5 ms·

I don't completely understand the problem here. Is the FBI really expected to put their investigation on hold while they first investigate the reporter? Like, i

by chc 12y ago

I don't completely understand the problem here. Is the FBI really expected to put their investigation on hold while they first investigate the reporter? Like, if my $X vase is stolen and I say it's worth $X, I would hope the cops don't waste a lot of time getting the missing vase appraised in absentia before they try tracking it down. Like, hopefully the FBI obeys the law and respects suspects' rights regardless of the particulars of Goldman's claim. If they're not doing that, that's a problem. But if somebody is lying to them, that's a felony they can pursue later, right?

blackbagboys 12y ago
To extend and correct your analogy, if you accuse your neighbor of stealing your vase, I would hope the cops spend some time investigating whether a) there was actually a vase to begin with and b) he actually took it, before they haul him off to prison. Determining whether or not a crime has actually occurred is usually an essential part of a criminal investigation.
- abalone 12y ago
  One flaw in your analogy: The FBI doesn't "haul you off to prison". There's a criminal trial that happens in between those two points.
  - blackbagboys 12y ago
    "Jail", then.
    - abalone 12y ago
      The analogy omits the thorough criminal trial process that led to his imprisonment, suggesting it was all because the FBI didn't investigate properly. In actuality he got out because an appeals court found a loophole in the phrasing of the Economic Espionage Act -- which was immediately closed by Congress at the behest of the judge. [1] It had nothing to do with the lack of investigative thoroughness on the part of the FBI. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051:
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- rayiner 12y ago
  But based on the facts of the case, the analogy is more like: you accuse your neighbor of stealing your rare Chinese vase. Evidence shows that he did in fact take your vase. He's charged under a law for stealing historic artifacts. But after being convicted, an appellate court interprets the law not to apply because while your vase is rare, it's not "historic."
  - lukeschlather 12y ago
    Except you still have your vase, he just made a perfect copy using a Star Trek-style replicator.
    - Chronic31 12y ago
      You should go back to reddit, my friend.
    - chc 12y ago
      This is not a meaningful distinction in this case, as AFAIK it's about misappropriation of secrets rather than loss of property, so that isn't meant to be the same in the two presented scenarios.
      - lukeschlather 12y ago
        Didn't the court rule that the secrets were not subject to protection under the law? It sounds an awful lot like the court ruled that no theft occurred, regardless of your definition.
        tptacek 12y ago
        Read Calabresi's opinion in the appeals court case overturning the conviction: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings/united-states-v-aleynikov/20120411calabresi039s-concurrence.pdf http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings... The gist is: everyone agrees the conviction needs to be overturned by the letter of the law, and so it was, but that's because the law was silly, which is why it was immediately changed by unanimous consent in the Senate and a 388-4 vote in the House in a bill specifically mentioning Aleynikov. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/senate-section/article/S6978-3 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Is the FBI really expected to put their investigation on hold while they first investigate the reporter? Yes, the very first thing you should do if investigating a reported crime is find out if the report is reliable.

by chc 12y ago

blackbagboys 12y ago

To extend and correct your analogy, if you accuse your neighbor of stealing your vase, I would hope the cops spend some time investigating whether a) there was actually a vase to begin with and b) he actually took it, before they haul him off to prison. Determining whether or not a crime has actually occurred is usually an essential part of a criminal investigation.

abalone 12y ago
One flaw in your analogy: The FBI doesn't "haul you off to prison". There's a criminal trial that happens in between those two points.
- blackbagboys 12y ago
  "Jail", then.
  - abalone 12y ago
    The analogy omits the thorough criminal trial process that led to his imprisonment, suggesting it was all because the FBI didn't investigate properly. In actuality he got out because an appeals court found a loophole in the phrasing of the Economic Espionage Act -- which was immediately closed by Congress at the behest of the judge. [1] It had nothing to do with the lack of investigative thoroughness on the part of the FBI. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051:
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
But based on the facts of the case, the analogy is more like: you accuse your neighbor of stealing your rare Chinese vase. Evidence shows that he did in fact take your vase. He's charged under a law for stealing historic artifacts. But after being convicted, an appellate court interprets the law not to apply because while your vase is rare, it's not "historic."
- lukeschlather 12y ago
  Except you still have your vase, he just made a perfect copy using a Star Trek-style replicator.
  - Chronic31 12y ago
    You should go back to reddit, my friend.
  - chc 12y ago
    This is not a meaningful distinction in this case, as AFAIK it's about misappropriation of secrets rather than loss of property, so that isn't meant to be the same in the two presented scenarios.
    - lukeschlather 12y ago
      Didn't the court rule that the secrets were not subject to protection under the law? It sounds an awful lot like the court ruled that no theft occurred, regardless of your definition.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Read Calabresi's opinion in the appeals court case overturning the conviction: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings/united-states-v-aleynikov/20120411calabresi039s-concurrence.pdf http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings... The gist is: everyone agrees the conviction needs to be overturned by the letter of the law, and so it was, but that's because the law was silly, which is why it was immediately changed by unanimous consent in the Senate and a 388-4 vote in the House in a bill specifically mentioning Aleynikov. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/senate-section/article/S6978-3 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Is the FBI really expected to put their investigation on hold while they first investigate the reporter? Yes, the very first thing you should do if investigating a reported crime is find out if the report is reliable.