Justice Department Demands 1.3 Million IP Addresses Related To Anti-Trump Website (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In a blog post today, online web hosting provider DreamHost disclosed that it has been involved in a months-long legal battle with the Justice Department over records on visitors to an anti-Trump website. The dispute focuses on a Justice Department demand for information on data related to disruptj20.org, which describes itself as a group of activists "building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen." DreamHost is taking issue with a warrant issued by the department for "all files" related to the website, which DreamHost says would compel them to turn over electronic data like visitor logs. That would include IP addresses and other information that could be used to identify anyone who visited the site. "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," the company said in its blog post. The warrant, DreamHost argues, would also require it to hand over any communications that are even tangentially related to the website.

"In essence, the Search Warrant not only aims to identify the political dissidents of the current administration, but attempts to identify and understand what content each of these dissidents viewed on the website," the company said in a legal filing arguing against the warrant. A hearing on the situation is set for Friday in Washington, DC Superior Court.

Comments

And so it begins.....correction... continues

[sp4ni3l]

However: Would like a little bit more background here. Too much conspiracy theory going on now..

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

More background? Shut up you neo-nazi!!!

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the Mexicans, I did not say anything because I was a Republican.
Next they came for the Muslims, and I did not say anything because I was a Republican
Then they came for the Transgendered, and I did not say anything because I was a Republican...

How much more of this nonsense does any remaining GOP member need before they really understand the insanity they foisted on America.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not as much as you misrepresent and conflate.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[kyjellyfish]

Another example of the Trump administration's ineptitude. Nixon also had an "enemies list", but made an attempt to keep it covert.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, let me finish that for ya: "But her emails!"

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[CohibaVancouver]

How much more of this nonsense does any remaining GOP member need before they really understand the insanity they foisted on America.

The GOP members of congress aren't going to turn until the Trump-supporting voters in their districts turn.

Until then it's Heil Trump!

To these cowards, re-election is more important than anything else.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

If stopping moldylocks and the three bike locks is insanity, pad my room.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they only watch Fox, and since Fox won't report on this, there is certainly plenty more insanity to be had.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

But he literally said nothing about her emails? Ffs so bad at this.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled covfefe

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[LifesABeach]

Does DreamHost use Linux? Otherwise, why are we talking about the Lard Ass and Chief?

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[ChrisMaple]

First they came for the trespassers
Next they came for the mass murderers
Then they came for the mentally ill
FTFY.
To be clear, I do not support mistreating the mentally ill.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

You could not be more wrong here. I main reason I voted for Trump was to watch the socialist democrats piss themselves and every day you give me joy.

Not one of you cried when Obama overstepped his boundaries, waged secret wars, spied on Americans, allowed arms smuggling, weaponized the IRS/FCC/EPA/ATF/FBI against conservatives, interfered with other nations elections, pushed USA under "international law" etc etc etc.

Now that you get a taste of the pie, you decide you dont like it to much. Well too late. We are divided because that is what you wanted and now you have to live with it. Civil war is upon us and it was you progressive/socialist/democrats that brought us here.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[CohibaVancouver]

Yet everyone of you Trumpeter snowflakes post as Anonymous Cowards...

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that there's a concerted effort to get people who were seen at the Unite the Right rally fired, regardless of why they were there (remember, the rally was to save a historic monument from being erased), I'd say it's well warranted to remain anonymous. The violence coming from the left is terrifying and ought to be classified as terrorism. Like Trump said, there is violent hatred on many sides, and it should be condemned no matter where it's coming from, but for some reason, only white people are condemned.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[jimtheowl]

That the people inciting violence are the ones claiming to be victims of it is no surprise.

You have no honor.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a website named "Disrupt J20" that is hosted on Dreamhost. This website was used to plan and execute the violent riots in DC on January 20th. The prosecutor for DC obtained a search warrant, signed by a judge, for the website's database and everything dreamhost has on the owner of said website so that he can be criminally prosecuted. Dreamhost says that it could only do that by turning over all 1.3 million visitors and is refusing to comply with the warrant.

This is only Federal because everything in DC is federal. It's not "Trump's DoJ", it's the prosecuting attorney for DC.

This is no different than if a crime happened at a walmart and the prosecutor got a warrant for the security camera footage at the walmart. Lots of innocent people would be in that footage, but no one would be outraged about it.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[CohibaVancouver]

(remember, the rally was to save a historic monument from being erased)

Ah, so that's what those scumbags waving Nazi flags and chanting "Jews will not replace us" were trying to do.

Thanks for clarifying, Anonymous Coward.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Darinbob]

That's politics in a nutshell, for any party. Getting votes is more important than anything else, whether than be through pandering, gerrymandering, offering favors for campaing donations, etc. With the primary process that often means only pleasing 10% or less of the population in a district because it's all about getting past that hurdle.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Darinbob]

So you voted for entertainment purposes?

As for Obama, you need to listen more, as there were many complaints against him from across the political spectrum.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Slashdot's been getting hard with the Trump brigade. Check any article about letter agencies/WikiLeaks for the same handful of posters squawking loudest with the most braindamaged suggestions (still getting boosted by peer mod points though) in addition to the manufactured outrage over James Damore misusing company resources to spamvertise his alt-right manifesto/proselytize pseudoscientific hate to co-workers (while misrepresenting his own academic credentials.)

There's a real whiff of bullshit on this site, lots of it wafting over from Reddit methinks.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Darinbob]

Monument wasn't that historic. It was added less than 100 years ago. There were memorials added right after the war ended, but the majority of the larger monuments were added a generation or two later. The confederates lost the war, if there are to be memorials to the war dead then it should be for all soldiers with no emphasis on the losing side that was unambiguously on the wrong side of history.

i am a white male, and I condemn those racist bastards, neo nazis, KKK holdovers, white surpremacists, etc. The color of who's being condemned is utterly irrelevant. They are the ones condemning people on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or place of birth; I don't see any groups condemning whites as a race.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[KGIII]

Which side are you accusing of instigation? I seem to recall one side went armed to counter protest and punched some Nazis. I get it, Nazis suck. However, I'm not so sure they instigated anything, unless you want to say their protest was instigation. I'm pretty sure they're allowed to do that, even if they suck.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Falos]

That both sides are playing singing traditional victim songs is mild surprise.

To someone disinterested in this exchange in particular and more curious about the trends across iterations, it's an unusual sort of conflict. They're wars with battles that aren't determined by power or numbers, but appeal. You win an exchange by vilifying your opponent as the violent, uncivilized barbarian, not with weapons. Today's weapons are the words "rights, protected, freedom, defend" - no matter which side you're on. You all sound like the histogram of a lobbyist.

It's like a bunch of athletes rolling around, clutching their knee and making the most grotesque face possible, while their counterparts throw their hands back and shoot innocent faces at the referee. Clowns, all of you. Look at these posts. "You're not the victims, we are. We're not the violent ones, THEY are." Us-them thinking is psych101, tribal banding for simple minds, easily confused (into more screaming) by splinter groups and gray classes and everyone crowding under the same noble banner.

If either of you are worried about the state of the world, the future, society's blah blah blah maybe do something about the terrafoam we'll both be living in 50 years from now. This might as well be a pissing content. In another dimension.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

What about hitting people with bats you okay with that.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[networkBoy]

Debian (at least my box is)

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

You really do represent the insanity that is the new left/progressives. No one is persecuting any of those groups, the left wing media would have it airing 24/7 if that were the case. White males, christians, etc... those are being pretty actively silenced or at least feared into silence, but none of that other nonsense you're saying.

Did I miss the news where all those folks were rounded up and gassed?

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[ArmoredDragon]

Not only that, antifa likes to march around cities with assault rifles as a show of intimidation while the black bloc likes to block traffic and assault people on foot who are just trying to get to work. It's usually the ones that these groups label as racists and nazis who either cross those lines or help other people/vehicles cross those lines.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[ArmoredDragon]

The attitude that we're currently exhibiting on the south (I'm not of the south, btw) did not ultimately win the capitulation. When General Lee surrendered to General Grant, the confederates were allowed to keep their sidearms and horses and return home, without any charges of treason. When the Union soldiers began to cheer, Grant quickly hushed them up and said that the confederates were now their countrymen.

In other words, they were given respect and dignity. That is ultimately what mends fences, not destroying their landmarks (i.e. confederate soldier statue, Jefferson Davis statue) and banning their flag. If you do these things, then you're only going to provoke them needlessly. Will they lose another war? Yep, but we're just going to keep running into the same problem over and over again.

Confederate landmarks don't necessarily imply racism, rather for most of them it's a symbol of their heritage. But, if we continue to harass them over this, all you really do is give the racists more ammunition to draw more people to their side (vis-a-vis, my enemy of my enemy.)

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

The attitude that we're currently exhibiting on the south (I'm not of the south, btw) did not ultimately win the capitulation.

You're right. Beating them to a pulp did. And still they wanted to fight. Grant should have taken a page from Scipio instead.

When General Lee surrendered to General Grant, the confederates were allowed to keep their sidearms and horses and return home, without any charges of treason. When the Union soldiers began to cheer, Grant quickly hushed them up and said that the confederates were now their countrymen.

More fool he, but then, it showed in his presidency. Not to mention the election immediately after. You know, the one where they let unlawful white southern governments take power and oppress the freed black population.

In other words, they were given respect and dignity. That is ultimately what mends fences, not destroying their landmarks (i.e. confederate soldier statue, Jefferson Davis statue) and banning their flag.

Respect and dignity lead to decades of segregation, oppressive government, and subversion of democracy. We don't want to mend fences, the fences are what lead to the war, they need to be torn down.

For decades, statues have been openly erected to traitors and murderers, with express declarations that doing so was to endorse white supremacy.

Just because it is covered by another plaque doesn't mean it was never there.

If you do these things, then you're only going to provoke them needlessly. Will they lose another war? Yep, but we're just going to keep running into the same problem over and over again.

But ArmoredDragon, they are still a problem, so your method is a demonstrated failure.

Confederate landmarks don't necessarily imply racism, rather for most of them it's a symbol of their heritage.

Yes, a heritage of racism, bigotry, and lying about it as they make themselves the persecuted martyrs. Some glory there.

But, if we continue to harass them over this, all you really do is give the racists more ammunition to draw more people to their side (vis-a-vis, my enemy of my enemy.)

Please, these folks manufacture complaints out of complete fabrications. See the birther movement. See the Affordable Care Act. See Jade Dragon. See Whitewater. See Monica Lewinsky. See the Scopes trial. See the Lost Cause. See their own Declaration of Secession, see the assault on Senator Sumner, see the Nullification Crisis.

Harass them? Tell them to fucking stop being a blight on the rest of the country.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Darinbob]

They've been taught this is just heritage. Historically this is not true. Heritage came about later as a response to reconstruction and as a way to redeem their ancestors. Slavery was the primary reason for the war, and no amount of revisionism changes that. The North wanted to preserve the union as their main reason, but the South wanted to preserve slavery. It was not because of tariffs, and the only states rights they wanted was the right to own slaves. If there were no slaves then the civil war would never have taken place.

The leaders of the confederacy did not talk about preserving their heritage but about preserving the system of slavery. The vice president of the confederacy, Alexander Stephens, gave a speech that the immediate cause of secession was the issue of slavery. Further, he stated,

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

Not every soldier necessarily supported the slave system. But not every soldier fighting for Germany in WWII was a Nazi either, but in Germany you don't see statues of their WWII generals (Japan is a different story). If someone wanted to memorialize the confederate war dead then they can find a way to do that without glorifying evil men like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Note that some of these landmarks were erected bore plaques that made clear that these weren't just for heritage, but for celebrating white supremacy. In New Orlean's Libertay Place the original plaque read in part, "... national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South ..."

The main cause of the current state in the South I believe was the terrible reconstruction. Against the wishes of Lincoln and in defiance of Johnson as successor, the Union engaged in a lot of repression in the south. So instead of re-unifying the country it entrenched the divisions and let resentment fester.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that there's a concerted effort to get people who were seen at the Unite the Right rally fired, regardless of why they were there (remember, the rally was to save a historic monument from being erased), I'd say it's well warranted to remain anonymous. The violence coming from the left is terrifying and ought to be classified as terrorism. Like Trump said, there is violent hatred on many sides, and it should be condemned no matter where it's coming from, but for some reason, only white people are condemned.

the people at the rally are being outed, if their employer wants to keep them they are welcome to do so but they do so at the risk of their own business - the 1st amendment protects you from retribution by the government but it doesn't give anyone carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences, that is what five year olds think when they say it's a free country on the playground - it isn't the way the world works. If you present yourself publicly in a protest like that it is just as fair that you are outed as it was when they outed people in the 60s and 70s at protests and rallies - though they were proud to be shown for their views.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, we should not erase history. Civil war monuments should be removed from places of honor in the public squares and placed in museums. Next to each one should be a large brass plaque which says:
"This is a monument of the American Civil War which was started by members of the Democratic party in an effort to support the institution of slavery. It was erected by members of that same party in the post war period when they were attempting to subvert the Thirteenth Amendment through the use of Jim Crow laws. We must never forget."

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[jimtheowl]

Your recollection is dubious at best, but most likely made up.

If you are not sure they instigated anything, you may want to look up the meaning of the word before using it.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[ebvwfbw]

Heil Trump? You mean Heil Soros. He's a major player behind all of this and he's a genuine, proud Nazi. He even says so. Look him up sometime. If you support the left, you're a nazi too. Another brown shirt and a useful idiot of his. Can't say nazi without saying socialist.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[CohibaVancouver]

> You mean Heil Soros

*George* Soros? _That_ Soros? Are you drunk?

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[KGIII]

No, they punched Nazis. Unless there's faked videos. They also had weapons.

I get it - Nazis suck. However, if you go to counter-protest AND bring weapons, I'm not sure you aren't instigating.

To wit, they had bats, rebar, pipes, and chains - out and ready. You can tell when you watch the video of the Nazi smashing into people. They immediately attack the car. It's not a video game, they didn't just pick up all those weapons on the street. They were brandishing them and brought them with them.

Yeah, Nazis suck. However, let's stick with reality.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[jimtheowl]

Oh! "The" video. I didn't know you were talking about "The" video. That changes everything.

I have no idea why you would think that I can just guess which video you are referring to. It also doesn't have to be fake to start showing it wherever most convenient. Did you miss the video where somebody didn't just get punched, but died? Does that not register in your reality?

The goal of white supremacists is to start a race war. They are trying their best to get punched in the face so that people like you can go "They punched Nazis! They punched Nazis!". This is their motivation for instigating violence, a word you used first but don't seem to understand.

Finally, "Nazis suck" is the one of the worse understatements ever.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[KGIII]

Indeed, I watched the entire uploaded version - and several others - of the event where the lady died. There's a whole slew of them. I know you know where Google is. You can see the lady die, if you want. The interesting part is that the dude's car was set upon with weapons before even coming to a stop.

I'm not a fan of Nazis. I'm a fan of reality. Nazis suck. Reality tends to suck, as well.

Re: And so it begins.....correction... continues

[jimtheowl]

"was set upon with weapons before even coming to a stop."

I have no idea what you are saying. The only effective weapon was the car.

