Why the hell are people still stupid enough to talk to police without a lawyer present in this country?
Anything during that conversation could have been used against them in the future no matter how innocent it actually is. Or if they lied without meaning to, boom, you just lied to a law enforcement officer which is instant crime.
Guess what, no matter how friendly you are to them up front, they are still going to come and rip out all your equipment later and return it after years pass when it's all thrown out of court because nothing actually wrong was done.
I've noticed a large number of US TV shows (many of which involve the police) constantly feature people instantly and without hesitation assisting the police in their enquiries. I don't want to say it's brainwashing, but it's not far off.
Yeah TV. Here's the really "entertaining" part about talking to the FBI in reality.
Let's say you decide to talk with them. Now that you are talking to them, if they decide during that conversation that you've "become agitated" and pull out their gun and shoot you in their "self defense", guess who investigates them? That's right, the FBI.
Guess how many times in the history of the FBI an officer was found to have shot someone inappropriately, even if they weren't armed? That's right, zero times.
Do you think you're more likely to encourage an FBI officer to decide you are "agitated" if you insist they come back with a warrant and slam the door on them, or politely and cautiously answer basic, non-incriminatory questions on the assumption you're probably not guilty of whatever they're investigating? You can always pull the "if I'm being implicated in a crime, perhaps we should go down the police station and have a recorded conversation with a lawyer present" tack later if the questions start going uncomfortable places.
Coincidentally, I also received a totally unexpected call from police earlier this week. I wasn't suspected of committing a crime. Apparently helping them get in touch with my flatmate - who unbeknownst to me had reported a crime - didn't incriminate me or my flatmate. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lawyer would rather I had that two minute conversation in their paid presence, but I'm not really sure where they'd have helped me avoid accidentally intimating that I might be a criminal: I think I'd have done that more effectively by automatically assuming I was being investigated.
Assuming instantly pleading the Fifth helps misses the bit where police and especially more powerful organizations like the FBI jump to and act on a lot of conclusions that aren't admissible in court (and of course have plenty of capability to find non-verbal, admissible evidence of wrongdoing if motivated to look for it, even if you're innocent). If they're casually following up a dubious lead, which they probably are if you're not expecting their visit and don't have pot plants or a server mirroring Wikileaks in your conservatory, you probably don't want to fit their mental model of a suspect, which probably means you being at least slightly curious about why they want to speak to you, and at least willing to entertain the possibility that you're not the suspect. Statistically, you're more likely to plead the Fifth if you're guilty.
(This probably doesn't apply when they're picking on you because you're a genuine suspect or there are political reasons for them trying to find out about your friends or organization.)
There are indeed times when subdued appeasement and "friendly banter" as negotiation tactic may be a good/best course of action.
FBI knocking on your door wouldn't be one of them though. At least for me, but to each his own.
manish_gill's linked video is an amazing example of the information/power asymmetry working against you in this game. By the time you realize you're in an "uncomfortable place", it's likely too late.
It's more along the lines of: if a friendly law enforcement officer comes up to you and politely asks you some questions, many people have no problem being polite in return and answering them. Often the officer(s) will say something like "I just want to ask a few things, then I'll leave."
So 1) you'll think that the more you cooperate, the sooner you will be free from their presence, 2) you may fear that if you don't cooperate at all, they may harass you more, and finally 3) they may act like they are "doing you a favor" and so you may feel a bit compelled to do them a favor in return.
Federal agents in particular (FBI etc.) typically go this route. They'll try to build a rapport, "you-help-me, I-help-you", and may or may not subtly imply that if you don't respond they'll return for further questioning. They may even use classic interrogation tactics to make you more likely to answer them.
By simply not being accusatory or impolite, they have a much greater chance of getting the information they want.
Maybe just maybe I could accept than mentality on a casual encounter.
If a cop or FBI agent is seeking to talk to you, specifically by looking for you in the first place, you have far bigger problems than you can possibly talk your way out of, regardless of how innocent you actually are.
The FBI keep tabs on plenty of people they're not imminently planning on arresting or secretly carting off to Guantanamo Bay. In this case, it looks like there are plenty of reasons they could have received a tip-off: nuclear material purchased, collecting details on nuclear power stations and "homes for hackers" are all likely to alert suspicious members of the public. Casually explaining what it's all about is the perfect way to defuse trouble; stonewalling them until they decide you must be hiding something, get a warrant and find the uranium hidden in the cellar with the map of all the power stations probably isn't.
