The article is pretty vague on the specifics of the ramifications of the new request. It says 1.3 million, but that seems to be in reference to the broader request. From what I can tell the more narrow request both narrows down the timeframe, and specifies disruptj20.org visitors? It's hard for me to tell from the article.
Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
21–30 of 115 posts
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#22> 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?
I hope this is an opportunity for you to learn and not just me wasting my time addressing a troll.
>what alternative is there to find out who they are?
That's not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking yourself is "why am I OK with violating the 4th amendment rights of millions of citizens"
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#23This is terrifying; am I reading it correctly that the government is, on behalf of the President, going after people who have opposed him and is starting a register maybe of those persons who hurt the feelings of the glorious leader? I wonder how far down the rabbit hole we are going :-(
No. I think you are reading that incorrectly.
Okay, sure, care to edit your comment and explain how?
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#24> 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?
So what are you saying that until the Internet it was virtual (no pun) impossible to investigate crimes?
Maybe they can do like the rest of the world investigate rioters (that commits crimes) by analyzing camera footage? I find it hard to believe that countries - with less possibilities - can do it, but in the US suddenly it's impossible.
I must be careful for Godswin law but in a country where Lügenpresse is also suddenly a thing, I'm very skeptical of the fact that this is needed because its the only way to identify "rioters". It reminds me of certainly historic events where they also needed to identify opponents of X and Y for "crimes".
Btw how the hell are you going to find a couple of individuals in 1.3 million visitor records if that is the only lead?
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#25Pretend we're talking about Daily Stormer and Charlottesville and I bet you'd see things differently.
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#26> 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.
This isn't true. Even 10 years ago it was pretty normal for litigation involving the SEC to routinely have half a million or more hard copy pages shipping between law firms and the gov't, and 10 years ago about half of all documents that printing and scanning vendors were handling in discovery were paper. The American legal system and US-based law firms are notorious for that sort of thing. See also Iron Mountain.
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#27Pretend we're talking about Daily Stormer and Charlottesville and I bet you'd see things differently.
I think the point was that is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Do we trust the restrictions we have placed on our government to not violate our rights?
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#28Note to self: purge records. Religiously. You can't hand over what you don't have.
One more reason (other than data breaches) for why services should look for ways not just to minimize storage of records and data on users that they don't absolutely need to provide the service and that alone, but also to offer users way to encrypt the data with their own key.
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#29why does the site seem like a place to investigate a riot? were there posters saying "I'm leaving now to go riot"? If there is nothing specific, then why is this allowable at all? And if there is something specific, then why can't they request those specific messages?
DisruptJ20 appears to have been created for the quite specific purpose of organising people to disrupt the presidential inauguration through illegal "direct action" tactics, with particular focus on teaching people to interfere with police checkpoints, resist arrest, etc. (By the way, remember those photos of the endless empty seats at the inauguration parade? The site in question has a post up bragging about how they shut down most of the security checkpoints, stopping people from entering: https://archive.is/SZwAO For some reason that didn't make the press, then or now.)
Re: Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website
#30> 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?
Everyone: please don't downvote for disagreeing with the sentiment. Koolba poses a legitimate question. Address it or ignore the comment.