Justice Department Demands 1.3 Million IP Addresses Related To Anti-Trump Website (theverge.com) 392
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In a blog post today, online web hosting provider DreamHost disclosed that it has been involved in a months-long legal battle with the Justice Department over records on visitors to an anti-Trump website. The dispute focuses on a Justice Department demand for information on data related to disruptj20.org, which describes itself as a group of activists "building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen." DreamHost is taking issue with a warrant issued by the department for "all files" related to the website, which DreamHost says would compel them to turn over electronic data like visitor logs. That would include IP addresses and other information that could be used to identify anyone who visited the site. "The request from the DOJ demands that DreamHost hand over 1.3 million visitor IP addresses -- in addition to contact information, email content, and photos of thousands of people -- in an effort to determine who simply visited the website," the company said in its blog post. The warrant, DreamHost argues, would also require it to hand over any communications that are even tangentially related to the website.
"In essence, the Search Warrant not only aims to identify the political dissidents of the current administration, but attempts to identify and understand what content each of these dissidents viewed on the website," the company said in a legal filing arguing against the warrant. A hearing on the situation is set for Friday in Washington, DC Superior Court.
"In essence, the Search Warrant not only aims to identify the political dissidents of the current administration, but attempts to identify and understand what content each of these dissidents viewed on the website," the company said in a legal filing arguing against the warrant. A hearing on the situation is set for Friday in Washington, DC Superior Court.
And so it begins.....correction... continues (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How much more of this nonsense does any remaining GOP member need before they really understand the insanity they foisted on America.
Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues (Score:5, Insightful)
How much more of this nonsense does any remaining GOP member need before they really understand the insanity they foisted on America.
The GOP members of congress aren't going to turn until the Trump-supporting voters in their districts turn.
Until then it's Heil Trump!
To these cowards, re-election is more important than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
That's politics in a nutshell, for any party. Getting votes is more important than anything else, whether than be through pandering, gerrymandering, offering favors for campaing donations, etc. With the primary process that often means only pleasing 10% or less of the population in a district because it's all about getting past that hurdle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that there's a concerted effort to get people who were seen at the Unite the Right rally fired, regardless of why they were there (remember, the rally was to save a historic monument from being erased), I'd say it's well warranted to remain anonymous. The violence coming from the left is terrifying and ought to be classified as terrorism. Like Trump said, there is violent hatred on many sides, and it should be condemned no matter where it's coming from, but for some reason, only white people are
Re: (Score:3)
You have no honor.
Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues (Score:5, Funny)
(remember, the rally was to save a historic monument from being erased)
Ah, so that's what those scumbags waving Nazi flags and chanting "Jews will not replace us" were trying to do.
Thanks for clarifying, Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:3)
So you voted for entertainment purposes?
As for Obama, you need to listen more, as there were many complaints against him from across the political spectrum.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Informative)
And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare. In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations
Things that never happened for $200, Alex. Stop with the #fakenews.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare.
In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations
Things that never happened for $200, Alex. Stop with the #fakenews.
Right here are the citations for you — something the anonymous OP should've included in his post, of course:
After people got outraged about this solicitation [canadafreepress.com], the above text was eventually removed.
Two out of two things you dismissed as "fake news" are in fact true and indisputable. Good score, keep it up!
I'm sorry, but no....
The original accusations were...
- Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare.
This is False. Even the quote that you provided proves that it's false. The Obama administration request was to provide copies of articles, news stories, etc. that seemed to be inaccurate or questionable. This was so that they could develop a marketing program to address false rumors. At no point did the Obama administration ask for names, email addresses, etc. Granted, most people would not have been smart enough to scrub the email of personal identification which causes privacy issues. But the fact is that they didn't request names, just stories.
- The IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations
This is badly worded or deliberately misleading. The IRS did discriminate against certain political groups by performing deeper audits. But, to the best of my knowledge, they didn't target individual citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the quote that you provided proves that it's false. The Obama administration request was to provide copies of articles, news stories, etc. that seemed to be inaccurate or questionable.
Read it again: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation . Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
That language absolutely covers individual emails, blog posts, etc., not just "articles and news stories."
Re: (Score:2)
Yours is a very charitable explanation and does not at all qualify for "fact". Both forwarded e-mails and links to news-stories would've identified the dissenters: people, who, unlike those conspiring to commit the crime of felony rioting, have done nothing illegal.
