Twitter's recruitment drive among federal agents | Hacker News Reader

Twitter's recruitment drive among federal agents

therealnews.com

65 pointsjohntfella78 comments

The main activity of senior FBI and spooks alike has always been extortion. What exactly is done with it varies. For FBI, it may include coercing aid to recruit into "terrorist cells" that may then be prosecuted, or coercing false testimony, i.e. perjury, in criminal cases. Among spooks, coercion is used to operate networks of "assets" for information gathering or covert action, often for official purposes, but not at all necessarily so. "Classified" offers a big tent.

So, Twitter's interest in FBI and spooks will be to leverage their skills operating on information Twitter has unique access to. This could be a much more lucrative business than advertising. Of course this makes Twitter useful directly to the spook agencies for their own purposes, another revenue source.

On the other hand, federal employees are not paid very well and live in a high-cost area. Some are true believers, making their country or the world better by being a public servant and will stay for 40 years. Many leave because they've made their contribution or checked that box and move on to get a job that can better put their kids through college.

And that's fine, because we need more mixing of ideas between government and the private sector, rather than government operating with no idea of how to operate a business [1] and businesses operating with no regard for downstream impacts.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-business-experience-needed-j...

> one sign of a growing “revolving door” between the FBI and the entities it seeks to regulate.

The FBI does not regulate social media.

Key word being seeks

I’m not aware of any instances of that, but regardless, it wouldn’t matter, as they have no regulatory power.

What evidence do you have this is a goal of the FBI?

Here I'm going to put aside the issue of what the FBI can (or "wants" to) regulate. Clearly, they investigate. Social media is at times connected with criminal activity, so the FBI is going to ask questions. It makes sense that social media companies would like to have internal expertise too. It might be used to streamline the process, to reduce risk, to push back against perceived overreach, to help PR, to listen to the grape vine, and more.

They’re a police force. The FBI enforce laws, not write them. This is a potentially interesting story though, but not because of some kind of revolving door between the pencil-pushing swamp creatures and the fog breathing code monkeys.

It seems like my first sentence didn't have the desired effect: "Here I'm going to put aside the issue of what the FBI can (or "wants" to) regulate." My hope was to make clear what my comment was about, in the hopes of directing conversation towards why social media companies hire former FBI employees.

It’s a worthy question, but let’s leave the swamp water in the swamp and speak properly about who is being hired. We worry about “revolving doors” between regulatory agencies and their marks because of fears the prey may become the predators. This isn’t that, and the mission of the FBI is much broader than say, the FCC. The guys at the top of the Department of Justice food chain just below the President are your pencil pushing swamp creatures. Rank and file exploring jungle life in the streets of San Francisco (at least metaphorically if not literally) are not and the way you started off implied a swampy sort of character which gets your average know-nothing in this political environment to start thinking in the wrong direction about those dastardly revolving doors.

The comment above has a lot of problems. First, it calls people childish names. Second, it does not reply to the parent comment. Third, it is confusing to read, with run-on sentences and tangents. Overall, it falls well short of what HN strives to be, which I think "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation..." captures pretty well. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> The FBI enforce laws, not write them.

Technically correct but in practice the FBI does actually write and repeal laws in 2 incredibly important ways that I constantly see people forget about.

First every law enforcement body in this country has to prioritize which laws it wants to enforce, to many laws on the books to do otherwise. By prioritizing some crimes over others, they change the nature of the law itself, at least insofar as it impacts the lives of regular people. A law is not a really a law if its not enforced (just like a right is not really a right if it does not protect you in practice).

Second, and even more directly, the FBI in particular has a massive political influence in congress over which bills are written and which bills die and which bills get passed. Its difficult to overstate how powerful the law enforcement lobby is in this country, and a big part of that big tent is the FBI.

Yes and no insofar as the Attorney-General and the Director of the FBI are both political appointees hired and fired by the President of the United States.

You’re meshing the appointed leadership with the field agents, but rank and file FBI and most of their bosses are law enforcement whose assembly line is Justice, not policy, and they’re the guys with the guns, not the creatures with the pencils.

AG and Director, as political appointees who come and go, have much less say in what and how these agencies operate than career bureaucrats technically under them. Those have goals only ever glancingly related to nominal policies.

That is not to say that appointees have no influence; they can have a lasting effect through hiring practices and other personnel actions, effects that may outlast administrations. Appointees certainly do not learn of all activities of their underlings, if only because they only have so many hours in the day to read. What they do get to read is filtered for them by those same underlings.

Correct, people have goals. However leadership sets the agenda, goals, priorities and the direction of the organization.