If the FBI have opened a file on there you probably don't want the words "suspicious of law enforcement" added to the list.
The police social engineer them that if they talk then they'll probably be let go, or all of it will be "sorted out". Foolish criminals actually think they can snow the police too with transparent lies.
The police are hoping you lie, because now they can easily trip you up later in court. Often they will just nod their heads and accept your complete BS and write it all down to give to the prosecutor. They will listen to an hour's worth of fabrications and pretend to be fooled by it so you talk some more, then arrest you because now you have provided them all they need.
In the UK police do this all the time with suspected drug importers. They show up and claim to whoever answers the door that if they tell them where the drugs are, this will all be sorted out with a fine or something and they will be on their way. The fool at the door agrees and now their entire place is ripped apart by a search and they are arrested and charged. There is a fine in UK/Ireland for cannabis drug posession, not for importing though.
Lack of education? Yesterday there was a blog post lamenting computer illiteracy in which the author asked how many people could tell the difference between the Internet, world wide web, a browser and a search engine without referencing Wikipedia?
Well, in America we have widespread political and legal illiteracy as well. I'm not talking about citizens not reading the Constitution, I'm talking about most people being unable to paraphrase the Fifth Amendment when asked. Aside from "plead the fifth" most people in America probably couldn't tell you what the amendment means. Yes, it applies to more than just courts. You won't be held to incriminate yourself, your property can't be unjustly seized without compensation, you must have due process and a jury, etc. etc. etc.
Americans lack basic Bill of Rights knowledge, because honestly, they don't teach it enough in schools. It's great that we have to stand up and pledge allegiance, but it would be nice if we had to repeat our own rights. As an American it bothers me.
Most people don't exercise that right when a police officer (or any other agent) speaks to them because it seems innocuous, and they don't think that their rights apply to a simple conversation with law enforcement.
All that said...I wouldn't say it's always unintelligent to speak to law enforcement without a lawyer...but still, most people should be aware of the right, and take judicious advantage of it.
Well, in America we have widespread political and legal
illiteracy as well. I'm not talking about citizens not
reading the Constitution, I'm talking about most people
being unable to paraphrase the Fifth Amendment when asked.
Aside from "plead the fifth" most people in America
probably couldn't tell you what the amendment means. Yes,
it applies to more than just courts. You won't be held to
incriminate yourself, your property can't be unjustly
seized without compensation, you must have due process and
a jury, etc. etc. etc.
The right to a jury trial is not actually present anywhere in the Fifth Amendment. (For criminal cases, it is in the Sixth Amendment, for certain civil cases, it is in the Seventh Amendment.)
You're right, my phrasing was unclear. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment clauses the right to silence in the face of an accusation unless you're at a court proceeding ("grand jury") - this ties in to not necessarily needing to respond to law enforcement questioning. I could have just stopped at due process, I was rambling :)
The Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself applies in court proceedings and certainly includes the right to silence in court proceedings in a criminal case. The grand jury provision in the Fifth is in reference to being charged with a serious crime, not an exception to the right of silence.
Its a good question, although some folks like the challenge. If you treat it like a game where you get information and they don't it can be entertaining. You can think of it like a puzzle, which is "What can I say in answering this question which is seems like an answer that is completely useless?"
Now of course I don't recommend playing head games with law enforcement officers, when they figure it out it irritates them (just like it would probably irritate you when someone was playing head games with you) But I do recommend playing this game with friends. The benefit is that if you play it for a while you be able to recognize pretty quickly when someone is playing with you (friend or not) and then you can either call them out on it (if you are trying to establish higher levels of trust) or play back (at which point there will be a reaction which varies all over the map).
It's sort of like lock picking, a skill that is fun to have but you really don't think you will use it in your professional dealings with people.
Well you wouldn't be the first person to tell me that my sense of humor was a bit 'off.' That said, I find it funny when recruiters try to develop a CV on me over the phone so they can tell someone else I'm available (when I'm not). They will say something like "You went to a major school right?" and I'll say "Yes, I went to a top school, and majored in a world recognized degree in a tough competitive environment." They'll say "So what programming language would you say you were most comfortable in?" and I'll say "I'm extremely comfortable writing code in the today's leading language, used by companies like Facebook, Google, and General Electric." etc. It probably isn't nice, but I do find it funny.
