[HN Gopher] The enduring mystery of an aggressive FBI raid near ...
___________________________________________________________________
The enduring mystery of an aggressive FBI raid near Area 51
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 82 points
Date : 2023-01-20 15:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
| rngname22 wrote:
| He posted a very high res photograph of the base on his blog, I
| saw it on Reddit and I'm sure its floating around still.
| Basically taking aerial reconnaissance photographs of an active
| military base, not hard to understand why he got raided.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Google do it...there are many us bases - especially in europe -
| that show very clearly the different streets and buildings.
| danw1979 wrote:
| You're implying he used his drone (which he mentions in the
| list of confiscated stuff) to fly over Area 51 and take aerial
| photos which he then put on his blog ?
|
| He denies that he was the one who took the photos in question
| ...
| colechristensen wrote:
| I thought the story was the guy flew his drone right around
| the edge of the restricted area pointing the cameras inside.
| nomel wrote:
| > He denies that he was the one who took the photos in
| question ...
|
| Usually, self reporting of innocence isn't given much weight.
| Perhaps that's what they were trying to verify?
| llacb47 wrote:
| Which is not illegal. If I take a very high res picture of your
| house from the street, that's not illegal either, although you
| probably wouldn't like it
| nomel wrote:
| > Which is not illegal.
|
| IANAL, but perhaps one could give some insight into 18 USC
| 795 and 18 USC 797.
| dmix wrote:
| Sure but typically raids like that require breaking a serious
| law. Otherwise there's serious chilling effect for anyone
| documenting gov when there's a threat of no-knock raids by
| federal agents.
|
| > Taking an unauthorized picture of a defense installation
| (such as a military base) is a federal misdemeanor offense--on
| par with hunting or fishing in a wildlife refuge. It carries
| with it a punishment of a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
|
| If he was getting a little too invasive then why not warn him
| first or charge him for the above?
|
| I'm guessing he posted some public images pushing the limits,
| pissed off the feds who wanted more than a small fine, and they
| built up some narrative about spying which they sold to a judge
| for a warrant. Then they didn't find any evidence they were
| fishing for and left the case open.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > He was served with a search warrant that was missing dozens of
| pages and gave no reason for the raid; the case records related
| to the warrant have been sealed, so there's no way of telling
| what the point of the search was.
|
| Can't you file a compliant against search warrants in the US? How
| are you supposed to file such a complaint if you don't even know
| what it's about?
| jameshart wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but actually if you read up a lot of the legal
| analysis and court documents surrounding the FBI search of Mar
| a Lago and subsequent appeals by Mr Trump to request his stuff
| back and to stymie any investigations.. the list of things
| Trump's lawyers were unable to prove or failed to do
| (enumerated rather effectively in the final appeal court ruling
| on the Special Master case [1]) lays out basically what legal
| recourse a person actually _does_ have to object to a search
| (which is approved by a court, so generally presumptively
| _legal_ ). Which is not much - the FBI is allowed to pursue
| investigations, and presumably they are still doing that. This
| was fairly recent. He's only really going to be in a position
| to complain about not getting his stuff back if they conclude
| their investigation without charging him and still don't hand
| it back.
|
| But still, the analysis in the Mar a Lago case of the 'Richey'
| factors seems like it maybe could be argued that this guy has
| some merits to asking for his stuff back in precisely the ways
| the Trump case lacked (disregard for constitutional rights,
| with respect to his first amendment speech in particular;
| pressing need for access to the seized property, as
| demonstrated by his mention of tax records etc.; lack of a
| remedy at law, given that he hasn't been given notice of any
| pending charges and is missing part of the warrant, etc). So
| maybe he has a case.
|
| Whether he has the money to make that case is a different
| matter.
|
| [1]
| https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23323316-11thcircuit
| [deleted]
| flandish wrote:
| The basic logic is nonsense, and scary, and quite
| authoritarian: Fight a bad warrant now and risk getting shot,
| or let them do potentially illegal things in your private
| space, take all your assets, and with a magical pile of money
| you have hidden away, fight it in court.
