38 ms·
Yep, I was thinking the same thing. What a beautiful way of communicating that.
by samanator 3y ago
Yep, I was thinking the same thing. What a beautiful way of communicating that.
- Loquebantur 3y agoWhat a weird way to think about such events. Such subpoenas are clandestine surveillance of citizens by their state. The problem with such types of surveillance in particular is the lack of accountability. How does the ethical use of this prolematic tool get ascertained? Where and how is the democratic oversight implemented? How is misuse treated and prevented?
- blibble 3y agoas a foreigner (in terms of the US), I've never understood how these gag orders are compatible with the First Amendment often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech but then apparently the police (FBI) can restrict the free speech of Americans without any court involvement at all? I really don't understand
- komon 3y agoWell, due process is a right co-equal to free speech, so which rights override which others in which circumstances will come down to legal precedent. My understanding is that the FBI or other non-judicial body cannot unilaterally issue a gag order. Subpoenas and gag orders related to them are granted by judges. (Which isn't to say that the relationship between the judicial branch and law enforcement bodies is always pure and equal)
- jakeinspace 3y agoGag orders do require a court, just not a jury or an open hearing. I agree that they should be unconstitutional.
- Loquebantur 3y agoLook at this thread. People engage in childish fantasies featuring themselves in imaginary subversive behavior. It's unresolvable cognitive dissonance leading to repressing and reinterpreting the cause.
- nceqs3 3y agoYou seem to be misunderstanding the First Amendment. CSMA, classified information, defamation, copyright, etc. are all not permitted under the first amendment. Not to mention that gag orders are approved by a court and can be appealed.
- blibble 3y ago> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. seems pretty clear to me, at least for gag orders less so for the other stuff you mentioned (could you argue pirated Disney movies are speech? probably not)
- dragontamer 3y agoAnd the writers of the 1st Amendment went on to pass the Sedition act of 1798. > That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Welcome to America. Our laws contradict each other and its all about politics. The Supreme Court figures out where the line is drawn and what is, or isn't, legal according to the Constitution. With regards to 1st Amendment, the limit is drawn today at Libel, Slander, "Fire in a Crowded Theater", pornography, and many other restrictions upon "free speech". Gag orders included.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- make3 3y agothe fbi is overseen by elected officials, and by laws that were voted for it. it's not perfect but that still makes a huge difference.
- bboygravity 3y agoThat explains the whole Trump Russia ties investigation by the FBI I guess? Doesn't seem to healthy for any nation that is supposedly democratic?
- wolverine876 3y agoCivil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc. Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. > often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech I haven't seen these posts. Do you have an example handy?
- blibble 3y ago> I haven't seen these posts. Do you have an example handy? here's one from earlier in the week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 they're pretty common, here's another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773
- wolverine876 3y agoIn the GGP you wrote, > often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech I don't see that in the comments you cite - nothing related to totaliterianism, unrestricted free speech, or comparison to the US. The comments just look like critiques of some laws related to speech, similar to critiques of US laws. Maybe I misunderstand.
- Freedom2 3y agoI don't have a source handy, I can find one later if you desire. During Melbourne's lockdowns there was consistent criticism from US based commenters about the lack of freedoms in Australia. edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 (this entire comment section, probably: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- patrick451 3y agoThey aren't compatible with the first amendment. But at this point, those rights are a joke and and all three branches of our government regard the constitution as toilet paper.
- xupybd 3y agoI don't like these gag orders but I can see times when they are needed. Each person has a right to a fair trial. So the courts sometimes have to suppress information from the public to avoid potential jurors seeing information about the case. They must only judge guilt based on what they hear in court not in the media.
- brigandish 3y agoSo the whole of society must be kept in the dark? No, jurors should simply judge on the evidence presented in court, and those looking for unwarranted (sadly, not literally) secrecy should look for other ways to continue their insidious conspiracies against people.
- xupybd 3y ago>jurors should simply judge on the evidence presented in court I don't know if humans are able to ignore evidence they have heard outside of court. We are not good at only including one set of information when making judgements.
- brigandish 3y agoRight, but you're advocating keeping the whole of society in the dark versus relying on twelve people to be fair, which is what they're told to do. I would say that the latter is better than the former because of the immense harm keeping the whole of society in the dark. It's a numbers game.
- xupybd 3y agoAll of society benefits from the right to a fair trial. But, most of the time gag orders are abused and no one benefits.
- brigandish 3y agoThe way I propose does not preclude a fair trial. The way you propose (i.e. the status quo) precludes an informed electorate and introduces perverse incentives for those in power.
- yrnameer 3y agoThere are plenty of laws that aren't compatible with our constitution. Judges will laugh a lawyer out of the courtroom who uses constitutional arguments, and your case will go nowhere.
