Hacker News Reader

Comment by openmosix | Hacker News Reader

Well, there has been no harassment. Leaving a card on a door or having a phone call with the lawyer is the daily work of law enforcement. Most of this story is made up in the mind of the author - from the motive they had, to the fact she would have been detained any minute.

View on HN

Her post is a good illustration of the chilling effect created by minimal but specific attention from essentially all-powerful state agencies. That the potential events of which she was concerned haven't yet occurred still leaves them as effective inhibitors of legal conduct and a source of gratuitous distress.

a.k.a. Tyranny.

> "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present."

That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.

Finding someone to ask them a question is not harassment.

They were probably testing to see if the attorney would invoke the right to remain silent.

edit: Really her attorney did a terrible job. If the attorney knew the client didn't want to talk to FBI, she should have handled it way differently.

edit2: Man even if the attorney didn't know the client wanted to stay silent, if you hear "we uh… need her to clear up her involvement or… uh… potential involvement in a matter" you assert the 5th and wait for the subpoena--and then fight it.

> Finding someone to ask them a question is not harassment.

Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present", is absolutely harassment.

Of whom? The lawyer? It couldn't possibly be of the woman because they had yet to make contact with her.

So if I call your partner and tell them that I'm going to find you and beat you up, I'm not harassing you, because I haven't contacted you specifically?

This is not what happened here.

It is unethical if you are an attorney, but I really don't think it is harassment.

I don't think so. I mean, is there precedent?

Why not?

> I mean, is there precedent?

For what? FBI agents harassing people? Just look at my comment about Hemingway.

I think he meant a legal precedent defining whether the following constitutes harassment:

> Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present"

IANAL, but it seems like it's OK for an FBI agent to say they'd prefer to talk to someone in person without a lawyer. It's not OK for them to coerce someone into talking without a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like that has happened here. I understand the author's fears, but the real issue seems to be the largely unchecked potential of the FBI to inflict harm upon specific citizens for any reason, not their actual behavior in this case.

It's de jure unethical for another lawyer to directly contact someone who has a lawyer. I would say it is de facto unethical for law enforcement agent to try and end-run around someone's lawyer. That undermines the specific roles law enforcement agents and lawyers have within the justice system.

I was talking about speaking to a person of interest instead of directly with their counsel (counsel without a case isn't legal counsel, in many US contexts depending on local legislation and interpretation).

It does not seem a threat either. The police can stop you anytime, ask you anything and it's your right to say no. "I'm gonna ask you questions" does not sound so terrifying to me :)

Last I checked, the FBI doesn't patrol the streets. Unless they're, uh... harassing you.

If they already know they will get nowhere with it, then there is no purpose to it but harassment.

"If they already know they will get nowhere with it" - we are still putting a lot of thoughts in their mind. They have asked for a meeting in person. Everything else is wild speculation.

They already refused to talk to her lawyer. There is every reason to assume that any subject they would bring up in person is one that could easily affect her negatively, as they would have zero reason not to share any benign subject ("we're doing a background check on someone who knows you", "we'd like to have you appear as an expert witness", etc) with her lawyer.

There's good reason to believe that the FBI repeatedly calling upon your places of residence is harassment [1][2]. At the same time, trying to contact someone peaceably and privately is a reasonable action; It is only because of past abuses that we are suspicious of their every minor action. There's a balance somewhere in there, but I'm not going to pass judgement on either party here. It's not clear that they weren't structured to be threatening, and it's not clear that the author isn't being paranoid.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...

The police cannot legally "stop" you absent cause to detain you.

Look up Terry stops. They can make up any reason after the fact, and routinely do. Your 4th amendment rights, on analysis, do not exist for any practical purpose.

Oh, agree. But "just to chat" is not a legal reason, and the FBI in particular would have a fun time justifying hanging around watching for "furtive movements". That's why the first question out of their mouth when stopped in all those fun youtube videos is "am I being detained". They of course can detain you, but it establishes that it is a detention.

If you trust your ability to say "no" to the police and have them respect that, your experience is not universal.

She's a contributor to Tor. Refusing to talk to her lawyer and saying they're going to pounce on her uninvited out of nowhere is harassment in my eyes.

I think it's reasonable for them to contact her and ask her questions, but they should go through the lawyer if she wants them to.

Ignore the first part.

Refusing to talk to someone's laywer is bad enough, but saying they're going to pounce on her uninvited out of nowhere is completely over the top.

If the require some documentation that someone is representing someone else, maybe they should also accept mailed and/or faxed documents for proof.

Nowhere in the communications with the FBI they have mentioned TOR or any connection with that. That's all made up by the author.

She mentioned she works on the Tor project and asks the question if her participation is relevant in this case. That part isn't made up.

I find it reasonable for someone to assume that their participation in a currently legal (but controversial) project would be a potential reason that the FBI wanted to question you.

It's not that much of a stretch to imagine that the reason the FBI are threatening to abduct her off the street and deny her the right to legal counsel is somehow related to her being a major Tor contributor.

ok thanks

Harassment might not be accurate, but the word "threat" certainly is. In the law enforcement force continuum, just showing up is recognized as a use of force.

I agree. An unhealthy level of paranoia. Maybe they just wanted to know something about her code?

Paranoia or not, if the reason was anything as benign, why not just tell her lawyer? Why the “But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.”? That sure doesn't inspire confidence in their goodwill.

If they wanted to know something about her code, they should have told her lawyer that—or, if they believed she'd be uncooperative, served a subpoena for the relevant information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com