SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:35AM (14 children)
We all saw the stupidity on inauguration day and those responsible need to be made an example of because the situation has since gotten worse.
The difference between the far left [twitter.com] and the "far right" [twitter.com] is what exactly?
(Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:53AM (12 children)
Though you're obviously trolling, I'll bite. For the benefit of others.
The difference?
- The difference in text is that one is in scare quotes and the other one isn't
- The difference in links is that one goes to a fake account purporting to belong to the leader of a political party slightly left of center (5:35ish), while
the other link goes to a random twitterer.
- The difference between the contents of the tweets is that one is retweeting 2 messages and purporting to support them, while the other is
retweeting a url and after listing its contents.
You're aware that by your definition of terrorism, typical civil disobedience (Rosa Parks, anyone) is terrorism, right?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:12AM
Exactly who was Rosa Parks being violent toward or intimidating?
He gave the textbook definition of terrorism, and Antifa absolutely fits the definition of a terrorist organization.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:14AM (10 children)
Political right and left are economic classifications, national socialists always subscribed to left wing economic principles.
Yes, it's a parody account but Labour have a well documented problem with anti-Semitism. [spectator.co.uk]
The second link is someone dissecting the policies of the US Nazi party and providing historical context. This is not being taught correctly in our educational establishments, history tells us there is nothing superior about collectivism or socialism in any form. Western liberalism and individualism dominated the 20th Century for a reason.
It's not my definition of terrorism, it's the dictionary definition. Refusing to give up a seat on a bus is not use of force or intimidation, it's plain civil disobedience. Positive social change is rarely associated with violence or intimidation.
(Score: 3, Touché) by lgsoynews on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:12PM (6 children)
And european feodalism dominated for over 500 years. Tribalism and barbarism lasted for thousands, if not tens of thousands years... Obviously, they did something right!
Or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:39PM (5 children)
These systems were the best western civilisation could muster at the time. Just as democratic liberalism (a hybrid of both classic and social) is the best we can do now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:17PM (4 children)
that's the point of the left you idiot, that's not the best we can do!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:04PM (3 children)
Prove it - show me a single socialist country where the poor have a better standard of living.
(Score: 2) by UncleSlacky on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
There are no socialist countries. There are social democracies (e.g. the Scandinavian ones) where the poor are certainly better off than in the US, but these are still essentially capitalist economies with a few sops to leftish ideas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:44PM
Partially correct answer, social liberals understand there's no wealth to redistribute without the mechanisms of wealth creation. This is what I was alluding to with my earlier comment. There are socialist countries, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela for a start. Spare us the "not real socialism" shtick because the same thing happens every time socialism is tried.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:56PM
You could compare Cuba and Haiti.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:09PM (2 children)
Actually, it's more complicated than that. There is economic right and economic left. There is also social right and social left.
Economic right starts with "You earned every penny you have, so you should be able to keep it." Economic left starts with "When people are so poor they can't keep themselves alive, we should give them money/stuff to fix that problem." The reason they're diametrically opposed is that the economic left needs to get the stuff they give to poor people from somebody who already has it, which violates the principle of the economic right.
Social right starts with "Some people are better than others, and should have more privileges in society." Social left starts with "Some people through no fault of their own are at a disadvantage, and we should change things so that they no longer are." These are obviously diametrically opposed, because they have opposite answers to the question of why some people are poor, more likely to be convicted of a crime, and so forth: the social right thinks it's because they're stupid and lazy and make poor decisions, the social left thinks it's because there are people and institutions trying to keep them on the bottom rung.
The modern Republican Party is very obviously economic right and tends towards social right. The modern Democratic Party is very obviously social left and is really conflicted between economic left and economic neutral. Fascism is basically social right mixed with economic left, noticeably making the "some people are better than others" be defined as groups of people rather than individuals. Libertarians tend towards economic right (although unlike fascists evaluating the "some people" on an individual basis) and social neutral. Socialists are all about economic left but also secondarily social left.
The so-called "national socialists" are fascists, not socialists. Indeed, they consistently portray themselves as fighting against socialism.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:29PM
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation:
Social right starts with "Some people work hard to overcome their disadvantages, and they should reap the rewards for their work." Social left starts with "Some people see their disadvantages as a reason to not work hard, and the rest of us should do their work instead."
Neither interpretation is entirely correct or incorrect, of course, but multiple perspectives are necessary to aid in a true, non-echo-chamber understanding. (If a person finds one of these interpretations appealing but the other repulsive, that may be a symptom of echo chamber thinking.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:31PM
Really? I mean sure, murdering someone is one way to end their disadvantage. [theguardian.com]
Fascism is socialism [econlib.org] and socialism is a murderous evil.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:42PM
The far right are just a bunch of pedophiles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:36AM (1 child)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:05AM
do they expect a lot of weird IPs for anyone using a VPN?
Is this more about fishing for people of whom to make an example? How many of those identified would end up being.. visited by a representative of a TLA, or perhaps have their employer contacted..?
