Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WikiLeaks Claims Employee's Google Mail, Metadata Seized By US Government

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-the-contents-of-your-locker dept.

An anonymous reader writes On Christmas Eve, as the National Security Agency was releasing a report on NSA employees' abuses of surveillance technology, Google was telling WikiLeaks about another sort of surveillance. According to a statement by WikiLeaks on Twitter, Google informed the organization on December 24 that the Gmail mailboxes and account metadata of a WikiLeaks employee had been turned over to law enforcement under a U.S. federal warrant.

53 comments

  1. Least it was a REAL warrant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And not one of those secret court ones this time around!

    1. Re:Least it was a REAL warrant... by genner · · Score: 1

      And not one of those secret court ones this time around!

      Pretty much this.

    2. Re:Least it was a REAL warrant... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Even if the warrant *appears* to be genuine, and the avenues pursued to obtain it were in themselves legal, if the information used to obtain them was not quite shall we say, entirely complete or truthful, then ab initio they are invalid and void. Not "voidable" or challengable, VOID. Which renders any subsequent prosecution based on evidence gathered under the authority of said warrants, also VOID.

      For definition of "complete" and "truthful", refer to the fact that John Doe lawsuits have previously been declared VOID by a US Federal District Judge: a year ago almost to the day, I posted this submission which was rejected (who's laughing now?):

      "Four people accused of sharing illegal copies of the movie "Elf-Man" persuaded a federal judge there is not enough evidence to support copyright infringement claims against them.
                          Elf-Man LLC, producer of the direct-to-DVD release "Elf-Man" sued Eric Cariveau et al. in Federal Court a year ago, accusing them of sharing a peer-to-peer file of the movie.
                          Elf-Man claims the defendants illegally copied and distributed the movie online.
                          "Despite the industry's efforts to capitalize on internet technology and reduce costs to end viewers through legitimate and legal means of online viewing such as through Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, there are still those that use this technology to steal motion pictures and undermine the efforts of creators through their illegal copying and distribution of motion pictures," Elf-Man's attorney Maureen VanderMay wrote in the complaint.
                          U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik granted Elf-Man's motion to initiate discovery on the IP addresses of defendants, but noted that "the risk of false positives is very real."
                          "It is not clear that plaintiff could ... make factual contentions regarding an Internet subscriber's infringing activities based solely on the fact that he or she pays the Internet bill," Lasnik wrote in the order.
                          Elf-Man named 18 individual defendants in its first amended complaint. A default judgment was ordered against two of them; claims against the Doe defendants were dismissed. Claims against four other named defendants were also dismissed on the grounds of their implausibility."

      Thus fulfilling the "complete"ness requirement. As to "truthful", that is as they say, in the eye of the beholder. As for me, I would require sufficient cause to issue a warrant, and not just mere suspicion.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:Least it was a REAL warrant... by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They try to spin it as so malicious, including:

      This is at least the second time a U.S. warrant has been served at Google for data from someone connected to WikiLeaks. A sealed warrant was served to Google in 2011 for the email of a WikiLeaks volunteer in Iceland.

      Right, it's not like they had any probable cause of illegal activity back in 2011, no sirree.... You've got a Wikileaks volunteer who was at the time acting as an unofficial spokeman for the organization in the news, voluntarily coming up to them and telling them that Assange is working with Anonymous and LulzSec and ordering hacks and spying, including against US targets, and providing troves of data - are they supposed to just ignore that?

      --
      If you play a Ke$ha song backwards, you hear messages from Satan. Even worse, if you play it forwards you hear Ke$ha.
  2. pushing by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

    they'r pushing you to see how far can they go.

    it's called fuck with 99%

  3. Why did they have a gmail account?! by dugancent · · Score: 1

    You work for WikiLeaks and have a gmail account? How fucking fumb can you be?!

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    1. Re:Why did they have a gmail account?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are very good reasons to have a gmail account as a wikileaks guy. For example you may need a formal reason to go to court maybe?

    2. Re:Why did they have a gmail account?! by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the government will glean a plethora of useful data after spending countless hours sifting through viagra ads, pandora spam, notifications that the t-mobile bill is now ready to view, and other such highly sensitive information one would trust to a Gmail account.

    3. Re:Why did they have a gmail account?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, everything'll be redacted from defense lawyers and the public eye anyways, so whatever they don't find in there they can always simply add.

      But it'll all very very incriminating and we can be certain that he belongs in enhanced interrogation!

    4. Re:Why did they have a gmail account?! by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Well, everything'll be redacted from defense lawyers and the public eye anyways, so whatever they don't find in there they can always simply add.