If the leadership is weak, uninterested or unengaged, then yes, middle management can take their stab at steering the ship (and compete with each other to do it). On the other hand, they can also just be fired if they get uppity, and if leadership has someone stepping on their toes or undermining them, well rank has it’s privileges and anyone can be replaced. Make the distinction between a working stiff with law enforcement power and a pencil pushing swamp creature with political power.

Leadership can try to set agenda, goals, priorities, and direction. How effective these efforts will be depends entirely on whether and how they match those of the people working there.

The appointees have literally no way to know how well their orders are being followed, except as by reported by those who they hope are following them.

> Attorney-General and the Director of the FBI are both political appointees hired and fired by the President of the United States.

That's only a part of it. The FBI as an institution pushes for and against legislation, and when they push they can shove. They play a meaningful role in the actual drafting of the law.

This is not like an inherently evil thing, usually their political agenda, such as it is, it to strengthen laws that make it easier for them to do their work, and push back against laws which restrain their power. They work to protect the interests of their institution, which is understandable, but that necessarily enters into the policy realm.

> You’re meshing the appointed leadership with the field agents, but rank and file FBI and most of their bosses are law enforcement whose assembly line is Justice, not policy, and they’re the guys with the guns, not the creatures with the pencils.

I'm not. When I say "the FBI", I speak of the institution as a whole. Everyone from the rank and file to the bosses.

Okay, let me reframe: there is only one part of the FBI that is involved in policy, and it’s the part that is involved in setting policy for the FBI. That’s management and the chain of command runs up through the POTUS. The actual policy of which laws are written can be lobbied for by the institution, same as anyone else (and people complain about corporate lobbyists all the time so you know there’s competition), but it does not make laws.

Yes, we understand. Many of us understood ~6 messages ago. Some of us understood even before that. Anyhow, the horse is very much dead.

Are they just using "entities they seek to regulate" as a term for the general public? But even then the FBI regulates/enforces laws in government bodies too. I guess he wants FBI agents to be forbidden from seeking employment anywhere else?

> Many former FBI officials hold influential roles within [ insert company name ].

> For instance, in 2020, Matthew W. left a 15-year career as an intelligence program manager at the FBI to take up the post of senior director of product trust at [ insert company name ]

I would certainly hope so, it'd be a waste of talent if people with that much experience behind them didn't end up with significant roles elsewhere.

>This story originally appeared in MintPress News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News

TRNN and MPN are rags. This article is trash.

Dozens hired of a >7500 workforce amounting to ~0.5%. Is that alarming?

yes

I mean yeah? Why would a social media company hire dozens of former federal law enforcement agencies? What’s the rationale?

To help catch sex offenders, I imagine. Terrorism, drugs...stuff like that.

“think of the children!!!”

Yes, actually in this case that's a valid reason and your attempt to use it as a counter argument is wrong

Anti-abuse, which every internet platform has to do, has a lot of overlap with intelligence/investigation work. Let’s say you want to indentify:

1. Covert networks of fake accounts on your site that are run by hostile governments attempting to destabilize a country

2. Human traffickers attempting to lure teenagers across national borders where they will be sold into slavery

etc…

You could probably benefit from having former FBI agents on your team.

Even if you don’t care about doing the right thing, the bad press and government scrutiny you will get from those problems is a lot worse than this article.

If the FBI was so effective at these problems, why are these problems so rampant? Could it be that the FBI is too effective at these problems? They have enough funding to run many operations...

What problems are rampant and compared to what?

Isn’t this like asking why we still have fires if firefighters are so good at putting them out?

Why would a private company that has issues with fires and complying with fire codes ever want to hire a firefighter?

Mitigation? Lots of possibilities, this doesn’t seem strange to me (other than the company seems to be unable to control their fires, which is unusual for real companies outside of analogies)

Anyways, the metaphor is pretty strained at this point, I just meant that the idea that the FBI doesn’t work against these things because they still exist is nonsensical to me.

Because people don’t want their stuff burning down?

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736715592/the-private-firefig...

"why are people still sick if hospitals exist?"

Well clearly the directors of the fbi have nothing to gain by solving these problems at the federal level where they're not paid as well. Rather they have every incentive for the crimes to continue while they leverage their newfound expertise to get a more lucrative private sector engagement.

It's not difficult to understand when the incentives are made clear. Yes this is extremely clear.

Because they are candidates with experience in investigating many of the same problems that plague their platform.

Investigate how? Isn’t that the governments job?

I assume Twitter has IP addresses and account info to turn over to law enforcement.

Or are you suggesting Twitter take on a part of normal law enforcement activities?

Twitter (and all large websites with user contributions) have users who abuse their services, and they hire people who work to mitigate or otherwise address those issues.