| pontifier wrote:
| Someone has to fight it or this stuff will keep happening. If
| they get away with it they'll keep doing it. They're pushing
| the limits, and seeing how far they can go. It has to stop.
| awb wrote:
| Afroman is responding to a raid against him in his own way:
|
| Will You Help Me Repair My Door?
|
| https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y
|
| Why You Disconnecting My Video Camera?
|
| https://youtu.be/ISe3IVBBbyU
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| > Afroman is responding to a raid against him in his own
| way:
|
| Because the courts never do anything to hold the
| government responsible unless there's political pressure.
| Lucky for him he's in a position to generate publicity
| and pressure without dying in a bulldozer.
| pontifier wrote:
| Lol, I have video of the police trying to disable my
| security system too! No record of the entry was ever
| made, no warrant was ever issued.
|
| https://youtu.be/p6kKKsXbJcM
| colechristensen wrote:
| I'm fine with this though. Area 51 is mostly for testing
| new military tech. Doubtful there is anything there with a
| strong public need to know. These are secrets they should
| be allowed to have and protect. Dudes hobby was publishing
| as much as possible about classified things... play stupid
| games win stupid prizes. If there was some public good
| served or some important need to know... sure that's worth
| consideration. If it was some much more mundane "secret" or
| publishing something that should be free to know or had a
| significant public interest, sure.
|
| But it's not, it's feeding off Area 51 conspiracies for
| funzies and well I'm not so upset if that gets your raided
| by the FBI.
|
| If you don't want to legitimize and strengthen these over
| the top responses, don't test the exact boundaries of
| things which are pretty defensibly legitimate. (Like
| details about a classified aircraft test facility)
| flandish wrote:
| He could be live-streaming alien sex videos - and the
| government should still have to gather the required
| warrants. Period.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| There was a cartoon towards the end of WWII (Bugs Bunny?). It was
| pure propaganda but depicted a bomb powerful enough to destroy an
| entire island. The creators got a visit from the men in black.
| Clearly, they were being investigated for possible Manhattan
| Project leaks. But the investigators wouldn't even have know
| about nuclear weapons. All they know is that someone put out a
| film that was eerily similar to something secret. They would
| simply be told "go find out who they talk to and where they got
| the idea". Today that would be "grab his computer before he
| deletes anything".
|
| My point: If you make up stories, occasionally they might
| coincide with reality. The people tasked with protecting secrets
| cannot tell the difference. The only issue here imho is the
| violence of the raid, but that is part of the larger problems
| surrounding all police actions. What in WWII was a polite knock
| on the door, today is a swat team driving a tank though your
| living room.
| para_parolu wrote:
| This reminds me Umberto Eco's book "Foucault's Pendulum".
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Wow i havent' thought of that book for 30 years. cool
| reference!
| kjellsbells wrote:
| I was going to respond with the story about how British WW2
| intelligence were alarmed to find code words for the D-Day
| operation showing up as answers in a newspaper crossword
| puzzle, quite coincidentally.
|
| But then I read that story again and it was not nearly so
| coincidental as was reported back in the day when I first heard
| about it. It's actually an interesting lesson in opsec. The
| compiler was physically close to soldiers preparing for the
| operation, and his pupils were filling in the grid with names
| they were hearing on the streets. So not really coincidental at
| all.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day_Daily_Telegraph_crosswor...
| xoxxala wrote:
| Similarly, Tom Clancy was questioned by the FBI after 'Hunt for
| Red October' was released because of the technical details
| within the book were eerily close to classified info at the
| time.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Similarly, Tom Clancy was questioned by the FBI after 'Hunt
| for Red October' was released because of the technical
| details within the book were eerily close to classified info
| at the time.
