4 ms·

To all the people claiming this was solely as a result of insider trading: Have you ever dealt with the government in any capacity? Especially any of the 3 le

To all the people claiming this was solely as a result of insider trading: Have you ever dealt with the government in any capacity? Especially any of the 3 letter agencies? They will lean on you and they will absolutely try to ruin your life because you inconvenienced them. Did you know lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense[1]? Did you know it's status quo to try to trick people they're interviewing into presenting a lie or obscuring the facts? They do this so they can present you with the option of either A. Doing everything they demand or B. Become a felon and face time in prison with rapists and murderers. I can absolutely guarantee Nacchio went to prison over not helping the NSA. [1]http://www.fbi.gov/stlouis/press-releases/2010/sl101210.htm http://www.fbi.gov/stlouis/press-releases/2010/sl101210.htm

untog 13y ago
I can absolutely guarantee Nacchio went to prison over not helping the NSA. (A nitpick but) no, you can't. Everyone getting carried away with hyperbole is rarely useful in situations like these. It is definitely an issue worth investigating, but you can't guarantee the outcome before such an investigation.
sneak 13y ago
> Did you know lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense[1]? Holy fuck that's terrifying. I had no idea. Time for a re-watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- JamisonM 13y ago
  I do not understand why it is terrifying. In the case cited the person was being interviewed and knew the people he was talking to were FBI agents. It seems like misleading the police at any level should be a crime, should it not? If you are not sure about something you can say you are not sure or take the 5th, right?
  - jrs235 13y ago
    Except, what about the double standard that the police can lie to you?
    - sk5t 13y ago
      Exactly... friendly conversation with people who can lie to you at will to extract information, but to whom you cannot lie at all? No thank you, refer all questions to my lawyer please.
    - JamisonM 13y ago
      While that double-standard is unfortunate I do not see how their ability to lie to someone should make that person tell lies. Is the alternate universe where the police are not allowed to lie to you is also one where if an officer makes a factually inaccurate statement during questioning gets the interview tossed from court? I suspect that it is and in that case I prefer this universe.
      - drostie 13y ago
        Aside from being insecure it is also not robust (fragile?). So, suppose Paul can lie to Alice and Bob, and they cannot lie to him. He can probably interview them separately, too. We can ask how the system will break, either inadvertently (fragile) or due to deliberate pressure (insecure). Paul's later accusation (of lying) depends on his ability to remember with perfect accuracy all of his discussions with Alice and Bob; and if anything confuses him he might take it as grounds for the accusation. This leads to fragility: Paul's use of lies will likely create a situation where he himself is more likely to be misled, which he could then pin on Alice and Bob. He could also put people in a stressful situation hoping to coax out the truth, only to coax out a lie. Paul can tell Alice that he thinks Bob is guilty, but that Bob has just put all of the blame on Alice and made her look awful. Paul says, "I'm going to have to put you in jail, Alice, if you can't give me something to incriminate Bob." She doesn't have anything to incriminate Bob so she lies; he might later discover the lie and bust her for it. For that matter, Paul can stick to subject matters which Alice and Bob find embarrassing, and thus (advertently or inadvertently) stress them out into lying to him. Paul can suggest that even if his allegations are untrue, he will bring them to public light and their peers will judge them based on those allegations. (The example here would look like: Paul is pursuing a child porn ring which has nothing to do with Alice and Bob, but he thinks they're central to it. He tells them that if they don't immediately help him out, he's going to have to put them on public trial and then all of their neighbours and business associates will judge them for it. Then he starts asking questions about the other people in the ring, and they lie about it.) This only gets compounded if he is allowed to lie to them on procedural matters. For example, Paul informs them "You're allowed to lie to me." Or, Paul informs them, "I'm allowed to imprison you if you say anything which I disagree with." It can be subtler and less coercive: suppose he says that their best option to protect themselves is to apologize for a related act to some appropriate third-party, Carol. So the think that they're lying to Carol (legally allowed) but Paul thinks they're lying to him (a federal offense). And finally, even if Alice and Bob tell the absolute truth to Paul, it might be the case that Carol -- whether lying or honest does not matter -- contradicts their story and is otherwise trustworthy as a witness. Perhaps she really thinks she saw Bob that day, but in fact it wasn't him. Now both Alice and Bob have said that he was not there, but Paul interprets those as lies and prosecutes them for it.
- wpietri 13y ago
  That seems reasonable to me. Obstruction of justice [1] is and should be a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
  - cema 13y ago
    Well, yes. However, refusing to talk without a lawyer should still be possible.
  - otterley 13y ago
    I don't have a problem with obstruction of justice being a crime, but I do believe that the law should make it similarly illegal for a law-enforcement officer to lie to a criminal suspect or witness. If we care about the truth as a moral and cultural foundation, it seems reasonable we demand it on both sides of the playing field.

