And this is why you should be very careful what you tweet. Once its out there it can never be deleted. Even with a fake name and handle. Your ip address, mac address, location, etc.
Mac address? What is possibly recording that?
DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
71–80 of 90 posts
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#72Earlier 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…
>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 no…
HTTP _does_ make that distinction, as does just about everything else (off the top of my head, the only thing I could think of that may not was NTP). My point was the client has to request something, that's a search in this context.
> 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.
Say Bob gives you the address to his house and says "Open the gate and go in the back yard. My grill is in the corner, you can have it". Unfortunately, you transposed the numbers and took someone else's grill. Is that not trespassing and stealing?
I don't disagree with you that the prosecution in this case probably should not happen, but it's not nearly as simple as making a blanket statement that "Whoops! I connected to the wrong server." is enough to make an act no longer illegal.
As @poorrights commented, a lot of it has to do with intent as well.
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#73I 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…
> what the hell do we as citizens DO about it?
Call your Congressperson [1], U.S. Senator [2] and state representatives. Tell them why you think this is ridiculous, in a calm and collected manner. Ask them, politely, for written follow-up.
I do this about issues I care about. In my urban district of three-quarters of a million people, I'm almost always the only person calling about tech-related issues. Multiple times, the LA has asked me to email them supporting materials I reference.
[1] https://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Find your Congressperson
[2] https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/senators_cfm.cfm Find your U.S. Senator
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#74So... Tweeting now is a form of assaulting ?
[deleted]
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#75Earlier 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…
The "doors and locks" analogy is not perfectly applicable in this case.
In the cases of house front doors in the suburbs, the overwhelming expectation is both that the door is intended to be locked and that the public is not intended to freely come and go from the interior of the residences. This is a custom so well-established that it is essentially universal, and a house with the door open and unlocked is an obvious outlier.
In the case of fileservers on the public internet, the overwhelming expectation is that anyone may connect to them, and if anonymous logins are accepted, access the files on the server. Again, this is well-established custom.
Because the customary behaviour in the two situations are so different, the analogy is inapplicable.
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#76And this is why you should be very careful what you tweet. Once its out there it can never be deleted. Even with a fake name and handle. Your ip address, mac address, location, etc.
Mac address? What is possibly recording that?
Many WiFi networks record MAC addresses to help associate devices with IP/users.
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#77Earlier 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...
DOJ's insanely broad subpoena aside, this is the real lesson. If you're going to harass, even in a joking way, an FBI agent and their family, don't do it using your real name!
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#78Earlier 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…
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…
Saying that people are ok with someone "being arrested for a tweet" is pushing it.
Saying that people think the most trivially "bad for society" behaviors should be in some way criminal is by no means pushing it. Have you been on Reddit lately?
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#79Earlier 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…
I know I've disagreed with you on many topics in the past but here I think you've hit the nail on the head. I'd add an addendum that confuses me and adds to the problem at hand; not only is there a culture of fear, there isn't even the empiricism to ask for accountability. No one seems to be asking what the outcomes of these various efforts are, and a handwavey "we've caught SOME people despite ruining the lives of o…
This. There is no accountability. Nobody is requiring the people under them to do a "good and respetable job" at what they do.
Re: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Five Users Over a Smiley Emoji Tweet
#80One 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.
To intimidate Ken White? I have to imagine there are easier targets to intimidate than a former USDA. Then again, I'm confused why they sent these to begin with.