|
| I believe if you independently create a design for an atomic
| bomb, the government takes the position that it's
| automatically classified and you cannot distribute it, even
| if you have no connection to the government or already-
| classified information.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Same with Kubrick and the planes in Dr. Strangelove, I
| understand.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Funny story about the resulting film: The navy so loved the
| book that the film was given total military support. Access
| to submarines, b-roll footage ... they hoped it would be
| TopGun for the rest of the USN. But then came Crimson Tide
| (1995). Mutiny on a Russian nuclear submarine? Fine. Mutiny
| on a US nuclear submarine? No.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Red October is a great movie. Really a "they don't make 'em
| like they used to" action flick.
| phlipski wrote:
| I'd argue it's not a true action flick - it's really a
| spy thriller in disguise. Great flick though! "One
| ping..." Spy Games is another underrated espionage
| thriller.
| yucky wrote:
| I always found it odd that the Russians all had British
| accents.
| colechristensen wrote:
| If you learn British English as a second language, that's
| the accent you have. Apparently most of the non-star
| actors playing Soviets were Eastern European/Russian so
| it would make sense that they didn't have American
| accents.
| ac29 wrote:
| > If you learn British English as a second language,
| that's the accent you have.
|
| That doesnt seem to hold true for the ESL accents almost
| anywhere in the world, though. Most people's accents
| sound like their native tongue.
| colechristensen wrote:
| As you progress though your accent becomes more English
| and less your first language. If they're learning in the
| American sphere, you don't notice the second accent, if
| they're not...
|
| I really like running across a person developing an
| American Southern accent with their English learning.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > If you learn British English as a second language,
| that's the accent you have.
|
| Depends what you learn _from_. If you learn English from
| the British then sure. As you might in Europe.
|
| But if you learn from Americans, or even from American
| TV, well, that's what you'll learn.
|
| There's no one "British" accent though, people learning
| English in a region of England or Scotland do and should
| pick up the local accent. What works is correct, speaking
| like a local is what works.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| See also: "Das Boot" https://youtu.be/7pzKyeIex2Y
| is_true wrote:
| Interesting. One could create blog posts with hypothetical
| military plans/devices from different locations and test which
| locations get raided. Sort of military a/b testing
| spigottoday wrote:
| Three Days of the Condor
| badrabbit wrote:
| I tried driving around area51 and trying to find the actual
| place, you have to go on foot over some rough terrain before you
| can even see it unless you have really good offroad tires and
| somehow the unmarked pickups with guys holding automatic guns
| don't stop you.
|
| But what struck me as remarkable was how everyone from randos
| helping with broken down car to people in restaurants and
| starbucks near by kept asking if I was trying to take pictures or
| spying or whatever. No one assumed I was looking for aliens, they
| were concerned if I might be a russian or chinese spy.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Are you russian or chinese lokking, perhaps?
| badrabbit wrote:
| Not in my opinion lol
| implements wrote:
| Google Earth's imagery isn't blurred (surprisingly!) - though
| how manipulated it might be is anyone's guess.
|
| Watching Area51Rider's YouTube channel might satisfy readers
| desire to wander about near the border, though.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| [flagged]
| jjulius wrote:
| How are these two stories linked?
| ProAm wrote:
| I think he's hinting at government overstepping its boundary
| to intimidate private citizens for something that (may or may
| not) isn't illegal but unsavory to those in power.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| It's clearly illegal to steal and receiving and
| transporting stolen goods is likewise illegal. The
| individuals behind the theft have already pled guilty and
| their guilty pleas tell a sordid story of Veritas paying
| them to move goods they knew were stolen and soliciting
| them to acquire further items.
|
| He will likely only escape prosecution because he has
| plenty of money to fight it and the fig leaf of journalism
| to hide behind.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| He solicited and transported stolen goods. The raid was
| perfectly justified and he belongs in jail.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Stolen goods that just happened to be a diary in which the
| daughter of the current US president claims he took
| inappropriate showers with her when she was a child.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Evidence is only as trustworthy as its chain of custody. In
| this case the chain of custody flows through 2 convicted
| thieves who stole the goods to an inveterate liar who
| financed the crime. If it said water made things wet I'd
| have to check.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Stolen goods that just happened to be a diary in which the
| daughter of the current US president claims he took
| inappropriate showers with her when she was a child.
