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

Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#101

Post by jeffdavis »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #89
jeffdavis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't approve of scaring people like that of course. But it's possible that they thought you were carrying the protest on into the train station or some other place which they had safety concerns about.

Carrying the sign is a danger now? How about printing it on your clothing? Must one cover up to go outside and only protest when one is licensed to do it? Could he have worn a full-body protest costume instead and traveled in it? If not, how is this more dangerous than a Big Bird costume? There are multiple ways to handle a safety concern, one of which is just by talking to the individual and observing. Someone with…

My guess is they are worried about protesters collecting in a train station, which could be a serious safety concern.

They see someone with a sign, and they try to get him to move along quickly before (potentially) a train load of additional protesters arrive.

I don't really know all the facts here, I am just offering an alternative way to interpet the facts provided.

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#102

Post by nnfy »

icebraining wrote: post #100
nnfy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outrage on this site is more selective than I would have anticipated. If you think your rights have only been eroded over the last few weeks, you've been drinking kool-aid.

The parent's post makes zero reference to how long they think this has been going on.

The GP starts his post with "every week," and I interpreted it as being structured to indicate a recent trend.

It is ambiguous, I admit, but I don't think I'm reaching with my understanding.

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#103

Post by nnfy »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #75

Buried in the article is a key detail. >Prosecutors earlier this week scaled back their request and changed it to seek emails associated with Disruptj20.org and email addresses of third parties associated with the website, such as individuals who volunteered to help provide supplies or support to rioters. >As part of his ruling, Morin ordered prosecutors to tell him who was going to review the data DreamHost provides…

>Under Morin’s ruling, any information prosecutors find unrelated to the rioting would be sealed and could not be shared by prosecutors with anyone else or any other government authority.

May as well be unsealed because of parallel construction.

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#104

Post by ianai »

hacktothefuture wrote: post #51
ianai wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only can it happen here, but the founders of the country thought it would by the mid 1800s.

Would love to read more about this. A cursory search didn't reveal anything obvious, can you point me in a direction to read more?

I've heard it from various sources. I'll scratch my head today to see what I can recall for specifics. On first bluff, I think David McCullough's books touch on this in places.

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#105

Post by nnfy »

jasonjei wrote: post #9
koolba wrote: post #3

> Prosecutors John Borchert and Jennifer Kerkhoff argued that their request had to be somewhat broad because they have no idea who was associated with the rioting through the website until they review the data. For people who think this is wrong, assuming you accept the premise that they should be investigating rioters, what alternative is there to find out who they are?

In the old days before computers, I assume, one wouldn't have to hand over all "database" records. If one were being requested to hand over all patient records, that would probably be a small mountain of data. I think technology has made data very easy to transport, and modern day governments have taken advantage of this sort of fishing expedition.

>modern day governments have taken advantage of this sort of fishing expedition.

Not only that, but I think the transparency is one sided. Good luck getting anything significant from FOIA without waiting years and piecing details together from [REDACTED] pages.

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#106

Post by ArchReaper »

koolba wrote: post #98
ArchReaper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I was quick to judge and patronize the previous comment, which isn't helpful. My b. I think what irked me, specifically, is the way the question was phrased, as though guilt was the default assumption, which is absurd to me. I interpreted "What alternatives exist for getting this info?" as "What other way would big brother be able to violate your rights, except through this?" which I now realize is not…

> You're right, I was quick to judge and patronize the previous comment, which isn't helpful. My b. No offense taken! > I think what irked me, specifically, is the way the question was phrased, as though guilt was the default assumption, which is absurd to me. I tend to ask a lot of open ended questions on HN as I like to read and gauge the variety of responses. While usually driven by my own opinions of right and wr…

Thank you for responding, these are some really good points that really made me rethink my opinion of this topic.

