Judge orders tech company to release Web user data from anti-Trump website • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by burkaman » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 5:36 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #38

I'm not really surprised at this. I was in DC for the inauguration at an officially permitted protest. Afterwards I'm heading back on the Metro with a small sign saying "illegitimate president." When I get to the platform level there are several armed people in camoflauge, I'm assuming military, but I'm not 100% positive. I'm told by one of them that I need to leave the station immediately. I responded "is this a jok…

Are you sure they were in the military? I wouldn't be that surprised to see armed people in camo who aren't in the military at a Trump event. I think open carry is illegal in DC though, so if they had obvious weapons they were probably officials of some sort.

Also, were there other people in the station? Were you the only one asked to leave, or were they clearing the whole platform?

I ask because I was in DC for the inauguration and the women's march, and there were thousands and thousands of protesters with costumes and signs of all sorts. It seems weird that they would single you out.

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

#92

Post by belovedeagle » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

shakna wrote: post #71

belovedeagle wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But when you request the records of 1.3 million conspirators to riot and commit other terrorist acts, in order to find the 200 who actually did, that's quite reasonable. The stated goal of the website was terrorism (shutting down bridges, checkpoints, etc.). Every single account is quite likely to be evidence of conspiracy.

That seems the perfect use-case for pre-trial injunction so that assets (data) can be seized, under RICO. As they haven't touched RICO, it seems likely they cannot consider all 1.3 million people to be conspirators, nor even a large number to be conspirators.

You're right; they're not all conspirators. However, as a non-expert I feel there is a good argument that there's probable cause that each account has evidence of the conspiracy.

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

#93

Post by johnjhayes » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

spaceribs wrote: post #48

0xbear wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretend further that an angry mob at work would get you fired if they don't like your stance on this issue.

Pretend they have first amendment rights to tell you to your face and through their actions that your opinion is garbage and not something they respect. *adding: I find it amazing some people are up in arms about people getting fired for their opinions, maybe you should direct your anger to "Right to Work" laws anti-union folks have pushed down our throats everywhere? There used to be a due process before someone was…

>>There used to be a due process before someone was fired, I wonder where that went and who took it away?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

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

#94

Post by bmm6o » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 6:01 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #23

treerock wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I think you are reading that incorrectly.

Okay, sure, care to edit your comment and explain how?

The stated motivation (which you are free to believe or not) is that the site was used to organize a violent protest, and that they are not interested in the users who were merely exercising their right to free speech or assembly.

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

#95

Post by ignoramceisblis » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 6:03 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #4

This 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 :-(

Are you serious?

There have been threats (or "wish-deaths") made against our president's life. By members of the media, congress, and plenty more. Even that most extreme act, in my view, has received only a tepid response. Many are vocal in their support of it. And shows still go on with the president's likeness being shot, riots still continue against the president and all of his supporters, and go to nearly any major media outlet and you'll find the usual slant of derision, with all of the behavior that follows. Commentators even stoop so low as to use the latest narrative propped up by major media players to patronize the president's own daughter and tell her to "sit shiva" for her father.

All of this continues today, and it will still continue. From everything that I've seen of the president's behavior and heard first-hand from his speeches, he will do very little about the words that the media uses to describe him and how they frame him. He will take those punches, and it's obvious he's been willing to take even more.

This article is only meant to stoke the flames of the "never-Trumpers" once more. To inject more fear into the population and convince them that they're the victims, that they're being attacked. A strategy that is played time and time again and one that is destroying our cohesion ("You attack one of "us", you attack all of "us"." Where "us" is usually decided by some superficial property.)

Look at the language of the lawyers, as highlighted by the Washington Post: “This action will cause Web users to worry that the government will be monitoring every site they visit.” “This is a case about a website that is engaged in political speech.”

Please. "Speech", or planning riots? This is a court case seeking some justice for riots that "left six police officers injured and caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage when downtown D.C. businesses were vandalized just blocks from where President Trump and his family paraded following the swearing-in ceremony." This is not an attack on innocent Americans who had nothing to do with those peaceful riots.

Don't fall for the trap.