      ..."and somehow rewrite the message hash in the header to conceal the fact that the message body has in fact been tampered with."

      Worn that t-shirt, matey. Pissed all over someone's claim that I had sent them messages (by proving, using the hashes, that they couldn't possibly have originated from my email account - without the need to access the account itself. In situ HMAC authentication failed every time).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    5. Re:Why did they have a gmail account?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Gmail has never been real email. It's always been a throwaway crap account. I sure as hell nobody use gmail as their real email account anyway...

  4. breathing is consent by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and exhaling is prohibited.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  5. US email provider for sensitive communications? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Unless you are General Patreaus and his mistress.

    Aren't there better providers in the EU that offer a bit more privacy? If you don't want to roll your own.

    1. Re:US email provider for sensitive communications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you send email to or from the US. ALL providers must allow the NSA access if they wish to do business with anyone in the US, whether or not the government gets a warrant and notifies the user, as in this case. And I'd bet that almost every provider in every country has some NSA access, whether or not they know it.

    2. Re:US email provider for sensitive communications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overseas providers are not legally bound by those sorts of directives.

      But regardless, if you want security, you need something that is secure end to end, i.e. use PGP on top of whatever service you choose. You can't rely on the mail provider to keep a secret.

  6. What's the news here? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    A guy got his metadata and mailbox transmitted to law enforcement under an official valid federal warrant. It happens everyday. Oh! Wait, this is Wikileaks guy and he is supposed to be above the law, he is supposed to be some kind of semi-god and untouchable by any regulation in any country around the world. What do the OP expect from the /. community? A revolution? He wants people to knock at the door of the White House to tell Obama to immediately stop harassement otherwise, otherwise what?

    I'm a bit tired of these "prima dona".

    If you don't want your stuff to be seized by US government, put it elsewhere where the US government has no juridiction.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
    1. Re:What's the news here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The news is that wikileaks was using gmail. That's shockingly bad for security on many levels.

    2. Re:What's the news here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a WikiLeaks employee has a Gmail account. That does not mean WikiLeaks is using Gmail. Are you really that dense?

      (philip.paradis posting AC at the moment)

    3. Re:What's the news here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS is exactly why my company stayed away from Office 365 and Gmail for our corporate email. If someone wants our email, they have to ask us for it which they very well can do but at least we would have a chance to argue the warrant and know before hand.
      Neither of the above services allow for you to manage your own encryption, are not required to inform you about breaches either proven or suspected, are not required to inform you about warrants and subpenas and from the pure technical side, they have no real useful SLA. We are a large old school law firm run by people that are not technical and even they see these issues as major flaws.

    4. Re:What's the news here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news is the government got an warrant this time.

    5. Re:What's the news here? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice rhetorical argument with yourself -- however, the issue from my point of view is Wikileaks is being targeted for being one of the last few "journalist' organizations. Corporate Media investigates it's holding companies and advertisers in the USA and they never find anything wrong. However, on sweeps week you will find out from Action News that there is a repairman who charges you for a new muffler but puts in an old one, and there are some government workers they caught napping.

      The real issue from my point of view is that Wikileaks is not being investigated for wrong-doing -- they are being investigated to find out who their sources are. It's supposed to be a Democratic Representative government here and that's impossible without an informed electorate -- so any group; CIA, NSA or Al Qaeda that wants to keep you from the truth and put out false information is against what America is supposed to be about.

      Wikileaks is not untouchable and above criticism, but they are one of the most important and precious things to America and the world right now, and the NSA and CIA look like the fascist dirt bags we were warned about. At every turn they prove why they should be mothballed. Keeping us safe from worse bad guys? Right. And next year the bad guys will get worse because they can't fight back against a drone. They attack what they can attack where it gets the most attention because we live in a world of asymmetrical warfare. Going head to head doesn't work. Protesting murders for marketshare doesn't work.

      We have Wikileaks because our news media dropped the ball, and we have terrorism because we don't listen to people who suffer.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    6. Re:What's the news here? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      And that's you who are saying about my post: "Nice rhetorical argument with yourself..." I still don't see in you argument where this guy is absolutely needed and if he believes he is so precious to the world, why in first place putting his stuff on Gmail where, he is supposed to be the first to know, it isn't safe?

      Perhaps it is time to make wikileaks leaking its own stuff to see?

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
  7. Why is this any different than a warrant for a wir by vpness · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Is it cuz the tap is for wiki leaks? If this is 'just' a warrant, why is this /. worthy?

  8. And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

    Or any Google product: they're in bed with the very government who's very clearly turned rogue against the US population, and they'll sell you out on request.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or any Google product: they're in bed with the very government who's very clearly turned rogue against the US population, and they'll sell you out on request.

