Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Backs Amazon, Raps Feds Over Book Records

Posted by kdawson on from the can't-hide-your-prying-eyes dept.

netbuzz alerts us to a ruling in federal court that has just been made public. US Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker told the Feds to lay off Amazon in denying prosecutors' requests for records of who bought what books at the online retailer. The judge wrote, "The [subpoena's] chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America." Prosecutors had demanded 24,000 transaction records from Amazon, all in service of convicting a city official on charges of fraud and tax evasion. In the end they found customer information on the official's PC, where they should have looked in the first place.

26 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. like how they do in prison by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Judge Backs Amazon, Raps Feds

    When I read that, I added an extra "e" in there, but I guess that's just wishful thinking.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:like how they do in prison by explosivejared · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would you be wishful about rapping feeds?...

      Wait a minute... oh... you're a naughty boy!

      --
      I got a catholic block.
  2. Amazon has dangerous material by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally, I'd be very concerned if people were buying books like these. I would certainly defend the government's right to weed out such subversives.

    1. Re:Amazon has dangerous material by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      If that was meant as a joke, then reality is already one step ahead of you.

    2. Re:Amazon has dangerous material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong! Carter didnt let them all out. Reagan cut all the fed budget for mental instituions and that forced all them out onto the streets.

    3. Re:Amazon has dangerous material by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are both wrong (although the first poster is closer), the courts ordered that they be released. The rulings were made in the early to mid 70's. The courts ruled that it was unconstitutional to institutionalize people against their will unless they were a demonstrable danger to society (even if the individual was incapable of taking care of themselves). By the late 70's/early 80's, when the outcome of these rulings became apparent (that most of those individuals who had been institutionalized couldn't take care of themselves), the activists who had led the charge to eliminate the institutions were surprised to discover that the average American wasn't willing to pay them to take care of these people (the average American thought that the institutions were a cost effective method that needed to have the abuses corrected).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Amazon has dangerous material by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      lol,,, Nope. The ACLU went to bat for some crazy woman that committed suicide about 9 months after release from an asylum. They took her case to the US supreme court and it was ordered that if they don't pose a threat to themselves or others, then they cannot be detained. This happened in the 60s and the mid 70s. This caused an evaluation of if everyone nutcase locked up and it ended up dumping a shitload of people on the street. The problem had something to do with detaining people that were perfectly fine when under medication but the ACLU's love affair got started earlier with Thorazine and some other drug.

      The cut in budgeting was because the residents of the mental institutions went from full to capacity to 30% or so. When reagan was the governor of CA, he took this set of rulings along with the state mental health boards wishes and cut the budget. But this was done as governor not president. The same mental patients were being dumped all around the country when this first started happening. here is a link to a site that touches on it and Here is another that deals withCalifornia

      What your referring to is actually when the homeless problem was apparent and advocacy groups started lobbying for them. It was like they wanted to redeem their earlier actions. The supposed cuts were actually cuts in increases spending that Reagan rejected. Although the increased asked for was cut, the budget was actually increased but Reagan still took flak over it.

    5. Re:Amazon has dangerous material by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, that's what happened in your mind. In reality, they were released by the courts.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. This is America Right? by explosivejared · · Score: 3, Funny

    The withdrawal came after a judge ruled the customers have a First Amendment right to keep their reading habits from the government.

    We're talking about America right? That happened in America? You're kidding me! The same America with warrantless wiretaps and everything! I don't believe you!

    Wait... what's that... fascism does not rule in America like some people on the internet say. You've lost me now. Crackpot!!

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:This is America Right? by QCompson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait... what's that... fascism does not rule in America like some people on the internet say. You've lost me now. Crackpot!!
      Har Har! See, it's funny because everyone thinks the American government is headed in the wrong direction and people are worried about the loss of civil liberties. However, this one time the Feds weren't able to steamroll through the justice system with excuses about national security, state secrets, and executive power. So therefore all those naysayers were wrong! Everything's a-ok! Don't worry about warrantless wiretapping, telecom immunity, or national security letters. Funny ha-ha!
    2. Re:This is America Right? by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because there is a problem with some parts of the government doesn't mean that the whole government and everyone in it is corrupt.

      However, the longer you let corruption fester without confronting it, the more systemic it gets and eventually it will spread to every corner of the government. I don't think we're there yet in this country but unfortunately we are well on our way.

