TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Be Careful when Speaking to Federal Agents - 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

390 点作者 conover超过 13 年前

23 条评论

Nate75Sanders超过 13 年前
The most important paragraph if you're not interested in reading the whole thing:<p>Is there an intelligent alternative to lying or telling the truth that we have not yet examined? Yes. In our hypothetical interview, you can politely decline to be interviewed by the FBI agent. Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that "my attorney will be in contact with you." If the agent persists, say that you will not discuss anything without first consulting counsel. Ask for the agent's card, to give to your attorney. If you have not yet hired a lawyer, tell the agent that "I want to consult a lawyer first" or that "an attorney will be in touch with you." The absolutely essential thing to keep in mind is to say nothing of substance about the matter under investigation. It is preferable to do this by politely declining to be interviewed in the absence of counsel. If the agent asks "why do you need an attorney?" or "what do you have to hide?" do not take his bait and directly respond to such questions. (Do not even say that you have nothing to hide.) Simply state that you will not discuss the matter at all without first consulting counsel and that counsel will be in touch with him. If the agent asks for a commitment from you to speak with him after you have consulted or retained counsel, do not oblige him. Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or "an" attorney) and that the attorney will be in touch. And by all means do not get bullied or panicked into making up a phony reason for refusing to talk. You are not obliged to explain your decision to anyone.
评论 #3005602 未加载
评论 #3005691 未加载
评论 #3005650 未加载
评论 #3007053 未加载
评论 #3006992 未加载
评论 #3006441 未加载
评论 #3007101 未加载
noonespecial超过 13 年前
Since you have nothing to hide, is it safe to talk? There can still be real danger in speaking to a government agent in these circumstances. To begin with, <i>you are not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing under federal criminal law</i>.<p><i>Critical system failure.</i> There should be red lights blinking and klaxons wailing.
评论 #3005781 未加载
评论 #3005577 未加载
评论 #3005718 未加载
hvs超过 13 年前
This advice also applies to any situation involving law enforcement officers, not just federal agents.<p>Remember, "Don't Talk to Cops": <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik</a>
评论 #3005894 未加载
评论 #3005706 未加载
praptak超过 13 年前
The most rational strategy for a US citizen is to treat an officer like the worst enemy, a sleazebag who will go out of their way to fuck said citizen over? There is something deeply wrong with this country.
评论 #3005765 未加载
评论 #3005774 未加载
评论 #3005743 未加载
评论 #3006548 未加载
itsadok超过 13 年前
what bothers me the most about these kind of articles is the underlying assumption that I can find a good criminal lawyer when the need arises.<p>I'm having enough trouble finding good engineers, and that is something that I am qualified to do, as well as able to spend several months on, under very little pressure.<p>I have very little experience with lawyers, but at least for corporate lawyers, my impression is that the average lawyer doesn't know everything about their field, just like the average programmer doesn't know everything about <i>their</i> field. I wonder how many of these pitfalls are something that an average lawyer wouldn't know to avoid.
评论 #3006285 未加载
评论 #3006553 未加载
评论 #3006530 未加载
评论 #3006491 未加载
评论 #3006267 未加载
dfranke超过 13 年前
<i>For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.</i><p>Is there anything in the law that makes the "pursuant to some regulatory duty" relevant here? For example, if you wrote something on Wikipedia that you knew was inaccurate, and years later a federal official read it and found it somehow relevant to his job, would you theoretically be breaking this law?
评论 #3006537 未加载
评论 #3007114 未加载
brianstorms超过 13 年前
When members of congress lie when speaking to other members of congress, why aren't they held to this law?
评论 #3005708 未加载
评论 #3006554 未加载
评论 #3005723 未加载
评论 #3005974 未加载
maxxxxx超过 13 年前
It saddens me that the best advice for so many situations is "Get a lawyer". Besides the fact that they are expensive I find it frustrating that society has become that adversarial.
评论 #3006884 未加载
js2超过 13 年前
Tangentially related - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pag...</a><p><i>In March 2009, still unsatisfied, Mr. Nordlander persuaded his superiors to send an attractive female undercover agent, Ellen Burrows, to meet Mr. Engle and see if she could get him to say something incriminating. In the course of several flirtatious encounters, she asked him about his investments.<p>After acknowledging that he had been speculating in real estate during the bubble to help support his running, he said, according to Mr. Nordlander’s grand jury testimony, “I had a couple of good liar loans out there, you know, which my mortgage broker didn’t mind writing down, you know, that I was making four hundred thousand grand a year when he knew I wasn’t.”<p>Mr. Engle added, “Everybody was doing it because it was simply the way it was done. That doesn’t make me proud of the fact that I am at least a small part of the problem.”<p>Unbeknownst to Mr. Engle, Ms. Burrows was wearing a wire.</i>
arturadib超过 13 年前
Reminds me of the awesome lecture "Don't talk to the police" by Prof. James Duane (J.D., Harvard Law):<p><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865</a>
scotto超过 13 年前