      Google complied with a judge-signed warrant. Could you name a US organization that doesn't comply with warrants signed by US judges? If the judge signed a warrant for information from your bank or cell phone provider or landlord, you think they'd say no?

      What we do know is that Google fights warrants on user data in court before handing over the data. See the EFF's handy infographic.

      Now let me turn your comment on its head. You're a squeaky wheel who wants privacy, but you can't get it alone (except by disconnecting). Google can provide privacy, but it doesn't matter if they do if nobody uses their service. They are developing things that privacy-desiring users like yourself want, and therefore should be capturing the market of people like you, right? But instead, you've decided to stand against Google -- even though your beliefs are entirely aligned. What's up with that? Why are you fighting against the people who are fighting for privacy?

    2. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google can provide privacy

      But they don't. They violate your privacy themselves, even when they're not cooperating with the government.

      Why are you fighting against the people who are fighting for privacy?

      They aren't fighting for privacy in any meaningful sense. Occasionally they fight back as a PR move, but they've allowed all sorts of egregious privacy violations, and violate your privacy themselves.

    3. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Or any Google product: they're in bed with the very government who's very clearly turned rogue against the US population, and they'll sell you out on request.

      There have been a few anti-Google submissions lately, this one made it through. But you can't say Google didn't take their time:

      "The warrant was dated for execution by April 5, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,"

      Read Bing's privacy disclosure (or any other website for that matter) they will all tell you they will cooperate with law enforcement. This is for /. or Dice's

      "Please note that Dice reserves the right to disclose information submitted by or concerning any visitor or user as we reasonably feel is necessary to protect our systems or business. We may also disclose your personally identifiable information as required by law, such as to comply with a subpoena or other legal process, when we believe in good faith that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, protect your safety or the safety of others, investigate fraud, or respond to a government request. We cooperate with law enforcement agencies in identifying those who may be using our servers or Services for illegal activities. We also reserve the right to report any suspected illegal activity to law enforcement for investigation or prosecution, or to suspend or terminate your use of the Sites in connection with any suspected illegal or infringing activity or if you are in violation of our Terms of Use Agreement or other published guidelines."

      http://slashdotmedia.com/priva...

      Just do what you already know, don't post or e-mail anything you wouldn't want to read in a newspaper (or a select few that can do you harm).
      This includes snail mail, as once your name comes up all your world are belongs to U.S..

    4. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comeon. At least they are telling us about it. I've worked at companies where message boards got out of hand and some crazy person attacks someone spilling all their life secrets to their company and spouse (Affairs at work etc.) Very embarrassing and lawyers send a letter to you decide to fight it or comply, the government is no different and companies comply all the time!

    5. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you fucking kidding me? They got served a lawful warrant and spent 2.5yr to fight it and had to eventually comply. Look, you may prefer an anarchy where people can just get away with crimes, but I prefer the Bill of Rights:

      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.

      If that was followed - and it seems like it was - then what's the problem? Just because there's abuse going on doesn't mean that everything - or even a preponderance - is abuse.

        - Warrants are an important and useful tool for law enforcement to keep peace and order in a society, and need to be possible to execute when given lawfully.
        - Law enforcement (specifically the TLAs) has been abusing various methods of extracting information from individuals, companies, and networks.

      Both of these things can be true at the same time. That's what makes this, and most other matters of public policy, complicated. It is adolescent stupidity (or libertarianism, but I repeat myself) to think that we could just do away with the government's ability to execute a lawful warrant without severe repercussions. We can and should fight against their improper use, just as we can and should fight the improper use of the rest of our laws, but just like (most of) the rest of our laws they are there for a reason.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    6. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, with qualifications. Yes, USG is very probably not aligned with "your" interests as a US citizen, but that's based on a statistical assessment of who "you", dear reader, are likely to be. The Elder Races called it "divide et impera," dear white male Gentile-American pen friend.

      (Ceterum censeo Google esse delendam.)

    7. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google can provide privacy

      But they don't. They violate your privacy themselves, even when they're not cooperating with the government.

      Like when? Automatically marking incoming emails as spam? Unlike your credit card, hotel, etc., Google keeps any data they collect to themselves, which is better than everyone else. Because they offer a lot of services they may collect too much data for your taste, but there are all sort of things they are accused of doing but don't do, such as rigging Chrome to send data back to them, Google glass always recording, etc.

      The only cases I can find are a rogue employee using root powers to read someone's gmail (fired), and at a stretch you might be referring to PRISM. If you are, I have a lot to say on that subject.

