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

61–70 of 90 posts

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

#61

Post by icebraining »

SilasX wrote: post #10
rayiner wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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: That's not a contradiction. You can have a situation where people have to deploy numerous countermeasures[1] to head off crime, and where criminals pounce if any of these aren't active, but whe…

But is it true? Do people who don't deploy numerous countermeasures suffer significantly more crime?

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

#62

Post by edwhitesell »

dragonwriter wrote: post #60
edwhitesell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. Unless you're intending to make the argumet that accessing those files is the same as you leaving all of your personal belongings on the street, I'm not seeing any differences. > For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not. By your argument, I can come to y…

> The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not Well, you just can't legally break into and search my locked property at all ; it's true that the remedy for a police violation (the exclusionary rule) doesn't apply to a private violator of property rights in this way, but that's because regular civil and particularly criminal process is available, without governmental immunities and, at least in theory, without…

> Well, you just can't legally break into and search my locked property at all;

That's my point and counter-argument to the item I quoted; Just because something is visible, or behind an unlocked door, it is NOT available for someone to search through it.

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

#63

Post by slackingoff2017 »

edwhitesell wrote: post #59
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that unauthorized access shouldn't apply to things that are trivial to access even by mistake. The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it. The difference between doors and locks…

> The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. Unless you're intending to make the argumet that accessing those files is the same as you leaving all of your personal belongings on the street, I'm not seeing any differences. > For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not. By your argument, I can come to y…

>Name a protocol used on the Internet that does NOT make a distinction between connecting and the client requesting information.

Http, among almost everything else. In HTTP the browser will call GET / as soon as a TCP connection is established. If you want to go down a level yes TCP doesn't leak info on connect but what kind of client does that?

The L4 protocol doesn't matter, too low level. What matters is what a normal client does. In HTTP, every browser will make a GET request for info immediately on connecting

Say Bob tells me to connect to his ftp server and gives me a different IP. I go into my client, type the IP, and hit connect. I have a directory listing of all the filez now. A crime? You've gotta be kidding.

To even know you're connected to the right place in most protocols you need to request information. It's like I said, a door that throws the contents inside to anyone that finds it. It has to be that way because otherwise all the doors look the same and you couldn't find the right one

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

#65

Post by floatingatoll »

coldcode wrote: post #8

One of the subpoenas was about PopeHat, who of course is public, and he wrote about it on his blog. Why demand twitter unmask a public account?

To intimidate others who might speak up in support of those who speak against injustices committed by federal employees.

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

#66

Post by larvaetron »

edwhitesell wrote: post #48
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "unau…

Some graphical FTP clients might download a list of files, but certainly not all. It's not a standard part of the protocol to immediately execute 'LIST'. You may have fat fingered a URL, but your browser still asked for it and any content located there. I don't agree with prosecution on things like this, but the reality is the best analogies are still doors and locks: My front door is connected to a walkway, which is…

>Some graphical FTP clients might download a list of files, but certainly not all.

Certainly, most? I can't think of any FTP GUI application I've ever used not displaying a list of files stored on the remote host upon connecting.

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

#67

Post by icebraining »

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…

No. The users were not part of the conversation in which the researcher doxxed anyone. They were part of another conversation, in which his total involvement was a smiley in response to one of their tweets.

As the article makes plain: "Then, to subpoena a ton of info on 5 totally unrelated Twitter users... just because Shafer tweeted a smiley face emoticon at them?"

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

#68

Post by rdiddly »

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…

Since every government official or employee is a citizen too, there's less of a divide than you think, and that includes the cowardice. I agree there's cowardice here, but in this case the problem is cowardice of a few citizens who hold posts in the government, specifically the Dallas FBI, and even more specifically, dis fuckin guy Hopp. (Use your "Stevie Van Zandt as Silvio" face here.)

What kind of weak, fussy little scaredy-cat acts like that? Saying he doesn't have enough to do is being too nice about it. Judging from the facts of this story alone, he sounds like a vain petty bitch. Exactly the kind of person you don't want behind a badge, and a discredit to everybody else in law enforcement.

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

#70

Post by slackingoff2017 »

tertius wrote: post #22
joemi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..."

When you connect with ftp or HTTP you get a top level directory or a home page. Same thing as looking through an open door.
Post reply on HN