DC Judge Approves Government Warrant For Data From Anti-Trump Website (reuters.com) 142
According to Reuters, a D.C. Superior Court judge on Thursday approved a government warrant seeking data from an anti-Trump website related to Inauguration Day protests, but he added protections to safeguard "innocent users." From the report: Chief Judge Robert Morin said DreamHost, a Los Angeles-based web-hosting company, must turn over data about visitors to the website disruptj20.org, which is a home to political activists who organized protests at the time of Donald Trump's inauguration as U.S. president in January. Morin, who will oversee review of the data, said the government must explain what protocols it will use to make sure prosecutors do not seize the data of "innocent users." Morin said at a hearing on Thursday that he recognized the tension between free speech rights and law enforcement's need to search digital records for evidence. He said he added safeguards to his order granting the government's request for information in an effort to balance those two concerns. Besides reviewing the prosecutors' privacy protocols, Morin also shortened the time frame for records to those generated from October to Inauguration Day and instructed the prosecutors to explain why anything they want to seize is germane to the investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just Goatse.
Re: (Score:1)
Following due process to subpoena records relevant to a criminal case is not "fucked."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals didn't complain when Obama Administration lied about tapping data of every cell phone, or when it was caught spying on Americans (multiple times) for political gain.
Sorry, but Libertarians are the ONLY ones calling out the hypocrisy of both the D and R parties, who use government to oppress their opponents.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Notice his phrasing. He isn't even claiming to have done it in the past, just promises to do so in the future. Expect him to forget his promise with the next turnover.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep holding the morons 'feet to the fire' is all any of us can do. Part of that is not accepting bullshit at face value from any of the Republicrats.
ACA was passed entirely by the Ds, they own it. Trump can just let it fail, as constructed and intended. That's what will move replacement forward in something like a bipartisan way, eventually, once the situation becomes truly fucked. I hope they just punt it down to the states, but doubt they have the wisdom.
Re: Still the same? (Score:4, Interesting)
The ACA was passed by the Ds _broken_. On the assumption they would be in charge when the shit hit the fan.
Now it sucks to be them, it's going to fail when they have no power, but they still own the mess. Twisting in the wind. 18% got a shitty insurance plan, but 82% had their insurance made _much_ worse.
The Ds own it, forever. The Rs will stretch the pain, they can't lose on this.
My hope remains that Trump triggers both sides to dump the MAD dirt they have on the other. Then we get two new parties.
Re: (Score:3)
before ACA, my insurance was always going up. always. never once did it level off or go down.
ACA happened. they can no longer deny people because of 'pre-conditions' (whatever the hell that really means).
but the prices are still going up.
guess what, rent goes up. cost of food goes up. my salary? well, not so much. the rich want to keep paying us as little as possible, of course.
but to blame ACA for health insurance costs is beyond stupid. no matter WHAT happens, the rich will seize any chance to rob
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I've got the impression that most people don't really give a shit at all. Intrusive policies by either party when they are in power just don't seem to resonate with most people. Yes, such policies offend privacy advocates, civil liberties advocates, libertarians and a good portion of the tech community, but the great unwashed; liberal or conservative, either don't give a shit or in many cases actually seem to think encroachment is worth it (despite the fact that few advocates of increased surveilla
Re: (Score:2)
> Frankly, I've got the impression that most people don't really give a shit at all.
I have to agree with that. I've been disappointed by mass spying under all of the presidents (including Trump). I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised, that none of them have ended that.
That said, this is a pretty ordinary warrant. They can make a good case that it's not a fishing expedition and that it's to help bring conspiracy charges against people they've already arrested for rioting. That said, if they do go
Re:Still the same? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you have to admit, many (most) liberals didn't really care because it was against Republicans
You are confused. Nobody has to admit that. You are the one making the claim, so you have to prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
If just one non-Libertarian calls out the hypocrisy in both D and R camps your original argument is false. This is the danger with such arguments.
Re: (Score:1)
"Republicans do not use the IRS to suppress opposition [washingtonpost.com]"
-neither do democrats. and its not suppression to enforce the law as written against groups from both sides of the spectrum (which is what actually occurred.
"Republicans do not use political correctness to suppress free speech [latimes.com] in the workplace nor outside"
-Yes they do. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
"Republicans neither threaten nor use violence [theatlantic.com] to suppress free speech"
-a couple dozen trump rallie
Re: (Score:2)
That's the best example you can give? Kaepernick? Well, when he gets fired from a job because someone complained about him to the Human Resources — then you'll have a counter-argument.