"At one point, one of the guys asked to use the bathroom. I showed him where it was and went back outside the house. I remember thinking he had been in there longer than was normal."
Congratulations, you are now the proud owner of an FBI-bugged hacker house.
With these kinds of things, I'm always unsure what the proper way to handle them is. A lot of smart people say to under no circumstances talk to law enforcement, ever. I'm sure a lot of you have seen links to that effect on HN. The main argument seems to be that anything you say to an officer of the law might be misremembered later and there is nothing you can do against that.
On the other hand, in cases like this, it would seem rude and disproportionate to not even meet these fine fellows from the FBI.
A related question I always had is: How often is law enforcement confronted with people that don't talk to them on general principle? Does that really make you suspicious or is it quite common?
> anything you say to an officer of the law might be misremembered later and there is nothing you can do against that.
No.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. If you lie about anything, even something trivial, that is a federal offense and you can go to jail for that. And many people have.
It has nothing to do with mis-remembering. You have no idea why they're talking to you. It might be about someone else. It might be about you. But you can bet it's about someone or something. And something you say may incriminate either yourself or someone else.
> On the other hand, in cases like this, it would seem rude and disproportionate to not even meet these fine fellows from the FBI.
This is foolish. They're not there to pop in and say hello. They're doing their job and cooperating with that work is not in your self interest.
> How often is law enforcement confronted with people that don't talk to them on general principle?
Rarely. Most people are scared and don't shut up. However, when they do, it's almost always a lawyer and that assumption will work in your favor.
> Does that really make you suspicious or is it quite common?
It doesn't make you suspicious. See the above. Don't be rude or curt. Be kind, they are human after all. Just explain that you are exercising your rights and wish them a good day.
> This is foolish. They're not there to pop in and say hello. They're doing their job and cooperating with that work is not in your self interest.
If they are investigating a crime (past or ongoing) that they believe you may have information about which has harmed, is harming, or may in the future harm your community (and, particularly, you specifically!) cooperating in their work may indeed be in your interest, whether you actually have useful information or can let them rule out that you do without raising new suspicions.
Of course, you don't know that that's the case when they come and talk to you, and if they are targetting you, its not in your self interest to cooperate. But just as it an error to neglect the possibility that you might be the target, it is an error to neglect the possibility that they might be investigating something that, if there work is not done, will harm you.
> cooperating in their work may indeed be in your interest
It may or it may not. You have no idea. They can lie to you with impunity. You're the one barred from lying. They are not.
If you can't trust them to tell the truth, you have no way to ascertain why they are speaking to you and whether it is in your best interest to cooperate. Since it's an unknown, best to assume the worst outcome and the worst outcome is that they're coming for you.
Every defense lawyer, even the incompetent ones, will tell you to keep your mouth shut. There's a reason for that. If you think you win brownie points for helping, you don't.
>The main argument seems to be that anything you say to an officer of the law might be misremembered later and there is nothing you can do against that.
It isn't being rude when the power is all on their side. You have no idea what their real motives are or how they will use your conversation. You have no reason to believe anything they tell you. Seems like the safest action is to politely decline.
>> A related question I always had is: How often is law enforcement confronted with people that don't talk to them on general principle? Does that really make you suspicious or is it quite common?
I think if you answered politely and explained why you're unwilling to talk to them about their issue it wouldn't be as easy to misconstrue as suspicious. Something like "I'm sure that you have respectable intent but unfortunately the US government has demonstrated in the recent past that they will prosecute people for things they say when they speak to the authorities. If you have a business card, I would be happy to email you links to several articles detailing these prosecutions further, I hope you understand this is nothing personal."
If you just say "no" and abruptly close the door, sure that might look a little bit suspicious. Also, educating them about the issues could help (send them links to media sites, never your own content).
> I think if you answered politely and explained why you're unwilling to talk to them about their issue it wouldn't be as easy to misconstrue as suspicious.
If they are talking to you given the time management the job requires, you are already suspicious.
If there is one thing I learned from growing up on a reservation is that the only response to the FBI is "I will not talk unless my lawyer is present and s/he advises me to talk".
// if a Federal Marshall wants to talk, you are screwed
They are generally there on someone's orders (e.g. a Federal Judge) and will be arresting someone. It might be a different experience for others, but that's pretty much all I've ever seen them do.
> If they are talking to you given the time management the job requires, you are already suspicious.
