As a person coming from a former soviet republic, I am very familiar with the saying "show me a man, and I will show you the crime he is guilty of" - which basically meant that if KGB wanted to charge you with something, they always could find a paragraph for you, because there were so many and so vaguely defined.
As an outsider, to me it seems that the USA is not a "free" country and I honestly don't see any difference between what the US and Russian governments are doing to journalists and people who disagree with them.
Edit: Oh, and we already had massive surveillance back then. If you wanted to travel out of your town - you had to register that fact with the nearest police department. Wanted to travel abroad - had to apply for a passport, which was only issued for a strict number of days and had to be returned upon return. If you were placing a phone call, it would always start with a warning "This call is being monitored. This call is being monitored". The post office would open your parcels and letters. There was book censorship on a massive scale. What the US government is doing has already happened. "Those who don't remember history are bound to live through it again".
The US government, still maintains a pretty strong protection of journalists. They will go after the leakers themselves, but rarely even attempt to make a journalist reveal a source, let alone prosecute the journalist directly for revealing secret information.
In fact, I say still, but this tendency has actually grown stronger over the last 50 years. It has, in my not-very-researched-opinion, grown stronger due to public pressures and effective civil disobedience. So, that heartens me. All governments screw-up, but some are screwed-up, I still don't think the US is one of the screwed-up - relative to the rest of the world and history - a LOT I wish they would do better.
> As an outsider, to me it seems that the USA is not a "free" country and I honestly don't see any difference between what the US and Russian governments are doing to journalists and people who disagree with them.
You seem to describe at least five stark differences:
1. If you wanted to travel out of your town - you had to register that fact with the nearest police department.
2. Wanted to travel abroad - had to apply for a passport, which was only issued for a strict number of days and had to be returned upon return.
3. If you were placing a phone call, it would always start with a warning "This call is being monitored. This call is being monitored".
4. The post office would open your parcels and letters.
5. There was book censorship on a massive scale.
Comparing the US today to drastic Soviet republics doesn't really help the conversation - these far-off hypothetical comparisons make it easier for other people to dismiss your argument.
This is a false equivalence. Just the fact that the US government feels compelled to hide a program like PRISM is a strong indication that there is a big difference between the Russian government and the US government (and certainly the Soviet government).
I agree with you that the United States should not be engaging in mass surveillance, and there needs to be reform and checks on the power. And I agree with you that we'll repeat history if we're not wary.
But I don't think this is evidence of the United States "sliding" into a soviet state. I may be wrong in my interpretation of your comment, but that seems to be your overall warning.
I believe that the people of the United States are a good barometer of our democratic health. We might not vote as much as we (arguably) should, but the shock and outrage on such a nearly universal scale illustrates that the government still doesn't have absolute, corrupt power.
The fact that this was hidden and not designed as a deterrant also demonstrates to me that the United States is still, if not consciously, afraid of the power of its people. I can't say that it will last indefinitely, but at the moment, I believe the people are doing a good job of showing that this is not okay and we aren't moving towards people disappearing in the night and needing to be cleared for travel.
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. [...] There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
It may help to remember here that Ayn Rand wrote that stuff as an ex-citizen of a country with a communist regime that employed exactly those tactics against their citizens, I highly doubt that she intended or foresaw those words to be used against the rulers of the country that she chose to live in.
Just think, a child who gets their first smartphone today, will have their entire phone history recorded until death. Their geolocation saved. Their email saved. All their financial transactions. All their friends and family will be known. Every intercontact in society. Where they shop, eat, etc. Who they date.
I mean why would the NSA ever delete it? They can just get taxpayers to fund more and more storage.
I am also starting to wonder about the new requirement to digitize all medical records and how many contractors will have access to that as well and when all the databases will be allowed to intersect in the name of "security".
But I suspect the NSA doesn't know how many guns you own. That alone is somehow seen as a violation of your rights.
I work with a Muslim from Yemen at an investment bank. He's as American as anyone I know but be recently got a gun permit and got a visit from the FBI about a week later. They wanted to know if he felt threatened, if there were problems at his Mosque, why he wanted a gun, if there was anyone at his Mosque who used hate speech, etc.
Something tells me he government knows if you have a gun.
I've become more bearish about the idea of electronic medical records. The ability for a bureaucracy to keep those safe seems far, far off in the future, no matter what technology advances come through.