- sibramalisi 3y agoAre you still like first amendement don't you number @_sib_ra10
- callalex 3y agoOur rights are written in a document. The government is made up of people. There can be a large disconnect between the two.
- fijiaarone 3y agoIt’s voluntary. The only way they can shut you up if you don’t agree to is to kill you.
- smsm42 3y agoYes, they can. They also can perform illegal searches on Americans, and routinely do. To the tune of hundreds thousands times a year: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-database-278000-searches-court-says-2023-05-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-da... There is absolutely no consequences to anybody for this. If you're going to ask how US citizens tolerate such blatant abuse, and why they don't do something about it - that's a very good question. Please get back to me if you find any answer to it.
- vintermann 3y agoYes, the thing people gloss over is that laws are only as good as the people ruling on them, and not only is the process of selecting supreme court judges in the US a farce, one of them is openly defending his own corruption now. In such cases, a well written, clear law on freedom of speech only increases the distance between what people think they have, and what they actually have.
- modriano 3y agoWell, the founding fathers intended for the First Amendment to apply only to acts of Congress, and maybe not even then (for example, just six years after ratifying the Bill of Rights, founding father and second President John Adams signed the Sedition act [0], which criminalized false and malicious statements against the government). It took over 125 years before Supreme Courts started reinterpreting the First Amendment to apply to some government actions that weren't acts of Congress, but there are still tons of situations where regular people can restrict free speech. For example, in Frederick v. Morse, while the Olympic torch was running through some town in Alaska, a public high school student unfurled a banner that read "bong hits 4 Jesus". Despite this not being on school grounds and the student not going to school that day, the school suspended him explicitly because of the speech on his banner, but the SC said that's fine. (Sidenote: I wouldn't look to the SC for coherent reasoning; the SC has been an absolute dumpster fire for all but the Warren court and parts of FDR's court. Hell, three current Justices (Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett) worked on George W Bush's legal team in the democracy-negating Bush v. Gore case) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
- kfrzcode 3y agoFree speech does not equate to unlimited absolution from consequence
- radarsat1 3y ago> but then apparently the police (FBI) can restrict the free speech of Americans without any court involvement at all? are you sure about this? As far as I understand "gag orders" can only come from a judge. Of course the FBI could request strongly that you not talk about something but I'm not sure it would hold legal weight.
- absurddoctor 3y agoHaving been on the receiving end a bit, the gag orders don't come from the FBI directly. The FBI can ask you not to say anything, but you can ignore that without any legal repercussions. Any gag order that matters is issued by a judge.
- patmorgan23 3y agoThey do need a court. Subpoenas are issued and overseen by the judicial system, any gay order has to be signed by a judge. The FBI can't unilaterally censor you.
- riazrizvi 3y agoThe USA is a country of laws. It's possible that people submitting packages are submitting illegal malware; spyware, ransomware, software to steal crypto money, or run illegal ticket-buying bots. Ethical oversight is baked into the institutions through governance structures. Institutions aren't perfect. Also there tend to be more complaints in the media about a country's institutions than in regions where there is not a free press. So the voices complaining online don't necessarily correlate with where the problems most lie.
- Loquebantur 3y agoDescribing the US as a country of laws is a little funny. The mere existence of laws does not imply much. Your examples are even weirder. How would such malfeasance justify clandestine observations? That is clearly disproportional, thus unethical. Claiming governance structures were "baked into" institutions is pure hopium. Democratic oversight means, there must be transparency enabling you as a citizen to detect and react to misconduct, at least by proxy. The "free press" isn't free to report and investigate such subpoenas, obviously.
- williamcotton 3y agoIf law enforcement was never allowed to engage in clandestine operations then it would hamper their ability to build a case against and/or apprehend criminals. Case in point, organized crime syndicates. This is why the majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you and are fine with the current state of affairs.
- pksebben 3y agoThat seems like kind of a fabricated boogeyman, though. I have an extremely hard time thinking of anyone I know whose been affected by an organized crime syndicate, but I can immediately bring to mind a whole host of injustices suffered at the hands of government agencies, from bogus tickets to civil forfeiture to imprisionment for victimless 'crimes' (and that's not even accounting for blanket stuff like xkeyscore or spending my tax dollars on nonsense like the iraq war - all arguably way worse than any criminal organization without government backing could ever hope to inflict)
- lazide 3y agoAt least they get to subtly communicate they can't talk, instead of being Jack Ma'd. The constitutional justification is the same one behind not being allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre if there is none, or not being able to go on TV and threaten the Judge overseeing your case - 'the constitution is not a suicide pact'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...] As to if it is being abused? Guaranteed. Being prevented? Not effectively. Only the occasional leak of the abuse and corresponding consequences (if any) seem to be counteracting it, and even then not well. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and most of the national security apparatus is solidly in the dark, and has been for a long time.