Or they think that you are likely to have evidence of a crime and have no suspicion at all about you. Its pretty hard to investigate any crime if your view of "time management" requires you not to talk to anyone expect suspects.
I guess I see that more as a feature of a federal marshal.
The others will chum up with you and do all sorts of tricks to 'make you talk'. If they do as you say, there's no BS like that. You're either under arrest or you aren't.
That comment could read as suspicious to many people who don't distrust the government.
I would check with your lawyer for appropriate boilerplate. IANAL, but I'm guessing that at the business level FBI agents are used to not being able to talk without lawyers.
I think there's a place for education, so that our fine civic defenders know about the technology that runs our lives. Part of the EFF's initial creation impulse involved education of the LEO community.
That said, I would be profoundly concerned as well if I got a visit out of the blue from some LEOs without some context.
Be polite, truthful (without over-sharing) and record the meeting.
Often times, I forget to turn off my digital voice recorder after lectures. I find recording and typing notes later to be easier than frantically jotting down notes; also even I can't read my own handwriting. If someone were to bump into me and have a chat, that's on the recording as well.
Some time ago, I got a visit from two gentlemen from the FBI. They were very polite and respectful, even though my mom was very scared, they reassured her that this was just an exploratory meeting. They also prefixed my name with "Mr." which was a bit of a delight for me because I was still a teenager back then and used to "hey you".
I think I probably still have their cards somewhere.
Nothing really happened. They got an anonymous phone call regarding something I may have said in school and wanted to see if there was something to it. Turns out it was a panicked busybody (and this was after 9/11) and they weren't even that clear on what was said. It wasn't anything even remotely requiring a lawyer's presence.
It wasn't anything even remotely requiring a lawyer's presence.
I want to agree with you, but how do you know that (I'm making the assumption here that you're not a lawyer, which may be incorrect)? This seems like the main issue - we (as in the common, non lawyery-types) don't necessarily know what things may or may not be incriminating. I'm not trying to instill a sense of fear, and I would always cooperate with law enforcement to the best of my abilities, but not at the risk of doing or saying something which could subsequently implicate me in something which is technically illegal and could get me arrested, convicted or deported.
That's true, I'm definitely not a lawyer. But this wasn't an interrogation by a long stretch. We also have to keep in mind, this is during the meeting itself which was rather sudden.
People have to learn the difference between knee-jerk self-censorship and turning informant at the first opportunity. There's a happy middle ground that's quite wide and don't involve paranoia induced silence or jingoism or fear inspired "collaboration" -- if that's the operative term -- with The Man.
The alternatives are to say nothing or be evasive or "lawyer up" as the lingo says. None of which ensures their suspicion in you or something associated with you will die down or inspire confidence in your innocence.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't explore your legal options. By all means, if you do receive a visit, the very next call should be to your lawyer with every bit of detail you have about the encounter. Hence the recording. But to shut up and say nothing is IMO unwise.
If you are going to meet law enforcement, it may as well be on your own ground.
I've been arrested by the police before and spent 4 hours in a jail cell simply because I was driving in an old red car with another passenger. We were even driving in the wrong direction and had food in the car that we'd just bought.
They were all sweetness and light until they turned up at my mate's house 30 minutes after 'chatting' to us and tossed it. Turned out nothing had even been stolen in the attempted burglary.
You just don't know when it's suddenly going to go from a friendly chat to something incredibly distressing and you losing your freedom.
They are not your friends and they will be fishing for anything they can use. Don't give them anything and you can't accidentally incriminate yourself.
No I don't, my point was more how a jovial and friendly chat can quite suddenly morph into them attempting to convict you of a crime and anything you said without a lawyer is fair game.
Perhaps excusable given your age and your "polite and respectful" experience, but please please be aware that following this advice could end in tragedy.
Also possible that you were just lucky. If they had decided for whatever reason (like your choice of T shirt, tattoos , ZIP code or skin colour) that you were probably up to no good then things could have easily gone the other way for you.
In some states, it is illegal for you to record a conversation without the other party's consent. If you are hauled into court, your recording may be (1) used to chain another charge on you, or (2) be inadmissible as exonerating evidence. Some courts have ruled that LEOs can be recorded while performing official duties, but I don't think there is a definitive SCOTUS decision on this subject, and I wouldn't bet my freedom on this.
That mainly pertains to Telecommunications and Wiretapping, of which the police have tried to twist and try to charge people with when recording them.
