
Nobody knows that the FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not. Which is precisely the point -- Lovecruft, justifiably, had no way of knowing what the government operatives had in mind, and wanted from her; whether it was something comparatively insipid and harmless (just some junior investigators throwing darts, and checking boxes on a list someone gave them); or something all-out insane and pernicious, like what they did to Swartz. Would she be woken up at 6 a.m., and made to watch as agents ransacked her apartment, confiscating anything that looked like personal notes, and anything that looked like a digital device? Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), or longer, with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices? Would she be pressured into providing testimony against her friends and collaborators -- and/or "turning" outright, and becoming a paid informant? Would she hold her ground? Would she break? Any of the above was a very real possibility. Which is why this is anything but a "non-story."
- openasocket 10y ago
  > Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices? Has the FBI done this before? I could see the CIA doing this to foreign nationals, and obviously that's horrible, but has the FBI done anything like that? I'm not saying they haven't, I would just like an example or two.
  - franciscop 10y ago
    Yes, it was yesterday on HN but I cannot seem to find it.
    - chadcatlett 10y ago
      I suspect you are referring to this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712035
      - dTal 10y ago
        Slight nitpick - they're asking him to enter the password, not disclose it. I'm not sure how much difference it makes but the distinction is specifically mentioned in the article.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    I was referring to what happened to Aaron Swartz in the aftermath of his arrest, according to various sources. For a suspected transgression of far lesser significance. Whether the FBI was involved in that particular aspect of his ordeal, I can't say.
- jonnybgood 10y ago
  They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to. FBI now has a subpoena. I have no idea where you're getting this "indefinite imprisonment" stuff from. They didn't have a warrant for her arrest.
nodata 10y ago
The developer was likely worried about getting "a letter".
__jal 10y ago
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Can you explain why a non-story is important enough for you to take time away from presumably important things in order to poo-poo it?
cmiles74 10y ago
If the FBI wasn't willing to speak to her with her lawyer present, IMHO, they were not looking for something legit. They had ample opportunity to subpeona her before she left the country and neglected to do so. In fact, they waited until she left. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11643246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11643246 This whole situation feels like the FBI pressuring this person so that they can get the information they want out of her while avoiding their legal obligations.
joshAg 10y ago
The story is that the FBI refuses to tell her or her lawyer why they desperately want to speak to her, but only in person inside of their jurisdiction.
pipermerriam 10y ago
From my point of view, the US Government has not acted in such a way that they deserve to be extended any "benefit of doubt". The three recent events linked below come to mind as supporting material. They have consistently demonstrated their willingness to break the law when it is inconvenient for them, as well as actively working to expand their power and authority at any expense. 1. Raid of Tor Exit node - http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472992023/when-a-dark-web-volunteer-gets-raided-by-the-police http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472... 2. Hair Follicle Analysis - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair... 3. Manufacturing Evidence - https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/fbi-told-cops-to-recreate-evidence-from-secret-cell-phone-trackers/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/fbi-told-cops-to-recreat...
wmil 10y ago
It's very dangerous to talk to the FBI without a lawyer. Lying to them is a felony, and you can be convicted on the basis of what their notes say.

x0x0 10y ago

If that were true, they would have had no problems communicating through her lawyer initially. The previously linked article discussed the FBI threatening to grab her off the streets and interrogate her without counsel: "If we happen to run into her on the street, we're gonna' be asking her some questions without you present." and "We would strongly prefer to meet her in person. We have teams in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Atlanta keeping an eye out for her" [1,2] [1] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tor-developer-isis-agora-lovecruft-publicly-accuses-fbi-harassment-1558607 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tor-developer-isis-agora-lovecruft-... [2] https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/hacking/fbi.md https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/mast...

kafkaesq 10y ago

Nobody knows that the FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not. Which is precisely the point -- Lovecruft, justifiably, had no way of knowing what the government operatives had in mind, and wanted from her; whether it was something comparatively insipid and harmless (just some junior investigators throwing darts, and checking boxes on a list someone gave them); or something all-out insane and pernicious, like what they did to Swartz. Would she be woken up at 6 a.m., and made to watch as agents ransacked her apartment, confiscating anything that looked like personal notes, and anything that looked like a digital device? Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), or longer, with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices? Would she be pressured into providing testimony against her friends and collaborators -- and/or "turning" outright, and becoming a paid informant? Would she hold her ground? Would she break? Any of the above was a very real possibility. Which is why this is anything but a "non-story."

openasocket 10y ago
> Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices? Has the FBI done this before? I could see the CIA doing this to foreign nationals, and obviously that's horrible, but has the FBI done anything like that? I'm not saying they haven't, I would just like an example or two.
- franciscop 10y ago
  Yes, it was yesterday on HN but I cannot seem to find it.
  - chadcatlett 10y ago
    I suspect you are referring to this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712035
    - dTal 10y ago
      Slight nitpick - they're asking him to enter the password, not disclose it. I'm not sure how much difference it makes but the distinction is specifically mentioned in the article.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  I was referring to what happened to Aaron Swartz in the aftermath of his arrest, according to various sources. For a suspected transgression of far lesser significance. Whether the FBI was involved in that particular aspect of his ordeal, I can't say.
jonnybgood 10y ago
They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to. FBI now has a subpoena. I have no idea where you're getting this "indefinite imprisonment" stuff from. They didn't have a warrant for her arrest.

nodata 10y ago

The developer was likely worried about getting "a letter".

__jal 10y ago

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Can you explain why a non-story is important enough for you to take time away from presumably important things in order to poo-poo it?

cmiles74 10y ago

If the FBI wasn't willing to speak to her with her lawyer present, IMHO, they were not looking for something legit. They had ample opportunity to subpeona her before she left the country and neglected to do so. In fact, they waited until she left. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11643246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11643246 This whole situation feels like the FBI pressuring this person so that they can get the information they want out of her while avoiding their legal obligations.

joshAg 10y ago

The story is that the FBI refuses to tell her or her lawyer why they desperately want to speak to her, but only in person inside of their jurisdiction.

pipermerriam 10y ago

From my point of view, the US Government has not acted in such a way that they deserve to be extended any "benefit of doubt". The three recent events linked below come to mind as supporting material. They have consistently demonstrated their willingness to break the law when it is inconvenient for them, as well as actively working to expand their power and authority at any expense. 1. Raid of Tor Exit node - http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472992023/when-a-dark-web-volunteer-gets-raided-by-the-police http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472... 2. Hair Follicle Analysis - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair... 3. Manufacturing Evidence - https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/fbi-told-cops-to-recreate-evidence-from-secret-cell-phone-trackers/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/fbi-told-cops-to-recreat...

wmil 10y ago

It's very dangerous to talk to the FBI without a lawyer. Lying to them is a felony, and you can be convicted on the basis of what their notes say.