I definitely agree that I do not want extremist groups to grow and become even more of a 'thing' in the US. However, I do not know if I am OK with stripping people of their 4th amendment rights just because they have been 'associated' with a terrorist group (or visited a terrorist group's website...) That's a dangerous path.

I also still fail to see how the information taken from Dreamhost would help them track somebody who committed a crime. What, are they going to subpoena everyone's ISPs to find out who every single person is, then arrest them and see if they happen to be someone who committed a crime? That's wrong. What am I missing here? How could this be used in any way except to build a list of 'potential terrorists' in some 3 letter org's database?

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#107

Post by ArchReaper »

icebraining wrote: post #99
ArchReaper wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that legally sound?

18 USC § 2703(f) - A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.

OK, let me be more specific. How is the request legally sound?

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#108

Post by icebraining »

ArchReaper wrote: post #107
icebraining wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

18 USC § 2703(f) - A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.

OK, let me be more specific. How is the request legally sound?

I don't understand your question. What's there to be legally sound about? The Feds make a request, the site has to comply.

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#109

Post by koolba »

ArchReaper wrote: post #106
koolba wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're right, I was quick to judge and patronize the previous comment, which isn't helpful. My b. No offense taken! > I think what irked me, specifically, is the way the question was phrased, as though guilt was the default assumption, which is absurd to me. I tend to ask a lot of open ended questions on HN as I like to read and gauge the variety of responses. While usually driven by my own opinions of right and wr…

Thank you for responding, these are some really good points that really made me rethink my opinion of this topic. I definitely agree that I do not want extremist groups to grow and become even more of a 'thing' in the US. However, I do not know if I am OK with stripping people of their 4th amendment rights just because they have been 'associated' with a terrorist group (or visited a terrorist group's website...) That…

> I definitely agree that I do not want extremist groups to grow and become even more of a 'thing' in the US. However, I do not know if I am OK with stripping people of their 4th amendment rights just because they have been 'associated' with a terrorist group (or visited a terrorist group's website...) That's a dangerous path.

Me neither. I'm about as gung-ho about personal privacy as it gets.

I'm also practically minded and understand the difference between things that are and are not in your control. The log of whether I visit a particular website on my computer is under my control. You need a warrant for that. But that same website has it's own logs and I know that I have no privacy or 4th amendment protections[1]. Now they can demand a warrant from the government for their records, but they can also give it willingly. Either way it's up to them, not me.

> I also still fail to see how the information taken from Dreamhost would help them track somebody who committed a crime. What, are they going to subpoena everyone's ISPs to find out who every single person is, then arrest them and see if they happen to be someone who committed a crime? That's wrong. What am I missing here?

I can imagine intersecting whatever lists they get from here with other similar data. Maybe mixing in the geolocation of the anonymous user's IP addresses. Combine in email address to name lookups. Without knowing what else they have it's all conjecture, but I'd imagine they've got something to tie it against.

> How could this be used in any way except to build a list of 'potential terrorists' in some 3 letter org's database?

I wouldn't be surprised if they're doing that and bet most three letter agencies have multiple lists of potential undesirables on which they want to keep tabs. I mean that is their job right? You don't just want the FBI to arrest people after they commit the crime, it'd be nice if some of the crimes were stopped before they happened right? It doesn't have to be a full on Minority Report style world but proactive measures are necessary to stop crime before it happens.

The other approach would be confirming the involvement of known offenders. They arrested a number of people. If they can tie those specific people to known usage of a site, say by linking their IP address to a known location or a known email address, then that would further build a case against them.

[1]: NOTE: I'm purposely ignore medical and legal related content here as they'd be covered by separate confidentiality provisions.

Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website

#110

Post by ArchReaper »

icebraining wrote: post #108
ArchReaper wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, let me be more specific. How is the request legally sound?

I don't understand your question. What's there to be legally sound about? The Feds make a request, the site has to comply.

Why are they allowed to request this with no reason? Why can the government dictate what I'm doing with no legal basis?
Post reply on HN