However I do not know of any state that prohibits recording your own property. If that were the case then there would be zero security camera's anywhere.
Security cameras don't typically record sound, which I'm guessing makes them not illegal under such statutes. Or they're plainly obvious, at least it's plainly obvious that they're recording video, or at least in commercial spaces there are signs up mandated by law, or something. Anyway, you can't surreptitiously record a conversation you have with somebody on your own property in many states.
By the time they let you know they're investigating you, they've been doing it awhile. This wasn't a friendly getting to know you, you are being investigated for federal crimes. See an attorney now, If/when they come back to arrest you it'll be a surprise.
That's not necessarily true. Yes, the FBI probably creates a file on everyone who purchases uranium in the US. FBI agents visit people regularly just to feel out their intentions and add to their file. If they see that you are a small start-up that is interested in energy generation, programming, and enjoys living life without any intentions of harming people, then they will note that in their file and leave you alone.
Yes, the FBI has a file on any activist, anyone who visits a country unfriendly to the US, anyone has a written a hateful email/letter to a public official, everyone who has committed a violent crime, anyone who owns a gun, and anyone who has the potential or motive to harm citizens. It's their JOB. It's what the organization was created to do.
Lookup how many major terrorist events are prevented by the FBI.
Absolutely agree. The FBI agent investigating me was quite friendly on his first visit until I said I didn't want to talk to him without an attorney. He didn't even visit me until he'd spent a week talking to other people first, none of which mentioned it to me until much later. He was even less friendly in court.
It's no accident that they showed up dressed casually or that one "had" to use the restroom. Entirely planned. These are experienced investigators. The fact that multiple agents showed up is a bad sign. That means they're devoting some significant resources to this investigation.
I don't know if I would hire an attorney yet, but it might be time for everyone involved to ask around for recommendations and have some contact info for an attorney on hand in case you needed it.
Related question: I don't have a lawyer, because, you know, not everyone just has one.
If the FBI came to my house to ask questions and I said, "Friends, I'd rather not speak with you without a lawyer present - you know how it is", how do I go about getting said lawyer without going bankrupt?
I am not a lawyer, but can't you just shut up? The FBI comes by asking questions, you can tell them "I will not answer any questions.", and, depending on the general mood, because not all FBI agents are nice people that will understand what you're doing, you can probably further say "If you have grounds to arrest me, I will want an attorney present for all interactions".
As far as I am aware, you do not have to answer them if they question you. This might frustrate the FBI however, and different agents will likely respond in different ways.
It's better to say you want to speak with your lawyer before you will answer questions. The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial questioning. (the recent 2013 Supreme Court decision, Salinas v. Texas, has more on this)
> The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial questioning.
How is this possible given the 4th and 5th amendments?
The whole argument behind this ruling is that at first the suspect talked and then stopped answering questions. Had the suspect not talked in the first place, then the 5th wouldn't have been voided, but since he did, it was.
So am I correct to assume that, according to this description and the other answer, that this falls under the 4th amendment and since the person in question initially answered questions they implicitly gave up this right and are thus accountable when they decide to stop talking?
The guy initially "cooperated" and answered questions and, at a certain point, finally just shut up and refused to speak anymore. It was ruled that the fact that he suddenly decided not to "cooperate" and became silent could be used against him.
I imagine the state arguing it to the jury similar to this: "Mr. Doe was helpful and cooperative at first and happily answered our questions. Then, when we asked him about <insert crime here> he stopped being cooperative and refused to answer any more of our questions. If he wasn't involved with <the crime>, why wouldn't he continue to cooperate?"
Basically, the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent" isn't as absolute when facing questioning outside of police custody (when you aren't free to leave) or a court room. You need to specifically invoke it under the Salinas decision.
> different agents will likely respond in different ways.
That's the worrying thing. One guy might just go "OK", and that's it. Another guy might pistol-whip you, claim you assaulted him, and haul you in for "enhanced interrogation".
Stanford prison experiment tells you just about everything you need to know about the mindset of LE.
The Stanford prison experiment was heavily influenced. In a real-life scenario there are always checks, balances and limits to law enforcement, even in corrupt precincts.
In the Stanford experiment, there was nothing. It was like Lord of the Flies for adults - an artificial environment where things would escalate unnaturally and unrealistically fast. However, even in precincts with Training Day levels of corruption, people in positions of power know that their excesses and abuses still have to have an upper bound.