      Why are you fighting against the people who are fighting for privacy?

      They aren't fighting for privacy in any meaningful sense. Occasionally they fight back as a PR move, but they've allowed all sorts of egregious privacy violations, and violate your privacy themselves.

      Fighting back falls in two categories: legal and technical. Note that we need to fight on both, but the bad guys can win on whichever is weaker. I'm not a lawyer. Google published this video. My attitude is that we should fix the technical issues and hope that the lawyers will also fix the legal issues. We know that the NSA chose to bypass legal process, so there must be at least some things they want but can't get.

      Google is working on end point security with Project zero, ChromeOS (secure boot + remote management), bug finding tools like afl and asan, etc. Google is working on transit security, they're upranking SSL sites, killing off SSL 3.0, killing off SHA-1, marking plain http as insecure, they invented and deployed Channel ID, Certificate pinning (which caught an intelligence agency they didn't know was attacking!). Their own networks were being snooped and they claim they now encrypt all traffic in and between data centers, but we only have their word on that. They also claim they were already planning to add encryption but reprioritized it when it was revealed that the NSA was already taking advantage of it. They're pushing for larger RSA keys, and for newer crypto entirely with features like forward secrecy. It could be argued that the newer crypto is more likely to have back doors, but as it stands there is no evidence that the NSA had any breakthrough technique for decrypting either new or old, they would just break into machines that have keys, or possibly factor smaller (1024 and less) RSA keys. Google deployed OTP and invented the U2F system which is better than OTP. As far as I'm aware, Google isn't doing much for DNS security (besides running Google DNS which has cache poisoning protection) or IP routing security (besides running Google Fiber), but perhaps they think those become irrelevant unless the attacker can also forge TLS keys.

      All of those are security issues, which are tightly intertwined with privacy in that if your security can be penetrated then you lose your privacy. They also created "incognito mode", a pure privacy feature with no security implication

    8. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative?

      I mean I could host my own email server but I am afraid I would probably be likely to turn my self in if I was issued a federal warrant for my own details.

      So please do tell me who would rather go to jail than hand over details of a client.

    9. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's all fine if you are a US citizen and believe that the current US judicial system is fair and reasonable. For anyone else, particularly foreigners who don't want to under US jurisdiction, avoid Gmail.

      I wonder if they got anything useful from this? Metadata, for sure, but you would hope that someone involved in Wikileaks would be using strong encryption.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they're in bed with the very government

      Yeah, nothing says "in bed" like a 2.5 year court battle, followed by immediately notifying the target.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:And that is why you shouldn't use Gmail by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Hard to argue with that advice - if you don't want to be subject to the laws of another jurisdiction, you should avoid that jurisdiction in general. It's like the bubblegum laws in Singapore - sure, you probably don't agree with it, but if you go there (or keep your bubble-gum there) you should expect to be bound by them.

      Google makes no secret of the fact that they are a US company and bound by US laws, though there is an industry-wide effort to convince the legal system that, for data they merely have custody of, the "jurisdiction" should be that of the user in question (see the current Microsoft case, with its numerous amicus curaie briefs)

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  9. Word of the day: "and" by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    WikiLeaks Claims Employee's Google Mail, Metadata Seized By US Government

    C'mon, it's the 21st century. Even newspapers have started not to write headlines like that any more.

    There's this great new word going around. It's called "and." Sometimes it's really good at replacing commas in headlines and makes them easier to parse and less ambiguous. Other useful words include "that" and "were."

    WikiLeaks Claims That Employee's Google Mail And Metadata Were Seized By US Government

    Capitalising Every Word Is Stupid Too.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. REAL warrant, by whom ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As time goes by, larger and larger portion of the government of the United States of America being infected and absorbed by the faction which favors fascism than liberty. Their aim is to turn the USA into a police state, under which each and every citizen must obey their instruction or else ...
     
    Under this circumstance, even if it is a REAL WARRANT it doesn't even matter anymore, for a judge can turned rogue and can be as rogue as those who dare to lie to the congress, who violate almost all the rules in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, who willingly throw away the very spirits that makes America great and turn it into a petty Ceausescu-like police regime

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: REAL warrant, by whom ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The United States has always favored fascism over liberty. Go do a little research on the history nobody talks about. I'm not talking conspiracy theories. I'm talking old photographs in Life magazine and the like of people in New York and other American cities giving the Nazi salute with great enthusiasm. This is actual history, the likes of which are never shown by the corporate media. Adolf Hitler and in particular Nazi ideas we're all in fashion in this country. So were eugenics and whole lot of other distasteful corporo-fascist ultra right wing ideas.