You sole citation [washingtonpost.com] seriously equates government-sponsored "safe spaces" — from which people are excluded based on their race [thecollegefix.com] — with web-sites (like Breitbart), to which everyone is welcome? Pathetic drivel intended for the pathetic Illiberal stinkies... Like yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Liberals didn't complain when Obama Administration lied about tapping data of every cell phone, or when it was caught spying on Americans (multiple times) for political gain.
You seem to have mistaken the transgendered person who went to jail for leaking that information and all the people who supported her for conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
James Clapper is a trans? When did they jail him?
Re: (Score:2)
Clapper is the one who did the spying for the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Chelsea Manning, whom Obama tripped over himself pardoning as he ran on the door of the Whitehouse. Practically, on his last day as president.
I wonder if that pardon has some string attached that he/she* wouldn't talk after pardoned.
*I said he/she here because I really don't know what to call him/her.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. S/he leaked military documents about the US middle-east wars. Bradley/Chelsea wasn't involved in lying "about tapping data of every cell phone" or "spying on Americans", which is what you were responding to. It was Clapper who lied about that, and Snowden who leaked the proof that he lied [wikipedia.org]. Neither are trans. Neither are in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay. Clapper it is then.
Re: (Score:2)
Take it back to FDR, seriously. 'Echelon' started informally during WWII, formalized after. USA, UK and Australia are banned from spying on their own citizens. So they've been spying on each others citizens for 80 years now. And it has expanded to include other nations since.
The spooks maintained a database of all the phone numbers you've ever repeatedly called (Metadata) for about the same length of time. Was once the world's largest database. They know who you know. They can tell you who your friends w
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying they're Santa Claus?
Re: (Score:2)
That might have been funny, pre Snowden. Now it just sounds stupid.
There are two specific points in my post. They can be researched.
Nobody has formally asked the 'when did metadata collection begin' question. The database geek world was quietly talking about the associates database in the 80s. Nobody could prove anything, but that kind of data collection had to leave tracks through every local phone company, I bet they were shipping tapes in MANY cases. The buzz was much later confirmed, but no start d
Re: (Score:1)
Yup. Exactly. And clinton and bush, they all built upon the previous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor did Republicans complain when Bush II started the spying and I still don't hear any of them crying now that Trump is doing it. Meet the new boss: Same as the old boss. (the Who)
Re: (Score:2)
Who started the widespread surveillance? You're off by decades. It goes back _at_least_ to WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can basically claim the surveillance state started with the advent of the telephone and telegraph. We know that there was a big jump in surveillance after WWII with the cold war. There was also another big jump in domestic spying related to the war on drugs. This wasn't about the history of domestic spying. The comment was in response to a domestic surveillance program started under the Bush II administration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you didn't see the opposition to these breaches of privacy and 4th amendment protections doesn't mean it didn't happen and you're an idiot if you think that.
This massive breach in privacy is an attempt to sustain prosecutions of hundereds of innocent people that the Police rounded up and charged with Rioting just because they were in the area including journalists. The prosecution angle that Federal justice is taking in this case is that if you were within the vicinity of the protest that invol
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to have "liberals" confused with "corporate democrats". My interpretation of liberalism is this: give me all the rights and freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Still the same? (Score:1)
Liberals didn't complain when Obama Administration lied about tapping data of every cell phone, or when it was caught spying on Americans (multiple times) for political gain.
That's because you were unable to recognize that your imaginary events were treated as fiction, not reality. Jade Dragon, not real. FEMA camps? Made up. IRS audits? Nothing but routine business that the right-wing got hysterical over. Benghazi? A tragedy that the GOP investigated for months, and ended up with nothing for all their grandstanding. And the GOP bought into it, by electing the birther-in-chief. Who really did want to pardon Joe "Civil Rights are a Joke" Arpaio.
Sorry, but Libertarians are the ONLY ones calling out the hypocrisy of both the D and R parties, who use government to oppress their opponents.
No, they aren't. They
Re: (Score:2)
All I see here is "My ideology is pure and the best, everyone else endorses what I see as wrong with the world, especially those that disagree with me most"
Give me a break you hack
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, what I see here (as with most of what passes as 'political discussion' these days) are elaborate:
"I know you are but what am I?" Conversations, where everyone seems to defend the actions of their 'side' by pointing out something terrible done by the other side, as if 'they did something bad, so we get to do something bad,' is some sort of justification.