I am so glad this article is out and I read it. It may be extreme but as someone who has witnesses this type of thing go down, I live with the knowledge that we are all one false accusation away from complete ruin. EVERYTHING can be made to look malicious and calculated, and we should all, in this context, live in fear of the government. Stay out of their crosshairs and keep your attorney phone number close by.
ellyagg超过 13 年前
This is an interesting and useful perspective, and it's not the first time it's come up on HN, but it's unfortunate that it doesn't draw any thoughtful criticism.<p>This advice is best when one is implicated or thinks there's any chance they'd be implicated...but then anyone with the slightest awareness of the legal system learns about this at a pretty young age. This particular advice gets its sensationalism and counterintuitiveness by claiming that it's a universal rule. As a universal rule, it has its downsides.<p>One downside is that, if everyone does this, we make it far harder for law enforcement to do worthwhile investigations. Programmers hate when roadblocks prevent us from iterating quickly during development. Understand, other occupations also suffer from the same crunch on their time that we do and, as a community that's all in this together, we benefit from their work.<p>Another downside is promoting an adversarial role between law enforcement and its citizenry. This is an intangible, but I think its costs are real.<p>Also, you'd better be very confident that the cop(s) will simply respect your rights under the law. I know of situations where that has not been the case. I've seen videos where it wasn't the case. We've all read stories where it wasn't the case.<p>It's easy to fantasize stories about you being wrongfully singled out or, heaven forbid, convicted. We've also all read stories about that. Just like everything in life, then, it's a cost/benefits analysis. But don't pretend that one choice is all benefits and no costs.<p>I think the speed of modern news dissemination is warping our risk assessment software. Things that you'd only hear of rarely are reported several times a day now, because there's 6 billion people having bad things happen to them, the news only cares about those bad things, and our attention for those bad things is the same size as ever. The bad things per attention minute is rising all the time. Partly because of this, and partly because we are the way we are, there's a penchant by some in my geeky, libertarian community to withdraw as citizens, and overestimate downside risk. Yes, you expose yourself to risk by rescuing that drowning man; yes, you expose yourself to risk by finding that lost girl's mom; yes, you expose yourself to risk by cooperating with authorities. And, you know what, I think it should be worth it to you.<p>As a side note, attorneys are very familiar with the system and feel confident about fighting it head on, and many attorneys are willing to lead a high stress, confrontational life style. One should bear that in mind when taking advice about how to lead one's life.
评论 #3006783 未加载
giardini超过 13 年前
There's a new book out about the complexity of American law. It's titled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" by Harvey Silverglate<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...</a>
baddox超过 13 年前
This is an unjust law, period.
评论 #3005637 未加载
评论 #3005733 未加载
raldi超过 13 年前
Wait, so let's say I'm at the post office buying stamps, and I hand the cashier a $20, and she says, "Don't you have anything smaller?" and I say no, even though I do, because I want the change.<p>Could I be convicted under this law?
评论 #3006494 未加载
评论 #3006539 未加载
评论 #3006490 未加载
评论 #3007133 未加载
Loic超过 13 年前
The terrible point in the complete article is that basically, you need first to assume that the authorities will screw you and not help you.<p>For me, the "todos in this case" are just a cure for a dead man, because if you cannot trust the authorities anymore the basic assumptions of a working judiciary system are broken.
jxcole超过 13 年前
Related: overcriminalization. Looks like this story relates to the same statute:<p><a href="http://www.economist.com/node/16636027" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/node/16636027</a>
lucraft超过 13 年前
What's the situation in the UK on this whole Dont Talk to Cops thing? Does anyone know of any equivalent legal advice?
buff-a超过 13 年前
Does this apply to Congresspersons?
评论 #3006517 未加载
lambada超过 13 年前
Does anyone know of a similar quality article for dealing with UK law enforcement?
评论 #3006568 未加载
评论 #3010260 未加载
silverbax88超过 13 年前
Just <i>reading</i> this makes me nervous.
ShawnJG超过 13 年前
I assume that most people who post here are smarter than the average citizen or at least more informed. The real "spaghetti code" problem here is that this obscure statute can easily be violated in advance of being told your rights. And you only get ready your rights a.k.a. mirandized when you're bordering on already in trouble with the law. Coupled with the fact that this is a federal statute it only applies to federal agents not city or state. And since you can lie to city or state officials up until you are under oath (which most people know) you might be inclined to believe he can do it to federal agent until it's too late. Which means their first encounter with a federal agent will be a crash course in the finer points of the law. One which they will unlikely be able to walk away from. I believe the spirit of v. Miranda is being violated the statute, I believe the beginning of any contacts with the law enforcement official should begin with the reading of your rights which should now include information on statute 18 sec 1001.
jsdalton超过 13 年前
As interesting as this article may be, it does not belong on HN.
评论 #3005782 未加载
评论 #3006547 未加载
评论 #3005902 未加载