Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the baby-steps dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

After the US Department of Justice demanded from DreamHost data that could identify visitors of anti-Trump website Disruptj20.org and the web host refused to comply with such an unreasonably broad request for data, the DOJ narrowed the scope of its demand by excluding unpublished media and HTTP access and error logs from it.

On Thursday, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert Morin ruled that DreamHost must comply with the narrowed warrant, but has further limited the government's access to the asked-for data, in order to limit exposure of sensitive user information.

He has asked the federal prosecutors to present a list of investigators who will have access to the data and list of methods they will be using to go through it to find information pertinent to their investigation. The investigation aims to find out who's responsible for property damage in downtown Washington during the Inauguration Day protests.

"The production of evidence from this trove of data will be overseen by the court. The DOJ is not permitted to perform this search in a bubble. It is, in fact, now required to make its case with the court to justify why they believe information acquired is or is not responsive to (aka: 'covered by') the warrant," DreamHost explained.

Good. It's about time the judiciary started saying no to executive overreach.

Source: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2017/08/25/judge-limits-dojs-search-anti-trump-website-data/


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:18AM (22 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:18AM (#559235)

    Good. It's about time the judiciary started saying no to executive overreach.

    The purpose of this request was to find out who is responsible for organized Constitutionally-protected political protest. The warrant should never have been approved at all, because the government has not showed any kind of probable cause that a crime had been committed using the communications of that website.

    This is especially galling coming from the FBI, an organization with a long history of treating political protest as criminal activity even though it isn't.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:29AM (21 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:29AM (#559239) Homepage Journal

    Except in this case several crimes were committed. And they were allegedly organized before hand on that website.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday August 26 2017, @03:38AM (17 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Saturday August 26 2017, @03:38AM (#559265) Journal

      "allegedly" isn't sufficient to get a warrant. Facts are required (or they should be if the judge is doing his job).

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by frojack on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:04AM (16 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:04AM (#559299) Journal

        "allegedly" isn't sufficient to get a warrant.

        Are you daft?
        Allegedly is most certainly sufficient to get a warrant.

        Were you expecting to have a trial first to prove guilt and THEN the search warrant afterward?

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:26AM (15 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:26AM (#559305) Journal

          Allegedly is most certainly sufficient to get a warrant.

          No, it isn't, Judge frojack! Let's see, 4th Amendment?

          and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

          Allegation is insufficient. Probable cause is required.

          See? Isn't Constitutional Law fun and easy?

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:05AM (12 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:05AM (#559372) Homepage Journal

            Probable cause in this case would be reading the offending posts.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:20AM (1 child)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:20AM (#559377) Journal

              Free speech, Less Than Mighty Buzz on these questions of Law? Or are you going to admit that Nazis threatening to kill me is actually a crime? Or again, only leftists, or normal people protesting against the Loser Clown President do not have a right to free speech? Well, I don't know what to say, other than "no comment" and "we're coming for you!"

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:41AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:41AM (#559392)

              Huh. Visiting an anti-Trump website is probable cause, but a Nazi driving a car into the crowd shouldn't be criticized because those people were protesting.

              I sense a slight bias!

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:58AM (6 children)

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:58AM (#559407) Journal

              Probable cause in this case would be reading the offending posts.

              Let's be clear on what the problem with the original request was here. As Dreamhost noted [dreamhost.com] concerning the original request:

              The request from the DOJ demands that DreamHost hand over 1.3 million visitor IP addresses — in addition to contact information, email content, and photos of thousands of people — in an effort to determine who simply visited the website.

              Sorry, Mr. Buzzard, but I don't think "probable cause" could be construed to encompass millions of people who merely viewed information. Hence the court ruling here. As the EFF lawyer noted:

              “As in other cases involving digital searches, EFF believes the government’s access to the data should be limited in advance to ensure that it complies with the Fourth Amendment. This could include the use of a neutral third party or special master entrusted with the task of parsing through the relevant evidence to be turned over to law enforcement in order to limit government access to user data to which it has no probable cause to collect,” EFF Criminal Defense Staff Attorney Stephanie Lacambra noted.

              “Similarly, the government could be required to expressly articulate ex ante search protocols that outline specific limiting factors (for example: account names or handles, date and time ranges, keywords, file type or size) that can be subject to judicial review. Without these safeguards in place, the fear of unchecked government intrusion may chill individuals from across he ideological spectrum form engaging in the very public discourse that the Bill of Rights is intended to protect.”

              Part of the entire point of the Fourth Amendment was to eliminate so-called "general warrants" which had been used occasionally by overzealous governments before -- simply searching just about anyone who might have some vague association with something bad. "Probable cause" is a higher standard. I'd think a big pro-free speech advocate like yourself might be concerned about this... not to protect those who might have legitimately planned to commit crimes (as the EFF lawyer said: a limited sorting of records by a special master or some other 3rd party could be used to make a determination of what legally should be handed over to law enforcement), but to avoid harassment of over a million people who merely visited a website.