I wish people would stop being blindly devoted to political parties, and support candidates who behave well and ACTUALLY represent your needs (rega
Re: (Score:3)
Liberals didn't complain when Obama Administration lied about tapping data of every cell phone
Yeah they did.
I know you hate Liberals and therefore assume that everything you disapprove of must be liked by liberals. That however doesn't make it true.
Wrong link posted? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I think Trump is not eligible to be president.
No one, not even Trump; has ever claimed that Obama's mother was anything other than a white girl from the midwest, born in the USA to parents who were also born in the USA.
This fact alone should prove that Obama was eligible to run for president.
But, get this:
Trump, however, was born from a foreign mother, who was possibly not a valid US citizen at the time!
Trumps mother was a 'evil foreigner'! That's a fact.
Also; we have no idea who Trumps father actually was!
Was this just for Precedent? (Score:1)
Despite the 'restrictions' the judge placed on the inquiry, and timeframe, was this more allowed through to set a precedent?
Granted I don't know a whole lot about disruptj20.org, but unless criminal code violations have actually occurred, I'm having a hard time seeing how this is just?
Or is that the point. Get the precedent set here, for intended future 'fishing expeditions'?
Re: (Score:3)
There are 200+ people charged and at least 1 felony conviction for activities during the inauguration; this all stems from those investigations.
The DoJ contends that while most people using the site were legitimate protestors or just people wondering what type of anti-Trump activities were planned a small group of people used the site to organize premeditated riots.
These types of warrants are requested and granted all the time and the only thing making this come back into the headlines is the sheer number
Re: (Score:2)
That's the purpose of the judges order; he wants the DoJ to limit their search criteria to skip over casual readers and focus on the people who may have actually used the site to help organize the riots.
Actual Link (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the link to the real story:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-dreamhost-idUSKCN1B41ZC [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:1)
On the other hand, if they were capable of looking before they leapt, they wouldn't be leftists.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that all property in Washington DC is owned by the federal government?
If you are concerned about what you post... (Score:3, Informative)
Either think twice about posting it, or learn how to protect your identity online. You can use throw away email addresses, fake names, a good vpn service that doesn't log, and a browser setup not to leak so much information about you.
Also, consider the privacy policy of the service(s) you are posting on. Do they keep logs? If so, for how long? Logged IP addresses don't need to be kept for much longer than 30 days. That's more than enough time to react to some form of abuse of the platform. If the logs of IP's aren't there, the government can't ask for them. While taking issue with a government for asking for this data makes sense, it also makes sense to apply pressure to these services to stop enabling government fishing expeditions by cleaning up their logs regularly. Keeping logs of IP's for long periods of time are never in the interest of the users... means the service either intends to sell or misuse the data, or they are just too lazy to care about their customer's privacy.
Learn to navigate the internet safely, or others will use it to harm you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This isn't any posting. This is about just visiting a site.
The link in the summary goes to the wrong article. Thanks to this precedent you could be caught up in a witch hunt just by clicking an innocent looking link.
Re: (Score:2)
More evidence of Slashdot moderation trolling. The parent post has:
20% Informative
20% Flamebait
20% Insightful
Clearly the flamebit mod is bullshit, it's not in the least bit inflammatory (unless disagreement triggers you, poor snowflake).
Re: (Score:2)
Those twits didn't even have the sense to not take their phones to a planned riot. 20 years, just for stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, don't participate in riots. That's been my personal plan and it's worked out pretty well for the last 50 years.
Fishing much? (Score:3)
Government is really on a hell of a fishing expedition here.
I highly doubt there's any planning of violence/vandalism on the site. That sort of stuff sounds like spur of the moment stuff. Do they really think protesters, in general, go out with malicious intent?
Fishy fishing expedition is fishy.
Re: (Score:3)
They have the rioters phones with at least half the plotting in the caches. That's how they got the subpoena.
Examine your blind spots, they are making you stupid as a rock.
Yes the rioters went out with malicious intent. They were so dumb they publically discussed some of the plans _before_ the event. Fucking morons that they are.
Re: (Score:2)
That war would last about a day.
Unless Antifa learns what actual Nazis are...that might be a fair fight. It would be a no lose proposition for the rest of the population, neo Stalinists vs neo Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is really on a hell of a fishing expedition here.
