Hacker News Reader

Comment by zionic | Hacker News Reader

Abusing children is evil, fullstop. That said the current laws around CP are horrifically ripe for abuse by the sate.

FBI agents got a "covert search warrant", entered his house without him knowing, then magically find unencrypted CP on his drives. This is the same agency that can interview you, not record it, write up their version of your "interview" as a "form 302", then later charge you for lying to them if anything in their written version of your testimony is later shown to be false (no intent required on your part, if you said it rained last tuesday and it didn't you are guilty of lying to federal agents). No one should trust anyone with that kind of power, and you'd be naive to suggest such power has never been abused.

View on HN

This is why you never talk to LEO's without a lawyer. If you have the time I highly recommend watching this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

No joke, I make a point of watching this video once a year.

I like that video, but it left me confused if I should talk to police as a witness at a crime scene.

I imagine I can become a suspect from a witness, if I make a mistake which is seen as a lie.

What part was confusing? You should not make a witness statement without a lawyer.

Imaginary scenario.

You hear a loud bang and see a car speeding away. Later on, from your window, you see that police have arrived and are investigating. Would you go and offer the info, what car, maybe number, at what hour.

Or lawyer up first, because where I live, finding a lawyer is not a common thing to do.

This is why if forced to speak to federal agents, it is often recommended qualify every response to any question you are asked with, "to the best of my knowledge" or similar qualifiers.

From a prominent legal blog:

'"A statement made to the “best knowledge” of a person does not mean that the person asserts the truth or accuracy of the statement or that the statement is based on that individual’s personal knowledge.'

Similar to undergoing an investigation for SF-86 process all questions are asked "To the best of your knowledge..." leaving you room to make accidental mistakes without incriminating yourself.

That's insane. People go to jail for making a tautological incantation on every sentence they utter?

I believe his point is that you can go to jail / perjure yourself for NOT invoking that incantation.

Land of the free!

>no intent required on your part, if you said it rained last tuesday and it didn't you are guilty of lying to federal agents)

While I completely agree that "lying to a federal agent" is a charge that is open to abuse, it's worth noting that the lie needs to be material in order for a crime to have been committed.

While that's a great point and a likely defense, the play is more often than not to charge you with lying (and scare you with the max jail time threat) to then coerce you to be an informant or work with them in some other way.

We essentially have state-sanctioned black mail.

The process is the punishment.

If I'm allowed to write your testimony, I can be sure you'll make a material lie though.

See the sibling comment. Basically every statement to the gov is material.

From https://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-...

> here was no chance whatsoever that your denial — whether it was a panic-induced brain fart, or a failure of memory, or a lie — could have misled or deterred the FBI in its investigation for even a moment. But that doesn't matter. Though materiality is an element of Section 1001, it's a weak, diluted type of materiality. Statements to the government are deemed material if they are the sort of statements that have the capacity to influence it. Courts have come very close to creating a presumption of materiality by reasoning that if the information were not material the government would not have asked for it and you wouldn't have offered it.

When they need to destroy you they will plant CP on your machines.

Look at what they did to Pad? dock.

Things are not always as they seem.

What did they do to Paddock?

Would you not still have the right to a lawyer who would probably record the same conversation?

Don't talk to any law enforcement without a lawyer. No matter how innocent you think you are. You may be the only suspect and any answer could be misconstrued against you. Sometimes it's not even personal or intentional.

No lawyer is going to encourage you to talk to the FBI without, at a minimum, very thorough review of the facts and coaching on how to speak in the arcane legal style that avoids accidental lies. And even that is risky, so it's much better to just not talk to the FBI.

Indeed, I would say let the lawyer do all the talking and only say whatever they say is fine to say, nothing more, nothing less. Become a puppet to your lawyer. At least this seems to be the case of what I've learned from that one law professor who says don't talk to cops.

The point of the parent's comment was to sarcastically note that agents can plant CP and people like you will simply assume that the accusation is correct. It very well may not be. We simply don't know.

People like me? I thought it was fairly obvious I was agreeing with/supporting the OP's position.

Huh, not sure what I was thinking. Sorry!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com