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-
| afraid/
|
| Edit: I'll also highlight that I'm trying to find any
| verifiable proof of this claim via other sources and am
| coming up empty-handed. Tucker Carlson said it on FOX, and
| Daily Mail repeated his own report, but at no point is the
| page of the diary that contains that content ever actually
| displayed - it's literally just "Tucker Carlson said so",
| and I think that any reasonable person on either side of
| the political spectrum would know enough about Carlson to
| know that you can't just take him at his word with
| something like that. There does not seem to be verifiable
| proof of the existence of what you're referring to. Do you
| have something a bit more concrete to support your claim?
| HideousKojima wrote:
| The quote about Ashley Biden being afraid is in fact
| fabricated, as far as I can tell. But that seems par for
| the course for Snopes, to debunk a related claim and
| completely ignore the primary claim. Here's a photo from
| the actual diary: https://preview.redd.it/4esvp92f60y71.p
| ng?width=385&format=p...
| michaelmrose wrote:
| How do we actually know that came from anywhere other
| than a known liars butthole?
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Not sure why you need an FBI raid to seize a fake diary?
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Allegations of a fake diary would very well lead to real
| raid. Attempting to solicit crime even if crime didn't
| happen would be you guessed it ... a crime.
|
| Lastly and most relevantly the diary being real in no way
| validates information received by unreliable sources
| about the contents of what they stole. A strategy older
| than civilization is to mix truth and lies.
|
| Is any of that something I really had to tell you?
| h2odragon wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._U...
|
| things was different then
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Did somebody with inside knowledge (a leaker) post classified
| information to his discussion area?
| DarknessFalls wrote:
| Was he flying his drone over restricted airspace? If he's
| potentially declassifying top secret military information, he
| should have known this was coming.
| awb wrote:
| He states that the raid was likely related to photos but denies
| that the photos were taken inside the base.
|
| > According to Hellow, an agent present at the Vegas raid told
| her: "Your boyfriend took pictures of a military installation--
| that's against the law." In a blog post on Dreamland, Arnu
| similarly said that all he was told about the investigation was
| that it was "related to images posted on my Area 51 website."
|
| > Taking an unauthorized picture of a defense installation
| (such as a military base) is a federal misdemeanor offense--on
| par with hunting or fishing in a wildlife refuge. It carries
| with it a punishment of a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
|
| > However, Arnu maintains that he never broke the law and that
| the government's case against him--whatever it is--has zero
| merit. "I had some photos [on my website] of Area 51 that were
| about two years old," said Arnu, which he believes were the
| reason for the raid. "They were legally obtained. There's
| absolutely nothing illegal about them," he said. "Most of these
| photos were not taken by me, I just published them [on the
| site]." He adds that they were "not classified photos" and that
| they "were not taken from inside the boundary"--that is, the
| area inside the perimeter of the base that is off-limits to
| civilians. Arnu says the photos had already been widely
| circulated on other news websites and TV shows, making it
| inexplicable why the government would target him and him alone.
| joezydeco wrote:
| _denies that the photos were taken inside the base_
|
| Those are pretty squirrely words when you're flying a drone
| outside the fence but 1000' up.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| > Taking an unauthorized picture of a defense installation
| (such as a military base) is a federal misdemeanor offense
|
| But what if it isn't? The oft-cited law doesn't actually
| forbid taking photos, rather their improper publication or
| distribution. The cops stretch "whoever reproduces" to
| include the taking and saving of a picture onto a memory
| card, but that is a huge stretch that hasn't properly been
| hashed out by the courts. Simply seeing something and
| photographing or sketching it, if standing in a public space,
| is very likely not a federal crime.
|
| "...whoever reproduces, publishes, sells, or gives away any
| photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical
| representation of the vital military or naval installations
| or equipment so defined, without first obtaining permission
| of the commanding officer..."