      Of course, when WW2 got going in earnest largely due to Hitler's self delusions that changed. Thanks in no small part to an absolutely massive propaganda campaign, the Nazis did fall out of favor in this country and of course we played no small part in their defeat (though contrary to American mythos, it was not a single-handed victory, as I'm sure the Russians would like to remind us) Finding an American Nazi supporter became just as rare as finding anybody who admitted voting for George W Bush by the time he left office, or for Barack Obama right now. Americans excel at self delusion after all, and as a people we never left inconvenient facts get in the way of our national illusions.

      This is a technologically advanced country populated by easily manipulated people who on average do not like to think and strongly distrust people who do. That is a very dangerous thing of almost unimaginable potential consequence.

    2. Re:REAL warrant, by whom ? by Livius · · Score: 2

      Once that would have been a good observation, but we're already past that point, and using a warrant is actually a step forward for a change.

  11. Re: Why is this any different than a warrant for a by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, it was 'just' a warrant that was served three days after Wikileaks' CIA dump. Because the government should be able to sieze journalists' email whenever they don't like a story if they can find some judge somewhere to sign. Jesus, people.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. April 2012? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Interesting

    According the fuzzy image of what appears to be some type of legal document that could have been produced with Word and was apparently filled out with a Sharpie, the event happened in 2012.

    Assenge must be desperate in that embassy to have pulled out the really damning stuff!

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:April 2012? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Funny to think that Assange could easily be a free man if he simply goes to Sweden and his defense shows that the allegations against him either do not constitute crimes, or do not meet the standards for conviction. I think Mr. Assange will be in that embassy for a very long time.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:April 2012? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Funny to think that Assange could easily be a free man if he simply goes to Sweden and his defense shows that the allegations against him either do not constitute crimes, or do not meet the standards for conviction.

      Clearly he does not think the case will go his direction. He might not get a sentence of jail time, but the Swedes would then expel him to his home country, where there are other legal issues pending. Perhaps he should have pulled a "Snowden" and headed for Russia or maybe some South American Communist / Socialist wonderland... His ego got in the way of clearly thinking this problem through.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  13. my opinion of wikileaks just went down by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    Seriously you work on WikiLeaks and you use an American based email provider? why not just CC them on everything you send and receive and save them the 10 seconds of effort.

  14. Re: Why is this any different than a warrant for a by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    Who the duck would class WikiLeaks as journalists? They may be many things, but I dont consider them to be journalists any more than a group of women gossiping over coffee could be considered journalists.

  15. Re: Why is this any different than a warrant for a by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    Exactly! Well said. For previous poster, they got a warrant, everything is legit. Everytime a warrant is granted you can say the same and for any reason. So, what then? You may consider the whole legal system is not trustworthy if you wish, on my part, I consider it is better than nothing and completely arbitrary seizures. There is a process which is accountable behind the action. He can try to prove the seizure is abusive or something like that if he wishes. It is better than having the law inforcement officiers to do whatever they want. There is legal records of their actions here.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  16. Re: Why is this any different than a warrant for a by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    depends if they got the warrant for legit/truthful reasons, though.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  17. Re: Why is this any different than a warrant for a by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    So in summary you are OK with foreign anti-American activists collaborating to steal whatever defense or intelligence information they can get their hands on, for any purpose they want, and they shouldn't even be investigated. Right.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  18. Re:Why is this any different than a warrant for a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Is it cuz the tap is for wiki leaks? If this is 'just' a warrant, why is this /. worthy?

    Because the keywords "Wikileaks", "Assange", and "Manning" are guaranteed to drive page hits, and by extension, ad revenue into Dice's electronic wallet. There's a large group of fanatics who will flock to these stories in droves, eager to White Knight for their favorite celebrity.
    Easy Pickings.

  19. Government had every right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The organization in question was posting classified information on the Internet. The US government has authority to investigate counter intelligence and lawfully obtained a court order for the information.

  20. Re: Why is this any different than a warrant for a by vpness · · Score: 1

    if you're replying to me (not sure from the /. nesting): - my point was that wiretap warrants are issued all the time - a quick google sez there were ~ 22K issued - so why was this one of interest? I was actually wondering what made this /. worthy. An AC posted that it dice acting just like huffpo, finding the buzzwords (wiki leaks) which'd appeal to the /. audience ----- My second point was, that like another poster, this one seems to be done the 'right' way - it's on the books for who did it, why, and can be challenged. Wiretaps, performed legally, *are* part of the law enforcement process.

  21. Re: Why is this any different than a warrant for a by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    No, the reply was to someone else. But I'll second your second point.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell