Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#21

Post by tertius »

hoprocker wrote: post #17
joemi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't unauthorized access of a server with weak or no security measures been proven illegal many times in court already, though? Admittedly, I'm not a legal expert of any kind, but I could swear that's a common thing.

The analogy is a little twisty, but yeah, seeing the files in the directory is probably like looking in through the door, and actually opening them is probably more like trespassing.

So he downloaded a list of files. That's like going in the door, opening the refrigerator (or filing cabinet) and making an inventory.

The list itself could have private and protected information.

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#22

Post by tertius »

joemi wrote: post #20
theossuary wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying you looked at my open front door so you committed B&E

Sure, that's one way to look at it. But also, since you have to actually interact with the server in order to discover such vulnerabilities in it, it could also be viewed as similar to walking in through an unlocked door and looking around. That, at least, is trespassing, I believe.

Or making an inventory list of everything inside. "Oh, here's a filing cabinet, I'll just pull the inventory. Just peeking in..."

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#23

Post by amichal »

stedaniels wrote: post #18
Spivak wrote: post #7

So a security researcher who was angry about getting raided and hit with a CFAA accusation after an unauthorized access of private medical data started doxxing the FBI agent responsible on Twitter. And in response the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users that were part of the conversation. Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. The author is right that the charges aren't the s…

Doxxing? Hardly. Looking at the Twitter thread, he did far less than a lazy casual fan of a TV star would do on an average Google/Facebook search. > Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. Though your summary was sensationalised by the addition of the term doxxing (usually negative connotations there), whether you meant it to be or not. It is all about how the spin is put on it. An innocuous si…

actually if you read the attachments at the end of the referenced complaint[1] the FBI is claiming he did a bit more then look up the agent and his family. He also sent various semi-threating messages to them on facebook.

Still not sure why that gives them grounds to subpoena everyone on the thread.

[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4116064/Shafer-Co...

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#24

Post by stedaniels »

amichal wrote: post #23
stedaniels wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doxxing? Hardly. Looking at the Twitter thread, he did far less than a lazy casual fan of a TV star would do on an average Google/Facebook search. > Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. Though your summary was sensationalised by the addition of the term doxxing (usually negative connotations there), whether you meant it to be or not. It is all about how the spin is put on it. An innocuous si…

actually if you read the attachments at the end of the referenced complaint[1] the FBI is claiming he did a bit more then look up the agent and his family. He also sent various semi-threating messages to them on facebook. Still not sure why that gives them grounds to subpoena everyone on the thread. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4116064/Shafer-Co...

Darn it. Apologies for going off with my half baked facts ;-)

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#25

Post by komali2 »

rayiner wrote: post #5
jrjarrett wrote: post #2

I can't even anymore. If this story is anywhere near true -- and I have no reason to believe it is not -- then what the hell do we as citizens DO about it? How can we put an end to ridiculous infringements on rights and wasteful use of resources? It certainly starts with voting for representatives that won't allow thus, but damn. There aren't a lot of good choices out there. And even if there are, how do we fix the i…

The problem isn't the government, it's the "citizens." We're a society of cowards, who are afraid of everything and want the government to do something about it. E.g. crime rates are at historic lows, but more than half of Americans say that they worry a "great deal" about crime: http://news.gallup.com/poll/190475/americans-concern-crime-c... . It's not getting any better, it's probably getting worse. We're not that…

Well now hold on, I think I can pass it right back out of the hands of the citizens

>Americans say they worry a "great deal" about crime

Maybe because in a country with profit-driven media and little in the way of media laws (arguably a good thing in many ways), media companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize profit above all else - doing research, they discovered that the most profitable thing is fear mongering and "riling up the masses." Reminding news-readers every single day about the Vegas shooter, for instance. For example, here's the very first link on news.google.com for me this morning: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bruce-paddock-20... "Brother of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock arrested in child porn case". "Did you forget about the MASS SHOOTING YET?! Don't forget about MASS SHOOTINGS!!!!!!"

>Millenials

Hmm, I'm skeptical whenever I see this word now. Looking at your article:

>Is iGen so different from the millennials because the former faces more chronic, long-term stress? Have the country’s colleges suddenly become brutal, toxic places, increasingly hostile to members of various identity groups?

Appears that your source isn't referring to an entire generation, but rather some college students. Also, I don't see anything that unilaterally supports your claim that "millenials don't see anything wrong [with being arrested for a tweet]." In fact, I've yet to meet a member of the nebulous "millennial" class that isn't appalled by this thought.

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#26

Post by joemi »

stedaniels wrote: post #18
Spivak wrote: post #7

So a security researcher who was angry about getting raided and hit with a CFAA accusation after an unauthorized access of private medical data started doxxing the FBI agent responsible on Twitter. And in response the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users that were part of the conversation. Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. The author is right that the charges aren't the s…

Doxxing? Hardly. Looking at the Twitter thread, he did far less than a lazy casual fan of a TV star would do on an average Google/Facebook search. > Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. Though your summary was sensationalised by the addition of the term doxxing (usually negative connotations there), whether you meant it to be or not. It is all about how the spin is put on it. An innocuous si…

First definition of "dox" that came up for me on google:

> search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

Sounds appropriate, doesn't it? If you still disagree, here's a thought experiment: If someone were searching and posting that info about you, or anyone else reading this very thread, wouldn't we call that doxxing?

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#27

Post by maxerickson »

Spivak wrote: post #7

So a security researcher who was angry about getting raided and hit with a CFAA accusation after an unauthorized access of private medical data started doxxing the FBI agent responsible on Twitter. And in response the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users that were part of the conversation. Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. The author is right that the charges aren't the s…

So if you get @ed in a Twitter thread that meets the bar of irritating DOJ, it's totally reasonable for them to subpoena the times of day you use your Twitter account?

I guess that fits with throwing legal charges at people that laugh at you.

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#28

Post by slackingoff2017 »

tertius wrote: post #21
hoprocker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy is a little twisty, but yeah, seeing the files in the directory is probably like looking in through the door, and actually opening them is probably more like trespassing.

So he downloaded a list of files. That's like going in the door, opening the refrigerator (or filing cabinet) and making an inventory. The list itself could have private and protected information.

An ftp client downloads a list of files as soon as you connect.

It's the same as fat fingering a website in your browser. Are you saying I should go to jail if I type the wrong website, it loads, and it turns out that site was supposed to be "private"? My browser downloaded the home page and all the files on it.

What if I click the wrong wifi network and use it all day without noticing? Should I get charged for "unauthorized access"?

There needs to be a reasonable standard for security above "so insecure you could do this by accident" to send people to jail. Whoever set up the server that shitty should be charged with negligence.

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#29

Post by maxerickson »

theossuary wrote: post #15
joemi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't unauthorized access of a server with weak or no security measures been proven illegal many times in court already, though? Admittedly, I'm not a legal expert of any kind, but I could swear that's a common thing.

That's like saying you looked at my open front door so you committed B&E

Yes, the CFAA has a low bar for charging with a felony.

Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet

#30

Post by mmanfrin »

Spivak wrote: post #7

So a security researcher who was angry about getting raided and hit with a CFAA accusation after an unauthorized access of private medical data started doxxing the FBI agent responsible on Twitter. And in response the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users that were part of the conversation. Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. The author is right that the charges aren't the s…

  the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users 
  that were part of the conversation.
What an exceptionally flippant dismissal of what is clearly an overstep. "FBI is requesting information" i.e. the FBI is subpoenaing Twitter about "users that were part of the conversation" -- users who discussed a case on twitter.

I feel like your use of the phrase "part of the conversation" -- a phrase often used as euphemism for actual involvement -- is a subtle deception to anyone reading your comment. The totality of their involvement is tweets discussing the case.

You go even further by following up claiming it "doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory" and in the next sentence you mention the alleged crime that they were talking about, not that they were involved in.

To me, it feels like your comment is either missing the point that these 5 were simply talking about the case; or you are being willfully deceptive.

Post reply on HN