Jack Recider

Early users were liking these phones. Word was getting out about them, and more orders were being made. Chat messages started to show up, and the AFP could see what was happening.

Early users were liking these phones. Word was getting out about them, and more orders were being made. Chat messages started to show up, and the AFP could see what was happening.

Was AFP like actually arresting people or were they just watching, trying to figure out what to do at this point?

Was AFP like actually arresting people or were they just watching, trying to figure out what to do at this point?

Yeah. Yeah, I found this tension while reading the book quite interesting of, oh my gosh, there's some crime going on here. We can see it happening. What do we do? Do we bust in? Because you have to have some sort of good reason how you knew that was happening. And if it was, well, we've got an access to your chats and your phone, then that's going to just ruin the whole company.

Yeah. Yeah, I found this tension while reading the book quite interesting of, oh my gosh, there's some crime going on here. We can see it happening. What do we do? Do we bust in? Because you have to have some sort of good reason how you knew that was happening. And if it was, well, we've got an access to your chats and your phone, then that's going to just ruin the whole company.

So they really have to be very careful. And I'm surprised there wasn't just some AFP officer like, oh, I'm not going to be careful. I'm going to go stop this drug deal and just not understand the intricacies of it.

So they really have to be very careful. And I'm surprised there wasn't just some AFP officer like, oh, I'm not going to be careful. I'm going to go stop this drug deal and just not understand the intricacies of it.

I think everyone's aghast at the whole story. Yes, okay. Yeah, because here's a situation where the federal police are lying on the record about where they're getting their intelligence from. Are the citizens of that country okay with that? Here in the US, during court, you're asked to swear that you're telling the truth. The cops weren't telling the truth here.

I think everyone's aghast at the whole story. Yes, okay. Yeah, because here's a situation where the federal police are lying on the record about where they're getting their intelligence from. Are the citizens of that country okay with that? Here in the US, during court, you're asked to swear that you're telling the truth. The cops weren't telling the truth here.

Or I guess not yet telling the truth. We learn later how they did get this information, but the evidence in these earlier cases did not mention Anam. But additionally, they were working with this criminal, Afgu, to get these messages. And I call him a criminal because if someone makes an app exclusively for criminals to conduct crimes with, then historically that's criminal behavior.

Or I guess not yet telling the truth. We learn later how they did get this information, but the evidence in these earlier cases did not mention Anam. But additionally, they were working with this criminal, Afgu, to get these messages. And I call him a criminal because if someone makes an app exclusively for criminals to conduct crimes with, then historically that's criminal behavior.

So who's AFKU? And when did the police start making business deals with criminals? Is there proper oversight here? Is this within best practices for the feds? Point to the policy that allows this. This just isn't sitting right with me. And you might say to me, Jack, the ends justify the means.

So who's AFKU? And when did the police start making business deals with criminals? Is there proper oversight here? Is this within best practices for the feds? Point to the policy that allows this. This just isn't sitting right with me. And you might say to me, Jack, the ends justify the means.

If all this results in a takedown of a lot of criminals, then it's okay for them to lie and do back alley deals with criminals. Really? What about Fast and the Furious? This was a real operation done by the ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, where they set up weapons deals with criminals so they could track where these weapons are going and ultimately try to arrest a bunch of weapons sellers.

If all this results in a takedown of a lot of criminals, then it's okay for them to lie and do back alley deals with criminals. Really? What about Fast and the Furious? This was a real operation done by the ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, where they set up weapons deals with criminals so they could track where these weapons are going and ultimately try to arrest a bunch of weapons sellers.

Yeah, well, it all went wrong. The ATF made weapons deals, but lost track of the guns that were sold. They didn't make significant arrests and basically armed the very criminals they were trying to find and arrest. This ultimately resulted in a Border Patrol agent getting killed and at the scene of the crime was one of the guns the ATF sold to criminals. The ends did not justify the means here.

Yeah, well, it all went wrong. The ATF made weapons deals, but lost track of the guns that were sold. They didn't make significant arrests and basically armed the very criminals they were trying to find and arrest. This ultimately resulted in a Border Patrol agent getting killed and at the scene of the crime was one of the guns the ATF sold to criminals. The ends did not justify the means here.

The Fast and the Furious operation was a big mishap, and it showed how the ATF was operating without proper strategy or oversight or following policies put in place. What is the deal? Did the FBI take ownership of it? How did they? Was there a licensing?

The Fast and the Furious operation was a big mishap, and it showed how the ATF was operating without proper strategy or oversight or following policies put in place. What is the deal? Did the FBI take ownership of it? How did they? Was there a licensing?