              To make this point more clear, some posts here occasionally go "over the top" in implying that bad acts could/should be committed. If, by chance, some random person acts on them, are you seriously suggesting that the personal details of EVERYONE who has ever visited this site should be turned over the to the DOJ??

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 26 2017, @01:31PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 26 2017, @01:31PM (#559427) Journal

                "to avoid harassment of over a million people"

                We might ask how many of them are Windows users. Those people are all into bondage and disciplie, sado and masochism. They probably want to be harassed, and here you are standing in the way of some good legitimate harassment. Don't you feel guilty now?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @03:49PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @03:49PM (#559471)

                Yep, TMB's ideals are strictly limited by the group in question. It is sad to see the partisan divide get to that point, but it sure as hell shows how we might slip down into full blown Nazi mode. I would have said fascism but we're already there.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:51PM

                  by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:51PM (#559512) Journal

                  We've been a fascist state, in Mussolini's definition, since before Mussolini was born. The government has been working hand-in-glove with the major companies since before the TransContinental Railroad was built. For something just a bit later, check out the history of SP. (I've no reason to think the other major companies didn't get similar benefits, but I'm less sure.) For that matter the Civil War was largely over which major companies should get the most support. The South wanted support for "King Cotton" and the North for the manufacturing industries.

                  We tend to use fascist as a term of abuse in the same way we use terrorist...i.e., by ignoring that we're doing the same thing, possibly more effectively.

                  --
                  Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:30PM (2 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 26 2017, @07:30PM (#559542) Homepage Journal

                And what part of me saying I was glad the judiciary slapped it down in the summary did you miss?

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:49AM (1 child)

                  by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:49AM (#559656) Journal

                  Sorry, I can't really parse the way submissions are listed. There are at least three different usernames associated with the submission (MrPlow, you, and Fnord666). I'd generally assume added editorial commentary (by Fnord666, I assume) would come with a disclaimer for editorial intervention, but that's not always the case.

                  Anyhow, the summary explicitly says "MrPlow writes:" I don't know who MrPlow is, but I just assumed he was the one who wrote the comment, given how aggressively you seemed to be arguing the other direction in comments.

                  Apologies, but really -- I do wish summaries were clearer when there's multiple contributions. (Though I know this is all a thankless job, and I'm happy people are bothering to try to edit.)

            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:00PM

              by Whoever (4524) on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:00PM (#559515) Journal

              So why isn't the warrant limited to those people who posted those posts?

              The idea that the government should get all the data and filter it is, frankly, judges once again failing to do their jobs and kowtowing to the government. The government (under any administration) has shown that it can't be trusted not to use all the log data, and to use only the filtered data.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 26 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday August 26 2017, @09:14PM (#559587) Journal

            Allegation is insufficient. Probable cause is required.

            Probable cause is nothing but an allegation you idiot.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday August 26 2017, @09:49PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 26 2017, @09:49PM (#559594) Journal

              I think you are wrong about this, frojack. There! Probable cause that frojack is wrong, since I alleged it! Now do you see the difference? Probable cause is a substantiated suspicion, not a mere allegation. (I also allege that frojack is the idiot here, but I will leave the determination of that to a court, or a jury of soylentil peers.)

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:00AM (#559298)

      DOJ said they want information on ~200 people, and instead of requesting that specific information, they requested information on 1.3 million people. So that's ~0.015%.

      The FBI data on crime rates [fbi.gov] says the number of violent and property crimes committed during 2015 was 9,191,335 over a total population of 321,418,820, which gives us ~2.9%. A portion of those are repeat offenders, but a portion of criminals from previous years have not been caught yet, so it should be pretty close to percentage of criminals in general population (take note that I'm being extremely generous by not counting drug use, which should bump it to at least a few dozen percent - even marijuana is still illegal according to federal law).

      Since the percentage of criminals in general population is ~200 times larger than those on that site, you're saying we should hurry up with complete surveillance, maybe even arrest all 320 million people. I mean, getting data was enough for that website, but in comparison, we're dealing with armageddon-level numbers here!

      Crimes were committed, so that makes it not only all right but something we have to do!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:40PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:40PM (#559580)

      Ok. I noticed by the FP stories today that I'm glad I don't work at DreamHost.

      Besides that, I admit that I have no clue what's going on. I've been reading less and less news as one thing becomes more certain: the world is losing its collective shit, and there's nothing I can do about it. Soylent is one of the only places I check for news any more.

      What law(s) did users of the website break?

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:29AM

        Dunno. I personally don't really give a damn about the specifics of the case. Some of the users allegedly vandalized stuff during the inauguration or some such and the DOJ is saying they planned it out before hand on that site. Then they demanded the entire site's records instead of just what they actually needed.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.