Hacker News Reader

Comment by pimmen | Hacker News Reader

As a European, this is something that could very well make my government resign because it would be illegal. Like, crazy illegal.

Is this legal in the US or is the current US administration in hot water?

View on HN

I am European too (French) and having "secret" database/file of journalist is happening without and outcry about it.

There is at least one journalist who has the infamous "Fiche S". This one is not illegal, but contain basically whatever the police want to put on it, which can be a stretch from reality. The deletion of the fiche was also refused [0].

Then we got at least one journalist who had, illegally this time, a file by the military [1]. Even though the file is illegal, she was refused access to it.

And then, even for basic citizen, there is police files (STIC), which can contain whatever the police wants to put on it and has been leaked several time, for example, to employer like Ikea [2]. It also happened to famous people to have their file leak [3].

Has European, we like to think we do much better than the US when it comes to abusive surveillance, but the reality is we basically kind of do the same.

[0] https://twitter.com/GaspardGlanz/status/1101150475787866112

[1] https://lesjours.fr/obsessions/vie-jours/ep47-camille-pollon...

[2] https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/secrets-d-info/secrets-...

[3] https://www.bfmtv.com/societe/fiches-police-johnny-jamel-div...

The current administration “in hot water”? The current administration has been in hot water since before it took office. This is just the Nth example of the levels of crazy executive power unchecked by oversight can rise to.

Did the Snowden revelations end up weakening any government despite the violations against citizens? Or fast and furious? Iran-Contra? Don’t kid yourself.

Absolutely. All of those things had significant policy impacts.

It’s no coincidence that massive Russian influence campaigns that put a buffoon in the White House followed their usurpation of Snowden and Wikileaks.

Fast and furious helped cement the right wing distrust of government and gin up the crazy gun people.

Iran-Contra undermined the global strategy for dealing with terrorist incidents by refusing to negotiate. It also highlighted the continued contempt for Latin America that facilitates a lot of anti-US sentiment in the region.

Americans are far more of a national security threat than foreign governments. It is far more likely that they will replace the government than it is that a foreign power would. We will only have good national security when the government is as resistant to Americans as it is to Putin.

I don’t know what you mean. Americans are the ones who should decide the government. Not sure I see that as a threat. We have mechanisms to deal with internal threats without having to impose sanctions or go to war.

If you’re talking about PACs and vested interests, we at least, if we wanted it enough, could make changes but enough people are okay with them so there is no pressure to make radical change.

Americans are the ones that are supposed to decide the government, that's why they're the biggest threat to any present government (and all future governments). On any politician's list of threats to their position Americans are at the top, and foreign governments are far behind. Unless they're a saint, securing against foreign governments is an afterthought next to securing against their constituents.

There are no term limits for parties, so the collective interests are even more anti-citizen than the individual interests.

That’s not a “threat”, that’s how representative democratic governments work in most places. A threat is an upending of the usual mechanisms.

Right, but any given mechanism (gerrymandering for example) is vastly more likely to be upended by Americans than it would be to be upended by foreign powers. From the perspective of the mechanism, Americans are the biggest threat, to the point where none of the others really matter. That's why policymakers are working so hard to undermine the public's authority.

You do realize the CIA was responsible for the Snowden NSA leaks (their direct adversary that has the legal authority to bulk collect data on American communication networks) because they are also implicated in massive umbrella surveillance of American and foreign communications, and not for a legal purpose.

> You do realize the CIA was responsible for the Snowden NSA leaks

You'll have to provide proof to back up that claim, otherwise there's no reason to believe it.

This is probably only true in Germany.

> Is this legal in the US or is the current US administration in hot water?

Keeping immigrants in indefinite detention probably isn't legal in the US, doesn't mean it's not going to continue.

> current US administration in hot water?

The FBI is working their way through jailing senior members of the Trump campaign.

Really? Name a single member of the trump administration who is in jail, muchless senior. Why make stuff up?

I said "campaign" for a reason.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47263226 : former election campaign chief Paul Manafort is the big one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46347887 George Papadopoulos received a short prison sentence for lying to the FBI.

The following associates are convicted but not yet sentenced, presumably while they cooperate with investigators:

Rick Gates has pled guilty to conspiracy against the United States (!)

Michael Cohen has been allowed medical leave before serving his sentence: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/nyregion/michael-cohen-pr...

Michael Flynn (who was actually, briefly, a member of the Trump administration) has pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

Yeah I must have misread “administration.” In that case obviously you’re correct. Still, wow, they got Manafort. That’s not exactly the big time. Just some sheister lobbyist. Something about “working their way through” didn’t quite connect with my perceived reality.

Lobbyist? He was the head of the campaign and selected Mike Pence! Trump wanted Chris Christie.

Former "National Security Advisor" is pretty senior.

Is Flynn actually in jail?

He would be if he didn’t collaborate with the FBI according to the sentencing documents.

> This is probably only true in Germany.

Nope. They tried, got caught and nothing happened.

I don't know where people get the idea that Germany has no corruption issues. It does. It also regularly blocks incentives that try to get a hold of said corruption.

Caravans of thousands of people don't generally just organically form and find themselves able to transit thousands of miles. Even if you set aside the extensive funding required, there are some very serious logistical issues involved in this sort of thing.

The caravan had already successfully and illegally overrun the border between Mexico and Guatemala. [1] It's reasonable to believe they aimed to attempt to do the same thing at the US border. It's not easy to stop thousands of people when they keep moving forward. But if so this would be a very severe crime. Aiding a signal unlawful entry into the US is a significant felony subject to up to 10 years in prison. [2] Conspiring and facilitating the unlawful entry of thousands?

It'd be remiss of the government to not carry out an investigation and determine how the caravan formed, who it was comprised of, who was funding it, who was assisting it, who was directing it, and so forth. And in this regard on-the-ground reports from journalists offer a great deal of insight.

As for the journalists themselves, I think the most important point is one of investigation vs intimidation. Declaring yourself a journalist does not then grant immunity to investigation of your actions. If so, that would exploited by subversive interests. So the question becomes were the journalists simply being investigated or were they being intimidated?

[1] - https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-m...

[2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1327

>Aiding a signal unlawful entry into the US is a significant felony subject to up to 10 years in prison.

Upon first glance this doesn't seem true. Your link says that this punishment exists only if the alien is already convicted of an aggravated felony.

Check the referenced 1182(a)(3) [1] regarding excluded aliens. The most direct would be 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) which prohibits the assistance of any alien whom there is sufficient reason to believe plans to engage in any unlawful activity. Unlawful entry/residence is, of course, unlawful activity. The fact that much of the caravan had already done that, by force of numbers, at the Mexico-Guatemala border while chanting things such as "One way or another, we will pass!" offers more than "reasonable ground to believe" such actions were also planned for the US and US border.

The reason the legalese is so obtuse is because it also encompasses aiding or assisting in the legal entry of an alien for whom there is "reasonable ground to believe" will engage in unlawful activity.

[1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Reply on news.ycombinator.com