I'm not attacking you personally on this point, but I studied psychology and have family in law enforcement who have worked in I.A.
I too have family in LE. All of them have/had major power issues - one joined SWAT, and beat his wife, my aunt, until she left him. Another takes pride in telling tales about shocking abuse of suspects in his custody. Thinks it's funny.
Either way, you're right that Stanford was unrealisticly unbounded, but those upper limits you speak of can be pretty damn high!
If its Internet freedom related, call the EFF. Either they will help you for free, or help you find a affordable lawyer. The state might also be forced to provide one, but I think that's only if you are being official charged with something.
We should be worried if you have a place called Homes for Hackers with 1Gb fiber and purchased uranium and DIDN'T get a visit or at least an inquiry from the FBI, right?
There are a TON of organizations and crazy individuals who are out to harm innocents and cause destruction, it's the FBI's job to prevent that.
What about 1Gb fiber connection makes one a terrorist?
What about buying Uranium off Amazon[1] makes one a terrorist?
What about starting an organization that promotes technology in the Midwest, a typically rural and industrial location, in need of new sectors makes one a terrorist?
The point is that we need to be more nuanced in our approach and show restraint. There are a lot of people with crazy ideas, however, doing things differently or having eclectic hobbies or dreams isn't what makes someone a terrorist.
What do we prefer?
We prefer freedom, liberty, and privacy to live our lives according to our own desires. Our desire for real safety is there, but security theater is ineffective. We can not prevent all terrorism, we can not prevent all harm. It is the cost of the freedom, liberty and privacy and one that we should be willing to pay. These are not absolutes, and trade offs can certainly be made. But today, we have traded too much freedom, liberty, and privacy for a false sense of security.
This is what we prefer: real safety balanced with real freedom, liberty and privacy.
Nobody said they were terrorists, just that all of those factors combined ranked them higher to have the potential to commit a serious crime.
The point of FBI agents contacting people and reaching out is to get a human perspective on their situation, to be able to put in their file things that raw stats cannot show. Yes, purchasing uranium outside of an academic setting is a red flag.
How do you propose we achieve "real safety"?
> "There are a lot of people with crazy ideas, however, doing things differently or having eclectic hobbies or dreams isn't what makes someone a terrorist."
Then what does mark someone as a potential terrorist? Remember you must PREVENT crimes, not just punish people who commit crimes. Nobody was arrested or even felt like they were about to be arrested, it was a friendly and optional meeting to feel out their intentions.
There is a huge amount of variables that must be considered to identify someone with the potential to cause harm to society and commit terrorism. Usually that individual keeps quiet and is halfway good about preventing law enforcement from finding out. A face-to-face conversation allows an FBI agent to gauge the situation and hopefully figure out what that individual or organizations true motives are. If they are an energy startup, then fine, no problem, that's was the point of the meeting. Now there are 300+ million more people that the FBI has to make sure doesn't decide to start blowing up citizens, public officials, or organizations.
A quick google search shows the details of Homes for Hackers covered in the likes of Forbes, Wired, CNN and so on.
Traveling Nuker's site links to coverage on Yahoo Finance and SPN. A Google search points to numerous videos where the founders outline what they're working on.
It's not like these guys were trying to stay under the radar. Spending 10 minutes searching on Google would have made it obvious they aren't terrorist.
Something they did raised a red flag with the FBI. They got a friendly chat from an agent. I don't know hardly anything about their situation, what kind of things they've done on the internet, or what the red flag was. It seems like the situation was handled professional by all parties involved and I wanted to voice my opinion that not everyone has jumped on the anti-government bandwagon.
I think the point is that it's not unreasonable for any sort of red-flagging system (whether data-mining or someone's gut) to have a false positive in this instance, because odds are pretty good that's what this is. If you're the FBI, the confluence of Uranium purchasing, in-depth info gathering on nuclear facilities and watch-words like "hacker"[1] and "nuke" probably should raise eyebrows. The reality is that this is the sort of situation that we'd expect to trigger a false positive even in the most competent and well-run agency.
False positives are frustrating and time-wasting, but the reality is when you're trying to find something as infrequent and stealthy as terror cells, you're going to have a lot more false positives than actual hits. We have to trade off false positives against the risk of false negatives (not detecting actual terrorists), and so long as competent police-work confines the impact of the false positives to these sorts of quick and semi-intrusive visits it's not that bad. Obviously if the FBI screws up and ends up with an intrusive and wasteful investigation here that's a problem.
