7 ms·

While FBI Agents are busy flying to Iceland working on Hollywood's vision for the future of who owns the internet, data, and computers, the following is allowed

by maeon3 14y ago

While FBI Agents are busy flying to Iceland working on Hollywood's vision for the future of who owns the internet, data, and computers, the following is allowed to happen: 1. Guy with a court date for menacing with a weapon is allowed to keep the weapon, shoots up a bus and abducts a kid: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/us/alabama-child-hostage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/us/alabama-child-hostage/index... 2. No Executive anywhere on the planet has yet to do prison time for any action, decision or behavior relating to the largest manufactured Financial Crisis since 1929. Because when prosicuting the best and brightest who use the law to subvert justice, it's like trying to nail a vapor to the wall: http://www.propublica.org/article/why-no-financial-crisis-prosecutions-official-says-its-just-too-hard http://www.propublica.org/article/why-no-financial-crisis-pr... But on the plus side, there hasn't been many terrorist attacks as have been in the middle east, so they're doing an upstanding job there. Who checks the power of a dysfunctional FBI and smacks them around when they step out of line? What's the process even if it's only possible in theory? I know the FBI has to be irreproachable enough to resist the collective action of Mafias and cults/sects, which would make it a tough system to get rid of, even if it devolves into the Ministry of life/Ministry of truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth)

