Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fnoord | Hacker News Reader

> If you're sitting in front of a computer that you're using for something the U.S. government has significant interest in prosecuting, that device should be considered compromised and adversarial - you should act accordingly.

Yep: stop breaking the law. The vast majority the US government has significant interest in prosecuting, the general public is OK with.

View on HN

> The vast majority the US government has significant interest in prosecuting, the general public is OK with.

Did you really just shoot down your own argument by acknowledging that there are some things the government has a significant interest in prosecuting, but which the general public doesn’t find objectionable?

I read it as “the vast majority of people the government is after, the general public is okay with them being pursued.”

Sure. Which is the same as "for some minority of people the government is after, it is 100% acceptable and even desirable for them to use these technologies."

> Yep: stop breaking the law

That's certainly one takeaway. I wouldn't say that's "the" takeaway.

So no one should ever do illegal stuff to expose illegal stuff?

The law is a social, not a moral, construct, and tends to lag behind both. Ten years ago selling weed would’ve had the government using these same tactics against you; today you’ve got a shop front downtown. Fifty years ago being gay would’ve been cause for the FBI to surveil you. 70 years ago, supporting the policies of someone like Bernie Sanders would’ve done it.

I hope you're not hiding any dissidents, Comrade.

Lol if you don't want to be fucked with by the government, just don't break the law! Unfortunately that doesn't work. Sometimes legal activities are best kept under wraps.

I have a signed and executed federal search warrant in my drawer. I was tossed in a cell. I was dragged to a hospital. I was sent the bill for the "search" and am currently being hounded by debt collectors. Nothing was found and I did nothing wrong. Sadly just following the law didn't work.

Aren't you mixing up two different things? There's your problem, being harassed for something you say you didn't do. And there is the criminal's problem, being found out for something they did do. For the latter problem, not doing the illegal thing sounds like a solid strategy.

Actually I could have avoided the warrant had I broke the law. It was because I followed the law that I was harassed.

I could have easily jumped the fence to the US, and as a citizen unless caught in the act it'd be nigh impossible to prove I did anything wrong. Instead I presented at a port of entry where an insane officer claimed there was drugs up my ass.

What's the purpose of this distinction, if the actor (law enforcement) does not effectively make this distinction?

Law enforcement and the courts mostly do make the distinction effectively—it's what they are for. That they sometimes accidentally or deliberately fail to do so is true, but it doesn't license lawbreaking. In the US, there's a small chance of an innocent being harassed for something they didn't do, but a much larger chance of a criminal being arrested, charged, and jailed for something they did do.

If you don't want to be treated like a criminal, the smart choice is not to commit crimes, even though there is small chance you'll be treated like a criminal anyway.

>it doesn't license lawbreaking

The question at hand is not whether to break the law, it's whether to protect yourself from intrusion by state authorities with demonstrably little public accountability.

Wait, there's bills for search warrants, like in Brazil (the movie)?

Yes. IF an officer accuses you of having controlled substances inside your body you'll be dragged to a hospital, which will perform the search, and then send you the bill. It doesn't matter that nothing was found and it was performed against your will at the behest of the government.

In USA I wonder how they forced you to enter contract with medical provider. A letter to debt collector to 'validate alleged debt and show me the signed contract' could be interesting.

I did that exact thing and they sent back a rejection of the dispute along with shitty screenshot of me listed as "guarantor" of ICE's health service corps lol. Obviously I refused to sign anything. I have no idea how the collectors even found me as I had no valid contact information as the feds put their own address as mine.

FDCPA has provisions for a letter with specific words to make them stop contacting you. They will likely ignore that, so consider if you would then sue for damages.

Most States have a 'declaratory judgment' law in which an issue is brought to court and decided. You could force them to prove a contract in a court. They will probably not show up. Or they could show up and you could get corrupt judge and lose.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fair_debt_collection_practic...

Oh, that's an old and well established practice.

The Spanish Inquisition charged procedural costs for their ... administrations. Usually on the subject's family, because of high mortality rate. Terry Gilliam has even said that this particular practice was one of the big drivers for doing Brazil in the first place.

Modern governments have learned from the history, and chosen to repeat it.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'd like to think that is a rare exception, not the rule. It certainly isn't what I experienced when I entered the USA as a foreigner (with a DAP and Sharp Zaurus which didn't get checked either back in 2005). I know there's an issue of discrimination among police; it is something we (society) need to combat.

Unfortunately it is so common ACLU had to send a warning to a long list of hospitals CBP works with [0] to do this kind of thing as part of a lawsuit [1]. They still haven't stopped and the hospitals continue the searches, in fact I was sent to one of the hospitals listed.

A woman (who they never even got a warrant for and nothing found) at the hospital I was at was forcefully penetrated in a pretty disgusting way and I'm unaware of any significant remedy for her despite a lawsuit [2]. The lawyer who took her case told me they'd given up on such cases when I spoke with them. I complained to the relevant medical state board and they basically said everything is kosher.

While in the hospital with officers, I had the opportunity to ask them about their history in regard to this behavior. They bragged to me of various nefarious activity, such as taking someone in because they had a trans female-to-male "appendage" so they accused it of being a drug smuggling apparatus apparently to fuck with them. It was clear to me in these discussions it is routine and common behavior, and they voiced to me it was profitable for them as they commonly were paid a very high overtime wage to sit in the hospital which is easy work compared to their normal job at the port of entry and allows them to buy expensive trucks.

2 (relevant details start bottom page 6) is a pretty brutal read.

[0] https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/aclu_hospital_adv...

[1] https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/press-releases/cbp-settles-lawsui...

[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com