
Homes for Hackers gets a visit from the FBI - bogrollben
http://www.banterant.com/2013/08/homes-for-hackers-gets-visit-from-fbi.html
======
ck2
Why the hell are people still stupid enough to talk to police without a lawyer
present in this country?

Anything during that conversation could have been used against them in the
future no matter how innocent it actually is. Or if they lied without meaning
to, boom, you just lied to a law enforcement officer which is instant crime.

Guess what, no matter how friendly you are to them up front, they are still
going to come and rip out all your equipment later and return it after years
pass when it's all thrown out of court because nothing actually wrong was
done.

~~~
switch007
I've noticed a large number of US TV shows (many of which involve the police)
constantly feature people instantly and without hesitation assisting the
police in their enquiries. I don't want to say it's brainwashing, but it's not
far off.

~~~
ck2
Yeah TV. Here's the really "entertaining" part about talking to the FBI in
reality.

Let's say you decide to talk with them. Now that you are talking to them, if
they decide during that conversation that you've "become agitated" and pull
out their gun and shoot you in their "self defense", guess who investigates
them? That's right, the FBI.

Guess how many times in the history of the FBI an officer was found to have
shot someone inappropriately, even if they weren't armed? That's right, zero
times.

~~~
notahacker
Do you think you're more likely to encourage an FBI officer to decide you are
"agitated" if you insist they come back with a warrant and slam the door on
them, or politely and cautiously answer basic, non-incriminatory questions on
the assumption you're probably not guilty of whatever they're investigating?
You can always pull the "if I'm being implicated in a crime, perhaps we should
go down the police station and have a recorded conversation with a lawyer
present" tack later if the questions start going uncomfortable places.

~~~
tankbot
Bzzzt! Wrong answer!

Say nothing, ever, for any reason. [0]

The only thing you should ever say to Police is, "Am I suspected of committing
a crime?"

    
    
      if (crime_suspect) {
        lawyer(yourself);
      } else {
        print "Thank you, have a nice day.";
      }
    

[0]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

~~~
notahacker
Coincidentally, I also received a totally unexpected call from police earlier
this week. I wasn't suspected of committing a crime. Apparently helping them
get in touch with my flatmate - who unbeknownst to me had _reported_ a crime -
didn't incriminate me or my flatmate. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a _lawyer_
would rather I had that two minute conversation in their paid presence, but
I'm not really sure where they'd have helped me avoid accidentally intimating
that I might be a criminal: I think I'd have done that more effectively by
automatically assuming I was being investigated.

Assuming instantly pleading the Fifth helps misses the bit where police and
especially more powerful organizations like the FBI jump to and act on a lot
of conclusions that aren't admissible in court (and of course have plenty of
capability to find _non-verbal_ , admissible evidence of wrongdoing if
motivated to look for it, even if you're innocent). If they're casually
following up a dubious lead, which they probably are if you're not expecting
their visit and don't have pot plants or a server mirroring Wikileaks in your
conservatory, you probably don't want to fit their mental model of a suspect,
which probably means you being at least _slightly_ curious about why they want
to speak to you, and at least willing to entertain the possibility that you're
not the suspect. Statistically, you're more likely to plead the Fifth if
you're guilty.

(This probably doesn't apply when they're picking on you because you're a
genuine suspect or there are political reasons for them trying to find out
about your friends or organization.)

------
tlrobinson
"At one point, one of the guys asked to use the bathroom. I showed him where
it was and went back outside the house. I remember thinking he had been in
there longer than was normal."

Congratulations, you are now the proud owner of an FBI-bugged hacker house.

~~~
dwild
Do they have the right to do that? What would happen if they just found the
bugs? Can they keep it? It's in their house...

~~~
adrianmalacoda
Most likely the FBI would just demand that they return it.

[http://boingboing.net/2010/10/09/student-finds-gps-
bu.html](http://boingboing.net/2010/10/09/student-finds-gps-bu.html)

------
jhuckestein
With these kinds of things, I'm always unsure what the proper way to handle
them is. A lot of smart people say to under no circumstances talk to law
enforcement, ever. I'm sure a lot of you have seen links to that effect on HN.
The main argument seems to be that anything you say to an officer of the law
might be misremembered later and there is nothing you can do against that.

On the other hand, in cases like this, it would seem rude and disproportionate
to not even meet these fine fellows from the FBI.

A related question I always had is: How often is law enforcement confronted
with people that don't talk to them on general principle? Does that really
make you suspicious or is it quite common?

~~~
eksith
Talk to them if that's all they want to do.

Be polite, truthful (without over-sharing) and record the meeting.

