← Back to context

Comment by niemandhier

7 hours ago

Gather evidence against employees, use that evidence to put them under pressure to testify against their employer or grant access to evidence.

Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to place his kids into foster care.

That was legal. Guess what, similar things would be legal in France.

We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have real power. Western liberal democracies just rarely use it.

The same way the president of the USA can order a Drone strike on a Taliban war lord, the president of France could order Musks plane to be escorted to Paris by 3 Fighter jets.

> We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have real power.

Interesting point. There's a top gangster who can buy anything in the prison commissary; and then there's the warden.

> We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have real power.

I remember something (probably linked from here), where the essayist was comparing Jack Ma, one of the richest men on earth, and Xi Jinping, a much lower-paid individual.

They indicated that Xi got Ma into a chokehold. I think he "disappeared" Ma for some time. Don't remember exactly how long, but it may have been over a year.

  • From what I hear, Ma made 1 speech critical of the government and Xi showed him his place. It was a few years, a year of total disappearance followed by slow rehab.

    But China is different. Not sure most of western europe will go that far in most cases.

It's legal to just put kids in foster care for no reason but to ruin someone's life?

  • In France it's possible without legal consequences (though immoral), if you call 119, you can push to have a baby taken from a family for no reason except that you do not like someone.

    Claim that you suspect there may be abuse, it will trigger a case for a "worrying situation".

    Then it's a procedural lottery:

    -> If you get lucky, they will investigate, meet the people, and dismiss the case.

    -> If you get unlucky, they will take the baby, and it's only then after a long investigation and a "family assistant" (that will check you every day), that you can recover your baby.

    Typically, ex-wife who doesn't like the ex-husband, but it can be a neighbor etc.

    One worker explains that they don't really have time to investigate when processing reports: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG9y_-4kGQA and they have to act very fast, and by default, it is safer to remove from family.

    The boss of such agency doesn't even take the time to answer to the journalists there...

    -> Example of such case (this man is innocent): https://www.lefigaro.fr/faits-divers/var-un-homme-se-mobilis...

    but I can't blame them either, it's not easy to make the right calls.

  • I heard there's a country where they can even SWAT you out of existence with a simple phone call, but it sounds so outrageous this must be some evil communist dictatorship third-world place. I really don't remember.

> Gather evidence against employees

I'm sure they have much better and quieter ways to do that.

Whereas a raid is #1 choice for max volume...

Wait, Sabu's kids were foster kids. He was fostering them. Certainly if he went to jail, they'd go back to the system.

I mean, if you're a sole caretaker and you've been arrested for a crime, and the evidence looks like you'll go to prison, you're going to have to decide what to do with the care of your kids on your mind. I suppose that would pressure you to become an informant instead of taking a longer prison sentence, but there's pressure to do that anyway, like not wanting to be in prison for a long time.

> We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have real power.

Elon has ICBMs, but France has warheads.

  • France has Ariane, which was good enough to send Jame Web Telescope to some Lagrange point with extra precision. It's all fun and and games until the French finish their cigarette, arms French Guyana and fire ze missiles.

> Western liberal democracies just rarely use it.

Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.

> Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to place his kids into foster care.

Though things like that can happen, which are very serious.

  • > defendents have rights and due process.

    As they say: you can beat the rap but not the ride. If a state wants to make your life incredibly difficult for months or even years they can, the competent ones can even do it while staying (mostly) on the right side of the law.

    • We are not entirely sure the rule of law in America isn't already over.

      People are putting a lot of weight on the midterm elections which are more or less the last line of defense besides a so far tepid response by the courts and even then consequence free defiance of court orders is now rampant.

      We're really near the point of no return and a lot of people don't seem to notice.

      1 reply →

  • >> they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.

    That due process only exists to the extent the branches of govt are independent, have co-equal power, and can hold and act upon different views of the situation.

    When all branches of govt are corrupted or corrupted to serve the executive, as in autocracies, that due process exists only if the executive likes you, or accepts your bribes. That is why there is such a huge push by right-wing parties to take over the levers of power, so they can keep their power even after they would lose at the ballot box.

  • > Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.

    As we're seeing with the current US President... the government doesn't (have to) care.

    In any case, CSAM is the one thing other than Islamist terrorism that will bypass a lot of restrictions on how police are supposed to operate (see e.g. Encrochat, An0m) across virtually all civilized nations. Western nations also will take anything that remotely smells like Russia as a justification.

    • > As we're seeing with the current US President

      Well, that's particular to the US. It just shows that checks and balances are not properly implemented there, just previous presidents weren't exploiting it maliciously for their own gains.

  • > Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.

    It's a nice sentiment, if true. ICE is out there, right now today, ignoring both individual rights as well as due process.

> Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to place his kids into foster care.

This is pretty messed up btw.

Social work for children systems in the USA are very messed up. It is not uncommon for minority families to lose rights to parent their children for very innocuous things that would not happen to a non-oppressed class.

It is just another way for the justice/legal system to pressure families that have not been convicted / penalized under the supervision of a court.

And this isn't the only lever they use.

Every time I read crap like this I just think of Aaron Swartz.

  • One can also say we do too little for children who get mistreated. Taking care of other peoples children is never easy the decision needs to be fast and effective and no one wants to take the decision to end it. Because there are those rare cases were children dies because of a reunion with their parents.

>Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to place his kids into foster care.

>That was legal. Guess what, similar things would be legal in France.

lawfare is... good now? Between Trump being hit with felony charges for falsifying business records (lawfare is good?) and Lisa Cook getting prosecuted for mortgage fraud (lawfare is bad?), I honestly lost track at this point.

>The same way the president of the USA can order a Drone strike on a Taliban war lord, the president of France could order Musks plane to be escorted to Paris by 3 Fighter jets.

What's even the implication here? That they're going to shoot his plane down? If there's no threat of violence, what does the French government even hope to achieve with this?

  • fighter jets ARE a threat of violence, and it is widely understood and acknowledged.

    Again: the threat is so clear that you rarely have to execute on it.

    • >fighter jets ARE a threat of violence, and it is widely understood and acknowledged.

      That's not a credible threat because there's approximately 0% chance France would actually follow through with it. Not even Trump would resort to murder to get rid of his domestic adversaries. As we seen the fed, the best he could muster are some spurious prosecutions. France murdering someone would put them on par with Russia or India.

      7 replies →

  • > lawfare is... good now?

    Well, when everything is lawfare it logically follows that it won't always be good or always be bad. It seems Al Capone being taken down for tax fraud would similarly be lawfare by these standards, or am I missing something? Perhaps lawfare (sometimes referred to as "prosecuting criminal charges", as far as I can tell, given this context) is just in some cases and unjust in others.