This is, what they admitted to — after getting caught. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect
Re: (Score:2)
This is badly worded or deliberately misleading. The IRS did discriminate against certain political groups by performing deeper audits. But, to the best of my knowledge, they didn't target individual citizens.
They targeted me, personally. Because my wife was involved in politics (Campaign for Liberty State Director), but already had her 501c before the targeting started. So they went after me personally.
Of course there was no "proof", just a lot of audits and requests and demand for information. Somehow EVERY response I sent them was "lost" or "not received," even when I sent by mail AND fax.
Exactly one week after the "investigation" was concluded and the IRS was deemed to have done "nothing wrong," I got a cal
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, you're retarded.
mi literally proved the AC's claims right before your eyes and you refuse to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people
Oooohh...why didn't you say so in the first place. If the democrats are doing it too it must be okay.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep going - you still several to do!
Fishing expidition... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply sniffing out all who disagree with the current administration (raises hand), and would protest it (raises other hand), stinks of police state tactics.
Now, why are both my hands in the air again?
Not bad actors (Score:3)
Trump is merely looking for proof of his massive inauguration crowd size.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but this is perfectly normal - like oh-so-much else that is wrong with this administration.
There are men who have been not just in prison, but in solitary confinement, for decades. There's a citizen who have been detained by ICE, imprisoned for three years without a lawyer, won $80k in damages, and just had the award thrown out on appeal because the statute of limitations on the "false imprisonment" charge expired while he was imprisoned. Last year
Re: (Score:2)
That was a disgusting decision which I predict will have bad consequences for future prosecution of criminals. It was short-sighted for the government to push that argument.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it's not like Obama ever used the legal system and other Federal agencies, departments, etc in even more blatantly unconstitutional and illegal ways to attack his & the Progressive's perceived political/ideological enemies...oh, wait...
If he did, why didn't the Republican Congress ever manage to impeach him over it? Why didn't they even investigate any of these alleged (though unidentified) actions? All we got was phony complaints [thinkprogress.org] about a report [splcenter.org] on right-wing extremism, a failed investigation [wikipedia.org] into the IRS that found nothing and the rampant Birtherism [wikipedia.org]. Oh, and a pointless lawsuit [wikipedia.org] over the exchanges [wikipedia.org].
I suppose you could complain about being naive [wikipedia.org], but that's small potatoes compared to real problems [wikipedia.org] in the prior [wikipedia.org] administration.
You dumbasses were cheering Obama & the Feds on while he and they abused government & presidential powers to attack conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else who criticized the administration or DNC and never gave a thought to how a Republican POTUS and administration might use those same expanded powers, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly there's a problem.
Actually, it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, why are both my hands in the air again?
Like you just don't care?
I don't want to know how you are typing with both your hands in the air.
Re: (Score:2)
Regular police work (Score:2)
This is regular police work. This is no different from going through all people mentioned in a suspect's rolodex/phonebook of old, for example.
Contrary to the title, this is not about an "anti-Trump" web-site, such are a dime-a-dozen. This is about a "pro-riot" web-site, which indicates its purpose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as back with Clinton and Bush where I preferred a prez that got blowjobs to one that really needed some direly, I can't help but say I prefer a prez that lets someone write his texts to one that really should.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Appeal to child porn. You lost all credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Appeal to child porn. You lost all credibility.
Apparently you can't read, see that "at the point of repeating myself." That really isn't my problem, or that you didn't continue reading the rest of the posts.
Re: (Score:3)
Disagreeing with government is NOT illegal... Felony rioting, destruction of property and conspiracy to do the afore mentioned crimes IS illegal. This is not about disagreeing with the government and protesting, this is about committing crimes while protesting.
Protest all you like, just don't break windows or torch cars and buildings in the process... OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Rioting, violence, and vandalism are illegal. So is conspiring to do those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Rioting, property damage, assaulting...that is illegal.
Re:Fishing expidition... (Score:4, Informative)
Conflating people who show up for peaceful protest and people who are attracted to those protests to riot isn't illegal, but it is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution seems to be shut up and know your place. THAT is typical of the right.
Re: (Score:3)
And now they arrest the people that conspired with them. Conspiracy laws are a bitch. Felonies spread like Herpes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is NOT regular police work. Did you even read the summary. 1.3 MILLION record. I'll bet you were screaming bloody murder when the RIAA went after crap like this as you should have. This is east germany crazy level snooping. And given Trump seems to have a thing for nazi groups, maybe it makes sense he would want to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the summary.... A WARRANT was issued, this means some judge has signed off that there is probable cause necessary for the request.