No (direct) violence required to create the chilling effect... just lots of ... implications..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:25AM (19 children)
Read the warrant. They are specifically seeking evidence in relation to specific criminal violation. In particular those that violated DC Code 22-1322 [dccouncil.us]. That's the DC code under rioting which is defined as "an assemblage of 5 or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons." And they're not seeking information on everybody, but specifically those that "participated, planed (sic?), planed, organized, or incited the January 20th riot."
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:49AM (3 children)
You're lying.
Read the warrant yourself, it's stated in clear text that they want to see all of the data that the protest site has, and there is not a single word in the warrant about limiting it to suspects or whatever. They want everything. Literally everything. including credit card numbers.
Specifically, they want DreamHost to disclose all of the data to the government, and then the government will seize all that it deems relevant. What's the difference between disclosure and being seized when it comes to information is left as an academic exercise. I'm sure the government will delete all of the data that's not evidence of a crime, like it always does.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:27PM (2 children)
"ATTACHMENT B: Particular Things to be Seized II. Information to be seized by the government": Quoting the warrant:
Information that is not specified in the seizure but is disclosed nonetheless is specifically inadmissible in court.
The affadavit for the warrant is sealed and there has to have been a justification for that. In a conspiracy case like this it's not hard to see. They are going to be building a network of perpetrators. Revealing exactly who they have pinned so far could undermine an ongoing criminal investigation. In an hierarchical conspiracy case revealing exactly who they have information on could even potentially put people in danger as higher ups seek to severe links (that could ultimately lead to them) that will likely be exposed by these data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:43PM (1 child)
Inadmissible in court, but the government will still have it. Do you really see no problem with that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:49AM
So? What are they going to do with it, build cases via parallel construction? Oh, wait a second ...
Honestly, there will probably be more harassment, intimidation and the finding of unrelated activities & "crimes" than there will be parallel construction.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:15PM (12 children)
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.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:34PM (11 children)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
No, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:23PM (1 child)
Okay. They can provide the usernames of the specific users they are interested in, or point to specific posts that they're interested in if posted anonymously. DreamHost can then extract relevant data, with relative ease - they almost certainly will catch some other users' data as well, but well reduced from the original scope of the warrant. This protects the interest of the government, of DreamHost, and of DreamHost's clients. Anything else is a fishing expedition, and an abuse of power.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:39PM
The affadavit for this warrant is sealed. There has to be a justifiable and significant reason for that. It's highly likely that they are intentionally aiming to avoid naming exactly who is being targeted. There are countless viable and fair reasons for this particularly since this is going to be a hierarchical conspiracy case. Informants could be exposed, individuals with the organization could be put at risk (by those above them), etc.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:18PM (4 children)
And then use the IRS to harass them. That's ok too.
But going to the courts and doing it legally? INSANE!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:35PM (3 children)
Are you stupid? That's not OK, and the majority of left-leaning people familiar with the situation were against it when Obama was president.
The entire point behind the complaint is that the warrant is overbroad, i.e., not legal.
You seem to be stuck in some kind of stone-age tribalism :/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:48PM (2 children)
And nobody stopped it for 8 years.
So it's a-ok just fine now.
Weird how past choices have conceuqences today.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:18PM
... since it started about a century ago. The closest anybody has ever come to stopping federal government surveillance of everybody:
1. The Church Committee, who in 1975 did a detailed report on the activities of the 3-letter agencies. Nothing came of it after that report, because the Ford administration decided to completely ignore the findings and Congress was unwilling to act against the 3-letter agencies.
2. The defunding of the "Total Information Awareness" program by Congress in 2003. The Bush administration promptly renamed it to "Terrorism Information Awareness", reshuffled the budget around, and continued exactly like they had before.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:45PM
True. Do you approve of Kim-Jong Un? If not, why didn't you stop him yet?
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:50PM (2 children)
If reports about dragnets are correct, some agency should already have all the information about all visits to a particular domain.
Google could probably reconstruct this information as well, if the website has their analytics bit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:34PM
Lots of things like NSA mass surveillance are not directly admissible in court. And I imagine that they'd be extremely reluctant to do so even if they could. One of the reason all the lawsuits against mass data collection fail is because the plaintiffs can't prove standing. They need to prove that they were surveilled and suffered consequences as a result of such. As long as nobody can do that our intelligence agencies can party like it's 1984.
Parallel construction [wikipedia.org] is very much an accepted thing (which is absurd) but in this case I see no reason to think that's the case.
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 affidavit that was sealed. It's a given that they know exactly what and who they're looking for. 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.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:38PM
Lots of agencies aren't that willing to share their secret (arguably illegal) information with other agencies of the same government. Surprise!
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by https on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:19PM
Why don't they just ask Verizon, SWB, Comcast et al. which of their customers visited the website? That should get most of them. Warrants are so 19th century.
Offended and laughing about it.