- mike_d 3y ago> How does the ethical use of this prolematic tool get ascertained? Where and how is the democratic oversight implemented? How is misuse treated and prevented? I can't speak specifically to this case, but in general when asking a judge for the warrant they also provide compelling evidence that harm would come from disclosure. The judges weigh the rights of the targeted and other parties that would be subject to a gag order against the greater good. To answer your last two questions, all gag orders eventually expire. It isn't a prohibition against the impacted party speaking out, just a delay. They can go directly to the judge or appeal to a higher court.
- yunohn 3y ago> It isn't a prohibition against the impacted party speaking out, just a delay. It’s exactly this “it’s totally fair, surely it’s not ridiculous” attitude that shows how the powers control the people. Gag orders and secrecy agreements can definitely be indefinite and regularly are. https://web.archive.org/web/20220809113138/https://cdt.org/insights/congress-needs-to-make-surveillance-gag-orders-fair-and-rare/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220809113138/https://cdt.org/i...
- rootusrootus 3y agoAssuming it's always ridiculous doesn't seem like a position any more enlightened.
- JasonFruit 3y agoPossibly safer for people's rights, though.
- whitemary 3y ago> Where and how is the democratic oversight implemented? What democratic oversight? This is the United States we're talking about lol.
- ajross 3y ago> Such subpoenas are clandestine surveillance of citizens by their state. The problem with such types of surveillance in particular is the lack of accountability. I never know how to interpret statements like this. The fourth amendment guarantees court oversight over search and seizures. A court signs off on every subpoena issued anywhere in the USA. Are you making this argument from the perspective of "I didn't know courts were involved" or "I don't view courts as sufficient oversight". If it's the latter... what's your alternative? Eliminate gag orders (which is all this is) entirely? You realize that there's a lot of stuff that happens in courts that we all agree should not be public, both for privacy and law enforcement reasons. Why get upset over this one particular thing?
- benlivengood 3y agoFISA judges are the oversight on foreign surveillance, but there is no (public?) oversight of national security letters.
- smsm42 3y agoFISA judges are not oversight of anything, as we learned, they almost never refuse a request, and even if there's a threat of such refusal, FBI could just lie to them, and they would stamp it, and when the lie comes out, nothing happens. FISA court is just a smokescreen to provide an illusion of oversight.
- runsWphotons 3y agoIt doesn't seem that clandestine.
- dools 3y ago> How does the ethical use of this prolematic tool get ascertained? Via the judicial system > Where and how is the democratic oversight implemented? In congress > How is misuse treated and prevented? Through the judicial system and congress
- cto_of_antifa 3y ago[dead]
- proxiful-wash 3y agoExcept for other "states" they don't even have the ability to communicate about subjects like this.
- smohare 3y ago[dead]
- lynx23 3y ago"Ethics" and "democracy", as if they were a real thing... Both are a tool to fights your adversaries, but they are not something you can assume as given.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoA theoretical case were an attacker leveraged some package hosted on PyPI could maybe become aware of investigations and destroy left-over evidence. But I guess a huge packet manager like this is too generic a target for such contraint to really work. > How does the ethical use of this prolematic tool get ascertained? It probably doesn't get ascertained, sadly. I think the advantages for investigations that might occur if people communicate more strategically is not worth the risk of political procecussions, which I believe are on the rise for a while now.
- tapoxi 3y agoSounds like they got a National Security Letter.
- bredren 3y agoDoes not need to be an NSL to have a non-disclosure attached. Could be a relatively minor (not very spooky) federal investigation.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoHow does that work with in combination of freedom of speech? Is it one of those cases, where someone has to be brave/foolish enough to disobey and take it to the supreme court?
- mywittyname 3y agoA judge signed off on it. Which means that the State made a case for the subpoena to include a non-disclosure.
- autoexec 3y agoI'm going to go ahead and guess "signed off on" was more like "rubber stamped"
- tracker1 3y agoMost likely... but the party who was served the order can file for appeal if they are willing to go that route. That said, it doesn't mean any such appeal with favor the party served the gag order.
- smsm42 3y agoAnd the case likely was "we swear it is very important for national security, trust us!" and that was enough. Search request is almost never refused, e.g. FISA court approves over 99% of them. And if the court already deemed the proof strong enough to do the search, surely it's strong enough to put a non-disclosure on it if asked.
- Breza 3y agoAgreed. It's like the librarians who responded to the Patriot Act by putting up "The FBI has not been here" signs.