This is obviously a law enforcement activity that is going by the rules, not a political witch hunt by the DOJ. It is obvious they are investigating crimes as some of those crimes where on broadcast and cable TV for days.
So, are you claiming the warrant was improperly approved by the judge? If so, how's that make this a politically motivated..
Your Trump supports the
Yeah... (Score:4, Interesting)
This clearly isn't an incredibly broad overreach by an administration that shows that it hates being questioned or criticized at all.
Oh shit, did I have sarcasm enabled?
Photos? (Score:2)
The request from the DOJ demands that DreamHost hand over 1.3 million visitor IP addresses -- in addition to contact information, email content, and photos of thousands of people -- in an effort to determine who simply visited the website," the company said in its blog post.
As the web hosting company for the (suspected) criminal website for the group 'Resistance' where are they going to get visitor's pictures?
I think dreamhost is trying to fan the flames around this issue. If this were a suspected white supremacist group, or a suspected child porn ring, would they mount the same principled court battle? The Feds have reason to believe the site was used to plan violence at numerous public events, which is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
As the web hosting company for the (suspected) criminal website for the group 'Resistance' where are they going to get visitor's pictures?
They uploaded them, so they could recognize each other. Which of course borders on just fucking brilliant of course. One of the reasons why clearance rates for crimes are going up, stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is that was the content on the website illegal? Hate crime and hate speech are illegal in the US. Organizing protests and objecting to a president's actions or speech is not illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you mean hate speech is legal in the US. Organizing protests, and objecting are also legal. Using a website however to plan a riot or commit any crime? That's illegal, and that's why they want the info.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...you might need to brush up on your civics classes.
Not only is there no laws against "hate speech"...but in fact, it is very much protected speech under the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not like child porn (Score:2)
AFAIK, seeking out child porn is a crime in and of itself. If so, this case is not comparable. Everyone visiting a child porn site is breaking the law. I doubt 1.3 million people rioted at the inauguration, though that would explain his obsession over the crowd size.
The FBI should scrape the public site, determine who was planning violence, and subpoena those IP addresses so they can track them down in meatspace. Y'know, actually investigate.
This overly-broad request for information is becoming a pattern. H
Some Progress (Score:4, Insightful)
At least sometimes now, when the justice department trounces on our rights, we hear about it.
Re: (Score:2)
They got a warrant... What is supposed to happen if the government is investigating criminal activity?
Watch this space (Score:5, Funny)
The Trump administration is collecting the names of these people so he can finally prove there were actually 1,3 million people at his inauguration.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration is collecting the names of these people so he can finally prove there were actually 1,3 million people at his inauguration.
1.3 million protesters?
Re: (Score:2)
Protesters, attendees -- one doesn't exclude the other. Perhaps ol' Agent Orange was right after all and it *was* the most attended inauguration ever.
I thought we ended COINTELPRO (Score:2)
More USAPATRIOTACT Fallout.
Perhaps the gummint would like to issue us all mandated, always-on bodycams...
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
The website self-describes as "protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen." What comprises a "direct action"? What is the intention of a person who visits that website? What about a person who signs up for a newsletter? What should you assume about a person who indicates that s/he will attend future events sponsored by this group?
I'm still amazed at the cognitive dissonance of Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. Just because public dea
Re: (Score:2)
Were there 1.3 million rioters?
Re: (Score:3)
So it's finally confirmed, it was not fake news? There were more protesters than visitors at the inauguration?
Re:And what's missing from the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
"Narrow scope" (defined & specific) is one of the legal requirements for a valid search warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the warrant is overly broad, and that asking for all of the information for all visitors is clearly not narrow in scope. However the size of the batch as compared to some historical population numbers really has nothing to do with it.
The problem here lies in that they want information on 100% of the people/IPs who viewed the site, instead of the 0.03% (over estimating a lot here) who are currently charged. They should at the very least narrow the scope down to all IPs which communicated with, o
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a site that hosted rioters and conspirators and a number of rioters were caught and the evidence pointed to a site. Would you limit the warrant to only the people you caught or would you want it broad enough to identify the conspirators that were not caught? The point is to find the conspirators that are not the ~200 rioters.
If you had a server hosting any other illegal content I would imagine any warrant would be broad and have it all list all users, visitors, and information related to the inve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a strawman. If you limit the warrant to only the known 200 (assuming all used the same place to organize and assuming it is this website) you will not necessarily have the information to identify much less convict other conspirators. Do you limit other warrants for other criminal activity on other servers? No, then why is this different?
