Isn't that just stalking? Why didn't they just call the cops?
I don’t know why people have a mental model of the world that is so incompatible with reality that they’ll post skeptical takes to HN when we live in a world where so much data is available at the tip of our fingers.
For example, "infiltrating an organization" is also just joining it, which is quite dissimilar to say, stalking if all they did was not actually believe in the organization, rather the say, menacingly post men and machines outside of someone's residence for the purpose of intimidation via threat of violence.
Did you find any of that? Specifically in the UK, by private investigation organizations, specifically providing stalking for hire? Confirmed by more evidence then "well someone totally said it happened but we won't say who or by who?"
I'm certainly not trusting what a random person on the Internet says it came up with.
That isn't to say the core assertion is wrong, but that I'll immediately dismiss one for which "chatGPT said" is the primary evidence.
Again, the only reason we’re having this conversation as though there’s a debate here is that people have decided to believe in one inaccurate version of the world instead of using the extensive tools available to figure out what’s going on. This level of conversation is fine for Reddit, it’s embarrassing for HN where having an accurate mental model of the world (and a willingness to learn an update) is kind of essential.
> so I visited ChatGPT and asked if there are documented cases in the UK where these things have happened, and I was met with a deluge of well-documented cases
does indeed sound exactly like you were using chatGPT as a primary source rather than a search engine, and thus are being met with cynicism.
Please have better faith in your interlocutor. We are not ostriches with our heads in the sand. Say your piece, so that then if we ignore it, you may find fault in good faith after. You're beating around the bush now, as you've been asked for sources plainly and directly, and have refused, which leads me to deploy the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
> Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor that serves as a general rule for rejecting certain knowledge claims. It states:
> > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> The razor is credited to author and journalist Christopher Hitchens, although its provenance can be traced to the Latin Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur ("What is asserted gratuitously is denied gratuitously"). It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
Intelligence agency staff leave their roles, just like anyone else does. Unregulated? They're as regulated as the rest of us. Then you have the article casting aspersions on them for doing so, it must be about money and malign foreign influences. Of course foreign states use proxies; so does the UK. Why's that even mentioned as if it's implying ex-intel staff are the proxies - which as far as I'm aware, they're not?
Should we ban these people from working again, or ensure they only flip burgers for the rest of their lives for daring to leave the public sector?
ETA: the argument “what, do you expect these people not to keep engaging in work that we traditionally reserve for governments, how will they feed their kids?” also leaves me quite cold.
Australia introduced a less onerous 1/5/10 year permission period but for anybody with "training in military tactics and use of software or technology with military applications" https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2024-05-07/new-l...
Most famously due to a former US citizen turned Australian citizen awaiting extradiction back to the US for allegedly training chinese fighter pilots (although this seems to be more of an ITAR violation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Daniel_Duggan
Retired military personnel, not all veterans.
What is the difference between "veterans" and "retired military personnel"?
https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Portals/102/emoluments_clause_ap... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250422185437/https://dodsoco.o...
> WHITE PAPER
> APPLICATION OF THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE TO DoD CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND MILITARY PERSONNEL
[The following paragraph is from the conclusion, and I think this might be Justice Department interpretations, as I don't think these issues have been tested before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, nor do I speak for the military or Justice Department.]
> The Emoluments Clause to the Constitution applies to all Federal personnel. The Clause prohibits receipt of foreign gifts unless Congress consents such as in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7342. For retired military personnel, the Emoluments Clause continues to apply to them because they are subject to recall. The Justice Department opinions referred to in this paper construe the Emoluments Clause broadly. Specifically, the Justice Department construes the Clause to include not only gifts of travel and food, but also payments such as proportionate profit-sharing. To avoid an Emoluments Clause problem resulting in suspension of retired pay, retired military personnel should seek advance consent through their respective Service consistent with 37 U.S.C. § 908. It is prudent for retired military personnel to obtain advance approval even when there is uncertainty about the Clause’s applicability.
Perhaps there's some nuanced reading of "veterans" that includes folks who aren't armed services, although I think they would likely still fall under the purview of this clause, though I am curious about the factors at play here.
Edit: I think that if you are retired and fail to comply to the Gov's liking, all foreign payments are able to be counted against any military pension you may receive. I am less certain about how non-officers who have no pension are treated, or if they are still beholden to the clause after leaving the armed forces.
Here is additional material from the Commissioned Corps Personnel Manual:
https://dcp.psc.gov/ccmis/ccis/documents/CCPM26_9_1.pdf | https://web.archive.org/web/20250529163709/https://dcp.psc.g...
Found this slideshow that has this test:
https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/0/A7C0E4D79F3F6D07852585B600... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250505113229/https://www.oge.g...
> 4-Part test to Determine if the Emoluments Clause Does Not Apply:
> 1. U.S. cannot be a member of a foreign state
> 2. Organization must carry out U.S. foreign policy
> 3. U.S. participates in governance of organization
> 4. Congress approved participation, no concern about divided loyalty
Not sure which country this looks bad on given that
This sounds like "parallel construction" with fewer steps.
The world seems to be moving away from long-established (and established slowly over a long time) rules and regulations around law and due process due to it feeling slow and inconvenient.
Haven't crime rates been declining in the West for quite a while now?
readthenotes1•5h ago
(Just finished a Chuck rewatch)
mr90210•4h ago