And guns: well, if you're pro-gun-control, this mindset (justified or not) should help you understand why the NRA is so passionately against gun registration of any kind.
In terms of the NSA: I don't think they care much for your felony record -- that is, the ones you've actually been convicted for -- they're more concerned about pre-felonies, of course. For the average citizen, though, the persistence of criminal history is going to be felt in more everyday situations, such as job searches and landlord background checks.
If I ever have a child, he or she is going to have a name like "Pat Smith", regardless of my or the mother's last name.
"But I suspect the NSA doesn't know how many guns you own. That alone is somehow seen as a violation of your rights"
Have you purchased a firearm in the US from a licensed dealer recently? There's paper/digital record of most firearm purchase in most cases, with a few exceptions. There's a cursory background check ran too.
(In the case of most US citizens the government doesn't care about small arms. Most are used for sporting, hunting or deterrence.)
Anyone who's had their company try to get rid of them is keenly aware of this on a micro scale.
Its amazing how many weird rules and regulations you can suddenly find yourself afoul of once somebody high up enough has it in for you ... apparently this is true on a macro level (country/government) too.
I read that book when it came out. The title is sensationalist garbage -- the book shows how some people get snared by some fairly stupid federal laws and have their lives messed up by willfully malicious prosecution, which isn't good, of course, but nowhere does the author demonstrate how an average person commits three felonies in a YEAR, or in a LIFETIME, let alone in a day.
Have you ever not paid sales tax to your state, on an item you purchased tax-free online? That's felony tax evasion when the amount is high enough; varies by state.
There was a soviet saying - "Give me a person, I'll find you an article/a paragraph". Meaning - for any person, finding a law that the person breaks is just a matter of time and resources.
It's interesting to see Americans discover this...
It's not new to Americans either, despite how stupid we're considered by the rest of the world. There's been news articles noting the same issues with the complexity of the legal code since even before 9/11.
Any student of the law has undoubtedly been aware for decades prior, when they had to research volume after volume of legal decisions and statutory code to establish what precedent (if any) to use in helping decide a later case, and what laws (if any) applied.
I'm not so convinced Nacchio is an innocent victim. And I also find it rich that a former telecom CEO guilty of numerous financial crimes is being held up as an example of targeted political persecution using frivolous laws. Insider trading is not the type of crime you commit unknowingly. Has anyone even refuted his guilt convincingly? That is a serious crime and also one with a clear paper trail. If he did it, there would have been no need to frame him for defying the NSA; the SEC would have got him soon enough anyway.
Insider trading is only a crime when people want to find you guilty of a crime. That's why congresscritters are not prosecutable for insider trading. Insider trading is the entire point of trading, you wouldn't make any money if everyone had the same information.
It was only considered insider trading because the gov't cancelled all of the contracts in retribution and then claimed that he sold knowing they would cancel the contracts and tank the stock. Can't they make this claim of any company that they do business with? Wait to an insider makes a sale, and then cancel their gov't contracts and arrest for insider trading.
The first one is asking what the three felonies are. You see, when you were born your parents were sent a National Security Letter (NSL) by the government that stated you can never ask about the three felonies. Unfortunately, the NSL came with a gag order, so your parents never told you. But you definitely shouldn't ask what the three felonies are.
The second felony is owning a computer which can be used to circumvent content protection mechanisms. You can address this by purchasing a fixed-function device which cannot be used to circumvent content protection. I suggest an etch-a-sketch.
Silverglate talks about a number of cases, some of which have been addressed either before the book was written or after, but the overall problem is still out there.
For example, see the honest services fraud charges against Jeff Skilling (of Enron fame), on the idea that anything dishonest any corporate executive might do would be depriving the corporation of honest services. Now the Supreme Court reversed Skilling's conviction on the grounds that this was just too vague and that honest services fraud was limited to kickback schemes and the like.
However consider many more:
Lori Drew was prosecuted for unauthorized access to computer servers for violating the terms of service of MySpace (iirc). The subsequent directed verdict of acquittal (after the jury convicted) however did not really eliminate the possibility of ToS violations turning into federal felonies. This was not covered in the book but it is worth noting.
Many of the examples in the books are profession-related. Silverglate goes into detail on the Hurwitz narcotics case where a doctor who operated in line with emerging best practices for chronic pain management was tried and convicted of drug trafficking on the grounds that he had statistical knowledge of the likelihood that at patients might resell the drugs on the street. Hurwitz's conviction was later vacated, but they tried him and convicted him again of a smaller set of charges.