Some issues may have legal concerns and necessitate cooperation with authorities, some do not. It depends on the nature of the issue.

I mean banks have users who abuse their services. You hire risk compliance people and forensic accountants, but do they hire a crew of FBI to investigate financial crimes?

Yes, banks do this. If you are an expert in analyzing financial fraud, this skill is useful to both the FBI and banks.

Doesn't make sense. I mean, it's not like they ever need to find out who's been attempting or succeeding in taking over accounts.

They might need help detecting sarcasm.

Since that evades automation, I expect they might. If they care.

The "I was just being sarcastic" was an enormous lie during the 2016 election cycle, though. Detecting lies is probably higher on their list.

Right? When someone tries to arbitrarily revise their meaning after the fact, it strains credibility.

I like the phrase: "Mean what you say and say what you mean". It isn't perfect, nor fool proof, but it has a lot of value. It might not result in the boldest, wittiest, funniest, most sarcastic phrases, but I personally am not optimizing to keep myself in the spotlight, energize my base, or shock+offend non-supporters.*

* "Shock and awe-fend" perhaps?

The social networks are filling themselves with spooks. Internet companies are going to be more intertwined with government than banks, especially because their specialties are so widely applicable in government functions. Virtually every government project has a data or tech element, so potential contracting is unlimited. Some tech companies could really replace entire agencies (under a failing, corrupt government.)

Some startups should really start making that offer. Pitch that your startup should be responsible for regulating beef and monitoring compliance.

What proof do you have this is happening?

What's your theory then?

Physical security and insider threat management for one thing. All big companies tend to hire for these positions from the ranks of law enforcement. Look up literally any company in the fortune 500 and look at the experience of the chief of security - they don't tend to come with PhDs from Stanford. Moreover Twitter is a target of many government agencies around the world, extremists groups of various shades, and disgruntled randos who believe the Californian elite is stifling their favorite brand of hate. It takes organization and expertise to operate safely within that kind of threat.

They're not hiring them as janitors or cooks, so isn't that 7,500 number pretty irrelevant? If they switch CEOs, we could call it a 0.00013% turnover, but that would also be silly.

> They're not hiring them as janitors or cooks, so isn't that 7,500 number pretty irrelevant?

It is good enough estimate, certainly good enough to support the "Dozens hired of a >7500 workforce amounting to ~0.5%. Is that alarming?" argument.

If you want, make a guess that Twitter has 1% of its headcount as janitors and cooks. Then revise 7,500 to ~7,425. The resulting math will vary about 1%. Peanuts.

> If they switch CEOs, we could call it a 0.00013% turnover, but that would also be silly.

Facepalm.

The comment is unrelated, a strawman, and laughably argued.

Take a mulligan and try again?

Intelligence agencies would be negligent if they weren't putting their people in key positions at large tech companies. I can guarantee that nobody affiliated with any ABC agencies has any influence on my Mastodon server.

> I can guarantee that nobody affiliated with any ABC agencies has any influence on my Mastodon server.

I take your point, but why poke the beast?

Mine is one of thousands. I am sure they are already in a quandary of how to deal with the fediverse. They have to work much harder there.

But there are some security risks in common, due to common source code and some shared notions of trust -- or at least a protocol for trust -- right? (Sorry, I admit I have much to learn about Mastodon.)

Anything can be hacked, but the thousands of instances are behind different server and network configurations. These instances typically contain anonymous users with nothing but social media posts. Generally it is not worth the effort to hack. Important thing is that each instance has its own rules and moderators.

I’m surprised these folk so readily advertise the roles they had before Twitter. If you are going through a foreign airport then your name might be on a watchlist to see if a foreign nation detains you. No longer being a federal agent means you’re just like the rest of us. Forgotten and expendable.

Who is the FBI hiring? Have to say netflix shows have shaped my view of the world and I can't believe anyone would want to go work there in 2022.

> Have to say netflix shows have shaped my view of the world ...

I'm glad you recognize one influence.

> ... and I can't believe anyone would want to go work there in 2022.

You know that Agent Petty (in Ozark) is not representative of FBI agents, right? :)

Are you exaggerating? Can you not imagine a person who would want to fight crime at the federal level?

Why would readily admit you base some of your views of the world from TV. In the past people would be embarrassed by this fact and not admit it

I appreciated their openness.

Embarrassment often blocks people from admitting ignorance and learning.

So, why be embarrassed?