I highly doubt there's any planning of violence/vandalism on the site. That sort of stuff sounds like spur of the moment stuff. Do they really think protesters, in general, go out with malicious intent?
Obviously not. I mean, they bring baseball bats in case a game breaks out (odd, nobody remembered to bring a ball!) and urine-filled balloons in case a water balloon fight breaks out. What fun!
They probably have particular people in mind (Score:2)
I have a feeling that the DoJ is doing this primarily to bring some sort of conspiracy charges against particular people that haven't already been charged. They're not going to charge random visitors to the site who went there once or two and that was it because it would be an unwinnable case.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, but the precedent of just handing over such data is a *very* bad one.
DH wasn't just protecting the current crop of website visitors, they're protecting the entire US population of website visitors.
It's not a stretch to think that some other agency, that is based in a slightly off-white house-type building, would get a copy quietly and trawl that for political opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
Good news, nobody is 'just handing over data'. Cops and prosecutors got a subpoena based on the contents of rioters phones. Two judges have reviewed it, the second narrowed the scope. This is a normal felony prosecution.
Re: (Score:3)
only because DH objected. The point of my comment was that had they not objected there was an issue with the initial request that could have been abused.
Re: (Score:2)
This is normal process. We will see exactly how much of the initial objections were bullshit. We _know_ the site didn't have near enough traffic to have 1.3 million unique visitors. I bet the lawyers were just lawyering 1.3 page views with logged IPs into 1.3 million uses.
In any case, the rioters and at least some of their handlers are going to prison. Yeah!
Re: (Score:2)
Also phrasing...A subpoena is not a 'request'.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Hopefully, this is just the beginning. With any luck they will get a trail of evidence that leads right back to George Soros. Then maybe they can bring some federal charges against the head of the whole problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Soros is a lot smarter than his muppets. My cat is smarter than the average Antifa LARPer.
A fascinating precedent (Score:1)
According to the article, the judge did not just rubber-stamp it.
Which is basically a precedence setting first! Said judge is apparently requiring the govt/DoJ to specifically justify the requests.
It will be _VERY_ interesting to see what happens.
However, it is unclear to me (IANAL) if this judge "has standing" to issue such an order - Dreamhost (Los Angeles, CA) is nowhere near D.C (District of Columbia).
Why complain (Score:2)
I can understand that people are frustrated with Trump and his election as president, but that doesn't give anyone the right to ignore the rule of law and go around destroying both public and private property. Even the "we're fightin
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, only way I can see any reasonable person be upset over this is if they don't know about the riots that took place under Trump's inauguration, that this site was used to organize the demonstrations and that the information request is limited to rioting-related posts.
The information request wasn't limited to rioting related posts; the DoJ wanted a bulk dump which they could scan through after. That's a really different thing.
People use X for criminal activity, therefore it's OK for us to harvest data from X is problematic. People have used Facebook to organise riots, would it be OK to mine Facebook? They need to look through data from long before the election to catch Inauguration day rioters? No concerns about that?
To quote the FA: "Morin said at a hearing on Thursday
Re: DreamHost is absolutely awesome.... (Score:1)
How is this modded up? Please mods, every dream host story he posts this same message. For fucks sake do your jobs and mod this shit off topic please. No one is asking about dream host service. There are hundreds of websites that offer that info.
TLDR: do your jobs and mod this loser down for off topic bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:America no longer exist. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: America no longer exist. (Score:1)
Hilarious that either side is seen for 'us'.
What comfort comes with the knowledge that our rights are gone, transformed or redefined? Yaaay the D's did and the R's didn't or visa-versa!!!! It is being done by both, no champions.
Maybe if I could see one side being for my beliefs or some semblance I wouldn't feel so utterly dissapointed with my fellow citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, you have to right to say most anything you want but when you start conspiring to start riots, that's where your rights end.
Re: (Score:2)
>start conspiring to start riots
is there any proof of that ?
Re: (Score:1)
It's still illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
your riots are my, "civil disobedience"
The definition, well one definition anyway, of "civil disobedience" is: the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest.
And that of a "riot": a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd
So, pretty much by definition, a riot is not a form of civil disobedience.
You can pretend to hold the moral high ground all you like, you can pretend that all you're doing is protesting an unjust system, an unfit president, whatever, but in reality we all know you're being