This is a non-story. Nobody knows what FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not. It seems before FBI just wanted to ask questions, but since Isis didn't want to be asked any questions the FBI now went and got a subpeona. That's it.
Nobody knows that the FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not.
Which is precisely the point -- Lovecruft, justifiably, had no way of knowing what the government operatives had in mind, and wanted from her; whether it was something comparatively insipid and harmless (just some junior investigators throwing darts, and checking boxes on a list someone gave them); or something all-out insane and pernicious, like what they did to Swartz.
Would she be woken up at 6 a.m., and made to watch as agents ransacked her apartment, confiscating anything that looked like personal notes, and anything that looked like a digital device? Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), or longer, with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices?
Would she be pressured into providing testimony against her friends and collaborators -- and/or "turning" outright, and becoming a paid informant? Would she hold her ground? Would she break?
Any of the above was a very real possibility. Which is why this is anything but a "non-story."
> Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices?
Has the FBI done this before? I could see the CIA doing this to foreign nationals, and obviously that's horrible, but has the FBI done anything like that? I'm not saying they haven't, I would just like an example or two.
I was referring to what happened to Aaron Swartz in the aftermath of his arrest, according to various sources. For a suspected transgression of far lesser significance.
Whether the FBI was involved in that particular aspect of his ordeal, I can't say.
Slight nitpick - they're asking him to enter the password, not disclose it. I'm not sure how much difference it makes but the distinction is specifically mentioned in the article.
Can we quit with the ridiculous speculation? If they wanted to do that they'd have done it, instead of spending weeks trying to contact her they could've just went to her in person.
No it wasn't. Unless you are engaged in a criminal acts, the likelihood of the FBI arresting you are pretty damn slim. Sure it probably happens all the time, but there are 300 million Americans. The chances that it happens to any given person are nil.
The fact that the FBI reached out first is a pretty big clue that they she wasn't a target of an investigation. You don't subpoena the targets of the investigation.
ryanlol, do you in fact understand how our adversarial system works in US? This aint Finland. Anything you say to them is to be used against you in court as a confession. Anything making you look innocent is tossed out as hearsay. To get confession, feds and prosecutors can lie to you to set you up however they can with unclear limits they're always pushing. As in Russian hacker story, this includes fake job offers or asking you to "help them out" by giving them info. You, esp if a hacker or Tor developers, should never talk to FBI under any circumstances as odds are they're building a case. They often spend weeks to months on that, too, while giving you rope to hang yourself. Then, if you dont, they drop it all on you at once for shock.
So, her situation may be anything from a help request to compelled assistance to imprisonment in making. Who knows. However, any defense lawyer would tell her to not talk to FBI alone under any circumstance or volunteer assistance that makes her look criminal if taken out of context before a jury. Her lawyer is happy to hear their questions and mediate answers. So far, they wanted to bypass him. That's reason for concern.
> ryanlol, do you in fact understand how our adversarial system works in US? This aint Finland. Anything you say to them is to be used against you in court as a confession.
Yes, having personally dealt with the FBI while in the US and having been on the receiving end of some extraordinarily shady tactics from them. (I.e. MLAT requesting my arrest and claiming that I social engineered the FBIs Las Vegas field office for personal information on the agents that previously raided me) I'm very familiar how the US adversarial system works.
>So, her situation may be anything from a help request to compelled assistance to imprisonment in making. Who knows. However, any defense lawyer would tell her to not talk to FBI alone under any circumstance or volunteer assistance that makes her look criminal if taken out of context before a jury. Her lawyer is happy to hear their questions and mediate answers. So far, they wanted to bypass him. That's reason for concern.
While I certainly don't think her concerns deserve this much attention, I'm not questioning their validity. Of course you should be concerned if the FBI is trying to contact you!
But seriously, this isn't FBI agents threatening her (although trying to bypass ones lawyer is certainly unethical). This is FBI agents trying to contact her for whatever reason, that is not a threat from the FBI though.
A FBI agent coming up to you and yelling about how he's going to ruin your life is most certainly a threat, and again something which I've personally been on the receiving end of.
"But seriously, this isn't FBI agents threatening her (although trying to bypass ones lawyer is certainly unethical). This is FBI agents trying to contact her for whatever reason, that is not a threat from the FBI though."
This is the crux of our disagreement and where I'm not totally disagreeing. We both say in various comments they might just want to talk to her. So, at this point, it can't be considered a threat with any certainty.
Given how they work, though, it's reasonable to consider it a probable threat if they (a) claim they want help, (b) want no lawyer present, and (c) [important] haven't offered or accepted immunity (at least NDA) for whatever goes on. The defense attorney on Don't Talk to Police mentioned that last one in case of IRS. "They just want to talk and not arrest/convict? Ask for immunity for whatever comes up. They left? That figures."
So, she shouldn't have fled. We have too little information to know if they intend to threaten or just get assistance. Yet, if they have malicious intent, they often don't do it the way they did you. Many of them gently lure a person in to do their own social engineering to connect remaining dots or get the golden confession for fast trial. Then, the crazy shit starts. This happens so much it should be a top consideration if they call you being nice.
So, the real question is, how does one assess at this point whether it's malicious or benign? It's an open question unfortunately. I'd consider going straight to the FBI field office with my lawyer to talk to an agent. We'd record the conversation. If it's questioning about me, I'd ask for termination of that line of questioning or immunity for anything involving me. If they won't do either, I leave and then treat them as a threat. I'd definitely get someone to talk to them first just to see how they act, though, before considering leaving.
They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to. FBI now has a subpoena. I have no idea where you're getting this "indefinite imprisonment" stuff from. They didn't have a warrant for her arrest.
No, they told Isis's lawyer explicitly that they'd run around him and do so by approaching Isis in public[1]. Doing that would require them to have some basic idea of Isis's movements and the willingness to wait to set up an ambush. Given that, it's not unreasonable to suspect they're attempting something shady and that Isis is quite smart not to simply "trust us." There is no reason to trust law enforcement that wants to sidestep entirely legal representation.
It's also clear you didn't read the article entirely before making a comment that now acts to distract and misinform.
>They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to.
Did you not read the article?
>Lovecruft told CNNMoney she had been willing to meet the FBI with her attorney present. But Rosenfeld was told by agents that they would circumvent him and approach Lovecruft directly.
Never talk to a cop or fed without a lawyer present if you are being questioned for anything other than a traffic ticket or you were just the victim of a crime. Even then, be careful what you say. They are not there for your benefit.
From my point of view, the US Government has not acted in such a way that they deserve to be extended any "benefit of doubt". The three recent events linked below come to mind as supporting material.
They have consistently demonstrated their willingness to break the law when it is inconvenient for them, as well as actively working to expand their power and authority at any expense.
If the FBI wasn't willing to speak to her with her lawyer present, IMHO, they were not looking for something legit. They had ample opportunity to subpeona her before she left the country and neglected to do so. In fact, they waited until she left.
This whole situation feels like the FBI pressuring this person so that they can get the information they want out of her while avoiding their legal obligations.
If that were true, they would have had no problems communicating through her lawyer initially. The previously linked article discussed the FBI threatening to grab her off the streets and interrogate her without counsel: "If we happen to run into her on the street, we're gonna' be asking her some questions without you present." and "We would strongly prefer to meet her in person. We have teams in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Atlanta keeping an eye out for her" [1,2]
The story is that the FBI refuses to tell her or her lawyer why they desperately want to speak to her, but only in person inside of their jurisdiction.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Can you explain why a non-story is important enough for you to take time away from presumably important things in order to poo-poo it?