If you can't provide a specific link I say you are full of shit.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, it is about time the FBI moves to identify and prosecute those responsible for the coordinating the mass destruction of public and private property, injury to persons peacefully assembling to speak out against the President and general federal policies. All parties have a right to be heard. Not just the violent, intimidating left-wing fascists. It is very apparent that this is a coordinated effort of the left, often encouraged by senior political leaders of the Democratic party, and overlooked by a bias media that dramatizes this lawlessness.

Re:And so it begins.....correction... continues

[Anonymous Coward]

I see it states that I am anonymous coward for speaking out about this continuing crime. You never ask for an identity. Then again, is not cowardly that these persons doing these crimes so where masks to obscure their identity. Where is the courage there?

Fishing expidition...

[wbr1]

On its face this warrant seems overly broad. If you are looking for bad actors who actually threatened or cause physical harm/disruption - then use regular police work to fid that out.

Simply sniffing out all who disagree with the current administration (raises hand), and would protest it (raises other hand), stinks of police state tactics.
Now, why are both my hands in the air again?

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

DJ Jazzy Jeff explained why quite well back in the fresh prince of bel air days.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, why are both my hands in the air again?

So you don't get shot.

Re: Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, why are both my hands in the air again?"

Apparently because you are more comfortable with an incompetent president who reads (TelePrompTer left) speeches (TelePrompTer right) with such passion that you get a tingle up your leg?

Re: Fishing expidition...

[Opportunist]

Just as back with Clinton and Bush where I preferred a prez that got blowjobs to one that really needed some direly, I can't help but say I prefer a prez that lets someone write his texts to one that really should.

Re: Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as back with Clinton and Bush where I preferred a prez that got blowjobs to one that really needed some direly, I can't help but say I prefer a prez that lets someone write his texts to one that really should.

hey opportunist... you are pretty dumb aren't you?? reddit trolls 4 45 amirite? Dumbasses.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Mashiki]

On its face this warrant seems overly broad. If you are looking for bad actors who actually threatened or cause physical harm/disruption - then use regular police work to fid that out.

They did, that's why 230+ people were arrested with felony rioting. They want the info of the website, because those people are linked directly to it and that's where they planned what they did. At the point of repeating myself, this is no different then if someone had been operating a server with child porn. They'd also want all the information relating to it and of course most people wouldn't have a problem with that either.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stinks? It is most certainly is a police state tactic.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Appeal to child porn. You lost all credibility.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see this as being a fishing expedition. There's a DisruptJ20 facebook group that had some conversations going on about what they were going to do on the day of the inauguration. Some of the things people claimed they were going to do I saw actually happened. With multiple people talking about it, that brings it up to a conspiracy level.

I don't know if the website has anything to do with the facebook group I saw; however, all you need is a similar name and FBI is going to be all over that.

I lurked in the group for awhile but eventually left it because I considered it too much of a risk. My thinking was that if some of the more extreme members did what they said they were going to do, it would start a pretty massive hunt for people that may have been part of the conspiracy. When you take that with a commander in chief that is all about conspiracy and paranoia, that's a bad combination.

So yeah, while I may be opposed to the russian property we have as president, I expect this to go badly for a number of people...

Re:Fishing expidition...

[FooAtWFU]

On its face this warrant seems overly broad.

Well, yes, but this is perfectly normal - like oh-so-much else that is wrong with this administration.

There are men who have been not just in prison, but in solitary confinement, for decades. There's a citizen who have been detained by ICE, imprisoned for three years without a lawyer, won $80k in damages, and just had the award thrown out on appeal because the statute of limitations on the "false imprisonment" charge expired while he was imprisoned. Last year there was a man in Florida locked in a shower with the hot water running until he died.

All of this is normal. All of this predates Trump. I mean, it's great that you're paying attention now, and all, but do try to look beyond Mr. Trump, beyond the outrage du jour, and even beyond the groups who will call you racist if you should question their demands for reparations.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Mashiki]

Appeal to child porn. You lost all credibility.

Apparently you can't read, see that "at the point of repeating myself." That really isn't my problem, or that you didn't continue reading the rest of the posts.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

I must have missed the part where disagreeing with the government was made illegal. Oh, right, it hasn't been. So if a few people discuss criminal activity on Facebook, you have no problem with the government demanding all of Facebook's server data on all of its users, right? Why not have every site hand over all of its data on everyone while you're at it, you never know who's up to no good. For the children.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, why are both my hands in the air again?

So you get a blurb on the news when you're shot by the police?

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this is normal. All of this predates Trump. I mean, it's great that you're paying attention now, and all, but do try to look beyond Mr. Trump, beyond the outrage du jour, and even beyond the groups who will call you racist if you should question their demands for reparations.

The average black person in America has it much better than most black people in Africa.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazis were leftists. Republicans freed the salves. That site is propaganda not anti anything except maybe anti-truth.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[BlueStrat]

On its face this warrant seems overly broad.

Well, yes, but this is perfectly normal - like oh-so-much else that is wrong with this administration.

Yes, it's not like Obama ever used the legal system and other Federal agencies, departments, etc in even more blatantly unconstitutional and illegal ways to attack his & the Progressive's perceived political/ideological enemies...oh, wait...

You dumbasses were cheering Obama & the Feds on while he and they abused government & presidential powers to attack conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else who criticized the administration or DNC and never gave a thought to how a Republican POTUS and administration might use those same expanded powers, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly there's a problem.

Strat

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

On its face this warrant seems overly broad. If you are looking for bad actors who actually threatened or cause physical harm/disruption - then use regular police work to fid that out.

This IS regular police work. The DOJ has a warrant which is properly issued in an effort to investigate obviously criminal activity on January 20th and beyond. Some of the violence and rioting that took place was criminal activity (felony level activity) so the DOJ is now looking into possible conspiracy to commit these crimes, which is ALSO a violation of law.

Simply sniffing out all who disagree with the current administration (raises hand), and would protest it (raises other hand), stinks of police state tactics. Now, why are both my hands in the air again?

This is totally mischaracterization of what's happening. This is NOT a politically motivated investigation at all, but a criminal inquiry into actual crimes. We already have people charged in these cases and the DOJ is doing it's job like it should. Your implication that this is a politically motivated investigation is not really valid given the evidence we have. This is not an issue of free speech, but an investigation into obvious crimes.

Of course you might think that destruction of property, inciting riots, assault and conspiracy to commit these things should be allowed under the 1st Amendment, but you'd be totally wrong. I understand your confusion though, given the last administration's failure to deal with these kinds of crimes for obvious political reasons.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

Disagreeing with government is NOT illegal... Felony rioting, destruction of property and conspiracy to do the afore mentioned crimes IS illegal. This is not about disagreeing with the government and protesting, this is about committing crimes while protesting.

Protest all you like, just don't break windows or torch cars and buildings in the process... OK?

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but child porn is illegal; protesting is not. Organizing protests is not. Side with the CP actors if you like, that's totally your prerogative, but let's not pretend that they're the same thing.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Junta]

Now, why are both my hands in the air again?

Like you just don't care?

I don't want to know how you are typing with both your hands in the air.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[sycodon]

Rioting, property damage, assaulting...that is illegal.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, why are both my hands in the air again?

Like you just don't care?

I don't want to know how you are typing with both your hands in the air.

With my prehensile tail, you insensitive clod!

Re:Fishing expidition...

[MickyTheIdiot]

Conflating people who show up for peaceful protest and people who are attracted to those protests to riot isn't illegal, but it is stupid.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Archangel Michael]

Felony rioting, destruction of property and conspiracy to do the afore mentioned crimes IS illegal.

Rioting in the name of socialism is okay, Existing as a White Supremacist / Nazi isn't. And since everyone that agrees with Trump or opposes socialism is a Nazi, it is okay to riot. RESIST!!!

Re:Fishing expidition...

[whoever57]

That was a disgusting decision which I predict will have bad consequences for future prosecution of criminals. It was short-sighted for the government to push that argument.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's not like Obama ever used the legal system and other Federal agencies, departments, etc in even more blatantly unconstitutional and illegal ways to attack his & the Progressive's perceived political/ideological enemies...oh, wait...

If he did, why didn't the Republican Congress ever manage to impeach him over it? Why didn't they even investigate any of these alleged (though unidentified) actions? All we got was phony complaints about a report on right-wing extremism, a failed investigation into the IRS that found nothing and the rampant Birtherism. Oh, and a pointless lawsuit over the exchanges.

I suppose you could complain about being naive, but that's small potatoes compared to real problems in the prior administration.

You dumbasses were cheering Obama & the Feds on while he and they abused government & presidential powers to attack conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else who criticized the administration or DNC and never gave a thought to how a Republican POTUS and administration might use those same expanded powers, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly there's a problem.

Actually, it's you who is the dumbass, who cheered on fraudulent accusations about Obama abusing the government and attacking conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else you could identify, and spent 8 years screaming over the Affordable Care Act, denouncing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (that Bush started under false pretenses), and never gave a thought to what would actually constitute governance if the shoe ever got on the other food.

Now it's you, Strat, who has the problem, because you're still stuck on railing over Obama, and can't change your tune, for some reason, perhaps a blind partisan bias, even as Trumpcare is tried to force through without public discourse, even as Trump's reckless Muslim Ban strands people in airports, even as Trump's jackbooted goons kickdown doors of anybody who opposes him, even as Trump buddies up with his pal Putin, even as Trump fails to even give a token nod to opposing bigotry and racism by the White Nationalist Supremacists who he is conspicuously told voted him into office.

What will you do...Oh wait, you'll double down and repeat your errors. Here's a clue, Blue, you need to deal with the man in the Oval Office, every pointless recrimination you make about Obama might as well be met with your own response to critiques about Bush when Obama was in office.

Re: Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should arrest the people who did it then. What's that? They already did? Ok. Carry on with your bullshit arguments.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[ChrisMaple]

The people who organize the sorts of protests that devolve into riots either know that violence will result or should know. One option is evil, the other is stupid. Both are characteristic of the left.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine make the warrant for specific bad actors if that is your true purpose. Making the warrant overly broad and sweeping up the info of people performing their legal rights is not ok.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Rick Schumann]

By now Trump has demonstrated repeatedly and clearly that he thinks the Constitution and the law doesn't apply to him because he sits in the Oval Office. Consider this move in conjuction with wanting ALL the voter records of people who voted against him. If no one was around to rein him in we'd be living in a full-on dictatorship.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[ChrisMaple]

Given the US history of failed impeachments of clearly guilty presidents (Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton) and the cowardice and lack of political savvy of Republican leadership, the failure to attempt impeachment was no surprise.

Re: Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop injecting facts into the conversation.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[ChrisMaple]

Now, why are both my hands in the air again?

It's well know that extreme leftists don't bathe. You're venting your stinky armpits.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[MickyTheIdiot]

So your solution seems to be shut up and know your place. THAT is typical of the right.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[stabiesoft]

This is NOT regular police work. Did you even read the summary. 1.3 MILLION record. I'll bet you were screaming bloody murder when the RIAA went after crap like this as you should have. This is east germany crazy level snooping. And given Trump seems to have a thing for nazi groups, maybe it makes sense he would want to do this.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[s122604]

If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about

Re:Fishing expidition...

[asylumx]

Voice recognition.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not about disagreeing with the government and protesting, this is about committing crimes while protesting.

Then why isn't the warrant limited to information relevant to the commission of crimes while protesting? Your claim is not supported by the facts of the case, this is about a lot more than just the people involved in crimes. Criminals should be brought to justice, no matter what their political affiliation. I have no sympathy for anyone who engages in violence or destruction of property while at a protest. But I also don't like the idea of legitimate protesters being punished for daring to oppose the ruling faction.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

I read the summary.... A WARRANT was issued, this means some judge has signed off that there is probable cause necessary for the request.

This is obviously a law enforcement activity that is going by the rules, not a political witch hunt by the DOJ. It is obvious they are investigating crimes as some of those crimes where on broadcast and cable TV for days.

So, are you claiming the warrant was improperly approved by the judge? If so, how's that make this a politically motivated..

Your Trump supports the Nazi's tripe is a bald faced lie trumped up by the left. It speaks to the desperation of the left when they resort to such ridiculous name calling. Such bellowing rhetoric might keep the left ginned up in their anti Trump fervor, but it's starting to become ineffective. Remember Chicken Little and Peter both end up in trouble because they raised alarm too often so when the real danger arrives, nobody believes them anymore.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about using the phrase, "at the point of repeating myself" negates your bullshit kiddie porn analogy? AC called you out on your shit and, correctly, pointed out that you threw away your credibility by knee-jerking to child porn.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[sexconker]

Rioting, violence, and vandalism are illegal. So is conspiring to do those things.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let go of the past, what do we do about the current administration.

You want to keep rehashing it until everyone agrees O was an ahole.
Pretend we all agree (although we should agree to disagree on some parts of your screed). Lets also pretend two wrongs don't make a right. Fine then, lets come together and figure out how to do things right.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

This IS regular police work.

Yes, the police regularly seek overbroad and general warrants, in order to conduct fishing expeditions and draw a large net.

This is not news.

This is NOT a politically motivated investigation at all, but a criminal inquiry into actual crimes.

Yet we don't believe that. I wonder why.

We already have people charged in these cases and the DOJ is doing it's job like it should.

Are they now? We've already documented that the DOJ doesn't always do its job like it should. Has there been an investigation to certify that the DOJ is not misbehaving? Have the numerous complaints made about the handling of the protests been examined?

Your implication that this is a politically motivated investigation is not really valid given the evidence we have. This is not an issue of free speech, but an investigation into obvious crimes.

The crimes aren't obvious, but instead exaggerated hysteria meant to incite panic and outrage while ignoring reality. I've seen worse damage after a sports team loses.

Of course you might think that destruction of property, inciting riots, assault and conspiracy to commit these things should be allowed under the 1st Amendment, but you'd be totally wrong.

Perhaps not. The 1st amendment is rather limited in scope. They are, however, allowed, even required, under the principles of this country. Said rights, of course, being expressed in a variety of forms, and explicitly so in several state constitutions. And given that the US Constitution contains the 10th Amendment, it can hardly be said to be exhaustive in listing the rights of the people.

Given that this sentiment is long-standing, one can hardly expect it to be excluded. But I suspect that you, would instead mindlessly prefer to declare an allegiance to the law, over the rightful. That is sad.

I understand your confusion though, given the last administration's failure to deal with these kinds of crimes for obvious political reasons.

Yes, they were impeded from stopping the Bundy Ranch rioters, and the Malfeur occupiers, because it would have looked bad politically. On the other hand, they were also smart enough to recognize that.

Trump's a dumbass though, and will likely pull a Chicago Seven prosecution.

Apparently he's never cracked a history book to learn the value of conciliation.

He had a chance, he's had numerous chances. He keeps blowing them. Trumpcare. Muslim Ban. The recent events in Virginia.

Are his advisers incompetent, or does he just not listen? Perhaps both.

Re: Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are a partisan hack. How does it feel to be associated with nazis and racist? See I can play this game too. Fucking faggot.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the US history of failed impeachments of clearly guilty presidents (Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton) and the cowardice and lack of political savvy of Republican leadership, the failure to attempt impeachment was no surprise.