The point is that this is through a warrant approved by the independent judiciary and not the actions of the executive taken alone without input. A judge looked at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But wait... weren't you just defending nazis right to free speech and telling me that saying you were going to do stuff on the internet was not the same as actually doing it? Whoops. To be clear, I'm going to be 100% morally consistent (unlike you) in my viewpoint because I don't think that the visitors to the Daily Stormer should be given up, just that their website be taken down. Same thing here, if the site was used to incite criminal activity it should be taken down.
To be clear, I am being morally consistent. Those nazi's do have the right to free speech. I however didn't say that "were going to do stuff on the internet was not the same as actually doing it?" You don't seem to get the difference here either.
So with being morally consistent still: There's no case for any info from the daily stormer because there's no evidence of a crime having been committed from that website. Their only claim to fame, has been publishing something that was tasteless and hurt people
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They haven't even named any suspects or particular crimes related to the website. Would you like to take back your comments now?
Maybe you'd rather do that? [thehill.com]
If you can't see that both websites are doing the exact same fucking thing, goading and organizing people to violent protest, then you are beyond willfully ignorant, or you haven't actually visited the site and are just going by what you imagine it to be in your head.
You mean where people were discussing on the disruptj20 site about the best ways to commit/engage/etc. Maybe you should spend a bit more time reading, looking through the archived stuff that's sitting out there? That's not something you can pin on the daily stormer, no matter how much you try.
So you go ahead and bend yourself into a pretzel, I'm however going to sleep. So have fun.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
The government has made no effort whatsoever to limit the warrant to actual evidence of any particular crime
Felony crimes were committed by certain people, many of those people were affiliated with the site.
It's standard to then issue a warrant to grab the site's data to investigate who else was involved in crimes, including conspiracy.
Evidence discovered via the warrant will then be used to press charges against those who committed crimes. Those who did not commit crimes are in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when all of Hillary's emails were demanded, but she only (after much delay) provided those which she claimed were not related to yoga and Chelsea's wedding?
If John Doe is suspected of conspiracy to commit murder, and a search warrant is issued to find evidence of planning that murder, does John Doe get to select only the relevant documents?
Don't be a sucker all your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The search warrant is overly broad. Any sensible judge should either disallow the search warrant or order it to be limited to those who were arrested for rioting/vandalism during Trump's inauguration.
Nope. See this is the part people forget about when investigations are happening. They like have video or photographic evidence of other parties being involved in other crimes. Some of the people charged with felony rioting like are trying to cop a plea to a lower amount then "upto 10 years in prison." So they've spilled the beans on where they organized, and other people they went with/traveled with/did shit with. That means it's actually in scope of the warrant, because they have other known parties
Re: (Score:2)
Searching a house is a significantly greater disruption than getting a USB drive listing URLs. Police don't clean up the mess they make after throwing all your possessions on the floor (and breaking some) while removing stuff from a closet to see if someone is hiding there.
Although if you squint hard enough they seem the same on the surface, they're not. Some in law enforcement, perhaps most, take seriously not degrading the lives of large numbers of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
everybody looks like a nazi, don't they?
And what's missing from your post (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So then, the DoJ should also go after all the site, and people on those sites, that Fields, or whatever the guy's name is, who used his car as weapon of mass destruction as well. I'm assuming you have no problem with that as well, right? Guilt by association? Though-crime even?
So you've got proof that this guy engaged in a premeditated act? No? See that difference right there. They went to DC with the purpose of doing what they did, that's the fundamental difference between the two. This isn't rocket surgery by any stretch.
Then again, to shift gears into the "guilt by association" bit, after the 2 terrorist attacks in Canada, several muslim groups came out saying that all mosques should be under 24hr surveillance. That was really fun to watch as the left up here turned themse
Re: (Score:2)
Organizing is legal. Organizing to riot isn't legal, if however the site is also being used as a communication path to commit riots which the warrant ap states. Well now, you were awake in your high school civics class weren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand "conspiring to commit a crime", do you? If you use a server to commit a crime (planning a riot) then the "communication path" I mean "server" that was used to plan the riots warrants a look by the government and all relevant information to identify associates and conspirators of known criminals.
The primary purpose of the site was for legal organizing.
