6 ms·

Problem is that the agent doesn't have to identify himself as such. He or she might be dressed casually with no signs of being an FBI agent, he doesn't have to

Problem is that the agent doesn't have to identify himself as such. He or she might be dressed casually with no signs of being an FBI agent, he doesn't have to tell you he's an agent, and he may lie as well. He doesn't even have to be an agent. Your employer can submit your lie to an agent. Creepy!

tptacek 9y ago
That's a problem but not one the article solves, so the click is saved regardless. :)
- rl3 9y ago
  >That's a problem but not one the article solves ... Says who? There's nothing stopping you from repeating those same phrases the article details while in the company of people who you have no reason to suspect are federal agents, but could be. For example, if your significant other is nagging or otherwise interrogating you: "I decline to be interviewed without a lawyer." If your SO turns out to be a federal agent, then the article just solved the problem. :)
  - derefr 9y ago
    Wait, so are those the magic words that force an undercover cop to reveal themselves during a sting? Because, if not (I'm guessing not), then I'm guessing this ain't gonna work. :)
    - tptacek 9y ago
      "Are you a cop? Because if you're a cop, I decline to continue this transaction without a lawyer. You have to tell me!"
      - derefr 9y ago
        Joking aside, though, if you said this to an undercover police-officer, I presume they wouldn't reveal themselves at the time—but would it taint any evidence they collected by talking to you after that point, the same way it would if you said it in an interview?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - pavement 9y ago
      It doesn't always work, because sting operations often involve paid informants who are not police, but assist by luring offenders to a location that's under surveillance. In such a situation, you might ask a similar question, receive an honest answer, and still get busted, because you participated in a transaction that was recorded by observers. Plain clothes officers operating undercover aren't always placed in direct contact with targets at the moment of a bust. Sometimes they just need to gather enough information needed to orchestrate a bust, and then they just disappear, as if completely unconnected. It's not like this is 1971.
      - derefr 9y ago
        This just happened in my area of the world last year: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-says-rcmp-entrapped-bc-couple-in-terror-case-overturns-guilty-verdict/article31199892/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-s.... It's more 1971 than you might think. :)
pvg 9y ago
The article doesn't say you're liable if you lie to someone who hasn't identified themselves as a federal agent but then turns out to be one.
- tptacek 9y ago
  I think it kind of does; see, for instance, the employer example.
  - pvg 9y ago
    You're lying to your employer who in turn sends your lies to the feds, you're liable. That's unexpected and unintuitive but it's not the same thing as you lying to someone who intentionally hides their status as a federal agent from you. There's no deception in the former case. What the posters here seem to be saying is that you can get in trouble for lying to some rando who happens to work for the man but never told you. That sounds unlikely, to me.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  From the code [0]: > ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... Personally, I would be inclined to agree with you, on the basis that you cannot knowingly and willfully lie in a such a matter if you do not know that you are discussing such a matter. However, I'd believe judicial precedent over my own layman interpretation... [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
  - pvg 9y ago
    I don't think this is really about a layperson's interpretation, it's the other interpretation that's zany - the sort of thing that happens the nerdforums when you treat law as code. "Federal law enforcement officers can lie to you" and "Lying to the feds can be a serious crime" are both true but extrapolate these to the maximum and suddenly lying to some dude standing next to you at a bus stop who turns out to be a fed is a crime. This is obviously nonsense. FBI agents can't arrest you and lie to you about your Miranda rights or lie to you that they'll beat the shit out of you if you don't cooperate with them. If there's an undercover agent you don't know about in your organization and you lie to them simply because, say, you don't trust them, you're not automatically looking at an indictment.
desdiv 9y ago
18 U.S.C. section 1001 doesn't apply to just the FBI. It applies to all federal agents. In the context of this thread about visitors to the US, that would include the guy scanning your passport and asking "What's the purpose of this trip?" and the guy telling you to take off your shoes so they can be x-rayed.

tptacek 9y ago

That's a problem but not one the article solves, so the click is saved regardless. :)

rl3 9y ago
>That's a problem but not one the article solves ... Says who? There's nothing stopping you from repeating those same phrases the article details while in the company of people who you have no reason to suspect are federal agents, but could be. For example, if your significant other is nagging or otherwise interrogating you: "I decline to be interviewed without a lawyer." If your SO turns out to be a federal agent, then the article just solved the problem. :)
- derefr 9y ago
  Wait, so are those the magic words that force an undercover cop to reveal themselves during a sting? Because, if not (I'm guessing not), then I'm guessing this ain't gonna work. :)
  - tptacek 9y ago
    "Are you a cop? Because if you're a cop, I decline to continue this transaction without a lawyer. You have to tell me!"
    - derefr 9y ago
      Joking aside, though, if you said this to an undercover police-officer, I presume they wouldn't reveal themselves at the time—but would it taint any evidence they collected by talking to you after that point, the same way it would if you said it in an interview?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - pavement 9y ago
    It doesn't always work, because sting operations often involve paid informants who are not police, but assist by luring offenders to a location that's under surveillance. In such a situation, you might ask a similar question, receive an honest answer, and still get busted, because you participated in a transaction that was recorded by observers. Plain clothes officers operating undercover aren't always placed in direct contact with targets at the moment of a bust. Sometimes they just need to gather enough information needed to orchestrate a bust, and then they just disappear, as if completely unconnected. It's not like this is 1971.
    - derefr 9y ago
      This just happened in my area of the world last year: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-says-rcmp-entrapped-bc-couple-in-terror-case-overturns-guilty-verdict/article31199892/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-s.... It's more 1971 than you might think. :)

pvg 9y ago

The article doesn't say you're liable if you lie to someone who hasn't identified themselves as a federal agent but then turns out to be one.

tptacek 9y ago
I think it kind of does; see, for instance, the employer example.
- pvg 9y ago
  You're lying to your employer who in turn sends your lies to the feds, you're liable. That's unexpected and unintuitive but it's not the same thing as you lying to someone who intentionally hides their status as a federal agent from you. There's no deception in the former case. What the posters here seem to be saying is that you can get in trouble for lying to some rando who happens to work for the man but never told you. That sounds unlikely, to me.
jdmichal 9y ago
From the code [0]: > ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... Personally, I would be inclined to agree with you, on the basis that you cannot knowingly and willfully lie in a such a matter if you do not know that you are discussing such a matter. However, I'd believe judicial precedent over my own layman interpretation... [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
- pvg 9y ago
  I don't think this is really about a layperson's interpretation, it's the other interpretation that's zany - the sort of thing that happens the nerdforums when you treat law as code. "Federal law enforcement officers can lie to you" and "Lying to the feds can be a serious crime" are both true but extrapolate these to the maximum and suddenly lying to some dude standing next to you at a bus stop who turns out to be a fed is a crime. This is obviously nonsense. FBI agents can't arrest you and lie to you about your Miranda rights or lie to you that they'll beat the shit out of you if you don't cooperate with them. If there's an undercover agent you don't know about in your organization and you lie to them simply because, say, you don't trust them, you're not automatically looking at an indictment.

desdiv 9y ago

18 U.S.C. section 1001 doesn't apply to just the FBI. It applies to all federal agents. In the context of this thread about visitors to the US, that would include the guy scanning your passport and asking "What's the purpose of this trip?" and the guy telling you to take off your shoes so they can be x-rayed.