Often times, I forget to turn off my digital voice recorder after lectures. I
find recording and typing notes later to be easier than frantically jotting
down notes; also even I can't read my own handwriting. If someone were to bump
into me and have a chat, that's on the recording as well.

Some time ago, I got a visit from two gentlemen from the FBI. They were very
polite and respectful, even though my mom was very scared, they reassured her
that this was just an exploratory meeting. They also prefixed my name with
"Mr." which was a bit of a delight for me because I was still a teenager back
then and used to "hey you".

I think I probably still have their cards somewhere.

Nothing really happened. They got an anonymous phone call regarding something
I may have said in school and wanted to see if there was something to it.
Turns out it was a panicked busybody (and this was after 9/11) and they
weren't even that clear on what was said. It wasn't anything even remotely
requiring a lawyer's presence.

~~~
alexholehouse
_It wasn 't anything even remotely requiring a lawyer's presence._

I want to agree with you, but how do you know that (I'm making the assumption
here that you're not a lawyer, which may be incorrect)? This seems like the
main issue - we (as in the common, non lawyery-types) don't necessarily know
what things may or may not be incriminating. I'm not trying to instill a sense
of fear, and I would always cooperate with law enforcement to the best of my
abilities, but not at the risk of doing or saying something which could
subsequently implicate me in something which is technically illegal and could
get me arrested, convicted or deported.

~~~
eksith
That's true, I'm definitely not a lawyer. But this wasn't an interrogation by
a long stretch. We also have to keep in mind, this is during the meeting
itself which was rather sudden.

People have to learn the difference between knee-jerk self-censorship and
turning informant at the first opportunity. There's a happy middle ground
that's quite wide and don't involve paranoia induced silence or jingoism or
fear inspired "collaboration" \-- if that's the operative term -- with The
Man.

The alternatives are to say nothing or be evasive or "lawyer up" as the lingo
says. None of which ensures their suspicion in you or something associated
with you will die down or inspire confidence in your innocence.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't explore your legal options. By all means, if
you do receive a visit, the very next call should be to your lawyer with every
bit of detail you have about the encounter. Hence the recording. But to shut
up and say nothing is IMO unwise.

If you are going to meet law enforcement, it may as well be on your own
ground.

~~~
mattmanser
Bollocks.

I've been arrested by the police before and spent 4 hours in a jail cell
simply because I was driving in an old red car with another passenger. We were
even driving in the wrong direction and had food in the car that we'd just
bought.

They were all sweetness and light until they turned up at my mate's house 30
minutes after 'chatting' to us and tossed it. Turned out nothing had even been
stolen in the attempted burglary.

You just don't know when it's suddenly going to go from a friendly chat to
something incredibly distressing and you losing your freedom.

They are not your friends and they will be fishing for anything they can use.
Don't give them anything and you can't accidentally incriminate yourself.

~~~
notahacker
Do you seriously think they _wouldn 't_ have arrested you and thrown you in
jail for at least 4 hours if you'd refused to speak to them?

They are not your friends, but if you deny them the fishing trip they're even
more likely to snag you with the trawl net.

~~~
mattmanser
No I don't, my point was more how a jovial and friendly chat can quite
suddenly morph into them attempting to convict you of a crime and anything you
said without a lawyer is fair game.

------
hondje
By the time they let you know they're investigating you, they've been doing it
awhile. This wasn't a friendly getting to know you, you are being investigated
for federal crimes. See an attorney now, If/when they come back to arrest you
it'll be a surprise.

~~~
dm2
That's not necessarily true. Yes, the FBI probably creates a file on everyone
who purchases uranium in the US. FBI agents visit people regularly just to
feel out their intentions and add to their file. If they see that you are a
small start-up that is interested in energy generation, programming, and
enjoys living life without any intentions of harming people, then they will
note that in their file and leave you alone.

Yes, the FBI has a file on any activist, anyone who visits a country
unfriendly to the US, anyone has a written a hateful email/letter to a public
official, everyone who has committed a violent crime, anyone who owns a gun,
and anyone who has the potential or motive to harm citizens. It's their JOB.
It's what the organization was created to do.

Lookup how many major terrorist events are prevented by the FBI.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Alleged_and_proven_plots)

Then they also prevent bank robberies, ID theft, public official corruption,
and more.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation)

~~~
PavlovsCat
What's the justification for the activists bit? Surely you didn't mean to say
they were created for stuff like COINTELPRO?

Also, who above the age of two _doesn 't_ have the "potential" to harm
citizens?

------
alexholehouse
Related question: I don't have a lawyer, because, you know, not everyone just
_has_ one.

If the FBI came to my house to ask questions and I said, "Friends, I'd rather
not speak with you without a lawyer present - you know how it is", how do I go
about getting said lawyer without going bankrupt?