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

#96

Post by shakna » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 6:09 PM UTC

belovedeagle wrote: post #92

shakna wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems the perfect use-case for pre-trial injunction so that assets (data) can be seized, under RICO. As they haven't touched RICO, it seems likely they cannot consider all 1.3 million people to be conspirators, nor even a large number to be conspirators.

You're right; they're not all conspirators. However, as a non-expert I feel there is a good argument that there's probable cause that each account has evidence of the conspiracy.

> probable cause that each account has evidence of the conspiracy.

That's all a warrant under RICO would require.

Again, they haven't touched it, so they cannot consider that a large number of accounts have partaken of any conspiracy.

RICO is the first stop on dealing with conspiracies.

PATRIOT is the first stop on dealing with terrorists.

The fact they have gone another route, which is legally more difficult to accomplish, suggests they consider the majority of accounts to be innocent, of both terrorism and conspiracy.

The fact the judge has ordered any accounts viewed, and found to have no evidence, to be sealed, suggests the judge views the majority of accounts as innocent as well.

Its a broad-reaching warrant, searching for a needle in a haystack.

> ...that each account has evidence...

Nobody on either legal teams is suggesting that everyone might have information in this case. But, the prosecution is suggesting that anyone might.

There's a distinction there.

I'm not suggesting its right, but I am suggesting that nobody in the courtroom would suggest all/majority these people, knowingly or unknowingly, are terrorists or conspirators. They're looking for the few among the many, so then they can investigate if those few are indeed criminals.

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

#97

Post by mnm1 » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

fraserharris wrote: post #62

mnm1 wrote: post #36

Dreamhost is a hosting provider. Why do they keep these records in the first place and especially over six months later? It seems to me that there will be a big market for hosts that don't keep such logs or delete them after a specified period where they might be useful to debug issues (24-48hrs).

They received a preservation order requiring they do not delete the logs for this domain for period of time prior to the inauguration.

I'm asking why these records were held in the first place. If they didn't store the data in the first place, there'd be nothing to preserve. The government could send preservation orders all they want and Dreamhost wouldn't even have to go to court because they could comply without hurting their customers' privacy.

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

#98

Post by koolba » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

ArchReaper wrote: post #77

khazhoux wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was very patronizing. Everyone's time is valuable, and personally I choose to believe that Hacker News is NOT a troll destination, but made up of smart people with (on occasion) diverse opinions. More to the point: the question he SHOULD he asking is "Does the government actually have a legitimate and constitutionally-sound need for this information?" If "yes", then his question follows ("What alternatives exist…

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 wrong, I don't uniformly stick to asking it from my particular angle either. In fact, I'm generally more interested in the responses on the other side.

> Has there been any evidence linking the users of this site directly to this riot? My core issue is that this seems to me to be a case of attacking political opponents through the legal system.

In this situation my understand is that there were rioters who were using the website in question as a means of congregating. I don't see this as going after political opponents. I see it as going after violent anarchists. I don't care whether they're far left or far right, I don't want anyone like that operating with impunity.

> What evidence do they have that there is relevant information in those records directly tied to someone who committed a crime? I fail to see anything in this article that actually mentions a valid reason for this search.

I'm not sure but if the site was used by rioters to conspire to riot, I'd imagine it could be useful in tracking down how they communicated, who they are, and where else they were plotting or targeting.

> Their original request covered over a million users. How could that possibly be reasonable?

The website in question lists out[1] organizations that are listed by government agencies as domestic terrorists[2]. Does the number having six zeros in the number of people involved make it unreasonable? If a website pledges to commit anarchist destruction, a million people create accounts, and then some large number of people show up to commit said destructive acts, why wouldn't the full list be fair game?

[1]: http://www.disruptj20.org/event/disruptj20-protest-the-inaug...

[2]: https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extrem...

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

#99

Post by icebraining » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

ArchReaper wrote: post #88

fraserharris wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They received a preservation order requiring they do not delete the logs for this domain for period of time prior to the inauguration.

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.

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

#100

Post by icebraining » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 6:47 PM UTC

nnfy wrote: post #61

alansammarone wrote: post #33

Every week we're seeing more and more news like that - whether its the government or internet companies - in which people's right to privacy and to freedom online are being severely threatened. I'm not an american, but I grew up seeing the USA as an example of freedom and progress. It's very sad that this is becoming less and less true every passing day. We must build a decentralised web. Now.

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.