Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhuckestein | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

> 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.

Don't they need to read the miranda right before?

No.

> 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.

There are far more reasons than just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

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).

Edit: Also, "No, you can't use my bathroom." ;)

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 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

What makes a federal marshal "screw-worthy"?

Any law enforcement you didn't call seems to all be pretty bad.

Their talking points are: are you X? if yes, you are under arrest else go to next person. They have a mission not an investigation.

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.

And, I respect that.

> if a Federal Marshall wants to talk, you are screwed

What's the difference here? Marshalls aren't required to allow you to get a lawyer? They skip straight to waterboarding? Talk your ears literally off?

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.

Then you let them cuff you and drive you away, and refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. No matter what they do, they can't make you talk.

> 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 just get the feeling that "computer crimes" tend to have everyone as doing something wrong.

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.

Talk to them if that's all they want to do.

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.

NO! Absolutely appalling advice. And dangerous.

Perhaps excusable given your age and your "polite and respectful" experience, but please please be aware that following this advice could end in tragedy.

What would you suggest?

It's very simple. Do not talk to them. Talk to a lawyer.

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.

Bollocks.

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.

Do you seriously think they wouldn't have arrested you and thrown you in jail for at least 4 hours if you'd refused to speak to them?

They are not your friends, but if you deny them the fishing trip they're even more likely to snag you with the trawl net.

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.

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.

Haha! That's possible.

I was wearing an AC/DC cannon t-shirt (loved that thing) so this was before my Marilyn Manson phase. I'm South Asian by descent.

You are quite likely still being monitored.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com