[dehrmann]

> Jin’s co-conspirators created fake email accounts and Company-1 accounts in the names of others, including PRC political dissidents, to fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography. The fabricated evidence falsely asserted that the meetings included discussions of child abuse or exploitation, terrorism, racism or incitements to violence, and sometimes included screenshots of the purported participants’ user profiles featuring, for example, a masked person holding a flag resembling that of the Islamic State terrorist group.

Ah. So it's not quite disrupting meetings, it's framing people as pedophiles an terrorists.

[generalizations]

I think it's been mentioned on hn before, but it sure seems like we should look twice at anyone who gets charged with child pornography - could be someone getting framed.

[sneak]

Forget the charge - we should strive to presume the innocence of anyone charged with anything.

Bringing charges is not evidence.

[hn_throwaway_99]

But crimes of mere "possession" (e.g. child pornography, drugs) are especially susceptible to framing because the existence of the contraband in a person's personal effects are all that is needed to presume guilt. Child pornography, or really any digital asset, is doubly suspect because it is so much easier to "place" these digital assets on someone's computer or phone, whereas with drugs you'd need physical access to someone's home or personal effects.

[indolering]

I have brown friends who get searched every time they are pulled over or go through airport security. I have had friends who were told to STFU and take a frequenting ticket or spend the night in jail (and thus risk losing their minimum wage job). I even had a friend who was led to a cop car by the FBI but (thankfully) he refused to get in because there was a mysterious baggie in the back (which was surreptitiously spirited away on camera). Nothing happened in any of these cases.

Sigh - you can't trust cops even with physical possession and cameras rolling [1].

[1]: https://www.topic.com/runningfromcops

[sillysaurusx]

Since we're cherrypicking, I was reading over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette#Notable_incid... and found this gem:

On July 24, 1973, Dallas Police Officer Darrell L. Cain fatally shot Santos Rodriguez, a 12-year-old Mexican-American child, while interrogating him and his brother about a burglary. Cain shot Rodriguez while conducting Russian roulette on the brothers in an attempt to force a confession from them.

In fairness, that was the 70s. But the 70s were also "one generation ago," so it's not exactly ancient history.

(I could imagine myself being skeptical about your comment before having wised up a little, so I thought I'd chime in to say yes, this really does happen.)

[Buttons840]

The officer was charged and convicted and spent 2.5 (two and a half) years in jail. I'm 100% serious.

[ashtonkem]

Only a cop would get away with serving half of their sentence (and not a day more than the minimum) after shooting a child in the head on purpose.

[ashtonkem]

For drugs, it depends on your social status. It’s not unheard of for cops getting caught planting drugs on low status individuals to justify an arrest. Turning off your camera and “finding” a bag of heroin is often enough to secure a conviction, since juries trust cops.

[threatofrain]

The degree to which charges predict things is the degree to which they serve as "evidence" for the purposes of prediction.

[jbay808]

Perhaps, but once you've been falsely accused of something and have no alibi to clear your name, it will probably reshape for the rest of your life how you make decisions on such evidence.

[rayiner]

Charges are based on evidence shown to a grand jury. The law presumes people are innocent until proven guilty, and we should give people the benefit of the doubt, but it’s totally reasonable to talk about the charges in a news context. Charges being filed means some meaningful threshold has been passed.

[ClumsyPilot]

"means some meaningful threshold has been passed."

In UK we've been putting innocent people in jail for 20 years, because of bugs in accounting software. It was going unnoticed and noone would believe them untill recently. We are talking hundreds of people.

If it happened to a single person, noone would ever find oit the truth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0138cd7d-967...

[azalemeth]

This Financial Times article is paywalled, and, moreover, the FT didn't actually do any of the investigative journalism required to show this. Private Eye, however, did, and their report is free online: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i... -- Private Eye was very good at banging the drum for many years and eventually the mainstream media cottoned on and -- following that -- several miscarriages of justice were reversed.

Note that in Britain, following a Tory amendment to the law, you can only get legal aid if you have assets less then £37.5k -- so if you own a home, and are charged (incorrectly!) with criminal proceedings, which you then win, expect to sell it to pay the legal bills. Once you win, you'll get...nothing. No fees. Just a "release the defendant from the dock" and you're good to go. If you get imprisoned, and THEN are found innocent later on, maybe, say, 30 years later (as has happened!) expect to get....nothing. I really recommend "The Secret Barrister" both as a book and a blog. Nobody stands up for funding criminal justice properly -- because what politician wants to support the rights of the accused? -- but it's badly breaking. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/02/02/mr-gove-must-now-h...

[sneak]

Grand juries, in practice, mean approximately nothing.

We should always presume innocence when law enforcement makes an accusation.

[mantap]

What percentage of grand juries throw out the charges?

[rayiner]

That’s not a meaningful number because in practice prosecutors don’t bring cases to grand juries where the evidence isn’t sufficient to indict.

[tehjoker]

Charges filed means they've pissed off someone powerful, no more no less. It's up to you to evaluate the evidence based on what's publicly known. Generally when the government doesn't show its evidence, it should be treated with extreme skepticism.

[rayiner]

The DOJ press release had a link right at the bottom to the 47 page indictment “showing the evidence.” https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1347146/downl...

[tehjoker]

I don't mean necessarily in this case, but I did mean in general. However, simply pointing out a section heading isn't enough (and I didn't see anything on page 47). What do you think of the evidence they presented?

Additionally, grand juries are well known to simply be tools of the prosecution with >90% of grand jury presentations voting to indict, in part because the prosecutor can present whatever narrative they want, in secret, without any checks other than their conscience without a counter narrative.

[wahern]

Prosecutors aren't supposed to publicize their evidence as doing so is prejudicial to the defense. Of course, they sometimes do so, precisely for that effect.

[m-p-3]

And being charged publicly is basically a mandatory social sentence, even if you end up being acquitted.

[Fluid_Mechanics]

Humans are quite dimwitted unfortunately.

[billsnow]

yeah that's not the lesson from this

[DarthGhandi]

> The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception... COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day and have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination. According to a senate report, the FBI's motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order"

The court of public opinion is far more important than real courts. You only have to look at enlightened HN comments on Ross Ulbright to see it in action, nearly all are convinced he's guilty of a charge that never went to trial and was dismissed with prejudice, which is rare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

https://legaldictionary.net/dismissed-with-prejudice/

[ComodoHacker]

Framing was a mean, the goal was to disrupt meetings.

Complaint-bombing has become a popular technique to silence opinions on public platforms.

[dehrmann]

But framing was also the alleged crime: conspiracy to commit interstate harassment. If Zoom had disabled the user accounts or the meeting (which I'd argue are also "disrupting meetings"), there might not have been a crime.

[robswc]

This is more of a general statement... but I find it odd how fast people write off stuff like this as "impossible" - or they just don't believe it could happen. Fair enough, its unlikely but all the same, stranger things have happened before.

I'd say almost every "claim" is worth investigating, even a little bit.