He didn't admit he was wrong or that it was ignorant

This looks like a right wing disinformation site. The implication is that Twitter (in readers' minds the incarnation of oppressive liberal media) is somehow colluding with FBI deep state chimera to stifle freedom of speech. This is what conservatives in America resort to: allying themselves with white supremacists doesn't help them win elections, so when they lose, it's always supposedly the fault of fraud, federal government rigging the scales, and coastal elites. Aside from the fact that FBI does not regulate media (nor anyone in the US either TBH) I'm quite sure that on balance, there are more FBI agents going to traditionally right wing businesses with lots of political influence as well (energy, military contractors, etc.). In insurgency terms, this is textbook sapping of institutions, and honestly I say f these f'ers.

This site is not right wing disinformation. They are independent journalists who are open and frank about their intent.

https://therealnews.com/about/our-team

Our mission

The Real News Network (TRNN) makes media connecting you to the movements, people, and perspectives that are advancing the cause of a more just, equal, and livable planet. We broaden your understanding of the issues, contexts, and voices behind the news headlines.

We are rigorous in our journalism and dedicated to the facts, but unafraid to engage alongside movements for change, because we believe journalism and media making has a critical role to play in illuminating pathways for collective action.

That’s why we make media engaging people not as a passive audience of consumers and spectators, but as active—or soon-to-be activated—participants in the struggle for a better world. Our platform highlights the voices and ideas not just of academics and pundits, but grassroots participants in social movements for change: the people on the frontlines of fights against injustice.

TRRN is a left leaning publication.

Citing the mission statement of any publication is silly. If a publication has bias or accuracy issues, the same would also extend to their mission statement.

It is not silly, depending on what one does with it. This is a bit linger than you may expect, but I do take this topic quite seriously and wish more people would.

I have a specific set of criteria for how I evaluate media[0]

The two sides problem is chronic.[1]

I compare their mission statement and other branding type information to their output and if there is solid alignment, I can have some degree of confidence they are honest in their bias.

They are left, but are independent in terms of media consolidation. Most orgs are owned by a handful of people, and they have many conflicts of interest.[2] That kind of thing also generally leads to poor alignment between their output and their stated biases.

In media, bias is OK. In fact, it is the norm. Nobody, and I literally mean nobody produces objective material. To do that requires very significant time, people and resources. Does not ever happen on a news cycle.

The best way I know to deal with that is to accept bias and see whether a given org is honest about their bias.

This group is. That helps me know what I am getting.

[0] Evaluating media

There is always bias. Question is whether a media entity is honest about it.

Next up is clarity. Are fact and opinion clearly differentiated? If yes, then one can get informed and also consider their take on what facts may mean.

Do they publish retractions, errors and the like? If so, then I have some greater basis for using them to be informed.

[1] I use these criteria because of the two sides problem:

There are facts and there is what people think they mean. High clarity media makes it easy to discern and get informed while also taking their point of view as one of many out there.

Many media orgs lean on two sides and claim objectivity or neutrality. Both of these are a disservice and should be discouraged and for damn sure anyone leaning this way is bot authoritative.

Two sides does the most harm when it is used to manufacture controversy and or limit the scope of discussion.

The manufacturing of controversy generally includes putting an expert and a blathering drivel expert together for a "you decide" type presentation. I need not say more.

The more subtle harm is the idea of there being only two sides when the reality is far more diverse. Many points of view are marginalized away when we need them the most!

Clarity helps a lot when one is looking to reason about some facts. A diverse set of opinion can help to formulate our own take.

[2] Conflicts of interest

A great example can be seen in the near complete lack of news presented from a labor point of view. We just do not do that inbthe USA. We used to.

When I was a kid, primary school education included identifying what point of view a news item was written from. Labor vs corporatists or back then, big business or management were used.

As time passed, labor news evaporated as media consolidation happened.

Indie orgs are the primary source for that today, and that is part of why this org is worthy of consideration. And definitely does not merit being incorrectly labeled as right wing.

It would be very interesting to see a parallel universe version of this thread where the subject was a Chinese company and a Chinese intelligence agency.

They are two different governments. If I wrote a negative review for the movie "Argo" would you reply "Imagine if this review was about Star Wars"

IIRC there are actual documents/comms between the current administration and twitter regarding the request for removal of content and contributors. I believe that this makes twitter a de facto NGO and therefore they should be subject to the enforcement of the first amendment.

If you recall correctly.

They certainly are a non-government organization, just like General Motors and the Republican party. As such, their freedom of speech is certainly enforced.

You're right. Twitter can do what it wants. However if there's a government agent attempting to tell Twitter how to control speech then that government agent needs to be censured and any administration involvement ended.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-white-house-privatel...

This case is far from clear-cut but it does appear that pressure was applied.

> I believe that this makes twitter a de facto NGO and therefore they should be subject to the enforcement of the first amendment.

Is this belief formed by research (i.e. laws, regulations, and cases)? Please share if so.

What part of the first amendment deals with enforcement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com