‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Feds Target AI Critics as "Foreign Agents"

396 points · 457 comments · nmeagent

  1. surfmike · · focus · HN ↗
    When the CEOs of these companies are saying that we will risk extinction and jobs will be decimated, why do you even need a "foreign agent"?
    1. tcdent · · focus · HN ↗
      Multiple things can be true at the same time.
      1. surfmike · · focus · HN ↗
        There can be foreign agents criticizing AI, but not all people criticizing AI are foreign agents.

        Trump is painting critics with a wide brush:

        "The people that say AI is going to destroy the World, and that Data Centers are bad for your neighborhood, are the same people that said, just a short time ago, that the World would be extinguished by “Climate Change.” That HOAX never worked out for them, and now they’re on to the next one. These people are Revolutionaries, but Revolutionaries for a Bad and Evil Cause. Soon you’ll find out they’re working for people that do not have the best interests of the United States in mind!"

        1. 1shooner · · focus · HN ↗
          I don't trust the administration to use the law in good faith, but this article is misquoting the DoJ statement. The articles omits the very relevant qualifier:

          The article:

          > Last week, the Justice Department instructed “citizens and noncitizens” that anyone furthering the “goals” of a foreign power in “any public activity” — including even “public demonstrations” — must formally notify the government to avoid arrest and prosecution.

          The DoJ:

          >“If a person acts as an agent of any foreign power to carry out any public activity, including (but not limited to) public demonstrations designed to further the propaganda or other goals of the foreign power, he or she must register with or notify the appropriate federal authorities”

          1. impossiblefork · · focus · HN ↗
            That's still incorrect though.

            FARA requires coordination with the foreign power. You are perfectly allowed to further its goals unless you have actually coordinated with them.

            You have to actually be an agent of the foreign power. You can't be that just because you share their goals.

            1. Terr_ · · focus · HN ↗
              So I can read the DOJ sentence two ways, I first interpreted it as #1, but it sounds like you took it as #2?

              1. "We mean people who at that time qualify as agents under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, we said "acting as" because it indicates a temporary employment status rather than an innate human characteristic."

              2. "We are weasel-wording to target all people with similar acts to how agents would act, but who would not qualify under the law we want you to think we'd be drawing authority from."

              1. ImPostingOnHN · · focus · HN ↗
                > We mean people who at that time qualify as agents under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act

                According to who?

                If that's according to the current us administration, then "qualifies as an agent" means "disagrees with the administration".

                1. Terr_ · · focus · HN ↗
                  I empathize with your concern, but as bad as things are we shouldn't assume infinite malice from all federal entities in all circumstances. Not out of kindness or charity, but because it would be a maladaptive strategy for handling problems.

                  If they try charging Joe-Shmoe under FARA, there's still some chance of loss in federal courts.

                  1. ImPostingOnHN · · focus · HN ↗
                    No need to assume infinite malice, but given the track record, it would be naïve to assume anything other than a default of malice unless proven otherwise

                    The evidence in front of us (the malicious words of the person in question) strongly favors malice anyways.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.