~~~
Cryptex
I am not a lawyer, but can't you just shut up? The FBI comes by asking
questions, you can tell them "I will not answer any questions.", and,
depending on the general mood, because not all FBI agents are nice people that
will understand what you're doing, you can probably further say "If you have
grounds to arrest me, I will want an attorney present for all interactions".

As far as I am aware, you do not have to answer them if they question you.
This might frustrate the FBI however, and different agents will likely respond
in different ways.

~~~
andrewpi
It's better to say you want to speak with your lawyer before you will answer
questions. The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be
used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial
questioning. (the recent 2013 Supreme Court decision, Salinas v. Texas, has
more on this)

~~~
tankbot
> The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used
> against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial
> questioning.

How is this possible given the 4th and 5th amendments?

~~~
Oculus
The whole argument behind this ruling is that at first the suspect talked and
then stopped answering questions. Had the suspect not talked in the first
place, then the 5th wouldn't have been voided, but since he did, it was.

~~~
tankbot
So am I correct to assume that, according to this description and the other
answer, that this falls under the 4th amendment and since the person in
question initially answered questions they implicitly gave up this right and
are thus accountable when they decide to stop talking?

~~~
jlgaddis
The guy initially "cooperated" and answered questions and, at a certain point,
finally just shut up and refused to speak anymore. It was ruled that the fact
that he suddenly decided not to "cooperate" and became silent could be used
against him.

I imagine the state arguing it to the jury similar to this: "Mr. Doe was
helpful and cooperative at first and happily answered our questions. Then,
when we asked him about <insert crime here> he stopped being cooperative and
refused to answer any more of our questions. If he wasn't involved with <the
crime>, why wouldn't he continue to cooperate?"

~~~
tankbot
Seems like another reason to never start talking in the first place. Thanks!

------
dm2
We should be worried if you have a place called Homes for Hackers with 1Gb
fiber and purchased uranium and DIDN'T get a visit or at least an inquiry from
the FBI, right?

There are a TON of organizations and crazy individuals who are out to harm
innocents and cause destruction, it's the FBI's job to prevent that.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)

Edit: Wtf, so everyone here just prefers anarchy?

~~~
noahc
No.

What about 1Gb fiber connection makes one a terrorist?

What about buying Uranium off Amazon[1] makes one a terrorist?

What about starting an organization that promotes technology in the Midwest, a
typically rural and industrial location, in need of new sectors makes one a
terrorist?

The point is that we need to be more nuanced in our approach and show
restraint. There are a lot of people with crazy ideas, however, doing things
differently or having eclectic hobbies or dreams isn't what makes someone a
terrorist.

What do we prefer?

We prefer freedom, liberty, and privacy to live our lives according to our own
desires. Our desire for real safety is there, but security theater is
ineffective. We can not prevent all terrorism, we can not prevent all harm. It
is the cost of the freedom, liberty and privacy and one that we should be
willing to pay. These are not absolutes, and trade offs can certainly be made.
But today, we have traded too much freedom, liberty, and privacy for a false
sense of security.

This is what we prefer: real safety balanced with real freedom, liberty and
privacy.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Images-SI-Inc-Uranium-
Ore/dp/B000796XX...](http://www.amazon.com/Images-SI-Inc-Uranium-
Ore/dp/B000796XXM)

~~~
dm2
Nobody said they were terrorists, just that all of those factors combined
ranked them higher to have the potential to commit a serious crime.

The point of FBI agents contacting people and reaching out is to get a human
perspective on their situation, to be able to put in their file things that
raw stats cannot show. Yes, purchasing uranium outside of an academic setting
is a red flag.

How do you propose we achieve "real safety"?

> "There are a lot of people with crazy ideas, however, doing things
> differently or having eclectic hobbies or dreams isn't what makes someone a
> terrorist."

Then what does mark someone as a potential terrorist? Remember you must
PREVENT crimes, not just punish people who commit crimes. Nobody was arrested
or even felt like they were about to be arrested, it was a friendly and
optional meeting to feel out their intentions.

There is a huge amount of variables that must be considered to identify
someone with the potential to cause harm to society and commit terrorism.
Usually that individual keeps quiet and is halfway good about preventing law
enforcement from finding out. A face-to-face conversation allows an FBI agent
to gauge the situation and hopefully figure out what that individual or
organizations true motives are. If they are an energy startup, then fine, no
problem, that's was the point of the meeting. Now there are 300+ million more
people that the FBI has to make sure doesn't decide to start blowing up
citizens, public officials, or organizations.

~~~
shakes
A quick google search shows the details of Homes for Hackers covered in the
likes of Forbes, Wired, CNN and so on.

Traveling Nuker's site links to coverage on Yahoo Finance and SPN. A Google
search points to numerous videos where the founders outline what they're
working on.

It's not like these guys were trying to stay under the radar. Spending 10
minutes searching on Google would have made it obvious they aren't terrorist.