Actually, given the history of political aggrandizement by the Republican leadership(Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), the recklessness and lack of integrity of Republican leadership, the failure to attempt impeachment was actually a surprise

I guess seven dozen ACA repeals was easier for them.

Re: Fishing expidition...

[HornWumpus]

And now they arrest the people that conspired with them. Conspiracy laws are a bitch. Felonies spread like Herpes.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[stabiesoft]

You need to watch rump more carefully. It took him literally minutes to tweet about the execs walking away from his council. It took him two days to give a watered down wink wink the media is making me do it condemnation of the the nazis. And don't forget he started that press conference with I'm wonderful b/c the economy is doing well. He knows the only people left supporting him are the white supremists. Maybe you should think about that as you post.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[desdinova 216]

I think child porn is becoming the new Godwin.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how difficult do you think it is for the DOJ to pick a judge to sign off on a warrant?

You think the Frickin Department Of Frickin Justice doesn't know who's the ethical and unethical ones in its own workforce?

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

Ah... Yes... The false association of the crazy Nazi types to Trump who condemns them... Right..

You do understand that you are inventing this relationship between Trump and these idiots out of thin air right? This whole story line was invented to dupe folks who were already pre-disposed to despise Trump into hating him for yet another reason. It's made up.

Of course you won't agree, because you don't want to actually consider the facts. The FACT that Trump condemned ALL radical groups, racists, hate and violence the very day this happened. All you know is that he didn't name specific groups and you think that implies he supports the groups he didn't name, when clearly this is NOT true. Go look at what he actually said, parse it and tell me the lie again...

Re:Fishing expidition...

[stabiesoft]

You need to look a yourself, sorry. The judge who signed off on the warrant retired 25 years ago. Think DOJ didn't shop that one? Further, you clearly do not understand the appeals process. Dream will appeal and likely prevail. It is the way the system works here. And oh did you see trump in full display protecting the KKK today? I did look at what he said, and so did the KKK, they praised it. You need to take off the trump blinders. This is my last post so feel free to have the last word.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

No, what I heard was Trump saying that violence and hate in this case was a two way street... And it was. Surely you see that there are those on the left who have been pretty violent recently, protesting election results by riots (complete with property damage and violence) or those who would prevent conservative speakers from speaking at colleges (Remember Berkley this spring?). The left is not immune to provoking violence, certainly since Trump was elected they have been pretty hateful and violent at times. Trump was calling BOTH sides out, not running interference for one or the other.

Of course, this doesn't fit with your "Trump Bad" narrative so you won't believe that either. You simply have to grasp at straws and try and paint Trump as bad by associating him with bad actors. It's a logical fallacy called guilt by association, only in this case, there is no association. Again, I suggest you listen directly to what Trump said, not how the reporters spin it.

Re: Fishing expidition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. If you are a nazi or white supremacist you aren't allowed to exist. Glad you understand.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[BlueStrat]

Actually, given the history of political aggrandizement by the Republican leadership(Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), the recklessness and lack of integrity of Republican leadership, the failure to attempt impeachment was actually a surprise

I guess seven dozen ACA repeals was easier for them.

It's the "uniparty" effect that happens when you have only two major viable political parties sharing power over a long period of time. The longer this situation exists, the more the two parties will begin to stop fighting each other (in private) and begin to work together to secure them both more power, wealth, and control at the cost of the citizenry. After all, all politicians are thieves, scoundrels, and tyrants at heart. It pays to never forget that, no matter what they say or promise.

Strat

Re:Fishing expidition...

[dywolf]

Nazis were leftists. Republicans freed the salves. That site is propaganda not anti anything except maybe anti-truth.

-No, they weren't.
-Republican ... LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES ...

Re:Fishing expidition...

[sabbede]

Depends on what they're investigating and why. I'm not seeing any specifics, just guesses and assumptions.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[david_thornley]

Could we get a definite condemnation from Trump? The one he did was two days late, after earlier talk, and it was walked back with the approval of white supremacists, which apparently include fine people, according to Trump.

Is it that hard to say that Nazis are bad?

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

HE SAID THAT... Multiple times now...

He said, during the initial confusion following the event, that he condemned all groups, racists and violence.... Which may not have mentioned them BY NAME but sure included them by ideology. So that wasn't enough for you? OK....

A couple of days later he condemned them BY NAME, just so there was no question what he was saying initially condemned the proper groups.. However, even that is NOT enough for you? What do you want from him now? Who knows.

Can we just conclude that there is nothing he can say or do that will satisfy you, past, present or in the future? Because that's what I'm seeing here.

You don't have to like Trump, but can we at least be honest about what he said? No? Fine, keep the blue partisan KoolAid flowing, just admit you won't be satisfied, ever, regardless of what Trump says or does because he's Trump...

Re:Fishing expidition...

[david_thornley]

How about "Nazis are bad" or something like that? It was a Nazi or Nazi wannabe that murdered the woman. There are also no fine individuals who are active Nazis.

All he had to do was condemn white supremacist and/or Nazi violence, and let it sit there. He couldn't do that.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

Again.. HE SAID THAT!

PLEASE stop listening to the reporting on this and listen to his fist and second statements on this. You will find that he CLEARLY did what you asked.

OR are you complaining because he condemned *other* groups too? Such as some radical violent groups from the left (Black Lives Matter comes to mind here). Groups which ARE provably violent yet you agree with so you don't want them condemned... In which case, you are a hypocrite, or worse, willfully ignorant of the truth....

Re:Fishing expidition...

[david_thornley]

How about his third statement. Can I listen to that also? The one where he said there were fine individuals on both sides?

I'm cool with condemning most violent groups outside of those that have good social reasons to be violent, such as the armed forces and (sometimes) police officers. I disapprove of Antifa for their use of violence.

Re:Fishing expidition...

[bobbied]

IF you listen to the whole thing and not just sound bites and give him the benefit of the doubt, sure.

He obviously condemned all people acting violently at this event. Also, the "sides" here are not the Nazis and the other folks there, but those who where protesting to keep the statutes and those who where protesting for them to be removed. Again, the media is oversimplifying this event, pressing it into a narrative that suits their purpose and gives the wrong impression to the casual listener, making this into a some huge deal where Trump is propping up the Nazis. He's not, unless you are predisposed to believe the worst about him and are willing to ignore the whole of what he's said to pick apart a small section, take it out of context and spin it to bash Trump...

Here's one address

[Anonymous Coward]

You should start with 127.0.0.1. They're the worst.

Re:Here's one address

[Anonymous Coward]

If he wants anti-trump guys, send IP address request to slashdot also. This site is full of anti-trumpites.

George Soros me thinks

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy again?

https://www.rt.com/business/399645-soros-stock-market-bet-trump/

And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

And what's missing from the summary? That, the site in question was used by the people who rioted in Washington, DC. (or this link for those that get upset because 'fox') That those 230 people were tied in some way to the disruptj20 site, according to the requested info which the verge happily leaves out. You can find it easily enough with a search.

But it seems like they want all the info, which isn't a surprise. After all, this is relating to felony rioting. And it wouldn't surprise me if it has something to do with the other idiots that wanted to use a chemical attack at several other events in the DC area.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Kierthos]

Were there 1.3 million rioters?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

So then, the DoJ should also go after all the site, and people on those sites, that Fields, or whatever the guy's name is, who used his car as weapon of mass destruction as well. I'm assuming you have no problem with that as well, right? Guilt by association? Though-crime even?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

Were there 1.3 million rioters?

Nope. But that doesn't mean when you're filing for a warrant with a site that's involved in criminal activity such as "organizing a riot" that you use a narrow scope. The broadness isn't beyond the reasonable scope considering the number of people and felonies. In fact, the broadness of what they're asking for isn't any different then if someone had operated a server which was hosting child porn. They'd want exactly the same thing, and I can bet that nearly every single person here would have no problems with it.

But this is the whole point of why it's before and being argued before the court. And I'll bet a shiny $0.01(before we got rid of them), that the reason that most people will be against this is "because Trump" and "because not child porn."

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Opportunist]

So it's finally confirmed, it was not fake news? There were more protesters than visitors at the inauguration?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

So then, the DoJ should also go after all the site, and people on those sites, that Fields, or whatever the guy's name is, who used his car as weapon of mass destruction as well. I'm assuming you have no problem with that as well, right? Guilt by association? Though-crime even?

So you've got proof that this guy engaged in a premeditated act? No? See that difference right there. They went to DC with the purpose of doing what they did, that's the fundamental difference between the two. This isn't rocket surgery by any stretch.

Then again, to shift gears into the "guilt by association" bit, after the 2 terrorist attacks in Canada, several muslim groups came out saying that all mosques should be under 24hr surveillance. That was really fun to watch as the left up here turned themselves into pretzels over.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[cryptizard]

But wait... weren't you just defending nazis right to free speech and telling me that saying you were going to do stuff on the internet was not the same as actually doing it? Whoops.

To be clear, I'm going to be 100% morally consistent (unlike you) in my viewpoint because I don't think that the visitors to the Daily Stormer should be given up, just that their website be taken down. Same thing here, if the site was used to incite criminal activity it should be taken down.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

But wait... weren't you just defending nazis right to free speech and telling me that saying you were going to do stuff on the internet was not the same as actually doing it? Whoops. To be clear, I'm going to be 100% morally consistent (unlike you) in my viewpoint because I don't think that the visitors to the Daily Stormer should be given up, just that their website be taken down. Same thing here, if the site was used to incite criminal activity it should be taken down.

To be clear, I am being morally consistent. Those nazi's do have the right to free speech. I however didn't say that "were going to do stuff on the internet was not the same as actually doing it?" You don't seem to get the difference here either.

So with being morally consistent still: There's no case for any info from the daily stormer because there's no evidence of a crime having been committed from that website. Their only claim to fame, has been publishing something that was tasteless and hurt peoples feelings. The disruptj20 site however was being used to incite criminal activity, and that's why they want the info.

This isn't hard to figure out.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Kierthos]

They're seeking the visitor logs. Did everyone who visited the site commit a crime? We're not talking about a site that is, in and of itself, hosting illegal content (such as child porn). We're not talking about a search warrant that is limited to finding information about the people who were arrested in D.C.

The search warrant is overly broad. Any sensible judge should either disallow the search warrant or order it to be limited to those who were arrested for rioting/vandalism during Trump's inauguration.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[jbengt]

But that doesn't mean when you're filing for a warrant with a site that's involved in criminal activity such as "organizing a riot" that you use a narrow scope.

"Narrow scope" (defined & specific) is one of the legal requirements for a valid search warrant.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

The search warrant is overly broad. Any sensible judge should either disallow the search warrant or order it to be limited to those who were arrested for rioting/vandalism during Trump's inauguration.

Nope. See this is the part people forget about when investigations are happening. They like have video or photographic evidence of other parties being involved in other crimes. Some of the people charged with felony rioting like are trying to cop a plea to a lower amount then "upto 10 years in prison." So they've spilled the beans on where they organized, and other people they went with/traveled with/did shit with. That means it's actually in scope of the warrant, because they have other known parties with faces. But are unable to put names to those faces.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Required Snark]

Neo-Nazi much?

I should restate that: as an obvious Trump troll, you can come out of the closet and just be a real Nazi now.

So by your logic, all the web sites associated with the alt-right should get a similar order because there was an actual terrorist attack here in the US where someone was killed and a bunch of people got hurt. That is a much bigger crime then a riot.

What are the chances of that happening? ::Sound of crickets::

I can't help but wonder. If there was a collection of data on alt-right/Nazi sites, would you be on that list?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

And what he's saying is consistent. No where did he advocate that everyone who visited the site be prosecuted. What they're looking for is everyone who conspired to commit a felony. If you simply visited it, I doubt any action will be taken against you. If you helped them plan, well, conspiracy to commit a crime is a criminal act and has been for a very long time.

You see, the thing with the Daily Stormer is, as of yet there has been no conspiracy to commit crimes involving them. Just some untasteful publications and possibly some libel. What you view as your "consistent viewpoint" is actually horrifically inconsistent. One was active in planning to commit a felony (conspiracy, a felony), the other was a bunch of hateful bastards posting lies (possibly libel on the part of the publisher, a civil offense). I've not seen anything that hints that riots were planned out on the Daily Stormer in advance.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

"Narrow scope" (defined & specific) is one of the legal requirements for a valid search warrant.

Sure is, it's just my bad phrasing. So let's clear that up. Remember that defined and specific, would fall within the narrow scope of the request. Since the site was used to plan and commit a felony. And you have multiple people who've been arrested and are now trying to plea their way out, and are spilling info. That info would allow for the "broad scope" of requesting all the information, because the people who committed the crimes can only be proven by either word of mouth of those trying to get a plea. In requesting that to prove other crimes were committed, it becomes a narrow threshold.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

> They like have video or photographic evidence of other parties being involved in other crimes.
Is that why journalists trying to cover the event was charged with rioting after recording police violence?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

The site was organized for PROTEST, which is legal. That it lead to illegal riots, assuming the website had any involvement, is likely more due to Trump being a walking youtube comment section than premeditated acts relevant to 1.3 million website visitors. This is 100% bullshit, and anybody who was halfway conscious during high school civics knows that.

Re: And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

You are clearly to fucking stupid (or such a committed progressive) to believe that there's no difference between political affiliation and conspiracy to commit a riot. The site in question was most deliberately used to coordinate a riot. When the white supremacists use a website to conspire to commit crime, that website too should be serv d with a properly executed search warrant to rat out the conspirators.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

Neo-Nazi much?

Oh boy! Identity politics here we come! It's so fun labeling everyone but me as a nazi. All I see is nazi's everywhere.

So by your logic, all the web sites associated with the alt-right should get a similar order because there was an actual terrorist attack here in the US where someone was killed and a bunch of people got hurt. That is a much bigger crime then a riot.

So by my logic, where was this terrorist attack in the US and where was it planned? Right. It wasn't a terrorist attack, anymore then the guy who hit a bunch of people in times square a few months back because he was drunk at the wheel. If you really want to go down that path, then by all means. Because that would also mean when antifa, bamn, and so on decided to have their little riots in California, that was also a terrorist attack. Do you really want to start going down that path, or shall we dump the identity politics.

I can't help but wonder. If there was a collection of data on alt-right/Nazi sites, would you be on that list?

Personally, I can't help to wonder how far you got in life being this dense.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[cryptizard]

From the article:

The government has made no effort whatsoever to limit the warrant to actual evidence of any particular crime

They haven't even named any suspects or particular crimes related to the website. Would you like to take back your comments now?

Their only claim to fame, has been publishing something that was tasteless and hurt peoples feelings.

If you can't see that both websites are doing the exact same fucking thing, goading and organizing people to violent protest, then you are beyond willfully ignorant, or you haven't actually visited the site and are just going by what you imagine it to be in your head.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

Organizing is legal. Organizing to riot isn't legal, if however the site is also being used as a communication path to commit riots which the warrant ap states. Well now, you were awake in your high school civics class weren't you?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

If you simply visited it, I doubt any action will be taken against you.

Then why demand the visitor logs? I'm pretty sure there are ways to separate out the posters from the visitors, this ain't exactly rocket science.

And when did the DoJ demand visitor logs from the Daily Stormer? Or are you trying to compare apples and orangutans?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Your entire post is actually listed on wikipedias "List of fallacies".

