Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the just-a-little-info-please dept.

A month ago, the Department of Justice served a warrant (PDF) to Dreamhost regarding one of its clients. This is routine for law enforcement to make such requests, the website hosting service said in a blog post -- except the page in question, disruptj20.org, had helped organize protests of Trump's inauguration. And the DOJ is demanding personal info and 1.3 million IP addresses of visitors to the site.

[...] After questioning the warrant's extreme volume of info requested, the DOJ fired back with a motion (PDF) asking the DC Superior Court to compel the host to comply. Dreamhost's counsel filed legal arguments in opposition (PDF), and will attend a court hearing about the matter in Washington, DC on August 18th.

It's not the first time authorities have tried to pry information from internet companies on users that attended anti-Trump protests.

Source: Engadget

Additional Coverage at The Guardian and DreamHost

Related: Facebook Appeal


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:15PM (12 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:15PM (#554219) Homepage Journal

    But they don't identify specific suspects, do they? It seems that they are trying to get the information, in order to find suspects. That is not the purpose of warrants.

    BTW, I wish the MSM would stop with "anti-Trump" label. It's like they are trying to drum up sympathy for the rioters from their progressive fan base.

    While law enforcement is likely trying to exceed their authority (what else is new), the fact that this was a riot at Trump's inauguration is irrelevant. Relevant is the fact that some people came to a protest not to be heard, but to riot, loot and destroy. Hooligans looking for the next event with big enough crowds to provide them cover.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:34PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:34PM (#554284)

    They've already made related arrests and likely gained significant intel from seized mobile devices from the rioters. This certainly is not a fishing expedition.

    I think disparity between disclosure:seizure for this warrant, the fact that it was granted, as well as the fact that the affidavit for the warrant are sealed are strongly indicative. It's basically a given that revealing exactly who they have pinned so far could compromise their investigation. In a case like this which is going to have a criminal hierarchy it is also possible that exposing who has been pinned could even put individuals in danger.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:13PM (10 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:13PM (#554331) Journal

      The warrant authorizes search of the data of individuals who are in no way known to be involved. The 4th specifically requires probable cause, oath or affirmation. These are not present. So yes, it absolutely is a fishing expedition.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      The entity holding the data can be asked to provide the data that belongs to the individuals for whom the government has met the required metrics – the known rioters. As that is the case, requiring more than this is overbroad.

      The bill of rights intentionally limits government power to protect the innocent. There's no other reason for the bill of rights to even exist. It's quite specific about search and seizure. It says that unreasonable search and seizure is not permitted, and it describes exactly what constitutes (no pun intended) reasonable. Anything that doe not meet the specified metrics is not permissible to the federal government, or, through the auspices of the 14th amendment any portion of the bill of rights that has been "incorporated [cornell.edu]", to the states.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:47PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:47PM (#554397)

        Some backstory. Police arrested and charged some 200 people with felony rioting in January. There phones were confiscated as evidence. By March the FBI was involved and actively working on extracting data from all the phones. In April additional charges were filed against many of the rioters including inciting riots, conspiracy to riot, destruction of property, etc. That indicates at least some of the phones had likely been breached. Last month the FBI sought to enter into evidence data that was from 8 cracked phones including 6 which were encrypted. And now we have this warrant which was signed off on with an affidavit that was sealed.

        So why not specify? I think it's the same reason the affidavit for the warrant is also sealed - naming names at this point could compromise an ongoing investigation. They know their is evidence of criminal activity and do not want to reveal their knowledge of exactly how much they know and about whom, yet.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 16 2017, @12:07AM (8 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday August 16 2017, @12:07AM (#554501) Journal

          I think it's the same reason the affidavit for the warrant is also sealed - naming names at this point could compromise an ongoing investigation. They know their is evidence of criminal activity and do not want to reveal their knowledge of exactly how much they know and about whom, yet.

          There is nothing in the 4th amendment that says "the government can ignore this if it thinks it would inconvenience them."

          • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:12AM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:12AM (#554568)

            Ignore what? The warrant does specify exactly what is being searched and exactly what persons/things are to be seized.