He goes also into medical billing disputes (I have family members who have been on the losing side of these regarding the government and can attest that these are still significant issues).
Another case he does not cover is the Joe Naccio case (covered in the link).
Another case he does not cover was that of my mother's uncle, who they accused of purjury for claiming never to have been a Communist, when their evidence of his lying was that he was legally representing the Communist Party USA and others as a lawyer. They lost that case but came back one tax issue after another until they found something to stick.
There are cases after cases to those of us who follow these things. It is a systemic problem.
Keep in mind that under some of these theories of law, checking Hacker News from work when you should be working is a federal felony, and if not honest services fraud, certainly something they could try you with for wire fraud (it is financial in that you are billing your employer for your time!). Moreover if you check a site for non-work purposes which has a note in the ToS which says that unlawful use is prohibited, then you have committed felony computer trespass (because you "accessed" their servers in excess of authorization provided by the ToS in pursuit of criminal or tortuous ends).
TL;DR: What felonies you commit are unimportant. If they want to, they will find something.
Sometimes I get a whiff of nostalgia from posts like this. As if everything was great back in the good old days, where the police weren't able to hassle you, when laws were fair and simple.
Of course that was only if you were a white anglo cis straight christian. Anyone who didn't fit that was able to be prosecuted/killed/oppressed/jailed. But if we pretend those people don't exist, then everything was great in the past.
>Sometimes I get a whiff of nostalgia from posts like this. As if everything was great back in the good old days, where the police weren't able to hassle you, when laws were fair and simple.
People keep repeating this reasoning. I can't understand why.
"Everything" doesn't have to have been "better in the old days", and nobody, except strawmen, argue that.
But SOME aspects of the old days, e.g pertaining to LESS fucking SURVEILLANCE, were. That's enough to be angry about and want to reverse course on that particular front.
>Of course that was only if you were a white anglo cis straight christian.
Which is totally beside the point.
Did somebody argue here that slavery was good? No, people just argue that modern surveillance (and legal-code-overload) is bad.
Not to mention that surveillance today is bad for everyone: "white anglo cis straight christians", homosexuals, blacks, and what have you.
Of course that was only if you were a white anglo cis straight christian.
I always find this line to be the lead-in for a false dichotomy. Either we have this big overpowering government with tentacles into all our lives or we have slavery.
We could instead maintain our sense of respect for all people of all races while also respecting the individual and the civil society enough to allow it to function without the iron fist of government.
Not new, such has been the case for most of human history.
An honest man is most able to live in the US without being harassed or condemned, more so than at any other time in history.
I'm not saying we're done, or that it can't still be bad because it's better than it was, but it's worth remembering that this isn't a solved problem that we're just "too stupid/lazy/greedy/corrupt" to fix. I'd even go so far as to argue that it's human nature to build governments where this is true, and it will never not be true.
A critical part of our justice system is the discretion of those who enforce, legislate, and interpret our laws. You can't pretend like laws exist outside of human (read: flawed) implementation, and I feel that this is more severely perpetrated by those in STEM fields because they're used to the rigor that comes with such disciplines whereas the law is a fluid and changing beast.
A state that monitors without limits is dangerous for several reasons. Mainly because those who watch may or may not alter its ethics, for example, for personal gain. Someone with access to data can fuck another. A typical example would be a company, which is surveilled and they know all their movements, communications, contracts and any possible information that a government can sell to competitors or people who pay for this information.
Amen to these problems will also be those, as noted in this article, the issue of being "possible guilty" all the time is just plainly sick.
Other than refusing to consent to letting the NSA wiretap your customers, what 'innocent' actions can be viewed as felonies? I didn't see any specific examples which applied to everyday life in the article.
[+] [-] gambiting|12 years ago|reply
Edit: Oh, and we already had massive surveillance back then. If you wanted to travel out of your town - you had to register that fact with the nearest police department. Wanted to travel abroad - had to apply for a passport, which was only issued for a strict number of days and had to be returned upon return. If you were placing a phone call, it would always start with a warning "This call is being monitored. This call is being monitored". The post office would open your parcels and letters. There was book censorship on a massive scale. What the US government is doing has already happened. "Those who don't remember history are bound to live through it again".
[+] [-] jasallen|12 years ago|reply
The US government, still maintains a pretty strong protection of journalists. They will go after the leakers themselves, but rarely even attempt to make a journalist reveal a source, let alone prosecute the journalist directly for revealing secret information.