Ad hominem. False equivalency. Appeal to probability (or possibly base rate fallacy). Jumping to conclusions.

It's impressive. You might have hit more, but the list is really long and I don't have time to thoroughly go through it in detail.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

They haven't even named any suspects or particular crimes related to the website. Would you like to take back your comments now?

Maybe you'd rather do that?

If you can't see that both websites are doing the exact same fucking thing, goading and organizing people to violent protest, then you are beyond willfully ignorant, or you haven't actually visited the site and are just going by what you imagine it to be in your head.

You mean where people were discussing on the disruptj20 site about the best ways to commit/engage/etc. Maybe you should spend a bit more time reading, looking through the archived stuff that's sitting out there? That's not something you can pin on the daily stormer, no matter how much you try.

So you go ahead and bend yourself into a pretzel, I'm however going to sleep. So have fun.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

A group the size of about half of the US population during the signing of the constitution cannot be considered a "narrow scope." 1.3 milliion and narrow scope are mutually exclusive.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

These types must purposely be obtuse at times, I swear.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

>Nope. But that doesn't mean when you're filing for a warrant with a site that's involved in criminal activity such as "organizing a riot" that you use a narrow scope.

So it'd be constitutional to get a warrant for the IP addresses and timestamps of everyone who ever visited slashdot.org from May 5, 2007 until the present day because its users spoke the number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[cryptizard]

That's not something you can pin on the daily stormer, no matter how much you try.

Not any more because their website is down lol. Anyways it is very clear to me that you are a morally bankrupt hypocrite that is bending every way possible to try to justify his racist and viewpoints without coming out and actually saying it, so I am going to stop discussing this with you. Have a good life, which from your ass backwards antiquated views I assume is coming toward its end a lot sooner than mine.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should spend a bit more time reading, looking through the archived stuff that's sitting out there

Reading comprehension fail.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

used as a communication path to commit riots which the warrant ap states

What a fucking word salad of legalese bullshit. It very clearly indicates that just like this administration, you are on fishing expedition. .

The primary purpose of the site was for legal organizing. it's possible that rioters made use of the site, but even if every single person arrested used the site to organize, that's still only about 0.02% of the users. I don't care if you're dumb enough to think that Trump isn't complete subhuman garbage, this is a fishing expedition, and any good American would tell the Trump administration to fuck off with this authoritarian garbage.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you care to explain why the DoJ has reason to demand visitor logs from the Daily Stormer beyond that you don't like them? Right now the whole of the trouble they're in is possibly a civil issue. And that's quite clearly on the part of the publisher, not the visitors. If the family of the woman who died wishes to file a defamation suit against them, then in the discovery faze, whatever is relevant will be requested.

disruptj20 on the other hand appears to actively participated in the planning of riots at Trumps inauguration. This is legally called "conspiracy", is a felony, and can act as a multiplier. Asking for visitor logs may be to help associate people who were actually arrested for rioting, to see if they simply get hit with a riot charge, or if they get pulled into the conspiracy as well. As such, asking for visitor logs is necessary to see if all who were arrested were involved. People may have rioted while not posting, making your statement of simply requesting IPs for people who posted moot.

Now, lets make this clear, I don't support this, I feel it's overly broad. But I also try to keep a level head and be realistic about these sorts of things. If you don't let your partisan biases overwhelm you, and you look at the legal system as a whole, you see this isn't particularly unique. From a legal perspective it's fairly well SOP. This is not something new that the Trump administration is doing. Fact is, if you associate with felons, even if you didn't personally do anything, you can get caught up in the drag net. They system is supposed to protect against it, but it often fails. As horrible as it is, and as much as I don't condone it, if you don't want to be labeled a criminal, don't hang out with criminals. It happens with gangs all the time. And remember, disruptj20 wasn't about organizing a peaceful protest, they were quite open about "interrupting the inauguration at any cost". You're allowed to protest, but once you're trying to interrupt other peoples business, you've crossed the line from protesting to harassment and in some cases assault, and in this case, rioting.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, it's numbnuts again spewing more stupid nonsense.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

A group the size of about half of the US population...1.3 milliion...

Well which is it, math-genius?

I swear, Trump Derangement Syndrome has far exceeded even the lunacy of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Progressivism is a mental disorder.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[cryptizard]

Oh look its AC adding nothing of value to anything. Keep on being a coward.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The case has only begun with the murder in Charlottesville. How do you know that the guy didn't collaborate with other people on one of those sites?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they can request the IP's of specific posters on the site.

This is like saying, we know there's a burglar in one of the homes of this neighborhood, so we're going to search every single house until we find him, then we're going to search the rest of the houses, just in case.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly your views are inline with a Nazi. Shoe fits, pot/kettle, spade a spade, etc.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Whorhay]

I agree that the warrant is overly broad, and that asking for all of the information for all visitors is clearly not narrow in scope. However the size of the batch as compared to some historical population numbers really has nothing to do with it.

The problem here lies in that they want information on 100% of the people/IPs who viewed the site, instead of the 0.03% (over estimating a lot here) who are currently charged. They should at the very least narrow the scope down to all IPs which communicated with, or viewed content posted by, the IPs used by the arrested individuals. That should in theory allow for capturing data on anyone that might have aided and abetted directly, any fish you catch in that net could then allow for another round of warrants possibly catching a few more people. Even if each of the arrested rioters were materially supported by 100 unique people from this site, that would amount to less than 3% of the IP's they are asking for being involved in any relevant manner.

Re: And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Some quality bootlicking here

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

If you had a site that hosted rioters and conspirators and a number of rioters were caught and the evidence pointed to a site. Would you limit the warrant to only the people you caught or would you want it broad enough to identify the conspirators that were not caught? The point is to find the conspirators that are not the ~200 rioters.

If you had a server hosting any other illegal content I would imagine any warrant would be broad and have it all list all users, visitors, and information related to the investigation. Why would you limit the warrant to be the few perpetrators already in custody that spilled the beans that led you to the site to begin with? If you go through the trouble of getting a warrant, you make sure you can find all the information you want because of the trouble required to get it.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

everybody looks like a nazi, don't they?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

You don't understand "conspiring to commit a crime", do you? If you use a server to commit a crime (planning a riot) then the "communication path" I mean "server" that was used to plan the riots warrants a look by the government and all relevant information to identify associates and conspirators of known criminals.

The primary purpose of the site was for legal organizing.

Are you sure about that with the ~200 felon rioters? Do you know the evidence the government has to get a warrant?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

You omitted the "during the signing of the constitution" part of my post. You see, in 1776, the US population was around 2.5 million, and in 1788, it was around 3.8 million. 1.3 million is more than half of the 1776 population, but a bit less than the 1788 population. If you tell the framers that you have a warrant covering 1.3 million people, they'd hang you.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

The historical numbers are very much relevant for explaining just how outlandish this is. A warrant covering THE ENTIRE STATES OF VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA during the time when these limitations were codified is batshit insane. I'm not saying it's a legally important metric, I'm saying its a sign of how utterly ridiculous this is, to the point that you cannot have even a basic understanding of our legal system and support it.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

Strawman argument, even assuming that those arrested were 1) actually rioters and 2) conspired to riot using this site. You don't need all of that information to catch the other conspirators, and to be honest, looking for conspirators is an enormous waste of time. money, and manpower. Trump wasted far more resources dropping a bomb on the CIA's tunnels in Afghanistan.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

Okay, so if I plan to commit a crime using facebook, then it's okay to get info on their ~1 billion users, or do we expect that it be a bit more fine tuned? Do you know the first thing about police and warrants, and thus you get them to turn over only the relevant information, like people I've messaged and commented to within the last 6 months? If you don't know how to get reasonable search parameters, why the hell are you on /.?

Are you sure about that with the ~200 felon rioters? Do you know the evidence the government has to get a warrant?

Yes, because when you divide 200 by 1.3 million, you get a really small number. plus, half of the people arrested probably weren't even rioting. You know, since post 9/11, we just arrest anybody we don't like, and get around to their rights later, if we feel like it.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[ChrisMaple]

Remember when all of Hillary's emails were demanded, but she only (after much delay) provided those which she claimed were not related to yoga and Chelsea's wedding?

If John Doe is suspected of conspiracy to commit murder, and a search warrant is issued to find evidence of planning that murder, does John Doe get to select only the relevant documents?

Don't be a sucker all your life.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

It's not a strawman. If you limit the warrant to only the known 200 (assuming all used the same place to organize and assuming it is this website) you will not necessarily have the information to identify much less convict other conspirators. Do you limit other warrants for other criminal activity on other servers? No, then why is this different?

The point is that this is through a warrant approved by the independent judiciary and not the actions of the executive taken alone without input. A judge looked at the evidence and signed off on the warrant... Do you have any legal expertise to say your opinion has more merit than the judge giving the ok?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

What is the purpose of facebook and what is the purpose of the site listed in the warrant? Apples and oranges. Even their self described mission frames their site in such away that lends itself to the idea that it was used by rioters to organize riots.

Would you limit the search warrant if the server was hosting child porn or any other illegal content?

Using a warrant is not getting around anyone's rights. That is the proper way to do these types of things. If you are going to argue scope, stick with scope. If you are goign to argue "get around people's rights" then I think you too hyperbolic to talk with because a warrant was issued by the independent judiciary. If you have a better idea to do these things... lets hear it.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

False equivalency. The claim isn't that the site should get to select which information it releases to the government, it's that the government has to provide specifics. In the case of Clinton's email server, they selected "all of the information" because she was a part of the government, and thus everything was needed for transparency purposes. In other investigations, its going to be like the information they have one users, X,Y, and Z, and maybe their most frequent contacts. You don't just ask a private website to give you absolutely everything on everyone.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[ChrisMaple]

Searching a house is a significantly greater disruption than getting a USB drive listing URLs. Police don't clean up the mess they make after throwing all your possessions on the floor (and breaking some) while removing stuff from a closet to see if someone is hiding there.

Although if you squint hard enough they seem the same on the surface, they're not. Some in law enforcement, perhaps most, take seriously not degrading the lives of large numbers of people.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[ChrisMaple]

Trump is a better man than you.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

No, you just strawmanned the argument again. It's quite possible that there are more than 200 relevant accounts. But there are a lot of number between 200 and 1.3 million. 2000 users, I could believe as reasonable. 5000 users might even pass the test. If there are more, they can ask for more after they've gotten the evidence from the ones they asked for. But not 1.3 million. That's completely ridiculous, and I refuse to believe that you are a sapient human being if you claim otherwise.

Do you have any legal expertise to say your opinion has more merit than the judge giving the ok?

Yes, I know enough about the Constitution to know that a warrant for 1.3 million people is bullshit.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

My cat is a better man than Trump, and my cat is an asshole.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

The site seems to be focused on legal protests, not riots. Likely supportive of things that lead to arrests, but that's standard civil disobedience.

Would you limit the search warrant if the server was hosting child porn or any other illegal content?

Absolutely. To shut up cunts like you, I'd be okay with completely legalizing child porn. A few kids getting diddled is peanuts in comparison to the amount of freedom it's led to us sacrificing.

Using a warrant is not getting around anyone's rights. That is the proper way to do these types of things. If you are going to argue scope, stick with scope.

I'm not saying that the problem is seeking a warrant. I'm saying this warrant overwhelmingly fails the standard of being "reasonable" and "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

issued by the independent judiciary

That's a good one. Our court system rubber stamps warrants, especially if you can shop around.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

Except that the concern is privacy, not cleanliness or disruption. the government has no business spying on its political enemies.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[sexconker]

From the article:

The government has made no effort whatsoever to limit the warrant to actual evidence of any particular crime

Felony crimes were committed by certain people, many of those people were affiliated with the site.
It's standard to then issue a warrant to grab the site's data to investigate who else was involved in crimes, including conspiracy.

Evidence discovered via the warrant will then be used to press charges against those who committed crimes. Those who did not commit crimes are in the clear.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[sexconker]

A group the size of about half of the US population during the signing of the constitution cannot be considered a "narrow scope."

Of course it can.

1.3 milliion and narrow scope are mutually exclusive.

No they aren't. Narrow is relative.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[sexconker]

Strawman argument, even assuming that those arrested were 1) actually rioters and 2) conspired to riot using this site. You don't need all of that information to catch the other conspirators, and to be honest, looking for conspirators is an enormous waste of time. money, and manpower. Trump wasted far more resources dropping a bomb on the CIA's tunnels in Afghanistan.

Strawman argument? It's an argument built around the exact specifics of the actual case. And it's correct.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

There is no sane argument for collecting the data for 1.3 million users.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't just ask a private website to give you absolutely everything on everyone.

You might when the entire web site's stated purpose for existing is to coordinate the activities of people planning to commit a wave of crimes. How hard is that to understand? Taking "direct action" to disrupt other people's ability to participate in a public event, to block public streets, and to destroy private property - these things are crimes. The web site was entirely structured around gearing up to commit these crimes. A lot of people who actually did, directly, participate in committing violence and destruction as planned and boasted about on that web site have been arrested in the act of being part of those crimes. They had advance contact (via this web site) with thousands of other people (probably even RUSSIANS!) and in order to sift through the trail the those arrested left, if means digging through the logs and other material on that server.?

It's not some nuanced, complicated issue. If you ran a building with a sign over it that said, "Crime Planning Club" and you had a bunch of people that you know were regulars there and were working on prosecuting them because you arrested them in the act of committing a pre-planned destructive riot ... and the building ran video recordings of who came and went through the front door ... would your warrant say, "Here are the specific people we want to see on video" (and expect the person running the Crime Planning Club to pick through the recordings themselves before turning things over, or would you say to the operator of the Crime Planning Club: "We want the video recordings. All of them." Right, exactly.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[alvinrod]

I'm not sure if I like that particular line of reasoning. If it was a website solely for the purpose of organizing riots okay, but if it's mostly non-violent protest, I think it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The government clearly needs to tread carefully here and I believe that if they want to serve a warrant, they should need to have it very narrowly defined for specific IP addresses or a very small range of them as may be necessary.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

Narrow is relative, but it's relative to a particular crime. So, if we assume that all 200 people arrested actually used the site, were rioters instead of protesters, and used the site to organize a riot, then the scope of people that would be reasonable to be asking info for would be the protesters themselves, and frequent contacts. So, it could cover maybe 2000 at best, maybe 5000 if we are really playing loose.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Whorhay]

I didn't say the warrant should be limited to only the known offenders, I said you should limit the warrant to those that had contact with the known offenders. Instead they are saying many of these offenders used this website, so we want information on more than a million IP addresses. That's like going fishing for dinner with a commercial trawler.

By the same reasoning, they might as well get a warrant for every store in the Charlotte area which sells tiki torches to hand over all their receipts from last week.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

No, the stated purpose was to protest. if this has your panties in a bunch, you'd piss yourself during a French protest.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

The warrant is for the server that may have hosted illegal content not the individual people. Do you limit other warrants for other criminal activity on other servers? No, then why is this different?

Re: And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The daily stormer is the same kind of site. There is no difference except ideology. Are you saying no one from the daily stormer ever used the site to discuss possible crimes? Or crimes committed and bragged about it? Fat chance

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

the place to be searched is the website listed. The things to be seized is information relevant to an ongoing investigation regarding riots and conspiracy to riot.

if you have a better idea for warrants I would love to hear it. Actually, nvm considering how you respond.

