> "We are looking at him," she said on Fox News, "and he better watch out."

(Source: The submitted Apple Insider article, citing Wired, which as noted in the quote was citing Fox News.)

When the head of the DOJ publicly threatens someone, saying that she "goes after" that person is entirely accurate.

> "We're working with the Department of Justice to see if we can prosecute them for that because what they're doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement activities and operations," Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem said to press, "and we're going to actually go after them and prosecute them... because what they're doing, we believe, is illegal."

If you dig into someone's past, you can probably find something, or make it look like there's something. Pay informants. Frame people for other crimes. Etc.

When a justice department doesn't believe in the laws they're supposed to uphold, they don't have to follow their own rules. They can send people through the judicial wringer by merely filing a complaint against them.

That in itself is a punishment.

He's also immune from prosecution for anything he does in his "official capacity" and the DOJ has already demonstrated they're willing to claim everything, even things done in years he wasn't President, are in his official capacity. There will never be 2/3rds of the Senate willing to remove him from office and the Supreme Court is very ready to give him almost anything.

It's all a con with no downside for him -- and he can just pardon his hangers-on for anything they might do to aid him. Heck, Biden (and maybe others before him) set a precedent for pre-emptive pardons, so I expect we'll be seeing "anything you did while I was in office" pardons here soon.

They also like it because he is bully and he is their bully, so it's fun to watch him hurt their perceived enemies. Its very, very sad.

There's not. But it attempts to thwart the administration's efforts into conducting raids.

The easier it is to pay off officials. The easier it is to escape juris diction. The easier it is to live the way you want, laws be damned.

That was just as accurate a description back in that day as it was of the 80s-00s "hackers" that people associate with counter-culturalism and building cool shit. I remember what technologists were like in the 90s. The same amount of effort that went into building the world wide web went into insane shit like cryogenics. Y'all complain about the fringe ideologies of people like Musk and Thiel, but that's exactly who we're talking about when we're talking about old school hackers. That and a half dozen other fringe personalities with fringe ideologies.

If we were to talk about people working at the frindges of respectability, "Salesforce for Killing People" is exactly the kind of company that they would work for. Heck, back in those early decades your options were also research labs or defense industry...

We were never all one team of good guys with good intentions. I mean, a sizeable percentage of people in our industry have at some point worked for Meta...

Technical solutions may give you a temporary upper hand in pursuit of a political resolution. But without the latter, technical solutions will simply devolve into a technical arms race that you cannot possibly win, due to the near infinite resources the regime commands. If at all they can't defeat you technically, they'll just order an indiscriminate crackdown.

ICEBlock, an app for anonymously reporting ICE sightings, goes viral - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44445646 - July 2025 (836 comments)

Real police would not be alarmed at having their presence noted. Secret police that are masked up to avoid identification, and equipped with more military equipment than was typical for daytime patrol by soldiers in Fallujah is not anything like what happened under prior administrations.

The topic of the app's launch was on the front page for several hours last week and generated a huge discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44496729

This latest story doesn't seem to carry any "significant new information", which is a critical qualifier for a new HN thread. The only new information is a quote by the United States Attorney General on a cable news interview, and even that was made – and reported – last week when the topic was still active on HN. It's just a detail in the overall story that has already had major coverage here. If there was an arrest or some other material legal action, that would likely warrant a new thread.