It sounds like her concern is that they might show her a magic piece of paper which, once you've seen it, requires you to do certain things and prohibits you from ever talking about it to anyone.[1]<p>Magic pieces of paper like that really shouldn't be a part of our legal system.<p>[1] <a href="https://epic.org/privacy/nsl/" rel="nofollow">https://epic.org/privacy/nsl/</a>
She lost my support at <i>vegan gluten-free brownies</i>. She's clearly a monster.<p>But seriously, this really stinks. If talking to the FBI wasn't going to have negative consequences for her then why would they choose to approach her like that?<p>The whole attitude by law enforcement that "anyone who doesn't 100% cooperate with us on our terms is an enemy and should be treated as such" really doesn't foster cooperation but it does foster fear and resentment. I think the whole Apple/iPhone debacle demonstrates that perfectly. It's gotten to the point that businesses are finding that they're in a better position if they lock themselves out of their own data and tell law enforcement to f<i></i>k off because their hands are tied. It's ironic because this non-cooperative behavior is a direct result of the abusive and hostile tactics law enforcement use against everyone.
This is terrorism. Given what we all know based on past events about how the FBI conducts their activities, there is no way any reasonably aware citizen can conduct their life normally after such an encounter.<p>The last discussion thread on this topic had more than a few people complaining that Isis (the given name of the developer in the article) is overreacting and paranoid, which is a saddening response to see. It exposes the privileges and unfortunate circumstances citizens find themselves in because these agencies refuse to prosecute their anti-terror investigations in well-thought out ways, instead pursuing facile leads without regard to the external effects they cause.<p>We've even seen evidence that these agencies deliberately manipulate otherwise innocent people into behavior that implicates them in their "terror suspect" criteria, so it's hard to believe that anyone in this situation could be somehow too cautious.
><i>“But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.” </i><p>Impressive for a LEO to state out loud he doesn't care about rights and due process. Like maybe he thinks he's above the law.
I wish the FBI agents who perform these kinds of actions were as introspective as Snowden. Once you define your team as "the good guys", you can do all kinds of morally objectionable things to the other side.<p>"the ends justify the means" at that point
The worst thing about this is that it will turn out that the developers involvement will be relatively innocuous in the grand scheme of things, hence the lack of any real urgency from the FBI, but it is terrifying for both the developer and as a citizen that he FBI seem to be inept and/or deliberately making it so difficult to speak with someone who it would appear they think can assist them.
The problem is the attitude that the NSL is just another "tool" in the FBI's toolbox, to be used as aggressively as can be in the pursuit of criminals. There is no effective check or balance against this -- we are forced to rely on the investigators to use their discretion, knowing that any challenge to such a warrantless request has about a zero % chance of being successful before the FISA court.<p>I would like to see an activist attempt to challenge such an order, or even refuse to cooperate in an NSL where the FBI is acting outside of its legislative and Constitutional authority. However, the overwhelming incentive in any such situation is to cooperate. And from what I have read, even if the FBI is acting illegally, the subject of the investigation aided by the NSL may still be a fairly loathsome criminal -- so, you have to be quite a principled activist to risk prison time to make a civil rights statement, when this is directly going to benefit a badguy in the specific instance.
Why does everyone, including Ms. Lovecruft conclude that something is horribly wrong and that FBI wanting to speak with them means they are in deep shit? I'm by no means defending them, but to me, the whole (original) post looks overly paranoid.<p>I'm not an American, you can speak with Police freely here in Slovenia, so maybe I understand things wrong?
The original story told about a couple of polite phonecalls where they have requested to talk with her. How does it get described as "harassment"? Of course, she also added a lot of paranoid speculation to her original blog post, but there's not a single confirmation of her fears so far, not even a hint.
1) Imagine the position of people who can't afford a lawyer, don't work for the EFF and know their rights, can't easily move to anothher country, and don't have a platform from which to publicly tell their story.<p>2) Imagine this power in the hands of a President with fascistic tendancies.
This didn't really register with me as tyrrany. What did the FBI actually do to her?<p>Going around a lawyer is a good way to lose a case against her, so maybe they weren't trying to make a case against her.<p>Maybe they actually had some real questions that involved her expertise or knowledge she might have had.
This is like the SA treated people at the beginning. They knew they did not have any legal foundation for their harrasments, but that they would never hold accountable for that. After some time without uprising against that the SA was replaced by the SS.