driverdan 14y ago
> No Executive anywhere on the planet has yet to do prison time for any action, decision or behavior relating to the largest manufactured Financial Crisis since 1929. Wrong! Iceland imprisoned multiple executives, among others. http://www.icenews.is/2011/04/07/first-iceland-bank-crash-prison-sentence-handed-down/ http://www.icenews.is/2011/04/07/first-iceland-bank-crash-pr... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/iceland-court-sentences-ex-byr-savings-executives-to-jail.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/iceland-court-sente...
- cynoclast 14y ago
  Iceland seems like the only country the banks don't rule.
  - paulhauggis 14y ago
    yeah, many people took out loans and couldn't pay them back. Iceland's answer? The banks are evil and those people shouldn't have to pay them back anyway. It doesn't really teach responsibility.
    - kyboren 14y ago
      Not quite. These people, perhaps foolishly, took out loans denominated in Euro. When these banks imploded, they took a huge chunk of the Icelandic economy with them, and the Krona was heavily devalued. Yes, people should have been more wary of taking out foreign currency-denominated loans. These banks were the reason they could never pay the loans off, though.
      - josefresco 14y ago
        Not quite. "Iceland's households also racked up debts amounting to 213% of disposable income. Britons and Americans owed just 169% and 140% of disposable income respectively—figures that make them seem almost sober by comparison. " http://www.economist.com/node/12382011?story_id=12382011 http://www.economist.com/node/12382011?story_id=12382011 So while there were many factors involved in why these banks failed, the citizens of Iceland played a key role.
        pifflesnort 14y ago
        Usury that is enforced by the state is (or ought to be) a privilege, not an inalienable right. Both sides share responsibility.
        kyboren 14y ago
        Well, of course the citizens played a key role. But it doesn't mean they weren't fleeced or foolishly lent to by sleazy, greedy bankers just like everyone else in the Western world. Even if you hold these citizens fully accountable, at least in Iceland the people who so irresponsibly led themselves to financial ruin were bailed out, rather than the banks who so irresponsibly led themselves to financial ruin. "The analysis suggests that the share of indebted households in distress grew from 12½ per cent in early 2007 to 23½ per cent on the eve of the banking collapse in the autumn of 2008, when the lion’s share of the balance sheet shocks had already taken place. The extent of acute distress nearly quadrupled over the same period. Forbearance efforts provided temporary breathing space, but the share in distress is estimated to have peaked at 27½ per cent in autumn 2009, before declining to 20 per cent at yearend 2010 due to policy and legal interventions. Financial distress is found to be inversely related to income and age, as well as being higher among families with children and those with foreigndenominated debt than among childless couples and those with ISK-denominated loans only. Parents of every fifth child in Iceland were in distress at year-end 2010. The incidence of negative housing equity increased dramatically, from roughly 6 to 37 per cent of indebted homeowners, over the four-year period. Negative housing equity is more widespread among high-income than low-income households. The share of homeowners simultaneously in distress and negative equity rose from roughly 1 to 14 per cent but declined to 10 per cent by the end of the period. Middleincome families with children, most of which had foreign-denominated loans, and low-income singles seem especially vulnerable. Some of the seeds of households’ financial difficulties were sown by imprudent lending in 2007 and 2008, when 16 per cent of the total amount of new loans was granted to households already in distress. Up to 34 per cent of households in distress at yearend 2010 were granted loans in 2007-2008, when they were already financially distressed." http://www.cb.is/library/Skr%C3%A1arsafn---EN/Working-Papers/Working%20Paper%2059.pdf http://www.cb.is/library/Skr%C3%A1arsafn---EN/Working-Papers...
- outside1234 14y ago
  The really criminal thing is that not that we haven't found someone to prosecute but that we haven't found anyone with the cojones to break up the banks into small enough entities that can fail on an individual basis without taking out the financial system.
untog 14y ago
I'm wary of comparisons like that- the implication is that if the FBI weren't busy in Iceland they would have caught the child abductor. I don't see any evidence to suggest that is the case.
- anglebracket 14y ago
  Especially since the actual visit was in 2011.
- white_devil 14y ago
  The implication was that the FBI has better things to do than to assist Hollywood in turning the world into a police state because they don't want to adjust their business models to fit 2013. There are lots and lots of people in the US, for example, who should be prosecuted for their financial crimes, but are not, and will not be because that's how the world works these days.
  - pyre 14y ago
    What does WikiLeaks releasing US Government secrets have to do with Hollywood? This just seems like a, "Hey this story is about the FBI, and I hate the FBI! Everybody let's pile on and bash the FBI for completely unrelated reasons!"
    - white_devil 14y ago
      The GP talked about FBI and Hollywood. But to be more specific, the FBI represents the US government, and there are plenty of reasons to hate it.
      - pyre 14y ago
        The GP also said that the FBI investigating WikiLeaks in Iceland was somehow pushing Hollywood's agenda, which is a pretty weak position.