In fact, I say still, but this tendency has actually grown stronger over the last 50 years. It has, in my not-very-researched-opinion, grown stronger due to public pressures and effective civil disobedience. So, that heartens me. All governments screw-up, but some are screwed-up, I still don't think the US is one of the screwed-up - relative to the rest of the world and history - a LOT I wish they would do better.
[+] [-] brown9-2|12 years ago|reply
You seem to describe at least five stark differences:
1. If you wanted to travel out of your town - you had to register that fact with the nearest police department.
2. Wanted to travel abroad - had to apply for a passport, which was only issued for a strict number of days and had to be returned upon return.
3. If you were placing a phone call, it would always start with a warning "This call is being monitored. This call is being monitored".
4. The post office would open your parcels and letters.
5. There was book censorship on a massive scale.
Comparing the US today to drastic Soviet republics doesn't really help the conversation - these far-off hypothetical comparisons make it easier for other people to dismiss your argument.
[+] [-] JamisonM|12 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
[+] [-] dylangs1030|12 years ago|reply
But I don't think this is evidence of the United States "sliding" into a soviet state. I may be wrong in my interpretation of your comment, but that seems to be your overall warning.
I believe that the people of the United States are a good barometer of our democratic health. We might not vote as much as we (arguably) should, but the shock and outrage on such a nearly universal scale illustrates that the government still doesn't have absolute, corrupt power.
The fact that this was hidden and not designed as a deterrant also demonstrates to me that the United States is still, if not consciously, afraid of the power of its people. I can't say that it will last indefinitely, but at the moment, I believe the people are doing a good job of showing that this is not okay and we aren't moving towards people disappearing in the night and needing to be cleared for travel.
[+] [-] Uchikoma|12 years ago|reply
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. [...] There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
[+] [-] jacquesm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyinRyan|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/15r6sj/why_is...
[+] [-] ubernostrum|12 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5708196
[+] [-] stygiansonic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
Just think, a child who gets their first smartphone today, will have their entire phone history recorded until death. Their geolocation saved. Their email saved. All their financial transactions. All their friends and family will be known. Every intercontact in society. Where they shop, eat, etc. Who they date.
I mean why would the NSA ever delete it? They can just get taxpayers to fund more and more storage.
I am also starting to wonder about the new requirement to digitize all medical records and how many contractors will have access to that as well and when all the databases will be allowed to intersect in the name of "security".
But I suspect the NSA doesn't know how many guns you own. That alone is somehow seen as a violation of your rights.
[+] [-] 300bps|12 years ago|reply
Something tells me he government knows if you have a gun.
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
And guns: well, if you're pro-gun-control, this mindset (justified or not) should help you understand why the NRA is so passionately against gun registration of any kind.
In terms of the NSA: I don't think they care much for your felony record -- that is, the ones you've actually been convicted for -- they're more concerned about pre-felonies, of course. For the average citizen, though, the persistence of criminal history is going to be felt in more everyday situations, such as job searches and landlord background checks.
If I ever have a child, he or she is going to have a name like "Pat Smith", regardless of my or the mother's last name.
[+] [-] xradionut|12 years ago|reply
Have you purchased a firearm in the US from a licensed dealer recently? There's paper/digital record of most firearm purchase in most cases, with a few exceptions. There's a cursory background check ran too.
(In the case of most US citizens the government doesn't care about small arms. Most are used for sporting, hunting or deterrence.)
[+] [-] flux293m|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ex_ex_nihilo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trustfundbaby|12 years ago|reply
Its amazing how many weird rules and regulations you can suddenly find yourself afoul of once somebody high up enough has it in for you ... apparently this is true on a macro level (country/government) too.
[+] [-] ccera|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yardie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genwin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolinko|12 years ago|reply
It's interesting to see Americans discover this...
[+] [-] mpyne|12 years ago|reply
Any student of the law has undoubtedly been aware for decades prior, when they had to research volume after volume of legal decisions and statutory code to establish what precedent (if any) to use in helping decide a later case, and what laws (if any) applied.
[+] [-] kyllo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron4hire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkarmani|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] molf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevingadd|12 years ago|reply
The second felony is owning a computer which can be used to circumvent content protection mechanisms. You can address this by purchasing a fixed-function device which cannot be used to circumvent content protection. I suggest an etch-a-sketch.