Absolutely. To shut up cunts like you, I'd be okay with completely legalizing child porn. A few kids getting diddled is peanuts in comparison to the amount of freedom it's led to us sacrificing.

And you lost it. the fuck is wrong with you.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

, I said you should limit the warrant to those that had contact with the known offenders.

How are you going to know until you have the data? How are you going to know who helped the conspirators 2 steps away ring leaders etc? Are you goign to trust the company to hand over all relevant data or are you going to get it all and sift through it yourself?

By the same reasoning, they might as well get a warrant for every store in the Charlotte area which sells tiki torches to hand over all their receipts from last week.

No, because a store has a different reason for existing beyond supplying tiki torches to white supremacists. Unlike the self description the website has. When framed in their own description it's a little clearer as why you would be able to have a larger scope. In addition to whatever existing evidence they have to get the warrant in the first place.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[LynnwoodRooster]

Free speech is protected, and you can talk all you want. When you take actions on that language, though - that becomes a felony. And then, suddenly, that speech before-hand becomes a crime because it is conspiracy. Talking with 10 people about how you'd rob a bank is not illegal, but if you then go and rob the bank - that speech is now classified as conspiracy and it becomes illegal.

Re: And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Attaching a name to your words only opens you up to abuse. You are no better by using a name. In fact, you're more vulnerable, yet you wear it as a badge of pride.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[HornWumpus]

Nowhere does it say 1.3 million unique visitors.

There _aren't_ 1.3 million antifa tards in the USA.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[HornWumpus]

There aren't 1.3 million unique visitors. 1.3 million visits by a few thousand people.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

It's actually 1.3 million ip addresses. You are correct that this may not equate to exactly 1.3 million users, but it's likely not that far off.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

You don't have to be Antifa to be against Trump. Most of America hates Trump, even many of his voters. Even Trump hates Trump

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

To my knowledge, the site itself did not coordinate any illegal activity, so they are protected by safe harbor provisions that make user generated content possible. Thus, the government has no legitimate rights to the server itself, just the relevant information on relevant users on that server.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Whorhay]

I would presume that just like a search warrant for a physical property you send in a few experts who search the premise and leave only with the evidence that the warrant narrowly targets. You don't get to demand a copy of every bit and byte until there is evidence that most of it is relevant to the investigation. This should be readily apparent given the amplitude of the difference between the number of people being initially investigated and the number of IP addresses that have accessed the site. We are talking about 200 some odd number of arrests, lets be generous and round it up to 300. The site has been visited by 1.3 million unique IP addresses.

Imagine if you will, a small city of 10,000 people experiences an arson. Grainy security video shows that there were 3 perpetrators, but not much else. So when building their case the investigators start with gathering everything they can on all 10,000 residents. That is the level of numbers we're talking about here. There are a number of obvious problems with this strategy:

1. 9,997 people are going to end up with their privacy violated who likely had nothing to do with the arson.
2. The investigators are now responsible for trying to process a huge store of data, you've essentially handed them a large haystack.
3. The police are now responsible for trying to safeguard that huge store of data against accidental lose or illegal use. Effectively in perpetuity because you know with that many defendants there will be appeals for decades.

Are you sure those stores were actually started for those other reasons, or are you giving them the benefit of the doubt. We really should pull all those receipts, and just to be sure lets take it back a couple months... Do you see how silly this is getting.

They should send in a computer forensics team to gather all of the data for whatever communications their persons of interest had. Sort through that and submit another warrant for new people that had communications of interest. And so on and so forth, like every other standard investigation in the history of the USA.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[HornWumpus]

The basic point is 1.3 million unique visitors isn't true.

Just slightly fewer than those that hate Hillary the most. Trump _still_ has higher approval #s.

This was a site dedicated to arranging a riot. No doubt there are already a bunch of conspiracy threads that the tards forgot to clear out of their phone caches and that the cops submitted to get the warrant.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[HornWumpus]

I see nothing claiming 1.3 million unique IP addresses. '1.3 million IP addresses' doesn't imply 1.3 million _different_ IP addresses.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how it works. Conspiracy is based on intent and intent is much easier to prove if the action takes place. That action isn't a requirement though. Plenty of people are prosecuted for planning a crime without getting the chance to go through with it; it's kind of a good thing for society when crimes are stopped before they happen. If you're sitting in a coffee shop with a few buddies and you point out that someone could just walk by and grab a bag of money out of the back of an armored car parked outside, you aren't guilty of conspiracy if one of your buddies goes outside and grabs that bag of money. Likewise, if you and your buddies mapped out the armored car's regular route, noted positions of the guards, and timed how long it would take to get to the money and get away before you would be noticed, you would have some explaining to do, even if nothing was stolen. One is just talk, the other is possible conspiracy. What happens afterward is irrelevant.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

The basic point is 1.3 million unique visitors isn't true.

Is it a possibly inflated number? Sure. Is it likely to be more than an order or magnitude off? Probably not. Is it the two or three orders of magnitude off the could mean that there is a somewhat legitimate need to hoover up all the data. Not a snowball's chance in hell.

This was a site dedicated to arranging a riot.

No, this was a site dedicated to arranging a disruptive protest. That's the most important thing for Americans to have, and compared to riots in just about any other country, or even in this country's past, it was fucking nothing. No need to waste taxpayer's money protecting President Snowflake's tender ego.

Re: And what's missing from the summary

[cryptizard]

Cool story bro. Keep on justifying your cowardice.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

It certainly does imply unique ip addresses, because it doesn't make much sense to count redundant IP address. Where there would be wiggle room is that a single user might have had multiple IP addresses over the period of time. If I wanted to say what you are claiming, it would be clearer to claim something like "the IP addresses of our 1.3 million page hits."

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

if you have a better idea for warrants I would love to hear it. Actually, nvm considering how you respond.

Too bad, asshole, cuz here it is: Ask for specific data on specific users. If that evidence leads to more potential users who are involved, get another warrant. How is that so fucking hard for you to grasp?

And you lost it. the fuck is wrong with you.

I have very little tolerance to appeals to emotion, which bringing up "child porn" undeniably is. I'm making it clear that such a technique will not sway me, and that I don't care about the children, especially if they are used as a means to undermine freedom (which it always is). There are countless other crimes that could be mentioned, but you brought up child porn. that makes you a pathetic cunt.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

Why is it different for other criminal activity on other servers?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

It's not, AFAIK. For example, when someone suspected of a crime was using Lavabit (Snowden aside), Lavabit cooperated with law enforcement, but only gave them specifically what they need. How is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

You might when the entire web site's stated purpose for existing is to coordinate the activities of people planning to commit a wave of crimes. How hard is that to understand?

It's probably because your hypothetical has nothing to do with this scenario, where the site stated purpose was disruptive protest.

probably even RUSSIANS!

Wrong number there, kiddo. Russia isn't a scary word to me, and I think there's currently more credible evidence for the Seth Rich theory than the Russian hackers theory.

Your problem is that I am nearly an absolutist on free speech, and am deeply opposed to government surveillance. IMO, the number of people who were legitimately arrested was probably nowhere near 230, let alone going after any "conspirators."

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[HornWumpus]

Sure it makes sense, if they're writing the story to advance an agenda and don't understand databases.

We will see when the database is searched in detail.

Also: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/...

It peaked at a rank of about 200k, /. has been running at about 6k. disruptj20 _never_ had anything close to 1.3 million unique visitors.

Somebody with an Alexa account should be able to get more information.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[HornWumpus]

From the other thread: See Alexa...(TLDR I'm right, you're wrong.)

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

I mean that your theory is such a stupid way of trying to describe traffic that their webmaster would strangle them for using it, regardless of personal politics. You've only published a record of relative popularity do dispute absolute traffic, and the threshold for their claims is roughly in line with a popular niche youtube channel.

And unless each user averaged around 100 IP addresses in the short timeframe where the site had a purpose, the ratio between the number of IP addresses sought and the number of parties that the government has a legitimate interest in investigating is still fucking ridiculous. But maybe you can do math while you're so busy licking boots.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[HornWumpus]

They are clearly not unique IP addresses. Alexa proves it. A site that gets 1.3 million unique visitors in a few months ranks much much higher.

Insults noted and treated as you accepting you're just wrong.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[desdinova 216]

why would you want torch receipts from Charlotte, NC which is about 250 mi from Charlottesville, VA?

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[king neckbeard]

Then give me some hard data, and then address the point about magnitude. I'm getting bored of arguing banal technicalities over what is clearly a case of giving power to a numbskull tyrant. I don't care if it's Fred Rogers, I don't want the government having any more information than the bare minimum it needs. That is a key principle of modern governance, even if it hasn't always been well followed. Because even if they are fluffing their numbers, they aren't fluffing them to the extent to justify getting all of the site's data. They've already arrested more people than the number that deserved it, and the resources they are using this could be allocated to something worthwhile.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

Anyways it is very clear to me that you are a morally bankrupt hypocrite that is bending every way possible to try to justify his racist and viewpoints without coming out and actually saying it, so I am going to stop discussing this with you. Have a good life, which from your ass backwards antiquated views I assume is coming toward its end a lot sooner than mine.

Really? Because this is the stuff you're defending. That's the site they were planning it on.

Yep, you really are an idiot who believes in defending people who are planning terrorist attacks.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[Mashiki]

FYI it was also the same site that was used to plan the acid attacks against conservatives. There's not just a single case, there's multiple cases where the site was used to plan criminal acts.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[david_thornley]

It's standard to then issue a warrant to grab the site's data to investigate who else was involved in crimes, including conspiracy.

Standard to demand ID on all visitors? Certainly anyone who posted as part of a conspiracy to commit felonies needs to be investigated. Anyone who just visited the site wasn't part of that particular conspiracy, and having visited it isn't probable cause. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list for quite a few years, and I've visited flaky sites for various reasons.

Those who did not commit crimes are in the clear.

Your faith in the rectitude of government, particularly the FBI, is touching.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[david_thornley]

Actually, it legally becomes a crime if someone involved does anything that can be construed as being a preparation for the crime discussed.

Remember the idiots that were talking about sneaking into Fort Knox by posing as pizza deliverers? They were a bunch of harmless morons, and an FBI informant showed up. The informant got them to talk about the plan, and helped them with it. Then, when one of the idiots got a map of Fort Knox, came the arrests and the prevention of another terrorist attack by the FBI.

Which administration this was under doesn't matter because that's the sort of thing the FBI does. I'm not being partisan here.

So, please pardon me for being cynical about the government throwing out a large net and intending to file conspiracy charges.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[david_thornley]

if you have a better idea for warrants I would love to hear it.

Personally, I was thinking that the Fourth Amendment had good ideas on warrants. This is not specific, and is largely not based on probable cause.

There was a website to organize protests. Some of the protests led to felonies. It's reasonable to assume that felonies were discussed on the website. So far, so good. Ask for details on the suspected felons, sure. (Note "suspected", since well-founded suspicion is plenty enough for a warrant.) Ask for details on people associated, sure. Ask for details on everyone who visited the site, no.

Re:And what's missing from the summary

[penandpaper]

I think the argument is the judge issuing the warrant does view the whole website reasonable of suspicion. Given their self described purpose I can understand the logic.

If it were a Facebook Group, I could understand not allowing the entirety of Facebook because the purpose of Facebook is not to organize protests of the inauguration. If I start a Facebook Group dedicated to organizing protests of the inauguration. That led to felony arrests and my Facebook group was found to be used by the rioters. Then, would any warrant limit the information gathered about that Facebook group? I don't think it would be limited because of the Facebook Groups mission.

Yeah...

[Kierthos]

This clearly isn't an incredibly broad overreach by an administration that shows that it hates being questioned or criticized at all.

Oh shit, did I have sarcasm enabled?

shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike obama just illegally unmasking them ignoring all rules of law?
And he still hasn't used the IRS to target people he doesn't like?

Sounds good. Better than the last few decades.

Re:shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama == best President EVER We need to make room for him at Mt Rushmore. I was never happier than I was for those 8 years.

Re:shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike obama just illegally unmasking them ignoring all rules of law? And he still hasn't used the IRS to target people he doesn't like?

Sounds good. Better than the last few decades.

It seems people can only defend the current administration by comparing it to the previous administration, rather than its own merits. Why is that?

Re: shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

I would support converting Washington's head into Obama's should there not be enough space to add another President.

Re:shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the way precident works.
If you spend 8 years not bitching obama did something.
It's assumed you won't bitch when the next admistration does the exact same thing.

However when you ignore the first and say the second is literally hitler, everyone else thinkgs you're a moron and ignores you.

Re:shrug

[king neckbeard]

How about we put them both in jail? Would that make you happy?

Re: shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be more of a fit if they replaced Theodore Roosevelt's head. Then they could replace Jefferson's and Lincoln's heads with teleprompters.

Re: shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

After Trump reads a blasé statement against racism off of a teleprompter you make an Obama teleprompter joke?

Oh.. I forgot... hypocrisy is no longer a bad thing, is it?

Re:shrug

[orgelspieler]

I bet Obama would gladly take one for the team, if it meant getting the orange buffoon out of power.

Re: shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but it's okay when a Democrat does it. Fuck you you damned dirty Progressive.

Photos?

[kenh]

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," the company said in its blog post.

As the web hosting company for the (suspected) criminal website for the group 'Resistance' where are they going to get visitor's pictures?

I think dreamhost is trying to fan the flames around this issue. If this were a suspected white supremacist group, or a suspected child porn ring, would they mount the same principled court battle? The Feds have reason to believe the site was used to plan violence at numerous public events, which is a crime.

Re:Photos?

[Mashiki]

As the web hosting company for the (suspected) criminal website for the group 'Resistance' where are they going to get visitor's pictures?

They uploaded them, so they could recognize each other. Which of course borders on just fucking brilliant of course. One of the reasons why clearance rates for crimes are going up, stupid people.

Re:Photos?

[Hydrian]

The question is that was the content on the website illegal? Hate crime and hate speech are illegal in the US. Organizing protests and objecting to a president's actions or speech is not illegal.

Re:Photos?

[Mashiki]

I think you mean hate speech is legal in the US. Organizing protests, and objecting are also legal. Using a website however to plan a riot or commit any crime? That's illegal, and that's why they want the info.

Re:Photos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Protesting is definitely legal, but rioting isn't and that's unfortunately what happened in Washington D.C on the day of Trump's inauguration.

I'd definitely take issue if this was just about trying to identify peaceful protesters, but it seems like they're just trying to unmask masked some of the rioters who destroyed public and private property on the day of Trump's inauguration. Same morons were also out destroying public and private property during Obama's inauguration, but not in the same numbers so they didn't cause as much damage then.

Re:Photos?

[cayenne8]

Hate crime and hate speech are illegal in the US

Hmm...you might need to brush up on your civics classes.

Not only is there no laws against "hate speech"...but in fact, it is very much protected speech under the constitution.

Re:Photos?

[ChrisMaple]

"Hate speech" is understood to be evidence that a violent crime is (for instance) racially motivated. It can result in a more severe penalty.

Re:Photos?