        14y ago
allsystemsgo 14y ago
As for number two, I believe that secret service is typically responsible for investigating those sorts of crimes. I may be wrong though.
- damoncali 14y ago
  Not really. Number two was not actually a crime so much as a systemic regulatory failure fueled by greed and stupidity (Iceland's banks perpetrating some of the more egregious stupidity).
king_jester 14y ago
> But on the plus side, there hasn't been many terrorist attacks as have been in the middle east, so they're doing an upstanding job there. Most of the cases the FBI has prosecuted for terrorism in the US have been entrapment cases where they supplied most all the material and know how to carry out a "bombing".
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >entrapment cases That word does not mean what you think it means. Entrapment only applies if someone is coerced to commit a crime they otherwise would not have. In the case of the FBI's terrorism stings, the suspect was looking for allies to carry out an attack, and unknowingly contacted an undercover officer. The FBI might have supplied the "materials" and the "knowledge", but the action is all on the suspect. The FBI doesn't even swoop in for the arrest until the suspect actually tries to detonate the fake bomb. Even in the instance of a much weaker case, where a hypothetical "radical" says "Hmm, it would be neat to blow up $building" and a hypothetical undercover officer says "Really? Well I know a guy.." I'm finding it hard to call foul. Any sane person should recoil at the thought of indiscriminate killing and damage.
  - marekmroz 14y ago
    Except this is not what has been happening. There have been many stories reported of FBI actively trying to make someone into a terrorist. Some of the supposed perpetrators even contacted the police while under pressure from FBI to commit acts they would not want to do. Forgive me but I do not have time currently to dig up more than one, but this one I have fresh in my memory: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/the-convert?act=1 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/t... It's a story of a sting/long con op gone really bad. Have a listen and see that it is nothing like the hypothetical that you posted. Edit: If anyone is interested, more similar stories can be found in democracynow.org and bestoftheleft.com podcast archives.
  - gridaphobe 14y ago
    If the FBI supplied this guy with a fake bomb, what crime did the guy commit? He obviously didn't commit an act of terrorism. I don't even think you can claim he /attempted/ to commit such an act since the FBI gave him a fake. So we're left with what, the desire to commit an act of terror?
conjecTech 14y ago
Did you honestly just compare a shooting spree to a job in the financial industry? I am honestly astonished statements like this get absolutely no rebuttal. Please, enumerate for me the individuals who you believe are guilty and the crimes you believe they are guilty of.
paranormal 14y ago
This isn't germane to the discussion. > FBI Agents are busy flying to Iceland working on Hollywood's vision for the future of who owns the internet, data, and computers Wikileaks has very little to do with Hollywood. Whether you sympathize with Wikileaks or not, hopefully it makes sense that since they have publicly released federal secrets, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be charged with investigating them, right? I make no comment on whether the handling of the investigation has been appropriate. As for the rest of the post, I think you're trying to make the point that our "national effort" (of which there is seemingly be a finite pool) is being expended on an overseas investigations, so we couldn't fix weapons legislation or prosecute white-collar criminals. I disagree. There's nothing to suggest that either of those problems would be fixed if those FBI agents were doing anything else. Frankly, neither of those problems exist for lack of effort. > I know the FBI has to be irreproachable enough to resist the collective action of Mafias and cults/sects, which would make it a tough system to get rid of, even if it devolves into the Ministry of life/Ministry of truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth) Could you explain, specifically, how the FBI is becoming substantially similar to the Ministry of Truth? It would help if you could explain who, by name, and what initiatives are responsible for this.
- btilly 14y ago
  In theory the FBI is supposed to be responsible for domestic security, the CIA for international. Wikileaks is about as international as you could want and therefore shouldn't really be in the FBI's ballpark.
  - reinhardt 14y ago
    So would this be a non-story if it was CIA involved instead of FBI?
    - btilly 14y ago
      Ironically the opposite would happen. People hear CIA and thoughts of horrible conspiracy theories overwhelm. But it is in abstract principle the more appropriate organization to have gotten involved.
1337biz 14y ago
Somewhat surprised to see such a random government bashing comment making the top of the list. I'm all for criticizing the FBI but 1&2 are super remote factors, that have next to nothing to do with the actual Iceland situation. And by the way: Are the "take the guns away" arguments really that popular now? It almost seems to take forms of the "but think of the children" meme, where people try to connect on thing to a completely unrelated subject in order to support the alleged moral superiority of their argument.
tmh88j 14y ago
>While FBI Agents are busy flying to Iceland working on Hollywood's vision for the future of who owns the internet, data, and computers, the following is allowed to happen: You're acting as if the FBI devoted all of their efforts towards this.