      "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" - Unknown, but often attributed to Edmund Burke

      --
      We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
    3. Re:This is America Right? by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blah blah blah. The single "activist judge" who didn't kowtow in this particular instance -- woofuckinghoo for checks and balances.

      I'm sorry but this one particular example does, in no way, bring us back on an even playing field prior to the Bush Administration's far-reaching and scary-as-fuck violations of privacy all in the name of the ever so popular terrorism.

    4. Re:This is America Right? by Stanislav_J · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It generally doesn't happen overnight, or all at once. A certain paperhanger and his minions didn't transform Germany in one fell swoop -- it was done gradually, eroding the rights and privacies of the people little by little, step by step, always under the guise of it being for their own good or protection from bad guys. I'm not necessarily making a direct comparison here.....I'm just saying....

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    5. Re:This is America Right? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It generally doesn't happen overnight, or all at once. A certain paperhanger and his minions didn't transform Germany in one fell swoop -- it was done gradually, eroding the rights and privacies of the people little by little, step by step, always under the guise of it being for their own good or protection from bad guys. I'm not necessarily making a direct comparison here.....I'm just saying.... Actually, it was pretty close to overnight. The Weimar Republic was never very well supported by the German people. Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, and his government suspended civil rights on February 28, 1933. The Nazi's got 37% of the vote in November 1932 and those who didn't know what Hitler intended weren't paying attention. The only reason Hindenburg agreed to appoint Hitler Chancellor was because he thought that Hitler could be controlled.
      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  4. Can we elect this guy? by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen] Crocker -- who unsealed documents detailing the showdown against prosecutors' wishes -- said he believed prosecutors were seeking the information for a legitimate purpose. But he said First Amendment concerns were justified and outweighed the subpoena's law enforcement purpose.

    "The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission," Crocker wrote. "It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else."

    So, not everybody in the American legal system is providing a rubber stamp for Federal nosiness. I can't believe the Feds actually thought this was a viable thing -- perhaps they've been swayed by all the success with warrant-less wiretapping and private snooping. I think this may be representative of a desire by the lower courts to put the breaks on rampant violations of American civil rights. At least, one can hope.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  5. precedence by theMerovingian · · Score: 3, Interesting


    This sounds factually similar to the Robert Bork video rental disclosure issue. See here.

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
  6. Woops by goingforaslash · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another case of the powers at be sitting in a room full of mirrors and muttering "Woops".

  7. Laziness, pure and simple. by e9th · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This wasn't a situation where, say, a child is in imminent danger and they need the information now.

    It's simply a case of the cops' unwillingness to do some good old-fashioned police work. Good for you, Judge Crocker.

  8. That's right! by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    FTFA: "It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else."

    And:"If the government had been more diligent in looking for workarounds instead of baring its teeth when Amazon balked, it's probable that this entire First Amendment showdown could have been avoided," he wrote

    Damn straight it is un-American! I just wish the agents and presecutors involved would get reprimanded! Or better yet, fired for incompetence.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:That's right! by Xtravar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, we're at war with the Sun now? Shit, I'm really behind on my current events! Last I heard we were still working on Terror.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  9. Sounds like a cool judge. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 3, Funny

    The judge wrote, "The [subpoena's] chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America." "Chilling effect"? "Frost keyboards"?

    Oh, man, I want this guy if I'm ever in trouble with the law.
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  10. New /. groupthink by BooRolla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously. We all should be liking Amazon about now (at least for a little bit). They stood up to the Feds even when they really didn't have to beyond the inconvenience.

    We can get back to hating them for the single click patent after Christ^H^H^H^H the holidays.

    (Interesting note: captcha was 'dogma')

  11. You make it sound by Foerstner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...as if "a child is in imminent danger" is sufficient cause to abrogate the First Amendment.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    1. Re:You make it sound by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One way to infringe on my freedom of the press is to outright ban the sale of my book. Another is to have government agents standing in popular bookstores making a show of taking down the names of anyone who buys my book. When the government forces Amazon to give over customer records it infringes the first amendment through this chilling effect, whether the goverment is doing it because a childs life is in immanent danger (Think Of The Children!!!!!one!!) or not.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Forget amazon by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think I just like that Judge.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Oh good by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now they'll never know about my purchase of "WMDs for Dummies" and "Terrorism for Beginners".