16 ms·

The nerve of these people amazes me. They're caught red handed, probably never had a warrant (with the law shaky on if they need one), and they probably didn't

The nerve of these people amazes me. They're caught red handed, probably never had a warrant (with the law shaky on if they need one), and they probably didn't have a very solid lead to start with (how convenient that he was reported by an "anonymous" tip). In the middle of all this, they still had time to try to bully him into getting back the surveillance equipment from their botched attempt, with lines like "We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate." Just reading the story sickens me.

rtra 16y ago
I don't know much about US law and I'm wondering what could have happened if he didn't hand them over the damn device without some sort of proof of ownership or a formal request.
- muriithi 16y ago
  On the Reddit post they were repeatedly asked to get a lawyer or go to ACLU. I am not sure whether they did that or if it would have made a difference. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_mean_the_fbi_is_after_us/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_...
aw3c2 16y ago
In Germany they first lie about it ("No, we have no idea whose unit it is") and one year later demand you give it to them. German source: http://www.taz.de/1/nord/artikel/?dig=2008%2F04%2F22%2Fa0009&src=UA&cHash=bcebcaa2b1 http://www.taz.de/1/nord/artikel/?dig=2008%2F04%2F22%2Fa0009...
- Stephan_ 16y ago
  However, in that case there was a warrant by the Federal Court of Justice authorizing the tracking.
  - Ennis 16y ago
    You're right. When it comes down to it, it really is the lack of a warrant that's the issue. There is still enough trust in the judicial system to screen out federal abuses of power. It seems to me that anger is based on the circumvention of the courts and not that the boy was targeted because he was Arab American. Both reasons just don't seem morally right.
  - tibbon 16y ago
    Does that forgive the moral questionability of lying?
roel_v 16y ago
The 'warrant' part is unrelated to the ownership issue of the tracking device. Even if it was used under unlawful circumstances, the FBI remains owner of the device. To take an extreme example, if I throw a brick through your window with a note attached to it 'this brick is owned by jimmy jones and I have no intention of relinquishing ownership', I remain owner of the brick. That I'm liable for the damage caused by it is self-evident. (the note is to preempt a digression into 'apparent abandonment of property' or whatever the exact wording it is in the appropriate jurisdiction) 'Ownership' of something, and 'committing a crime' with that something are orthogonal. Apart from some specifically designated by law items (drugs, weapons), committing a crime with something does not change its ownership status. I don't quite see the controversy here (that is, after one steps back and looks over the 'oh my god! big gubmint is spying on us!' knee-jerk reaction. Let's not forget the kid (from what I gathered...) was apparently connected to organized crime, even if only through blood).
- roel_v 16y ago
  Correction: guy's family wasn't organized crime, I misremembered - father was a Muslim leader. No mention of what that entails more specifically. Still without knowing more it does seriously detract from that part of my point.
  - VBprogrammer 16y ago
    There is something about the tone of what you just wrote that deeply annoys me. Had the boys father been a Christian leader would you have been concerned by what exactly that entails?
    - roel_v 16y ago
      If the father had been a Westboro Baptist Church or Branch Davidian style sect leader? Of course. We don't know what happened. For the guy to post to Reddit starting off with a 'look I'm being investigated because I'm Arab! FBI is racist!' post while not giving any information on the circumstances, that just sounds like a PR spin.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
with lines like "We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate." That sounds to me like a pretty explicit threat that they'll be violating the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" provisions. IANAL, but I wonder if that can amount to anything.
- khafra 16y ago
  I believe law enforcement is allowed to say anything they want to. As a civilian, you're not allowed to lie to most LEOs; but they're allowed to lie to you.
  - icegreentea 16y ago
    There's a few things they can't lie about. They can't lie/make up any deals for lighter sentences or whatever. Note, that doesn't mean if they say 'we'll try to get them to easier on you' means that will happen, but if you (and your lawyer) actually strike a real deal (say to provide enough evidence to convict others), the police can't screw with that. They also can't lie about the legality of actions while in the visible position of being the police. That means they CAN lie about it when undercover.
    - smokeyj 16y ago
      When they move their lips, they ARE lying to you.
      - dunstad 16y ago
        Can we get some supporting evidence, please? This strikes me as a little unreasonable.
        spokey 16y ago
        Of course that is unreasonable. I don't think it was meant to be taken literally, but as advice recommending that as a suspect or person of interest one generally shouldn't assume that law enforcement folks are on your side. (I have a lot of respect for the police: they accept a lot of risk to try to ensure a civil society in exchange for not a lot of reward, but there's little doubt that if they see themselves in an adversarial relationship with someone they are willing and able to mislead or misdirect that person in order to accomplish their aims. There is a reason that the Miranda Warning became a legal requirement.)
tptacek 16y ago
The FBI does not need a warrant to plant a GPS tracker on your car, for much the same reason as they do not need a warrant to surveil you from a car or helicopter. This bothers people for reasons I can understand, but I think the concern is irrational; the alternative (having agents manually tail people) is error prone, subjective, incredibly expensive, and no less intrusive.
- wnoise 16y ago
  The expense is a good thing. They need to be focusing rather than throwing dragnets. Expense forces prioritization.
  - evgen 16y ago
    The are focusing. You may disagree with the object of their focus, but the alternative (e.g more broad surveillance of the general public) is far less pleasant.
- spokey 16y ago
  > I think the concern is irrational; the alternative (having agents manually tail people) is error prone, > subjective, incredibly expensive, and no less intrusive. Don't underestimate the role of the "incredibly expensive" part. The physical and resource constraints for tailing people limit law enforcement's ability to do that. In this way GPS trackers are more intrusive than traditional surveillance methods, in the sense that they can be deployed indiscriminately at a much larger scale. (For a related example, in "Code" Lessig argues that the US founders didn't need an explicit right to privacy since it was implied by the search-and-seizure and trespass constraints. Prior to electronic surveillance methods, it was difficult to invade one's privacy without already violating trespass or similar laws.)