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/797
| [deleted]
| lordfrito wrote:
| I'm all for talking about violations of due process etc.
| Seriously egregious stuff going on (civil forfeiture) etc.
|
| But national security is a completely different world than
| regular law enforcement. To me this situation just screams "fuck
| around and find out"
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I agree that it is probably difficult to run clandestine
| military aircraft research in a country that has a Bill of
| Rights.
|
| I prefer that sentiment over:
|
| It is probably difficult to have a Bill of Rights in a country
| that needs to do clandestine military aircraft research.
| fluoridation wrote:
| It seems like the latter is more correct, though. That is,
| more representative of how things actually are.
| lordfrito wrote:
| Totally agree. I'm not arguing we throw away the Bill of
| Rights. I like your other point, it will always be
| _difficult_ to balance those rights while protecting military
| /security interests. It will always be touchy.
|
| It's one thing to go to your city/county police/government
| and complain loudly about rights violations, provoke
| confrontation, etc. This is where due process matters most in
| my opinion, general rule of law and due process in day to day
| life.
|
| It's another thing to provoke military and national security
| apparatus and assume you'll get the same basic response from
| law enforcement.
|
| I think any wise adult would know its a touchy area, best to
| steer clear unless you have a good reason to provoke. The
| people that do so are usually (not always) spies or
| combative/mental/tinfoil hat people with some sort of
| imagined axe to grind. Fuck around and find out. Better them
| finding out than me.
| Hizonner wrote:
| You should definitely not wear a short skirt while
| provoking the military and national security apparatus.
|
| I mean, yeah, it may be no surprise what happens to you,
| and maybe you want to not do it, but when you say "fuck
| around and find out", you are excusing them.
| molotovh wrote:
| Point well made.
|
| This is not a military autocracy. Neither the military
| nor law enforcement should have any special privileges
| with regards to violating the law or the established
| rights of the citizens. Too many supposedly intelligent
| people have given up on the fight to keep "the law"
| within the bounds of the law, and it's escaped those
| bounds like kudzu.
| lordfrito wrote:
| What I'm saying is that national security is serious
| business, America has real enemies, and people seem to
| forget that and just shout "rights". I mean, if I was an
| enemy agent I would _absolutely_ take advantage of due
| process rights afforded here to blur the line between
| espionage related activities and civil freedoms. It 's an
| attack vector that's easy to exploit in freedom loving
| countries, one the feds and spooks pay close attention
| to.
|
| If you go poking around a restricted base, taking photos,
| flying drones, don't be surprised when men in black start
| showing up in your life and making things difficult. I
| mean, is he purposely trying to make it look like he
| could be a foreign intelligence agent? I don't see how he
| can act surprised when they knocked down his door.
|
| > _but when you say "fuck around and find out", you are
| excusing them_
|
| No, it's more like I'm _not_ excusing Arnu. His actions
| created this sticky situation. It was totally avoidable.
|
| From the article:
|
| > the hobbyist researcher says that America's UFO
| mythology is little more than a smokescreen to hide the
| much more mundane reality of what goes on at Area 51: the
| testing of classified military projects and aircraft.
|
| OK so he openly admits that the classified stuff is why
| he's so interested in Area 51.
|
| > Most of these photos were not taken by me, I just
| published them
|
| "Not my fault"... really?
|
| > He adds that they were "not classified photos" and that
| they "were not taken from inside the boundary
|
| Yeah he's a genius and is confident he will get off on a
| technicality
|
| > One of the first things they wanted to know was: "Are
| there any booby traps on the property?" To Arnu, it
| seemed like a pretty weird thing to ask.
|
| Sounds like this guy was purposely digging for dirt, got
| right up to the line, then acted surprised when the
| national security apparatus responded.
|
| > Of course, Arnu had one particular hobby that he felt
| might be of interest to federal investigators: he had
| spent the last two decades tending to a popular blog
| about "Area 51
|
| Hmmm... yeah _maybe_ that 's what this is all about. SMH
|
| I don't have sympathy for the guy in the article. He's an
| instigator. And an idiot. Play stupid games win stupid
| prizes.
|
| There are much bigger violations of due process in this
| country worth paying attention to.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-20 23:02 UTC)