Search results

Sorry for not catching this reply earlier-- I've been busier this week than I've ever been since I left my academic post. Maybe you're still around. If so, (a) My take-away from this thread is that I need to do a lot more research before I can even begin to ask meaningful questions (or...

Any organization has good actors and bad actors. The US government is one of the best run governments out there, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws, and I don't think we should be afraid to examine those flaws. Truth is, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. :(

I'm still grateful for your time. My understanding of what you've said is that the sort of thing I'm worried about doesn't typically happen (I don't disagree). Feel free to correct that understanding, or not.

This is a strange reaction. My question is pretty straightforward: what sort of regulations and protections exist and/or would be appropriate? I'm not advocating any position at all.

There's a lot of middle ground between having no regulations and the pretty extreme example you've given. For example, laws to prevent fishing expeditions might be useful and might already exist. Constitutionally, it seems problematic that someone's life can be upended from mere suspicion...

I was just curious if your opinion is common among legal professionals. Also, I'm frequently told that due process applies to legal proceedings, but not the court of public opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Could you square that sentiment with your statement that if "the investigation shows...

So legal protections do not exist, but you don't consider them to be necessary, partly for logistic and professional reasons. That makes sense to me, and it might be a practical necessity. On the other hand, I'm not sure that overconfidence is wise here. Is your view common among legal...

For example, consider an investigation launched into perceived political adversaries with no intention of filing charges. Insinuating scandalous accusations like "Senator X visits prostitutes" might reduce a politician's influence or harm his career, even without an indictment. If that harm...

Just among people here. But you could make a stronger statement and assert that there's consensus among legal professionals as well. For example, public laws are only one way to address the issues I'm raising. It might be more sensible to establish a strong internal policy that's invisible to...

I find that a bit troubling. Is it at least true that the consensus is that such protections are unnecessary?

Sure, let's call an investigation harmful if it inflicts a tort, eg. reputational, professional, or psychological harm, and let's call an investigation punitive if it is both bad-faith and harmful. Some more concrete questions: a) Does a suspect bear liability for reputational or professional...

In US law, what mechanism exists to prevent punitive or harmful investigations? For emphasis, I'm not worried about my situation. I'm worried about how it generalizes, and how it might evolve.

They ought not to be, but an "ought" isn't necessarily an "is." By what mechanism is this enforced?

I haven't gotten to the point of even considering a lawsuit, really. :) Here's a more concrete question: what legal protections in the United States exist to prevent investigations from being used as de facto punishment?

That's what I'm trying to figure out, if any kind of legal action is even appropriate or ethical. To rephrase you, I'm witnessing powerful and potentially destructive tools that make attribution difficult and are plausibly deniable. In that sense, the new reality of cyber-operations is...

Good points. Nevertheless, a) I'm not concerned about winning and losing, so long as the outcome is correct. b) These techniques are going to get more powerful with better technology. There should be recourse when they're applied problematically if there isn't already, or else the...

Ok, it looks like I've had [alleged] federal investigators in my life since 2014 or 2012, possibly earlier. They've been nice, I feel pretty magnanimous, and whatever case was originally hoped for isn't going anywhere (my interpretation is that they made understandable mistakes). So that's all...

Or rather, partly mentally ill people and partly federal investigations (which are engineered to apply pressure on a suspect covertly). The problem is that this psychological assault can be quite damaging. I'll start a thread on my own experiences.