3 ms·

They’re a police force. The FBI enforce laws, not write them. This is a potentially interesting story though, but not because of some kind of revolving door bet

by SllX 4y ago

They’re a police force. The FBI enforce laws, not write them. This is a potentially interesting story though, but not because of some kind of revolving door between the pencil-pushing swamp creatures and the fog breathing code monkeys.

xpe 4y ago
It seems like my first sentence didn't have the desired effect: "Here I'm going to put aside the issue of what the FBI can (or "wants" to) regulate." My hope was to make clear what my comment was about, in the hopes of directing conversation towards why social media companies hire former FBI employees.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- SllX 4y ago
  It’s a worthy question, but let’s leave the swamp water in the swamp and speak properly about who is being hired. We worry about “revolving doors” between regulatory agencies and their marks because of fears the prey may become the predators. This isn’t that, and the mission of the FBI is much broader than say, the FCC. The guys at the top of the Department of Justice food chain just below the President are your pencil pushing swamp creatures. Rank and file exploring jungle life in the streets of San Francisco (at least metaphorically if not literally) are not and the way you started off implied a swampy sort of character which gets your average know-nothing in this political environment to start thinking in the wrong direction about those dastardly revolving doors.
  - xpe 4y ago
    The comment above has a lot of problems. First, it calls people childish names. Second, it does not reply to the parent comment. Third, it is confusing to read, with run-on sentences and tangents. Overall, it falls well short of what HN strives to be, which I think "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation..." captures pretty well. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
rt4mn 4y ago
> The FBI enforce laws, not write them. Technically correct but in practice the FBI does actually write and repeal laws in 2 incredibly important ways that I constantly see people forget about. First every law enforcement body in this country has to prioritize which laws it wants to enforce, to many laws on the books to do otherwise. By prioritizing some crimes over others, they change the nature of the law itself, at least insofar as it impacts the lives of regular people. A law is not a really a law if its not enforced (just like a right is not really a right if it does not protect you in practice). Second, and even more directly, the FBI in particular has a massive political influence in congress over which bills are written and which bills die and which bills get passed. Its difficult to overstate how powerful the law enforcement lobby is in this country, and a big part of that big tent is the FBI.
- SllX 4y ago
  Yes and no insofar as the Attorney-General and the Director of the FBI are both political appointees hired and fired by the President of the United States. You’re meshing the appointed leadership with the field agents, but rank and file FBI and most of their bosses are law enforcement whose assembly line is Justice, not policy, and they’re the guys with the guns, not the creatures with the pencils.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    AG and Director, as political appointees who come and go, have much less say in what and how these agencies operate than career bureaucrats technically under them. Those have goals only ever glancingly related to nominal policies. That is not to say that appointees have no influence; they can have a lasting effect through hiring practices and other personnel actions, effects that may outlast administrations. Appointees certainly do not learn of all activities of their underlings, if only because they only have so many hours in the day to read. What they do get to read is filtered for them by those same underlings.
    - SllX 4y ago
      Correct, people have goals. However leadership sets the agenda, goals, priorities and the direction of the organization. If the leadership is weak, uninterested or unengaged, then yes, middle management can take their stab at steering the ship (and compete with each other to do it). On the other hand, they can also just be fired if they get uppity, and if leadership has someone stepping on their toes or undermining them, well rank has it’s privileges and anyone can be replaced. Make the distinction between a working stiff with law enforcement power and a pencil pushing swamp creature with political power.

by SllX 4y ago

xpe 4y ago

It seems like my first sentence didn't have the desired effect: "Here I'm going to put aside the issue of what the FBI can (or "wants" to) regulate." My hope was to make clear what my comment was about, in the hopes of directing conversation towards why social media companies hire former FBI employees.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SllX 4y ago
It’s a worthy question, but let’s leave the swamp water in the swamp and speak properly about who is being hired. We worry about “revolving doors” between regulatory agencies and their marks because of fears the prey may become the predators. This isn’t that, and the mission of the FBI is much broader than say, the FCC. The guys at the top of the Department of Justice food chain just below the President are your pencil pushing swamp creatures. Rank and file exploring jungle life in the streets of San Francisco (at least metaphorically if not literally) are not and the way you started off implied a swampy sort of character which gets your average know-nothing in this political environment to start thinking in the wrong direction about those dastardly revolving doors.
- xpe 4y ago
  The comment above has a lot of problems. First, it calls people childish names. Second, it does not reply to the parent comment. Third, it is confusing to read, with run-on sentences and tangents. Overall, it falls well short of what HN strives to be, which I think "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation..." captures pretty well. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

rt4mn 4y ago

> The FBI enforce laws, not write them. Technically correct but in practice the FBI does actually write and repeal laws in 2 incredibly important ways that I constantly see people forget about. First every law enforcement body in this country has to prioritize which laws it wants to enforce, to many laws on the books to do otherwise. By prioritizing some crimes over others, they change the nature of the law itself, at least insofar as it impacts the lives of regular people. A law is not a really a law if its not enforced (just like a right is not really a right if it does not protect you in practice). Second, and even more directly, the FBI in particular has a massive political influence in congress over which bills are written and which bills die and which bills get passed. Its difficult to overstate how powerful the law enforcement lobby is in this country, and a big part of that big tent is the FBI.

SllX 4y ago
Yes and no insofar as the Attorney-General and the Director of the FBI are both political appointees hired and fired by the President of the United States. You’re meshing the appointed leadership with the field agents, but rank and file FBI and most of their bosses are law enforcement whose assembly line is Justice, not policy, and they’re the guys with the guns, not the creatures with the pencils.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  AG and Director, as political appointees who come and go, have much less say in what and how these agencies operate than career bureaucrats technically under them. Those have goals only ever glancingly related to nominal policies. That is not to say that appointees have no influence; they can have a lasting effect through hiring practices and other personnel actions, effects that may outlast administrations. Appointees certainly do not learn of all activities of their underlings, if only because they only have so many hours in the day to read. What they do get to read is filtered for them by those same underlings.
  - SllX 4y ago
    Correct, people have goals. However leadership sets the agenda, goals, priorities and the direction of the organization. If the leadership is weak, uninterested or unengaged, then yes, middle management can take their stab at steering the ship (and compete with each other to do it). On the other hand, they can also just be fired if they get uppity, and if leadership has someone stepping on their toes or undermining them, well rank has it’s privileges and anyone can be replaced. Make the distinction between a working stiff with law enforcement power and a pencil pushing swamp creature with political power.