rtra 16y ago

I don't know much about US law and I'm wondering what could have happened if he didn't hand them over the damn device without some sort of proof of ownership or a formal request.

muriithi 16y ago
On the Reddit post they were repeatedly asked to get a lawyer or go to ACLU. I am not sure whether they did that or if it would have made a difference. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_mean_the_fbi_is_after_us/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_...

aw3c2 16y ago

In Germany they first lie about it ("No, we have no idea whose unit it is") and one year later demand you give it to them. German source: http://www.taz.de/1/nord/artikel/?dig=2008%2F04%2F22%2Fa0009&src=UA&cHash=bcebcaa2b1 http://www.taz.de/1/nord/artikel/?dig=2008%2F04%2F22%2Fa0009...

Stephan_ 16y ago
However, in that case there was a warrant by the Federal Court of Justice authorizing the tracking.
- Ennis 16y ago
  You're right. When it comes down to it, it really is the lack of a warrant that's the issue. There is still enough trust in the judicial system to screen out federal abuses of power. It seems to me that anger is based on the circumvention of the courts and not that the boy was targeted because he was Arab American. Both reasons just don't seem morally right.
- tibbon 16y ago
  Does that forgive the moral questionability of lying?

roel_v 16y ago

The 'warrant' part is unrelated to the ownership issue of the tracking device. Even if it was used under unlawful circumstances, the FBI remains owner of the device. To take an extreme example, if I throw a brick through your window with a note attached to it 'this brick is owned by jimmy jones and I have no intention of relinquishing ownership', I remain owner of the brick. That I'm liable for the damage caused by it is self-evident. (the note is to preempt a digression into 'apparent abandonment of property' or whatever the exact wording it is in the appropriate jurisdiction) 'Ownership' of something, and 'committing a crime' with that something are orthogonal. Apart from some specifically designated by law items (drugs, weapons), committing a crime with something does not change its ownership status. I don't quite see the controversy here (that is, after one steps back and looks over the 'oh my god! big gubmint is spying on us!' knee-jerk reaction. Let's not forget the kid (from what I gathered...) was apparently connected to organized crime, even if only through blood).

roel_v 16y ago
Correction: guy's family wasn't organized crime, I misremembered - father was a Muslim leader. No mention of what that entails more specifically. Still without knowing more it does seriously detract from that part of my point.
- VBprogrammer 16y ago
  There is something about the tone of what you just wrote that deeply annoys me. Had the boys father been a Christian leader would you have been concerned by what exactly that entails?
  - roel_v 16y ago
    If the father had been a Westboro Baptist Church or Branch Davidian style sect leader? Of course. We don't know what happened. For the guy to post to Reddit starting off with a 'look I'm being investigated because I'm Arab! FBI is racist!' post while not giving any information on the circumstances, that just sounds like a PR spin.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

with lines like "We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate." That sounds to me like a pretty explicit threat that they'll be violating the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" provisions. IANAL, but I wonder if that can amount to anything.

khafra 16y ago
I believe law enforcement is allowed to say anything they want to. As a civilian, you're not allowed to lie to most LEOs; but they're allowed to lie to you.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  There's a few things they can't lie about. They can't lie/make up any deals for lighter sentences or whatever. Note, that doesn't mean if they say 'we'll try to get them to easier on you' means that will happen, but if you (and your lawyer) actually strike a real deal (say to provide enough evidence to convict others), the police can't screw with that. They also can't lie about the legality of actions while in the visible position of being the police. That means they CAN lie about it when undercover.
  - smokeyj 16y ago
    When they move their lips, they ARE lying to you.
    - dunstad 16y ago
      Can we get some supporting evidence, please? This strikes me as a little unreasonable.
      - spokey 16y ago
        Of course that is unreasonable. I don't think it was meant to be taken literally, but as advice recommending that as a suspect or person of interest one generally shouldn't assume that law enforcement folks are on your side. (I have a lot of respect for the police: they accept a lot of risk to try to ensure a civil society in exchange for not a lot of reward, but there's little doubt that if they see themselves in an adversarial relationship with someone they are willing and able to mislead or misdirect that person in order to accomplish their aims. There is a reason that the Miranda Warning became a legal requirement.)

tptacek 16y ago

The FBI does not need a warrant to plant a GPS tracker on your car, for much the same reason as they do not need a warrant to surveil you from a car or helicopter. This bothers people for reasons I can understand, but I think the concern is irrational; the alternative (having agents manually tail people) is error prone, subjective, incredibly expensive, and no less intrusive.

wnoise 16y ago
The expense is a good thing. They need to be focusing rather than throwing dragnets. Expense forces prioritization.
- evgen 16y ago
  The are focusing. You may disagree with the object of their focus, but the alternative (e.g more broad surveillance of the general public) is far less pleasant.
spokey 16y ago
> I think the concern is irrational; the alternative (having agents manually tail people) is error prone, > subjective, incredibly expensive, and no less intrusive. Don't underestimate the role of the "incredibly expensive" part. The physical and resource constraints for tailing people limit law enforcement's ability to do that. In this way GPS trackers are more intrusive than traditional surveillance methods, in the sense that they can be deployed indiscriminately at a much larger scale. (For a related example, in "Code" Lessig argues that the US founders didn't need an explicit right to privacy since it was implied by the search-and-seizure and trespass constraints. Prior to electronic surveillance methods, it was difficult to invade one's privacy without already violating trespass or similar laws.)