untog 13y ago

I can absolutely guarantee Nacchio went to prison over not helping the NSA. (A nitpick but) no, you can't. Everyone getting carried away with hyperbole is rarely useful in situations like these. It is definitely an issue worth investigating, but you can't guarantee the outcome before such an investigation.

sneak 13y ago

> Did you know lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense[1]? Holy fuck that's terrifying. I had no idea. Time for a re-watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

JamisonM 13y ago
I do not understand why it is terrifying. In the case cited the person was being interviewed and knew the people he was talking to were FBI agents. It seems like misleading the police at any level should be a crime, should it not? If you are not sure about something you can say you are not sure or take the 5th, right?
- jrs235 13y ago
  Except, what about the double standard that the police can lie to you?
  - sk5t 13y ago
    Exactly... friendly conversation with people who can lie to you at will to extract information, but to whom you cannot lie at all? No thank you, refer all questions to my lawyer please.
  - JamisonM 13y ago
    While that double-standard is unfortunate I do not see how their ability to lie to someone should make that person tell lies. Is the alternate universe where the police are not allowed to lie to you is also one where if an officer makes a factually inaccurate statement during questioning gets the interview tossed from court? I suspect that it is and in that case I prefer this universe.
    - drostie 13y ago
      Aside from being insecure it is also not robust (fragile?). So, suppose Paul can lie to Alice and Bob, and they cannot lie to him. He can probably interview them separately, too. We can ask how the system will break, either inadvertently (fragile) or due to deliberate pressure (insecure). Paul's later accusation (of lying) depends on his ability to remember with perfect accuracy all of his discussions with Alice and Bob; and if anything confuses him he might take it as grounds for the accusation. This leads to fragility: Paul's use of lies will likely create a situation where he himself is more likely to be misled, which he could then pin on Alice and Bob. He could also put people in a stressful situation hoping to coax out the truth, only to coax out a lie. Paul can tell Alice that he thinks Bob is guilty, but that Bob has just put all of the blame on Alice and made her look awful. Paul says, "I'm going to have to put you in jail, Alice, if you can't give me something to incriminate Bob." She doesn't have anything to incriminate Bob so she lies; he might later discover the lie and bust her for it. For that matter, Paul can stick to subject matters which Alice and Bob find embarrassing, and thus (advertently or inadvertently) stress them out into lying to him. Paul can suggest that even if his allegations are untrue, he will bring them to public light and their peers will judge them based on those allegations. (The example here would look like: Paul is pursuing a child porn ring which has nothing to do with Alice and Bob, but he thinks they're central to it. He tells them that if they don't immediately help him out, he's going to have to put them on public trial and then all of their neighbours and business associates will judge them for it. Then he starts asking questions about the other people in the ring, and they lie about it.) This only gets compounded if he is allowed to lie to them on procedural matters. For example, Paul informs them "You're allowed to lie to me." Or, Paul informs them, "I'm allowed to imprison you if you say anything which I disagree with." It can be subtler and less coercive: suppose he says that their best option to protect themselves is to apologize for a related act to some appropriate third-party, Carol. So the think that they're lying to Carol (legally allowed) but Paul thinks they're lying to him (a federal offense). And finally, even if Alice and Bob tell the absolute truth to Paul, it might be the case that Carol -- whether lying or honest does not matter -- contradicts their story and is otherwise trustworthy as a witness. Perhaps she really thinks she saw Bob that day, but in fact it wasn't him. Now both Alice and Bob have said that he was not there, but Paul interprets those as lies and prosecutes them for it.
wpietri 13y ago
That seems reasonable to me. Obstruction of justice [1] is and should be a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
- cema 13y ago
  Well, yes. However, refusing to talk without a lawyer should still be possible.
- otterley 13y ago
  I don't have a problem with obstruction of justice being a crime, but I do believe that the law should make it similarly illegal for a law-enforcement officer to lie to a criminal suspect or witness. If we care about the truth as a moral and cultural foundation, it seems reasonable we demand it on both sides of the playing field.