3 ms·

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 knowi

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.
- HemanHeartYou 10y ago
  >They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to. Did you not read the article? >Lovecruft told CNNMoney she had been willing to meet the FBI with her attorney present. But Rosenfeld was told by agents that they would circumvent him and approach Lovecruft directly.
  - jean_claude 10y ago
    Never talk to a cop or fed without a lawyer present if you are being questioned for anything other than a traffic ticket or you were just the victim of a crime. Even then, be careful what you say. They are not there for your benefit.
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
  No, they told Isis's lawyer explicitly that they'd run around him and do so by approaching Isis in public[1]. Doing that would require them to have some basic idea of Isis's movements and the willingness to wait to set up an ambush. Given that, it's not unreasonable to suspect they're attempting something shady and that Isis is quite smart not to simply "trust us." There is no reason to trust law enforcement that wants to sidestep entirely legal representation. It's also clear you didn't read the article entirely before making a comment that now acts to distract and misinform. [1]: https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/fbi-harassment.html https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/fbi-harassment.html
rhino369 10y ago
>Any of the above was a very real possibility. No it wasn't. Unless you are engaged in a criminal acts, the likelihood of the FBI arresting you are pretty damn slim. Sure it probably happens all the time, but there are 300 million Americans. The chances that it happens to any given person are nil. The fact that the FBI reached out first is a pretty big clue that they she wasn't a target of an investigation. You don't subpoena the targets of the investigation.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > Sure it probably happens all the time, but there are 300 million Americans. The chances that it happens to any given person are nil. But it sure sucks for the people it does happen to, and your odds sure shoot right up when FBI agents start to threaten you.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    Nobody was threatened here.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      Please.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      ryanlol, do you in fact understand how our adversarial system works in US? This aint Finland. Anything you say to them is to be used against you in court as a confession. Anything making you look innocent is tossed out as hearsay. To get confession, feds and prosecutors can lie to you to set you up however they can with unclear limits they're always pushing. As in Russian hacker story, this includes fake job offers or asking you to "help them out" by giving them info. You, esp if a hacker or Tor developers, should never talk to FBI under any circumstances as odds are they're building a case. They often spend weeks to months on that, too, while giving you rope to hang yourself. Then, if you dont, they drop it all on you at once for shock. So, her situation may be anything from a help request to compelled assistance to imprisonment in making. Who knows. However, any defense lawyer would tell her to not talk to FBI alone under any circumstance or volunteer assistance that makes her look criminal if taken out of context before a jury. Her lawyer is happy to hear their questions and mediate answers. So far, they wanted to bypass him. That's reason for concern.
ryanlol 10y ago
Can we quit with the ridiculous speculation? If they wanted to do that they'd have done it, instead of spending weeks trying to contact her they could've just went to her in person.

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.

HemanHeartYou 10y ago
>They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to. Did you not read the article? >Lovecruft told CNNMoney she had been willing to meet the FBI with her attorney present. But Rosenfeld was told by agents that they would circumvent him and approach Lovecruft directly.
- jean_claude 10y ago
  Never talk to a cop or fed without a lawyer present if you are being questioned for anything other than a traffic ticket or you were just the victim of a crime. Even then, be careful what you say. They are not there for your benefit.
jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
No, they told Isis's lawyer explicitly that they'd run around him and do so by approaching Isis in public[1]. Doing that would require them to have some basic idea of Isis's movements and the willingness to wait to set up an ambush. Given that, it's not unreasonable to suspect they're attempting something shady and that Isis is quite smart not to simply "trust us." There is no reason to trust law enforcement that wants to sidestep entirely legal representation. It's also clear you didn't read the article entirely before making a comment that now acts to distract and misinform. [1]: https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/fbi-harassment.html https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/fbi-harassment.html

rhino369 10y ago

>Any of the above was a very real possibility. No it wasn't. Unless you are engaged in a criminal acts, the likelihood of the FBI arresting you are pretty damn slim. Sure it probably happens all the time, but there are 300 million Americans. The chances that it happens to any given person are nil. The fact that the FBI reached out first is a pretty big clue that they she wasn't a target of an investigation. You don't subpoena the targets of the investigation.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> Sure it probably happens all the time, but there are 300 million Americans. The chances that it happens to any given person are nil. But it sure sucks for the people it does happen to, and your odds sure shoot right up when FBI agents start to threaten you.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  Nobody was threatened here.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Please.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    ryanlol, do you in fact understand how our adversarial system works in US? This aint Finland. Anything you say to them is to be used against you in court as a confession. Anything making you look innocent is tossed out as hearsay. To get confession, feds and prosecutors can lie to you to set you up however they can with unclear limits they're always pushing. As in Russian hacker story, this includes fake job offers or asking you to "help them out" by giving them info. You, esp if a hacker or Tor developers, should never talk to FBI under any circumstances as odds are they're building a case. They often spend weeks to months on that, too, while giving you rope to hang yourself. Then, if you dont, they drop it all on you at once for shock. So, her situation may be anything from a help request to compelled assistance to imprisonment in making. Who knows. However, any defense lawyer would tell her to not talk to FBI alone under any circumstance or volunteer assistance that makes her look criminal if taken out of context before a jury. Her lawyer is happy to hear their questions and mediate answers. So far, they wanted to bypass him. That's reason for concern.

ryanlol 10y ago

Can we quit with the ridiculous speculation? If they wanted to do that they'd have done it, instead of spending weeks trying to contact her they could've just went to her in person.