[1] - I'm aware we're trying to reclaim the word, but it still has a certain evil connotation in the public mind.
The problem is that, especially in recent years, law enforcement doesn't act in a manner that reflects that idea. They hold on to false positives quite strongly and often ignore evidence contrary to their already determined judgements. When you mix in the significant militarization of law enforcement, you get a very scary worldview.
Bluntly, IMO the government has no business checking up on people without some level of suspicion. The cops ought not to be simply snooping around.
Googling for Hacker House gives a list of places that I would call "communes for entrepeneaurs", publically listed. I would be far more concerned about a place that was ordering uranium and wasn't public; wasn't engaging. People trying to hide their work with uranium are more suspicious than some sort of union organizer related to nuclear plants working out of a startup home...
There is a lot of space between anarchy and cops asking around about a perfectly legit place.
> At one point, one of the guys asked to use the bathroom. I showed him where it was and went back outside the house. I remember thinking he had been in there longer than was normal.
If you leave cops roaming around your house alone, you may need to consider your hardware compromised. Also, in such a situation, cops would have the opportunity to plant bugs or even "evidence".
FBI agents should no longer be considered to be on the side of American citizens. Not with their constant snooping, their attitude that anyone with a computer is a potential hacker etc.
I would have made them stay outside of the place, listen to them talk for a min or two and said "thanks for coming and talk later." Then close the door.
i live/work next door to the hacker house. the most worrisome part of this whole visit to me was when i asked them why they were here, their response was "to check in on your grassroots movement" and used the words "counter-culture" twice.
this being said, our overall conversation was not too out of the ordinary. they asked what my startup did, i gave them the pitch, and then we talked about advanced manufacturing and the future of the american economy for ~20min. none of them smiled though.
FBI showed up at Noisebridge this week asking about the Tor node again. They said the Chinese are now using it, but I am sure they have more important worries and reasons to come to NB.
After reading that Noisebridge has regular German classes I made a mental note to build my next hardware project there. Somehow, strangely, having the FBI show up there doesn't make me want to hang out there even though I don't have anything to hide (tm). In light of the recent revelations re Prism et al, LEOs, especially federal, make me uncomfortable...
I was under the impression that the FBI (or SS or DHS or whoever) showed up at Noisebridge on a regular enough basis that there's a section on their wiki for "if you're the door-answerer, and it's the Feds again, here's the standard procedure".
Should rename the article to oblivious person picks Travelling Nuker as their business name and unsurprisingly raises suspicious from the government. Where's the news in this?
> Anyway, I ended up telling them all about the Homes for Hackers program and the KC Startup Village. I hope they understood that I give free rent to entrepreneurs, not black-hat hackers, but one can never be too sure.
The fact that there are questions as to whether the FBI understands this distinction is terrifying.
"My apologies. I understand it would be unwise for me to have a conversation with you without, at the very least, consulting with an attorney. I have no problem talking to you within the correct framework. If there's something relevant to your visit my lawyer and I should consider I ask that you submit it to me in writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding. I appreciate your time. Please let me know if my lawyer and I should contact you and how to go about doing so."
A little verbose, I know. Perhaps those with legal training on HN can suggest and help evolve a clear and concise non-threatening statement one could commit to memory for such illustrious occasions? It sure sounds like the tech world is intersecting with law enforcement with greater frequency these days. It would behoove any entrepreneur and their staff to fully understand how to deal with these events in a manner that does not generate additional risk or liability for anyone.
I'm pretty sure that this published story isn't to advertise the author's own stupidity. I believe it is the only way he can communicate what happened to certain parties without directly contacting said parties. It lets the author elaborate without saying anything.
There actually are good/safe ways to have LEO contacts, which can be helpful later. The time to do that is before they contact you in the context of an investigation -- helping your local PD learn about technology issues in general (both on the criminal side and on the public safety side -- things like communications in an emergency or how to help people report property crimes online).
Anything during that conversation could have been used against them in the future no matter how innocent it actually is. Or if they lied without meaning to, boom, you just lied to a law enforcement officer which is instant crime.
Guess what, no matter how friendly you are to them up front, they are still going to come and rip out all your equipment later and return it after years pass when it's all thrown out of court because nothing actually wrong was done.