[HornWumpus]

Doesn't make it illegal. There are lots of actions that are legal in themselves but are crime enhancements when done along with something actually illegal.

Re:Photos?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact no it's not. It's under "incitement". Hate speech and SEIG HEIL are in fact NOT protected free speech as decided by he Supreme Court many times over.

Maybe YOU need to brush up on your civics classes.

Re:Photos?

[david_thornley]

Legally, there is no such thing as hate speech. In the US, that's an informal designation. Other countries have different laws.

Legally, a hate crime is a crime that is committed as part of intimidation of a group. Calling it a terrorist action would be about as accurate. It is one of the things judges take into consideration when deciding on sentences of people already convicted of a crime. Again, other countries may have different laws.

There are categories of speech that are illegal, usually since they are considered to be part of other acts. Libel and slander are illegal. Seriously discussing committing a crime is part of the crime. Fraud is fraud, by whatever means. Directly inciting violence is illegal by whatever means.

In this case, it appears that felonies were committed, and so the people involved should be investigated, and the people they appear to have discussed the crimes with should be investigated. There's probable cause, and warrants should be issued as needed. Investigating people in general is legal, if unproductive, as long as it doesn't require a warrant. Issuing a warrant for a very large group of people fails the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

What?!?!? How dare they?

[El Cubano]

How dare the Trump Administration go through the Justice Department and obtain a warrant for information related to its political opponents? I am sorry, but that is flat out unacceptable.

What they should have done is follow the morally pure example set by the Obama administration. They should have had the NSA spy on their opponents (directly or indirectly) and then used a questionable procedure of obtaining their identities via unmasking requests by people like US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. Because, you know, their political opponents could be colluding with a foreign power.

Oh, wait...

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll discard everything not relevant to their investigation, being conscionable proponents of justice and privacy.

Aaaahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahhahahhahahhahahahahahahahah.

Sorry.

Aaahaahahahahahhahahahahhhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

NO CARRIER

The Rise of the Violent Left

[daveschroeder]

Important to understand:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

So, that's a valid excuse for this abuse of Executive power? This dragnet?

Yeah, let's ignore the violent right wing assholes in Charlottesville.

And let's ignore the fact that you are using violence as an excuse for the implication of eradication of our rights - the weapon of the right wing. "Oh noes!! Terrorists - violence! Let's eliminate our civil liberties!!"

Keep in mind sir, that as we chip away at the First and Fourth amendment, it weakens the Second - the Second is just for show now. The government KNOWS everyone who got the guns . The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.

And as far this issue is concerned, you can bet good money that the courts will eventually side with the government - they usually do - even in "liberal" areas.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

As you conveniently ignore the violence of the left-wing assholes at Charlottesville.

Or the left-wing assholes in the Obama Administration that flagrantly ignored the first, fourth AND second amendments and even more all to your self-righteous applause because "liberalism"

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

The violent left just executed a terrorist attack over the weekend. It's understandable that the government would want to crack down on them. I fully support the government cracking down on literal terrorists like antifa and these so-called "anti-Trump" movements.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Important to understand:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

We're going to fucking kill you.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Unsurprisingly, there are violent, stupid people on both sides of a political issue. The question is not whether that symmetry somehow justifies or endorses the extreme actions of the "other side", but what the rest of us, the non-violent middle, are going to do about it. If all you're doing is saying "See, the 'other side' does it too!" or "Look, some of these people are violent!" then I don't see the point. I already knew that, and such people should be put in jail for their actions regardless of political stripe. There is no value to violence in a democracy when trying to make a political point.

It doesn't justify sweeping surveillance-related fishing expeditions. Such intrusions into private information should only be carefully targetted and rigorously overseen by the judiciary.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Which left-wing asshole drove a car into a crowd and killed an innocent woman?

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Rofl no you're not

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Which right wing assholes flung their bodies at and damaged an innocent car?

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe his name was James Alex Fields Jr. Keep in mind people looking at his online postings saw that he was actually an anti-Trump leftist prior to them being deleted and the media smear campaign against Unite The Right started.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Gravis Zero]

This is the result of a government with a low level of voter representation and it's one that many predicted.

Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Drumpf era, the movement is growing like never before. As the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny racists and Drumpf supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.

The less representative our government becomes, the more violent the general public will become. Rigging a game so that you win will not prevent the other person from flipping over the table.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

she was hardly innocent. she was on the street with violent leftists.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh - you mean James Hodgkinson?

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was the violent outrage when Obama allowed the vast majority of the public to be stopped and searched for the hell of it at inland border checkpoints?

And you think Trump is the issue...

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

"prior to them being deleted" - yeah, you forget we're not as gullible as your usual crowd

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like we got an internet tough guy here folks. Move along nothing to see.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

these streets are ours! these streets are ours! :BAM:

nope!

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah you are. In fact you're MORE gullible because you suck down the kool-aid and don't even point out that the video shows the car stopping, being swarm with people with baseball bats who bash and shake the car and smash the windows and THEN he drives into the crowd. Oh yes... you're quite gullible.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you somehow not know that archive.org exists?

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Trump, but more importantly:

Fuck you.

The rise of white identity will be the death of this nation.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll come for you too soon enough.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Yeah she was guilty, of being in the path of a murdering Nazi's car.

Fuck you very much, Nazi AC.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Sumus Semper Una]

A much better article than the attention-grabbing headline originally left me to suspect. The most important piece of the article to me:

Masked protesters smashed store windows during multiday demonstrations following Trump’s election. In early April, antifa activists threw smoke bombs into a “Rally for Trump and Freedom” in the Portland suburb of Vancouver, Washington. A local paper said the ensuing melee resembled a mosh pit.

When antifascists forced the cancellation of the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade, Trump supporters responded with a “March for Free Speech.” Among those who attended was Jeremy Christian, a burly ex-con draped in an American flag, who uttered racial slurs and made Nazi salutes. A few weeks later, on May 25, a man believed to be Christian was filmed calling antifa “a bunch of punk bitches.”

The next day, Christian boarded a light-rail train and began yelling that “colored people” were ruining the city. He fixed his attention on two teenage girls, one African American and the other wearing a hijab, and told them “to go back to Saudi Arabia” or “kill themselves.” As the girls retreated to the back of the train, three men interposed themselves between Christian and his targets. “Please,” one said, “get off this train.” Christian stabbed all three. One bled to death on the train. One was declared dead at a local hospital. One survived.

The cycle continued.

There are no clean hands here. Those claiming this is all (or mostly) the fault of "the other side" are a part of the problem, regardless of which side they claim to represent.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[penandpaper]

So, that's a valid excuse for this abuse of Executive power?

The executive isn't acting alone and had a warrant.... I don't understand. How in any way is this abuse by the executive when they went through the proper channels obtain a warrant?

This dragnet?

If you have a server that is potentially hosting illegal activity, would you limit the warrant to be only known criminals or would you try to find conspirators and associates to known criminals? Particularly so when some of the crimes are conspiracy to riot.

you can bet good money that the courts will eventually side with the government -

Well then I look forward to your thesis and system that is better than warrants and a separate judiciary.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[penandpaper]

This is the result of a government with a low level of voter representation and it's one that many predicted.

Particularly so with local elections and governments. In addition to expecting the federal government to handle the personal issues of citizens that are better handled by local governments.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't saying ignore the violent right.

He's just saying pay attention to those committing violence, like the right and now left.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Rick Schumann]

The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.

If it comes to that, they'll raid houses -- the occupants will fight back, win or lose, and they'll be branded 'home-grown terrorist extremists' and evidence against them will be fabricated. Of course long before it gets that bad I'll either be dead or I'll be watching it all happen on TV, north of the border.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[eth1]

Keep in mind sir, that as we chip away at the First and Fourth amendment, it weakens the Second - the Second is just for show now. The government KNOWS everyone who got the guns . The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.

So the DOJ has enough "storm troopers" to simultaneously disarm the entire US population within about 30 minutes?

Because unless they can magically do that, the first wave of victims will spread the word, and the second-nth waves will be ready and waiting. Enjoy your instant civil war. FWIW, no one that I know that's been in the US military would support such a move, either.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[ChrisMaple]

The principle of respecting and protecting human life and property forms the basis of one set of political beliefs, and opposition to that principle forms the other. Most political issues can have their sides classified by their stands on that principle.

The "non-violent" is not the middle. To the extent that a person does not initiate violence, or advocate or support the initiation of violence, that person respects and protects human life and property, and that is an extreme. It is more fundamental and more important than most political labels.

Socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism all have in common opposition to respecting and protecting human life and property.
Democracy is a mechanism, and as such has no specific stand on this principle, although there is implicit respect for human life in the idea that "everyone votes."
Capitalism is explicitly based on the respect and protection of human life and property.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[ChrisMaple]

The rise of white identity will be the death of this nation.

It's pretty much irrelevant. A white, European-derived identity was the norm 100, 200, 300, and 400 years ago, and it hasn't been "the death of this nation."

The deliberate promotion of racial groups over Americanism is a big problem, and it benefits nobody except the leading rabble rousers, who gain power and money.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you somehow not know that can easily be altered.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Jay walking is illegal.

Re: The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Did we watch the same video? The people did that because he was driving down an empty street TOWARDS protestors. They were trying to stop him. But you ignored that part didn't you? How convenient.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[LynnwoodRooster]

The left is much more efficient, preferring to shoot their political opponents.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

My hands are clean.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[cmdr_klarg]

The government KNOWS everyone who got the guns . The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.

I thought Obama took them all already?

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't be alive three months from now?

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

We'd love to think that, but it won't happen.

"Evil Terrorists" will be getting arrested in a major sting operation. Telecommunications will be hampered enough that the families and friends of each individual in that first wave of victims has little to no information beyond "your husband/son/etc has been arrested for domestic terrorism and possibly also child pornography". The second or third wave of arrests will be enough to make people realize what's going on - not that the rest of the world won't have picked up on it with the first bunch - but by then the tanks will be rolling in the streets.

You can't just WAIT until they've got everything in place and have actively begun removing the population (they'll start with the most dangerous elements; notably those capable of getting the word out and/or organizing the populace) in order to fight back. The smoke is there, the door is hot, but if you wait to lynch all of these monsters (and there are a *LOT* of them across the country now) until you yourself are on fire, it's too late. It's always too late for every population that's ever waited half that long.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[david_thornley]

the Second is just for show now.

The Second has just been for show since 1986. That was the year it was made illegal to buy a nice new infantry rifle. (If the "militia" clause means anything at all, it means that individuals have the right to equip themselves with the same equipment soldiers get.)

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[david_thornley]

The executive isn't acting alone and had a warrant..

I'm sure you can come up with examples of the judicial branch asking for and receiving (perhaps with a lot of judge shopping) a warrant that was part of executive overreach.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[david_thornley]

Socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism all have in common opposition to respecting and protecting human life and property.

Fascism (including National Socialism) was not against human property, as long as it belonged to people the government liked. It did oppose respecting and protecting human life. Communism was opposed to protecting either. They share the political attributes of collectivism and authoritarianism. So, these are common to the extreme left and the extreme right.

Socialism is a much more mixed bag. Communists were Socialists, but most Socialists aren't Communists. In the meantime, Socialism has changed its meaning from having the workers control the means of production to wanting society to take care of the less fortunate in various ways, since most people have realized that capitalism is necessary to run a modern economy.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[penandpaper]

Indeed, and if there are solutions to that those can be discussed. However, it is much better than allowing the NSA free reign and parallel construction.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[ebvwfbw]

I told you before. The right isn't associated with Fascism. You can't say Nazi without saying socialist. Nazis are left. It was clearly a mentally ill person. Hardly someone to associate with any party, unless you have a whole party full of nuts like the Democrats seem to lately. Those that are still Democrats.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[david_thornley]

Sure. I notice that the warrant is being contested in court, so the system is working, at least so far.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[penandpaper]

Were you expecting something different from one election? Or when other executive actions are being contested in court?

It seems like you are pessimistic about the system. The sad thing is that the attacks on the system itself by the left since the election do more harm than one president.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[david_thornley]

Given long enough, the system can be distorted. One Presidential term isn't long enough to do that. The courts were some of the last effective groups upholding law in the Third Reich.

During Obama'x, I kept reading how the system wasn't working from all sorts of right-wing people. If people attacking the system were going to hurt it, it would be in ruins by now.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[penandpaper]

I kept reading how the system wasn't working from all sorts of right-wing people.

Indeed and now the left has rediscovered the value of things like states rights because that is the grounds to argue many of their lawsuits.

If people attacking the system were going to hurt it, it would be in ruins by now.

I disagree. The feature of the government is to move slowly or stall during disagreement. But each time the system is attacked to gain a political advantage will be used as precedent by future politicians. Boiling water with frogs and what not.

Obama did set a number of precedents when he didn't get his way. Trump has undid those decisions in many instances but the precedent remains. It doesn't matter if Trump uses it or not because a future president can use Obama's actions to justify executive overreach. Similarly to the 9th circuit in their zeal to stop Trump from legal actions the executive can take have set a precedent that can make the executive weak for things it needs to be strong. Luckily, the Supreme Court has disagreed with the 9th but for that kind of... overreach and zeal to stop political differences is unsettling.

Re:The Rise of the Violent Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed and now the left has rediscovered the value of things like states rights because that is the grounds to argue many of their lawsuits.

And now the right has embraced the value of "executive authority" and "federal supremacy" because that is the grounds to argue their lawsuits.

Easily demonstrating the biggest problem with focusing on a method-based system, when the dynamics are mutable.

I disagree. The feature of the government is to move slowly or stall during disagreement.

That's not a feature, that's a bug.

But each time the system is attacked to gain a political advantage will be used as precedent by future politicians.

You think precedent matters? It doesn't. Precedent is just an excuse, manufactured as convenient, to do whatever somebody desires to do.

But then, so is the preservation of the system. It is an excuse, used as a shield or weapon, as suits the moment.

Boiling water with frogs and what not.

You know what we have for pots? LIDS. Or you know, you can cut the frog's throat before cooking it.

Obama did set a number of precedents when he didn't get his way.

Yeah, that's what they ranted and railed about. But...then we saw that was just an excuse, and they did what they wanted anyway.

Trump has undid those decisions in many instances but the precedent remains.

Nope. Trump has created all new actions, and merely blamed Obama when and as convenient for him. This is not unprecedented, mind you, but you should pay close attention to it.

It doesn't matter if Trump uses it or not because a future president can use Obama's actions to justify executive overreach.

Nope, it doesn't even matter if Obama did it or not, when you have a president like Trump, who will do what he wants, as he wants, and only others will restrain him, if they are willing and able.

See, that's what you don't seem to be know, that Trump justifies himself all he wants, and even if you can forgive him for telling fake stories as he might be a dupe, there's plenty he's concocted on his own.

Similarly to the 9th circuit in their zeal to stop Trump from legal actions the executive can take have set a precedent that can make the executive weak for things it needs to be strong. Luckily, the Supreme Court has disagreed with the 9th but for that kind of... overreach and zeal to stop political differences is unsettling.

Actually, the real lesson you should learn is that the Supreme Court has harmed the country by relying on precedent quite often, or rather, quite often the manufactured precedent that suited the person making the decision. Dred Scott may be the most well known, but there are others. The problem is a lack of zeal and earnestness, because the virtuous know restraint, while the maleficent are unconstrained in their acts.

You see, that's the problem with being miseducated in terms of ethics. Often enough, you learn the lessons somebody wants to use against you. You should sit down, and really think it over. Or read from some 19th Century philosophers.

Re:What?!?!? How dare they?

[muffen]

How dare the Trump Administration go through the Justice Department and obtain a warrant for information related to its political opponents? I am sorry, but that is flat out unacceptable. What they should have done is follow the morally pure example set by the Obama administration. They should have had the NSA spy on their opponents (directly or indirectly) and then used a questionable procedure of obtaining their identities via unmasking requests by people like US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. Because, you know, their political opponents could be colluding with a foreign power. Oh, wait...

Exactly!
... and if "they" did it, "we" can do it, cause two wrongs makes a right!

Oh, wait...

First and Fourth Amendments are just words now.

[Anonymous Coward]

See folks, over the last few decades, the Executive branch with plenty of enabling from Congress has been chipping away at our most important rights - our Civil Liberties.

We are fucked now. All because most of the population was scared of the big bad terrorists, child molesters, and the war on drugs.

People are short sighted and stupid.

Re:First and Fourth Amendments are just words now.

[Anonymous Coward]

First and Fourth went the same way as the Second? To cheers and with derision against those who would have preserved them? Color me shocked.

It's a Terrorist Site

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah okay so this is a patently obvious example of a site used to coordinate and execute terrorist activities. Using violence to intimidate and coerce a change in political direction is the definition of terrorism.

And before you accuse me of being an alt-right republican, let me say that I am actually a life long socialist democrat. But, unlike the people who tried to burn down DC after Trump got elected, I'm not a terrorist.

Re:What?!?!? How dare they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm escapes your notice. And you do humor poorly.

Re:What?!?!? How dare they?

[hyades1]

I see you believe two wrongs make a right. You must be a conservative.

It's not okay to be against a dictator.

[Anonymous Coward]

This photo helps explain: Trump.

Some Progress

[Drethon]

At least sometimes now, when the justice department trounces on our rights, we hear about it.

Re:Some Progress

[penandpaper]

They got a warrant... What is supposed to happen if the government is investigating criminal activity?

Re: Some Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

A warrant covering 1.3 million people. Funny how you keep leaving that part out.

The daily stormer is the same kind of site just opposite ideology. Where is the warrant for them? Their side actually killed someone. How do we know that wasn't planned?

Yea thought so.

Re:Some Progress

[Drethon]

They got a warrant... What is supposed to happen if the government is investigating criminal activity?

Sounds good. Next time a masked man robs a bank, why don't the city police get a search warrant to search everyone's homes for the stolen money?

Re:Some Progress

[penandpaper]

Is everyone's home in anyway shape or form connected to the bank robber? It's not your home. It's your deposit slip in the bank that the police want to dust for fingerprints against known criminals.

It's one website. It's self described purpose frames them to be of relevance. In addition to the evidence used to justify the warrant.

Do we limit the warrant for any other server for other crimes? No, then why is this different?

Re:Some Progress

[penandpaper]

Correction, it's not even your deposit slip. It's the banks registry of visitors.

Watch this space

[PopeRatzo]

The Trump administration is collecting the names of these people so he can finally prove there were actually 1,3 million people at his inauguration.

Re:Watch this space

[Drethon]

The Trump administration is collecting the names of these people so he can finally prove there were actually 1,3 million people at his inauguration.

1.3 million protesters?

Re:Watch this space

[mdm-adph]

Protesters, attendees -- one doesn't exclude the other. Perhaps ol' Agent Orange was right after all and it *was* the most attended inauguration ever.

Re:Watch this space

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if we're using crowd size to gauge popularity and legitimacy, you should compare Hitler's crowds to Obama's. He dwarfed them all.

Re:Watch this space

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if we're using crowd size to gauge popularity and legitimacy, you should compare Hitler's crowds to Obama's. He dwarfed them all.

Too bad it was the wrong of those two who was actually in overfulfillment of his election platform promises.

Not bad actors

[PatientZero]

Trump is merely looking for proof of his massive inauguration crowd size.

Wow, America sounds more like China every day

[Anonymous Coward]

...

There's no need to ask, I've got them all...

[Anonymous Coward]

...right here:

int octet1 = 0;
while ( 256 > octet1 ) {

    int octet2 = 0;
    while ( 256 > octet2 ) {

        int octet3 = 0;
        while ( 256 > octet3 ) {

            int octet4 = 0;
            while ( 256 > octet4 ) {

                println('Anti-Trump IP: %s.%s.%s.%s', octet1, octet2, octet3, octet4 );
                octet4 += 1;
            }

            octet3 += 1;
        }

        octet2 += 1;
    }

    octet1 += 1;
}

Re:There's no need to ask, I've got them all...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Phew! That won't pick me up... a modern terrorist rioter uses IPv6!

Re:There's no need to ask, I've got them all...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a classic off-by-one error in the above code. Surprised no one at /. caught it.

CAP === 'airmails'

Re:There's no need to ask, I've got them all...

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll also noticed I was thinking of MAC addresses when I named the variables... :^S

Re:There's no need to ask, I've got them all...

[infolation]

But "If you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix your program."

Not like child porn

[PatientZero]

AFAIK, seeking out child porn is a crime in and of itself. If so, this case is not comparable. Everyone visiting a child porn site is breaking the law. I doubt 1.3 million people rioted at the inauguration, though that would explain his obsession over the crowd size.

The FBI should scrape the public site, determine who was planning violence, and subpoena those IP addresses so they can track them down in meatspace. Y'know, actually investigate.

This overly-broad request for information is becoming a pattern. His voter suppression commission is requesting a ton of information that is irrelevant. These kinds of actions are what fuels gun owners' fears that the government is going to keep a list and come for their guns. Maybe that's his goal?

Re:Not like child porn

[HornWumpus]

1.3 million visitors != 1.3 million unique visitors.

Re:Not like child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mean 1.3 million visits, say so.

It's high time privacy became law

[Anonymous Coward]

The site shouldn't be keeping that data in the first place!

Would prevent potential abuses like this.

230 1.3million.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why again is your stat relevant at all?

Re: What?!?!? How dare they?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you believe a search warrant to find the identities of people blatantly conspiring to riot is a wrong.

Uh huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Not excusing Trump, but if anyone had even hinted at using an Obama-ccentric website to organize violence against Obama, riots would have ensued, heads would have rolled. Embracing the opposite extreme is just as dumb as accepting a bad status quo. If politics weren't a consideration, and this were just a site to sow seeds of general discord and organize violent acts, how would you feel then? Psst - that's essentially what our domestic terrorist groups are doing. They don't fight for causes but for themselves and their own juvenile comfort levels, they don't actually give anything or contribute anything to anyone. Straight up hate. You can't kill hate with hate, and these kids wouldn't last five seconds in a legitimate war zone.

Threats against the Life of the POTUS

[Tulsa_Time]

If there are threats (posted) to the life of the POTUS the secret service has the right to the data.

You would say the same if Obama was the target.

Re:Threats against the Life of the POTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

1.3 million threats
Your BIG If would mean the secret Service would be looking at it. and would have specific requests.
But Nice Rationalization anyway.

Re:Threats against the Life of the POTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's secret why is this in the news?

Re:Threats against the Life of the POTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

In what world does viewing a website relate to civil disobedience translate to threatening the president?

Wow, what a big scary number

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole million IP addresses! A few of which may be unique, and some of which might match the phones of people arrested at the scene of the crime.

Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare.
In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations, but we were told there was nothing corrupt or wrong with using the IRS to punish political enemies.

So I'm having difficulty with understanding why this Trump thing is a story at all? We have been taught that the federal government is there to punish those who are disliked by the party in power. At least Trump is using a warrant, instead of all the illegal shit Obama did without warrants and ignoring judicial rulings.

Re:Obama

[sycodon]

It's simple.

Democrat Shit apparently doesn't stink

Re:Obama

[Fuzi719]

And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare. In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations

Things that never happened for $200, Alex. Stop with the #fakenews.

Re:Obama

[mi]

And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare. In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations

Things that never happened for $200, Alex. Stop with the #fakenews.

Right here are the citations for you — something the anonymous OP should've included in his post, of course:

Obama's Whitehouse asking people to "flag" opponents of Obamacare:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov

After people got outraged about this solicitation, the above text was eventually removed.

The IRS really did target conservatives:

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes.

Two out of two things you dismissed as "fake news" are in fact true and indisputable. Good score, keep it up!

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually including obama the IRS has been used by 7 presidents to attack their enemies.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2013/0517/Playing-the-IRS-card-Six-presidents-who-used-the-IRS-to-bash-political-foes/President-Calvin-Coolidge-R

Don't you ever get tired of being WRONG?

Re:Obama

[David_Hart]

And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare.
In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations

Things that never happened for $200, Alex. Stop with the #fakenews.

Right here are the citations for you — something the anonymous OP should've included in his post, of course:

Obama's Whitehouse asking people to "flag" opponents of Obamacare:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov

After people got outraged about this solicitation, the above text was eventually removed.

The IRS really did target conservatives:

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes.

Two out of two things you dismissed as "fake news" are in fact true and indisputable. Good score, keep it up!

I'm sorry, but no....

The original accusations were...

- Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare.

This is False. Even the quote that you provided proves that it's false. The Obama administration request was to provide copies of articles, news stories, etc. that seemed to be inaccurate or questionable. This was so that they could develop a marketing program to address false rumors. At no point did the Obama administration ask for names, email addresses, etc. Granted, most people would not have been smart enough to scrub the email of personal identification which causes privacy issues. But the fact is that they didn't request names, just stories.

- The IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations

This is badly worded or deliberately misleading. The IRS did discriminate against certain political groups by performing deeper audits. But, to the best of my knowledge, they didn't target individual citizens.

Re:Obama

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Even the quote that you provided proves that it's false. The Obama administration request was to provide copies of articles, news stories, etc. that seemed to be inaccurate or questionable.

Read it again: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation . Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

That language absolutely covers individual emails, blog posts, etc., not just "articles and news stories."

Re:Obama

[mi]

But the fact is that they didn't request names, just stories.

Yours is a very charitable explanation and does not at all qualify for "fact". Both forwarded e-mails and links to news-stories would've identified the dissenters: people, who, unlike those conspiring to commit the crime of felony rioting, have done nothing illegal.

The IRS did discriminate against certain political groups by performing deeper audits.

This is, what they admitted to — after getting caught. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect them of going after individuals too — because the same exact motive would play, the same means and mechanisms can be (and likely were) used by the same people in all such cases:

Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS. I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.

Whether the IRS limited their abuses "only" to groups, or gone after prominent individual "haterz" too is not even relevant. You are trying to find a distinction that makes no difference — it was an outrageous thing to do and far worse than DoJ is even suspected of doing in the case being discussed today.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

not until I tire of winning, which I haven't yet.

Re:Obama

[Sperbels]

And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people

Oooohh...why didn't you say so in the first place. If the democrats are doing it too it must be okay.

Re:Obama

[Safety Cap]

[x] Both Sides Do It

Keep going - you still several to do!

[ ] It isn't that bad
[ ] You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide
[ ] It's for your protection
[ ] B-But Obama
[ ] Now is not the time to question
[ ] No, YOU'RE racist!

Re:Obama

[Dog-Cow]

If an Obamacare supporter sent a link to a critical article, how would that identify a dissenter? Is it possible you're an illogical and rather stupid person?

Re:Obama

[Curunir_wolf]

This is badly worded or deliberately misleading. The IRS did discriminate against certain political groups by performing deeper audits. But, to the best of my knowledge, they didn't target individual citizens.

They targeted me, personally. Because my wife was involved in politics (Campaign for Liberty State Director), but already had her 501c before the targeting started. So they went after me personally.

Of course there was no "proof", just a lot of audits and requests and demand for information. Somehow EVERY response I sent them was "lost" or "not received," even when I sent by mail AND fax.

Exactly one week after the "investigation" was concluded and the IRS was deemed to have done "nothing wrong," I got a call from an agent that said she "just received my case on her desk." She gave me a fax number, I sent my documents, and the whole thing went away.

I'm not buying into the idea that they were not targeting people. There is no way all that happened by accident.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the details were due to ineptitude by the parties involved, allowing that level of clear ineptitude in the first place is absolutely malicious.

Re:Obama

[mi]

If an Obamacare supporter sent a link to a critical article, how would that identify a dissenter?

The name and other credentials of the article's author would then be known to the White House. Once the same article is forwarded a certain number of times, its author could be put on the list of people to target (such as by additional IRS to scrutiny, for example). In addition (or stead) the same can be done to the publication the author works for.

Is it possible you're an illogical and rather stupid person?

It is possible, though unlikely. With you, on the other hand, both are certain...

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The government snooping through millions of people could end up with those people being placed on a list to harass. Are you going to stand by the two wrongs make a right position?

Re:Obama

[sexconker]

Holy shit, you're retarded.
mi literally proved the AC's claims right before your eyes and you refuse to see it.

Re:Obama

[orgelspieler]

Ugh. This "both sides do it" false equivalency shit is getting old. Learn a new argument! I'll even settle for a different logical fallacy. Don't even get me started about "ignoring judicial rulings." Have you even been paying attention for the last seven months?!

Re:Obama

[Darinbob]

Any evidence that Obama did this?

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

You are insane.

Re:Obama

[LynnwoodRooster]

Then why did the IRS apologize for "targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names"? Just playing footsies?

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting as AC so as not to undo previous moderation.)

David_Hart pointed out:

- The IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations

This is badly worded or deliberately misleading. The IRS did discriminate against certain political groups by performing deeper audits. But, to the best of my knowledge, they didn't target individual citizens.

It's deliberately misleading. Full stop.

The IRS did not "discriminate against certain political groups". They performed audits of those applicants for 501c(3) status because they had political designators in their organization's names. Section 501(c)(3), in addition to setting out the types of exempt purposes which may qualify an organization for tax-exempt status, also specifically states:

it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

An organization with a name that provides reason for the IRS to expect that it does or intends to engage in political campaigning as a central purpose invites scrutiny by the Agency to determine whether it does or intends to do so to such an extent that those sponsored and/or funded actions/contributions would make that organization ineligible for 501(c)(3) status by law.

In fact, a very large percentage of the applicant organizations the IRS "targeted" in this initiative were found to be in gross violation of their elegibility for tax-exempt status, specifically because they were entirely dedicated to political campaigning.

If your organizaiton seeks tax-exempt status AND it intends to engage in specifically political activity as its principal purpose, the relevant section of IRS code is 527, not 501(c). Organize and apply for exemption under that section and the IRS will devote no more than ordinary attention to you.

I'm not surprised I have to explain this, because IRS code is Byzantine and recondite. That's why there are lawyers who specialize exclusively in tax law.

--

Check out my novel ...l

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not "both sides do it". Its Obama blatently broke the law frequently to attack political opponents. Trump got a warrant to look at people who rioted and caused violence at his inauguration.

Not even close to "both sides do it". I was asking why this is even an issue with all the worse stuff Obama did that I was told wasn't an issue.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it was simply due to the same IRS bureaucracy and incompetence that has plagued them since inception.