by maeon3 14y ago

driverdan 14y ago

> No Executive anywhere on the planet has yet to do prison time for any action, decision or behavior relating to the largest manufactured Financial Crisis since 1929. Wrong! Iceland imprisoned multiple executives, among others. http://www.icenews.is/2011/04/07/first-iceland-bank-crash-prison-sentence-handed-down/ http://www.icenews.is/2011/04/07/first-iceland-bank-crash-pr... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/iceland-court-sentences-ex-byr-savings-executives-to-jail.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/iceland-court-sente...

cynoclast 14y ago
Iceland seems like the only country the banks don't rule.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  yeah, many people took out loans and couldn't pay them back. Iceland's answer? The banks are evil and those people shouldn't have to pay them back anyway. It doesn't really teach responsibility.
  - kyboren 14y ago
    Not quite. These people, perhaps foolishly, took out loans denominated in Euro. When these banks imploded, they took a huge chunk of the Icelandic economy with them, and the Krona was heavily devalued. Yes, people should have been more wary of taking out foreign currency-denominated loans. These banks were the reason they could never pay the loans off, though.
    - josefresco 14y ago
      Not quite. "Iceland's households also racked up debts amounting to 213% of disposable income. Britons and Americans owed just 169% and 140% of disposable income respectively—figures that make them seem almost sober by comparison. " http://www.economist.com/node/12382011?story_id=12382011 http://www.economist.com/node/12382011?story_id=12382011 So while there were many factors involved in why these banks failed, the citizens of Iceland played a key role.
      - pifflesnort 14y ago
        Usury that is enforced by the state is (or ought to be) a privilege, not an inalienable right. Both sides share responsibility.
      - kyboren 14y ago
        Well, of course the citizens played a key role. But it doesn't mean they weren't fleeced or foolishly lent to by sleazy, greedy bankers just like everyone else in the Western world. Even if you hold these citizens fully accountable, at least in Iceland the people who so irresponsibly led themselves to financial ruin were bailed out, rather than the banks who so irresponsibly led themselves to financial ruin. "The analysis suggests that the share of indebted households in distress grew from 12½ per cent in early 2007 to 23½ per cent on the eve of the banking collapse in the autumn of 2008, when the lion’s share of the balance sheet shocks had already taken place. The extent of acute distress nearly quadrupled over the same period. Forbearance efforts provided temporary breathing space, but the share in distress is estimated to have peaked at 27½ per cent in autumn 2009, before declining to 20 per cent at yearend 2010 due to policy and legal interventions. Financial distress is found to be inversely related to income and age, as well as being higher among families with children and those with foreigndenominated debt than among childless couples and those with ISK-denominated loans only. Parents of every fifth child in Iceland were in distress at year-end 2010. The incidence of negative housing equity increased dramatically, from roughly 6 to 37 per cent of indebted homeowners, over the four-year period. Negative housing equity is more widespread among high-income than low-income households. The share of homeowners simultaneously in distress and negative equity rose from roughly 1 to 14 per cent but declined to 10 per cent by the end of the period. Middleincome families with children, most of which had foreign-denominated loans, and low-income singles seem especially vulnerable. Some of the seeds of households’ financial difficulties were sown by imprudent lending in 2007 and 2008, when 16 per cent of the total amount of new loans was granted to households already in distress. Up to 34 per cent of households in distress at yearend 2010 were granted loans in 2007-2008, when they were already financially distressed." http://www.cb.is/library/Skr%C3%A1arsafn---EN/Working-Papers/Working%20Paper%2059.pdf http://www.cb.is/library/Skr%C3%A1arsafn---EN/Working-Papers...
outside1234 14y ago
The really criminal thing is that not that we haven't found someone to prosecute but that we haven't found anyone with the cojones to break up the banks into small enough entities that can fail on an individual basis without taking out the financial system.

untog 14y ago

I'm wary of comparisons like that- the implication is that if the FBI weren't busy in Iceland they would have caught the child abductor. I don't see any evidence to suggest that is the case.

anglebracket 14y ago
Especially since the actual visit was in 2011.
white_devil 14y ago
The implication was that the FBI has better things to do than to assist Hollywood in turning the world into a police state because they don't want to adjust their business models to fit 2013. There are lots and lots of people in the US, for example, who should be prosecuted for their financial crimes, but are not, and will not be because that's how the world works these days.
- pyre 14y ago
  What does WikiLeaks releasing US Government secrets have to do with Hollywood? This just seems like a, "Hey this story is about the FBI, and I hate the FBI! Everybody let's pile on and bash the FBI for completely unrelated reasons!"
  - white_devil 14y ago
    The GP talked about FBI and Hollywood. But to be more specific, the FBI represents the US government, and there are plenty of reasons to hate it.
    - pyre 14y ago
      The GP also said that the FBI investigating WikiLeaks in Iceland was somehow pushing Hollywood's agenda, which is a pretty weak position.
      - 14y ago

allsystemsgo 14y ago

As for number two, I believe that secret service is typically responsible for investigating those sorts of crimes. I may be wrong though.

damoncali 14y ago
Not really. Number two was not actually a crime so much as a systemic regulatory failure fueled by greed and stupidity (Iceland's banks perpetrating some of the more egregious stupidity).

king_jester 14y ago

> But on the plus side, there hasn't been many terrorist attacks as have been in the middle east, so they're doing an upstanding job there. Most of the cases the FBI has prosecuted for terrorism in the US have been entrapment cases where they supplied most all the material and know how to carry out a "bombing".