            I imagine many objections to this action are because of political bias. Let's turn this around, imagine there was an alt right site encouraging militarism and implicit calls for violence against protesters. And following the recent events in Charlottesville it was revealed the suspect in question had connections on said site with hundreds of others individuals with extensive evidence of conspiracy. Higher level organizers on said site had been suggesting protesters need to be "taught a lesson." Would you be upset about the government requesting user information from that site in furtherance of prosecution of this individual and others he may have collaborated with? Of course not. Though the site and, if complicit the host, would likely try to make some free speech or 4th amendment protests, but it would obviously be a very reasonable request.

            The issue here is that I think some people have begun to become so radicalized that they don't understand the things they're supporting. An organizer from this site (back to reality, not our hypothetical) in question stated, publicly and on record [wikipedia.org], that their goal was: "There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition... We are planning to shut down the inauguration, that’s the short of it… We’re pretty literal about that, we are trying to create citywide paralysis on a level that I don’t think has been seen in D.C. before. We’re trying to shut down pretty much every ingress into the city as well as every checkpoint around the actual inauguration parade route." Free speech does not protect aiming to incite imminent unlawful behavior, which organizers from that site were actively engaging in.

            In any case, I'm not justifying this in terms of condemnation of the site but rather trying to give some perspective. I think such a seizure would be reasonable in either case. On the other hand I do think that requesting, let's say, information about every user on Reddit because this group of rioters posted there would be reasonable. However, if they organized and orchestrated their actions on a specific subreddit dedicated 'significantly' to such behavior, then I do think requesting all information on users of the given subreddit would be reasonable. I suppose most generally, I think the highest level encapsulation of primarily unlawful activity is a reasonable search premises.

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 16 2017, @01:51PM (6 children)

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday August 16 2017, @01:51PM (#554711) Journal

              Ignore what? The warrant does specify exactly what is being searched and exactly what persons/things are to be seized.

              They're ignoring both the requirement for oath or affirmation, and the requirement for probable cause.

              These metrics are aggregate, not one-or-the-other.

              They're attempting to search the data of a huge number of people for whom it is inevitable they have no probable cause, and no oath or affirmation – because it is certain that no oath or affirmation could exist for all those people, because many will not have been involved. The government only has authority to search the data of those for whom they have both; they only have authority to issue a warrant in the cases where they have both.

              This was made clear in my first post. It is also made clear in the 4th amendment of the constitution.

              Would you be upset about the government requesting user information from that site in furtherance of prosecution of this individual

              No, of course not.

              and others he may have collaborated with? Of course not.

              As long as there is probable cause and a human being providing oath or affirmation, no. That's not the case here, though. The case here is X has done Y, and now they're going to go searching everyone they can get to, not just X. It's completely out of bounds, and it's flat-out forbidden by the constitution, the very document that provides the rational basis for the government to exist: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" so yes, of course I would be upset.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @03:58PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @03:58PM (#554759)

                Ahhh!! Okay this is a major problem. You do not understand the processes in play here, yet were happy to judge them (actively) anyhow!

                Warrants are obtained by officers/prosecutors by presenting an affidavit (basically - writing under oath) laying out their case and their evidence. This is then brought to a judge who determines whether the request is legal and constitutional. This original affidavit will have laid out most of all of their evidence and exact names, evidence, and so on. The reason we don't have access to this information is because it has been sealed. This is another step that requires further justification. It in no way means that the warrant has not gone through the exact same process as any other warrant. Obviously the prosecutors/officers seeking the warrant are required to lay out extensive reason to believe that the venue they're seeking to search (the website in this case) will contain the data they seek to seize.

                The reason that specific names are not being named (and how they were obtained) is not because they do not exist, but because those names have been intentionally sealed. Sealed does not mean 'the police aren't telling anybody' - it means that the judge has deemed that there is a justifiable reason to keep the exact identifies of those being sought and generalize the warrant. In a criminal conspiracy case it's easy to see the reasons for this. However, it's not exactly a secret that the names and links to this site are going to come from the seized phones from the arrested rioters that certainly showed the site as a venue for the organizing of criminal activity - the warrant, especially this broad, would not have been granted otherwise.

                • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:01PM (4 children)

                  by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:01PM (#554786) Journal

                  What we know - for certain - is that this is a fishing expedition. It requests information about people for whom there is no probable cause, no valid oath or affirmation.