~~~
dm2
Something they did raised a red flag with the FBI. They got a friendly chat
from an agent. I don't know hardly anything about their situation, what kind
of things they've done on the internet, or what the red flag was. It seems
like the situation was handled professional by all parties involved and I
wanted to voice my opinion that not everyone has jumped on the anti-government
bandwagon.

------
northwest
> At one point, one of the guys asked to use the bathroom. I showed him where
> it was and went back outside the house. I remember thinking he had been in
> there longer than was normal.

If you leave cops roaming around your house alone, you may need to consider
your hardware compromised. Also, in such a situation, cops would have the
opportunity to plant bugs or even "evidence".

------
vermontdevil
Should have told him thanks but no thanks.

FBI agents should no longer be considered to be on the side of American
citizens. Not with their constant snooping, their attitude that anyone with a
computer is a potential hacker etc.

I would have made them stay outside of the place, listen to them talk for a
min or two and said "thanks for coming and talk later." Then close the door.

------
lazyjones
I take it the bathroom is bugged now (or some nearby room).

------
llamataboot
Relevant pamphlet - activists and progressive and radical groups have been
dealing with this for a while

[http://ccrjustice.org/ifanagentknocks](http://ccrjustice.org/ifanagentknocks)

------
mikedemarais
i live/work next door to the hacker house. the most worrisome part of this
whole visit to me was when i asked them why they were here, their response was
"to check in on your grassroots movement" and used the words "counter-culture"
twice.

~~~
mikedemarais
this being said, our overall conversation was not too out of the ordinary.
they asked what my startup did, i gave them the pitch, and then we talked
about advanced manufacturing and the future of the american economy for
~20min. none of them smiled though.

------
VonGuard
FBI showed up at Noisebridge this week asking about the Tor node again. They
said the Chinese are now using it, but I am sure they have more important
worries and reasons to come to NB.

~~~
wiml
I was under the impression that the FBI (or SS or DHS or whoever) showed up at
Noisebridge on a regular enough basis that there's a section on their wiki for
"if you're the door-answerer, and it's the Feds again, here's the standard
procedure".

~~~
scintill76
Looks like it:
[https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge_Tor/FBI](https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge_Tor/FBI)

------
iblaine
Should rename the article to oblivious person picks Travelling Nuker as their
business name and unsurprisingly raises suspicious from the government.
Where's the news in this?

~~~
jhuckestein
Suspicions of what? Last I checked naming your company wasn't a federal crime

~~~
teddyh
“Tell it to the jusdge.”

------
shakes
> Anyway, I ended up telling them all about the Homes for Hackers program and
> the KC Startup Village. I hope they understood that I give free rent to
> entrepreneurs, not black-hat hackers, but one can never be too sure.

The fact that there are questions as to whether the FBI understands this
distinction is terrifying.

------
robomartin
I would have said something like this:

"My apologies. I understand it would be unwise for me to have a conversation
with you without, at the very least, consulting with an attorney. I have no
problem talking to you within the correct framework. If there's something
relevant to your visit my lawyer and I should consider I ask that you submit
it to me in writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding. I appreciate your
time. Please let me know if my lawyer and I should contact you and how to go
about doing so."

A little verbose, I know. Perhaps those with legal training on HN can suggest
and help evolve a clear and concise non-threatening statement one could commit
to memory for such illustrious occasions? It sure sounds like the tech world
is intersecting with law enforcement with greater frequency these days. It
would behoove any entrepreneur and their staff to fully understand how to deal
with these events in a manner that does not generate additional risk or
liability for anyone.

------
trippy_biscuits
I'm pretty sure that this published story isn't to advertise the author's own
stupidity. I believe it is the only way he can communicate what happened to
certain parties without directly contacting said parties. It lets the author
elaborate without saying anything.

------
rdl
There actually are good/safe ways to have LEO contacts, which can be helpful
later. The time to do that is before they contact you in the context of an
investigation -- helping your local PD learn about technology issues in
general (both on the criminal side and on the public safety side -- things
like communications in an emergency or how to help people report property
crimes online).

------
jlgaddis
> ... apparently the agents didn't know it even existed and asked me all about
> it.

I saw this same sort of thing from FBI agents ~17 years ago... feigning
ignorance and asking all sorts of questions.

I realized soon after that it was all a ploy. They almost certainly knew more
about the subject than I did.