Karunamon 14y ago
>entrapment cases That word does not mean what you think it means. Entrapment only applies if someone is coerced to commit a crime they otherwise would not have. In the case of the FBI's terrorism stings, the suspect was looking for allies to carry out an attack, and unknowingly contacted an undercover officer. The FBI might have supplied the "materials" and the "knowledge", but the action is all on the suspect. The FBI doesn't even swoop in for the arrest until the suspect actually tries to detonate the fake bomb. Even in the instance of a much weaker case, where a hypothetical "radical" says "Hmm, it would be neat to blow up $building" and a hypothetical undercover officer says "Really? Well I know a guy.." I'm finding it hard to call foul. Any sane person should recoil at the thought of indiscriminate killing and damage.
- marekmroz 14y ago
  Except this is not what has been happening. There have been many stories reported of FBI actively trying to make someone into a terrorist. Some of the supposed perpetrators even contacted the police while under pressure from FBI to commit acts they would not want to do. Forgive me but I do not have time currently to dig up more than one, but this one I have fresh in my memory: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/the-convert?act=1 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/t... It's a story of a sting/long con op gone really bad. Have a listen and see that it is nothing like the hypothetical that you posted. Edit: If anyone is interested, more similar stories can be found in democracynow.org and bestoftheleft.com podcast archives.
- gridaphobe 14y ago
  If the FBI supplied this guy with a fake bomb, what crime did the guy commit? He obviously didn't commit an act of terrorism. I don't even think you can claim he /attempted/ to commit such an act since the FBI gave him a fake. So we're left with what, the desire to commit an act of terror?

conjecTech 14y ago

Did you honestly just compare a shooting spree to a job in the financial industry? I am honestly astonished statements like this get absolutely no rebuttal. Please, enumerate for me the individuals who you believe are guilty and the crimes you believe they are guilty of.

paranormal 14y ago

This isn't germane to the discussion. > FBI Agents are busy flying to Iceland working on Hollywood's vision for the future of who owns the internet, data, and computers Wikileaks has very little to do with Hollywood. Whether you sympathize with Wikileaks or not, hopefully it makes sense that since they have publicly released federal secrets, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be charged with investigating them, right? I make no comment on whether the handling of the investigation has been appropriate. As for the rest of the post, I think you're trying to make the point that our "national effort" (of which there is seemingly be a finite pool) is being expended on an overseas investigations, so we couldn't fix weapons legislation or prosecute white-collar criminals. I disagree. There's nothing to suggest that either of those problems would be fixed if those FBI agents were doing anything else. Frankly, neither of those problems exist for lack of effort. > I know the FBI has to be irreproachable enough to resist the collective action of Mafias and cults/sects, which would make it a tough system to get rid of, even if it devolves into the Ministry of life/Ministry of truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth) Could you explain, specifically, how the FBI is becoming substantially similar to the Ministry of Truth? It would help if you could explain who, by name, and what initiatives are responsible for this.

btilly 14y ago
In theory the FBI is supposed to be responsible for domestic security, the CIA for international. Wikileaks is about as international as you could want and therefore shouldn't really be in the FBI's ballpark.
- reinhardt 14y ago
  So would this be a non-story if it was CIA involved instead of FBI?
  - btilly 14y ago
    Ironically the opposite would happen. People hear CIA and thoughts of horrible conspiracy theories overwhelm. But it is in abstract principle the more appropriate organization to have gotten involved.

1337biz 14y ago

Somewhat surprised to see such a random government bashing comment making the top of the list. I'm all for criticizing the FBI but 1&2 are super remote factors, that have next to nothing to do with the actual Iceland situation. And by the way: Are the "take the guns away" arguments really that popular now? It almost seems to take forms of the "but think of the children" meme, where people try to connect on thing to a completely unrelated subject in order to support the alleged moral superiority of their argument.

tmh88j 14y ago

>While FBI Agents are busy flying to Iceland working on Hollywood's vision for the future of who owns the internet, data, and computers, the following is allowed to happen: You're acting as if the FBI devoted all of their efforts towards this.