Are you sure about that with the ~200 felon rioters? Do you know the evidence the government has to get a warrant?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the purpose of facebook and what is the purpose of the site listed in the warrant? Apples and oranges. Even their self described mission frames their site in such away that lends itself to the idea that it was used by rioters to organize riots.
Would you limit the search warrant if the server was hosting child porn or any other illegal content?
Using a warrant is not getting around anyone's rights. That is the proper way to do these types of things. If you are going to argue scope, stick with scope. I
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. To shut up cunts like you, I'd be okay with completely legalizing child porn. A few kids getting diddled is peanuts in comparison to the amount of freedom it's led to us sacrificing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I see you believe two wrongs make a right. You must be a conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
How is getting a warrant to find criminals wrong? That is the right way to do this sort of thing. WTF are you trying to say?
Do you know the evidence which was used to justify the warrant ? If so then why does the justice department disagree with your assessment that it is "wrong"?
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re:The Rise of the Violent Left (Score:5, Insightful)
So, that's a valid excuse for this abuse of Executive power? This dragnet?
Yeah, let's ignore the violent right wing assholes in Charlottesville.
And let's ignore the fact that you are using violence as an excuse for the implication of eradication of our rights - the weapon of the right wing. "Oh noes!! Terrorists - violence! Let's eliminate our civil liberties!!"
Keep in mind sir, that as we chip away at the First and Fourth amendment, it weakens the Second - the Second is just for show now. The government KNOWS everyone who got the guns . The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.
And as far this issue is concerned, you can bet good money that the courts will eventually side with the government - they usually do - even in "liberal" areas.
Re: (Score:2)
So, that's a valid excuse for this abuse of Executive power?
The executive isn't acting alone and had a warrant.... I don't understand. How in any way is this abuse by the executive when they went through the proper channels obtain a warrant?
This dragnet?
If you have a server that is potentially hosting illegal activity, would you limit the warrant to be only known criminals or would you try to find conspirators and associates to known criminals? Particularly so when some of the crimes are conspiracy to riot.
you can bet good money that the courts will eventually side with the government -
Well then I look forward to your thesis and system that is better than wa
Re: (Score:2)
The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.
If it comes to that, they'll raid houses -- the occupants will fight back, win or lose, and they'll be branded 'home-grown terrorist extremists' and evidence against them will be fabricated. Of course long before it gets that bad I'll either be dead or I'll be watching it all happen on TV, north of the border.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind sir, that as we chip away at the First and Fourth amendment, it weakens the Second - the Second is just for show now. The government KNOWS everyone who got the guns . The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.
So the DOJ has enough "storm troopers" to simultaneously disarm the entire US population within about 30 minutes?
Because unless they can magically do that, the first wave of victims will spread the word, and the second-nth waves will be ready and waiting. Enjoy your instant civil war. FWIW, no one that I know that's been in the US military would support such a move, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah she was guilty, of being in the path of a murdering Nazi's car.
Fuck you very much, Nazi AC.
Re: (Score:2)
A much better article than the attention-grabbing headline originally left me to suspect. The most important piece of the article to me:
Masked protesters smashed store windows during multiday demonstrations following Trump’s election. In early April, antifa activists threw smoke bombs into a “Rally for Trump and Freedom” in the Portland suburb of Vancouver, Washington. A local paper said the ensuing melee resembled a mosh pit.
When antifascists forced the cancellation of the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade, Trump supporters responded with a “March for Free Speech.” Among those who attended was Jeremy Christian, a burly ex-con draped in an American flag, who uttered racial slurs and made Nazi salutes. A few weeks later, on May 25, a man believed to be Christian was filmed calling antifa “a bunch of punk bitches.”
The next day, Christian boarded a light-rail train and began yelling that “colored people” were ruining the city. He fixed his attention on two teenage girls, one African American and the other wearing a hijab, and told them “to go back to Saudi Arabia” or “kill themselves.” As the girls retreated to the back of the train, three men interposed themselves between Christian and his targets. “Please,” one said, “get off this train.” Christian stabbed all three. One bled to death on the train. One was declared dead at a local hospital. One survived.
The cycle continued.
There are no clean hands here. Those claiming this is all (or mostly) the fault of "the other side" are a part of the problem, regardless of which side they claim to represent.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the result of a government with a low level of voter representation and it's one that many predicted.
Particularly so with local elections and governments. In addition to expecting the federal government to handle the personal issues of citizens that are better handled by local governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Phew! That won't pick me up... a modern terrorist rioter uses IPv6!
Re: (Score:2)