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

11–20 of 90 posts

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

#11

Post by simcop2387 »

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?

Link to said popehat blog article, https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-s...

Speculated reasoning in the comments on the article was that it then gives an admissible account of who owns the twitter name. Otherwise the assertions about who owns it are inadmissable hearsay. That said it's still really weird that the accounts were subpeonaed

EDIT: fixed link. Just noticed it went to an old article. Apparently the new one is up but not listed on the homepage? (Similar topics so I didn't notice right away)

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

#12

Post by heartbreak »

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 one is pretending that it couldn't meet the bar. It doesn't in my opinion, but that's not the point. The point is that Ken et. al. were not harassing anyone.

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

#13

Post by joemi »

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #9
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…

"unauthorized access" is bs. It was a public ftp server and he notified the owners. It's like telling your neighbor his door is open.

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.

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

#14

Post by heartbreak »

simcop2387 wrote: post #11
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?

Link to said popehat blog article, https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-s... Speculated reasoning in the comments on the article was that it then gives an admissible account of who owns the twitter name. Otherwise the assertions about who owns it are inadmissable hearsay. That said it's still really weird that the accounts were subpeonaed EDIT: fixed link. Just noticed it went to an old article.…

Link to the actual post:

https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-s...

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

#15

Post by theossuary »

joemi wrote: post #13
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unauthorized access" is bs. It was a public ftp server and he notified the owners. It's like telling your neighbor his door is open.

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

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

#16

Post by simcop2387 »

heartbreak wrote: post #14
simcop2387 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link to said popehat blog article, https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-s... Speculated reasoning in the comments on the article was that it then gives an admissible account of who owns the twitter name. Otherwise the assertions about who owns it are inadmissable hearsay. That said it's still really weird that the accounts were subpeonaed EDIT: fixed link. Just noticed it went to an old article.…

Link to the actual post: https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-s...

Thanks just fixed mine. Didn't realize that it was the wrong one since the topics were similar and i grabbed it off the homepage. That's one thing popehat has always suffered from, weird caching/publishing their rss feed was running a few weeks out of date for a while.

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

#17

Post by hoprocker »

joemi wrote: post #13
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unauthorized access" is bs. It was a public ftp server and he notified the owners. It's like telling your neighbor his door is open.

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.

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

#18

Post by stedaniels »

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 situation can be played up, or down, by either side.

P.S. @Spivak, it's your 1024 days anniversary on HN! :-)

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

#19

Post by WillPostForFood »

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…

Not true that crime rates are at historic lows, particularly violent crime which is over double the 1960 rate:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-tre...

But if you are in the Chicago area, you should know that like wealth, crime is incredibly unevenly distributed. There are communities that have effectively zero risk of violent crime, and communities within 30min drive that have violent crime rates that rival the most dangerous cities in the world.

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

#20

Post by joemi »

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

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.
Post reply on HN