                  So the warrant is unconstitutional.

                  I do understand the authorized process. I also understand, that as here, the government is very prone to ignoring the authorized process.

                  The constitution authorizes search and seizure under a very specific set of metrics. These do not include "hiding what we're looking for."

                  You can try to justify this travesty all you like, but the bottom line is that the government is not authorized to do what it is doing here. That doesn't mean they'll be stopped from doing it - we have ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, "free speech zones", all manner of infringements on the right to keep and carry arms, and so forth that amply demonstrate that the system is deeply corrupt and routinely operates well out of its authorized bounds. But while you can cheer these criminals on, and they have the power to keep doing things any way they like, they're still no more than criminals.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:35PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:35PM (#554800)

                    Please look at what you're doing! Yes there specifically is probable cause, oath, and affirmation! And document sealing is an integral and standard part of law and has been for many many decades. What you're saying is effectively equivalent to trying to argue that 1+1=3, realizing its wrong - and then doubling down on it. If you want to know why political debate, of any sort, in this nation is falling apart - this is why. And I'm certainly in part responsible for the inanity in our little thread. I failed to accurately discern your position which could have clarified this up in a single post. But we're all so fast to want to hear more of... ourselves, aren't we?

                    And in many ways I'd even agree with your beliefs, ideologically. I wish that there was a notion of digital rights of privacy. But while it's easy to blame politicians, the reality is that we have the politicians we deserve. People get upset when their privacy is violated and then simultaneously hand over massive amounts of information to Facebook, Google, and nearly all major social media platforms. When Snowden revealed that the US was turning into a digital surveillance state, he undoubtedly thought he would start a revolution in awareness and public reaction. Instead he caught a 'Hey that's not cool!' until something shiny grabbed the mass's attention 15 minutes later and they followed the media's next carrot. It's probably just growing pains of the information age, but we sure are slow to grow up.

                    Respectfully yours,
                    Anonymous Coward

                    • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:02PM (2 children)

                      by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:02PM (#554822) Journal

                      Yes there specifically is probable cause, oath, and affirmation!

                      No. That only exists for a few users' information. That doesn't magically turn into something that applies to all users because the government wants some level of convenience, or they want to hide the process, or for any other reason, either. This warrant is for a huge number of users' information. If the warrant was for those few users' information for whom the required metrics have been met, that would be fine. But it's not. It's an illegal warrant.

                      They are operating outside the bounds of constitutional authorization; those responsible are rogue governmental elements by definition. They are in violation of their oaths, and should be dismissed from their positions immediately.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:56PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:56PM (#554861)

                        You are conflating disclosure with seizure, again. Not fond of getting into circular debates.

                        Those "rogue government elements" signing off on this are operating out of big blue DC. The DA listed on the warrant has been there since at least 2011. The current DC US attorney who would have ultimate oversight is Channing D. Phillips. You can read more about him here [justice.gov]. He's an Obama appointee. I can almost assure you that the judge who signed off on this is also a democrat. This case isn't about politics - it is about a large criminal conspiracy of individuals engaging in criminal activity.

                        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:13PM

                          by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:13PM (#554950) Journal

                          No. I'm pointing out the illegal, unconstitutional search.

                          There's nothing complicated or circular about this. There's no way that incorporating a search of a huge number of innocent people's information in a warrant is legal. It just isn't. Your stated reasons are irrelevant, because the warrant itself is constitutionally non-compliant, in a blatantly obvious way: no probable cause (and consequently, no possible valid oath or affirmation.) It fails the 4th amendment metrics for reasonable. It's unreasonable, and therefore invalid and illegal. That's the whole reason the 4th is in the bill of rights: to prevent the government from just jumping down anyone's throat any time some judge or prosecutor feels a vague, unspecified itch.

                          This case ... is about a large criminal conspiracy of individuals engaging in criminal activity.

                          Sure is. The judge who issued the illegal warrant is one of those criminals.

                          As for the bit about Obama and how long someone's been in office, that's all irrelevant. The point is the warrant is illegal because the search is illegal. That's the entire point. Wouldn't matter if it was issued by God himself who had been in office a million years. The US constitution forbids this quite explicitly.