The third felony is
[+] [-] einhverfr|12 years ago|reply
For example, see the honest services fraud charges against Jeff Skilling (of Enron fame), on the idea that anything dishonest any corporate executive might do would be depriving the corporation of honest services. Now the Supreme Court reversed Skilling's conviction on the grounds that this was just too vague and that honest services fraud was limited to kickback schemes and the like.
However consider many more:
Lori Drew was prosecuted for unauthorized access to computer servers for violating the terms of service of MySpace (iirc). The subsequent directed verdict of acquittal (after the jury convicted) however did not really eliminate the possibility of ToS violations turning into federal felonies. This was not covered in the book but it is worth noting.
Many of the examples in the books are profession-related. Silverglate goes into detail on the Hurwitz narcotics case where a doctor who operated in line with emerging best practices for chronic pain management was tried and convicted of drug trafficking on the grounds that he had statistical knowledge of the likelihood that at patients might resell the drugs on the street. Hurwitz's conviction was later vacated, but they tried him and convicted him again of a smaller set of charges.
He goes also into medical billing disputes (I have family members who have been on the losing side of these regarding the government and can attest that these are still significant issues).
Another case he does not cover is the Joe Naccio case (covered in the link).
Another case he does not cover was that of my mother's uncle, who they accused of purjury for claiming never to have been a Communist, when their evidence of his lying was that he was legally representing the Communist Party USA and others as a lawyer. They lost that case but came back one tax issue after another until they found something to stick.
There are cases after cases to those of us who follow these things. It is a systemic problem.
Keep in mind that under some of these theories of law, checking Hacker News from work when you should be working is a federal felony, and if not honest services fraud, certainly something they could try you with for wire fraud (it is financial in that you are billing your employer for your time!). Moreover if you check a site for non-work purposes which has a note in the ToS which says that unlawful use is prohibited, then you have committed felony computer trespass (because you "accessed" their servers in excess of authorization provided by the ToS in pursuit of criminal or tortuous ends).
TL;DR: What felonies you commit are unimportant. If they want to, they will find something.
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
Of course that was only if you were a white anglo cis straight christian. Anyone who didn't fit that was able to be prosecuted/killed/oppressed/jailed. But if we pretend those people don't exist, then everything was great in the past.
[+] [-] coldtea|12 years ago|reply
People keep repeating this reasoning. I can't understand why.
"Everything" doesn't have to have been "better in the old days", and nobody, except strawmen, argue that.
But SOME aspects of the old days, e.g pertaining to LESS fucking SURVEILLANCE, were. That's enough to be angry about and want to reverse course on that particular front.
>Of course that was only if you were a white anglo cis straight christian.
Which is totally beside the point.
Did somebody argue here that slavery was good? No, people just argue that modern surveillance (and legal-code-overload) is bad.
Not to mention that surveillance today is bad for everyone: "white anglo cis straight christians", homosexuals, blacks, and what have you.
We should not mix up orthogonal issues.
[+] [-] crusso|12 years ago|reply
I always find this line to be the lead-in for a false dichotomy. Either we have this big overpowering government with tentacles into all our lives or we have slavery.
We could instead maintain our sense of respect for all people of all races while also respecting the individual and the civil society enough to allow it to function without the iron fist of government.
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
http://books.google.com/books?id=9Au2t9ZOtnAC&printsec=front...
Or find it in your local library:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-f...
[+] [-] diminoten|12 years ago|reply
An honest man is most able to live in the US without being harassed or condemned, more so than at any other time in history.
I'm not saying we're done, or that it can't still be bad because it's better than it was, but it's worth remembering that this isn't a solved problem that we're just "too stupid/lazy/greedy/corrupt" to fix. I'd even go so far as to argue that it's human nature to build governments where this is true, and it will never not be true.
A critical part of our justice system is the discretion of those who enforce, legislate, and interpret our laws. You can't pretend like laws exist outside of human (read: flawed) implementation, and I feel that this is more severely perpetrated by those in STEM fields because they're used to the rigor that comes with such disciplines whereas the law is a fluid and changing beast.
[+] [-] nutate|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meerita|12 years ago|reply
Amen to these problems will also be those, as noted in this article, the issue of being "possible guilty" all the time is just plainly sick.
[+] [-] guyal|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emmelaich|12 years ago|reply
Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713
[+] [-] ape4|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianberns|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saraid216|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gasull|12 years ago|reply