Correlation, causation, anecdotal evidence, etc.

Re:Obama

[Curunir_wolf]

Sure, it was ALL just a big coincidence. It's a much longer story than that, the demands for money, the locked bank accounts, etc., etc. The timing was instructive, as was the switching and dead ends I was lead to during phone calls.

You would have certainly looked for an explanation yourself, if it happened to you. Of course the orchestrated it to ensure they had plausible deniability.

Oh, and fuck you for defending them.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

So opponents of Obamacare are unfairly targeted because they can't come up with any information that does not seem fishy?

Re: Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies are cheap, and more virtuous than say, endless denials even when confronted with reality.

See Trump's press conference today. Another example of costly mistakes.

Just remember, months of Congressional investigation produced zero criminal charges. They could have found more crimes investigating Dennis Hastert.

Re:Obama

[dywolf]

it was an outrageous thing to do and far worse than DoJ is even suspected of doing in the case being discussed today.

Yeds...enforcing the law they are tasked with enforcing is an absolutely outrageous thing to do.

how dare they to ensure only non-partisan groups apply for the non-partisan 501c tax exempt status, and that partisan groups apply for the proper, separate, 501d tax exempt status.

what were they thinking?

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I also believe that the IRS issue started when the Feds noticed that a bunch of political groups applied for nonprofit status. Many had the words "Tea Party" or something similar in their names. So the IRS started looking closely at other nonprofit applications with Tea Party in their names.

Makes sense to me.

BTW nonprofits can advocate for issues. They often understand social issues from their work. What nonprofits can NOT do is advocate for candidates. That is somewhat of a simplification but it is a good rule of thumb.

Re: Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Get out your tinfoil hat folks, this proves the conspiracy against conservative white males is REAL!

You are a complete waste of everyone's time, including your own. I feel sorry for your anyone that has to listen to this utter nonsense you spew. Turn off your TV and computer, they're rotting your brain.

Make Germany America Great Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Define the problem, isolate the problem and then provide the final solution.

Re:Make Germany America Great Again

[ebvwfbw]

The left is working on it as hard as they can. Can't say Nazi without saying socialist.
Do you want a leftist America? You can have your wish, Venezuala, Cuba, Mexico wait for you.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for people talking smack, after all we can all have our own opinions.
But taking action to disrupt things purposely, especially through riots, deserves prison time.

Police State Tactics? Really?

[s.petry]

And what do you call persecuting a person's whole family because their dad does not agree with you politically? Seems okay that people on the left are doing this to Trump's family, including people threatening to go after a 9 year old kid.

What do you call silencing speech you dislike? Seems okay for the people on the far left to do this using violence, intimidation, and blackmail.

What do you call media pouring out a constant stream of propaganda to harm people on the other side of them politically? Again, seems okay for the people on the far left to do this all the time.

What do you call paying "protestors" to show up at rallies and start fights because you disagree with someone's politics?

What do you call using political power to ignore crimes of people on your side? How about using Government agencies to target people you disagree with politically?

Let us really talk about police state tactics and who is using them. Strangely none of those things are directed by, condoned by, or sanctioned by the current Administration or President.

Why the heck is this a problem?

[PontifexMaximus]

We're demanding records from ISPs regarding Islamic terrorists, so domestic ones are no different. And that's EXACTLY what they are, domestic liberal whiny-ass terrorists that riot, loot destroy and disrupt free speech by people they disagree with.
So, liberals, make all your domestic jihadi friends grow the hell up, or watch them executed for treason. Easy enough, eh?

And what's missing from your post

[Nidi62]

And what's missing from your post? That of those 230 people arrested some were journalists, lawyers, and medics, not protesters. DC police basically cordoned off areas and indiscriminately arrested everyone there. Which you seem to happily leave out.

Re:And what's missing from your post

[desdinova 216]

remember, to Trump, journalists are the enemy,

Re:And what's missing from your post

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did being a journalist, lawyer, or medic prevent someone from also being a rioter?

And no, the DC police did NOT arrest EVERYONE in the cordoned off areas where the riots took place; they arrested only those in masks, with weapons, with stolen loot, or who otherwise showed evidence of having rioted.

Re:And what's missing from your post

[ebvwfbw]

Man that's not true. Not true at all. Just the ones that are very disrespectful towards him and his office. The ones creating fake news. News that you probably still believe. Do you still believe the fake Time story about him removing the MLK bust? How about Rawlings fake story about him ignoring that handicapped kid? The fake Russian collusion story (all the while ignoring the real Russian collusion story about Hillary)? Well I could go on and on about the fake stories that we know are fake. However maybe you realize what's going on? Then how they're not covering the Debbie Wasserman Shultz scandal? Probably the worst scandal since the Teapot Dome Scandal.

Re:And what's missing from your post

[desdinova 216]

so regarding the Russian collusion Associated Press, Reuters, and The BBC are all making the story up? Or is anything not on Breitbart, Fox News and Infowars "Fake News"?

Re:And what's missing from your post

[ebvwfbw]

There is fake news - news that is very intentionally done and then there is news that happens to be wrong even though they had reason to think they were right at the time. There is also what they call spin, from the 1980s. Spin was supposed to be where the article leaned right or left. Leaned, not change and make up crap so they are totally one sided to the point they don't even report stuff unless it somehow damages Trump or Republicans.

Take the classic Time article about the MLK bust. It's Trump's office, why couldn't he remove it? Why would that be news? It was published intentionally because they couldn't wait to try to paint him as a racist. Anything. If you do that, you'd better be right. No, it wasn't in exactly the same spot it was before, so let's not even attempt to look 5' either way. It was literally 5' from where it was. So they published it. Then when someone told him - you fool, it's still there they retracted it, as if anyone would even see that and they know it. Even so, maybe he wasn't really malicious. Just wanted to scoop someone else. At least they did a retraction.

With the Russian collusion bit, we know that's bullshit because project veritas has a video of CNN admitting they know it's bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So no doubt about it, it's fake, they know it's bullshit and they keep pushing this narrative on us anyway.

Fox, Breitbart, not sure about infowars... they don't do that. BTW, Time and time again later Trump was shown to be mostly right in what he said. He's the first non politician in the WH since Eisenhower. Eisenhower was great. One of the best.

I remember the good old days when they reported the news mostly. If a reporter had an opinion, they said it was his opinion. I'm worried that we're going to lose this country and what will replace it will be a lot more like slavery. It certainly won't be anything like as good as it is now. Never is. Anywhere in the world where the left pushes this stuff. There will always be poor, there will always be rich. In the US system, any one of us could be a rich guy. Even you, even myself. I'm a guy that wasn't born into money. Today I have all kinds of assets, including a private plane. I fly it around the country. In other systems - only a very few. If you aren't in that click, forgetaboutit. Today I'd still be nothing if I were born in Cuba instead of the US. I was born post Castro takeover. I probably wouldn't even be alive. If I were, I'd be living a miserable life down there. That's what awaits us if we don't realize what's happening.

Trump is butthurt nobody likes him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what a bunch of sore "winners"*.



* Electoral College, not the popular vote

I thought we ended COINTELPRO

[TheFakeTimCook]

More USAPATRIOTACT Fallout.

Perhaps the gummint would like to issue us all mandated, always-on bodycams...

Regular police work

[mi]

If you are looking for bad actors who actually threatened or cause physical harm/disruption - then use regular police work to fid that out.

This is regular police work. This is no different from going through all people mentioned in a suspect's rolodex/phonebook of old, for example.

Simply sniffing out all who disagree with the current administration

Contrary to the title, this is not about an "anti-Trump" web-site, such are a dime-a-dozen. This is about a "pro-riot" web-site, which indicates its purpose — organizing a conspiracy to commit a crime (rioting) — in its very name.

GOV muscle exercice

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the charge? Nothing... Hm...
Well, then we have just "opinions", 1.3 millions vs. few guys from GOUVT.
The case may rest, 1.3 millions oppinions should have "priority" ofer one elected and few appointed. REALLY they SHOULD?

Was going to post, but don't want to be on a list

[Anonymous Coward]

Was going to post, but don't want to be on any other list.

Generally, I expect warrants to be specific - for specific people. Anything less is a fishing expedition.

Rounding up suspects is how totalitarian govts work. The USA is better than that.

Re:What?!?!? How dare they?

[penandpaper]

How is getting a warrant to find criminals wrong? That is the right way to do this sort of thing. WTF are you trying to say?

Do you know the evidence which was used to justify the warrant ? If so then why does the justice department disagree with your assessment that it is "wrong"?

But her emails!

[Anonymous Coward]

But her emails!

Good move

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of terrorists and communists who hatch their terrorist plots behind the cover of public blogs. In the current threat climate, it is prudent to vet these people in order to find out just who they are and what they are up to. It stands to reason if you haven't done anything terror related, ipso facto then you have nothing to worry about.

Visit the site

[Anonymous Coward]

I just added my IP address to the list by visiting the site. I encourage everyone to visit the site to corrupt the data and make it useless.

Just one thing to say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; OR "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Re:Just one thing to say.

[ebvwfbw]

Yes, and notice that this is a right as such to prevent the Government from stopping you. Doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want, whenever you want. It's not a license to be an asshole.

Re:What?!?!? How dare they?

[ChrisMaple]

How dare the Trump Administration go through the Justice Department and obtain a warrant for information related to its political opponents who suborn violence?
FTFY.

Cognitive Dissonance

[Scroatzilla]

The website self-describes as "protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen." What comprises a "direct action"? What is the intention of a person who visits that website? What about a person who signs up for a newsletter? What should you assume about a person who indicates that s/he will attend future events sponsored by this group?

I'm still amazed at the cognitive dissonance of Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. Just because public death threats against the President of the US have been normalized in the public square doesn't mean they are any more acceptable now than they were before Trump's election. The Far Left now owns the Democratic Party, or at least the message of it that permeates mainstream culture. If you are a rational Liberal, you should own up to that (at least enough to understand that people whom you lump into the "deplorable" bucket are lumping you into this Far Left bucket).

If you don't want the State to crack down on you, stop threatening the state *with violence*. Or, to put a finer point on it, stop conflating "peaceful protests" with *rioting*. Or to put it another way, your destruction of cities and property is *not free speech*.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

If the the website had on it statements such as:
"protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen." ...then the persons who post those statements may reasonably be investigated, and possibly prosecuted. With more discussion I may conclude a stronger or weaker case.
But, but! this warrant wants the information of everyone who visited the site. I, you, or anyone, might have visited the site out of mere curiosity, or stumbled upon it through a link in a news article, or thought ahead of time that I disagreed with the purpose of the site and wanted to confirm my fears.
Warning, flawed analogy coming!: it is similar, but not exactly like the connection between someone watching a political demonstration, rally, march, etc, that turns into violence and the people who do the violence.
A major part of free speech is not just the right of the speaker to speak, but of the listener to have access a wide variety of speech. Merely listening reading or observing is not the same as agreeing or being a part of. In fact, agreeing with speech is not criminal; actions are. I agree, for example, that prostitution and some drug crimes should not be illegal. Until I pay or get paid or use, or urge others to break a law, I have not committed a crime.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[david_thornley]

Just because public death threats against the President of the US have been normalized in the public square doesn't mean they are any more acceptable now than they were before Trump's election

We appear to agree in thinking that the threats and vicious attacks against both Obama and family and Trump and family are wrong. Good.

Censorship at work

[s.petry]

Downmod anything honest that harms _your_ side. Disgusting problem on /. and growing worse.

Re: Censorship at work

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because your post is filled with partisan bullshit and lies. That's why it got downmodded.

Re: Censorship at work

[s.petry]

So there are no actors on the far left rioting and smashing things on a pretty regular basis since the last election? There are no far left movements running boycott campaigns against the Trump family? Nobody on the left talking smack about a 9 year old? There were no paid provocateurs at rallies and events? The IRS didn't target people on the right, and all the people from the last administration have faced justice for wrong doing?

I don't care about your feelings, I care about facts. Facts back my point, that these are police state tactics used right in the open against US people that some on the left dislike.

We can't argue policy, which there are many I disagree with Trump about. Why? Because there is so much shit in the pool that we don't want to swim!

Re: Censorship at work

[Tenebrousedge]

What's wrong with a boycott now? What about 'talking smack' is equivalent to running people over? Paid provocateurs is a comforting fantasy of yours. If the IRS was targeting right wing groups they suck at it, and the "wrong doing" of the last administration is also "fake news".

You're doing a wonderful job of marginalizing yourself by arguing like this. Keep it up.

Re: Censorship at work

[s.petry]

An adult talking smack to a 9 year old? Really, you see nothing wrong with that? I don't have anything against a boycott, but as a weapon against someone's dad?

Re: Censorship at work

[Tenebrousedge]

I'm sure I have no problem with any given nine year old being insulted. I have no idea which one you're referring to or how they may have been insulted. Probably they were not insulted by means of vehicular assault. And given that I think boycotts are mainly a tool for announcing the stupidity of the people engaging in them, I don't mind people doing that either. Flicking fingernail clippings in someone's general direction is likely more effective than a boycott. And if you're implying that Trump has divested himself of the family business, this is not in any sense true. I mean, and this boycott does actually exist, right?

Re: Censorship at work

[s.petry]

If you are not mentally retarded you are a despicable human. The 9 year old girl ridiculed by Bill Maher didn't commit any crime, they simply wrote a letter to the President. The 9 year old son of Donald Trump committed no crimes, he is bashed and ridiculed by media propagandists for being the son of a guy they disagree with politically. Those acts began occurring long before the act you attempt to use as justification.

I never implied a damn thing, you are using more despicable justification for going after the guys daughter and her own business. Simply because, as with the attacks on 9 year old kids, she is the daughter of a person they dislike politically.

Those are police state tactics used in tyrannical regimes and banana republics. You attempt justification is because you are deluded enough to believe that the people doing it are on your side.

My outrage and points would be valid and not change regardless of who's in power. I'm doubtful that you would be the same based on your justification of evil acts.

Re: Censorship at work

[david_thornley]

Traditionally, it appears that, if you're part of a President's family, you get the same crap tossed at you as at the President. I disapprove of this, but it sure didn't start with President Trump.

Re: Censorship at work

[david_thornley]

Boycott campaigns are legal, and at least reciprocal responses to things the President has done and said. I don't like Antifa any better than you do, and I'm a leftist. They represent us as well as the Nazis represent the right wing. Talking smack about the President's children is old hat. There have been paid provocateurs; the Bush administration used some of them. If you can track down who was paying a lot of them, I'd be interested. The IRS was faced with a large number of apparently political groups applying for non-profit status, and didn't really handle it well. Who from the last administration committed wrongdoing and not faced appropriate justice?

Re: Censorship at work

[s.petry]

Traditionally children have been omitted from harassment, ridicule, attacks, and quite frankly even favorable reporting by media. There was outrage that Media reported a Bush daughter smoking pot, and virtually 0 reporting on anything Obama's children did good or bad.

Ignoring actual history and claiming what you wish instead of what is real is poor form.

And lets be frank about the point I addressed. These constant attacks by Leftists, Democrats, and even RINOs who disagree with the president _ARE_ Police State tactics. It is not only the President and his family under attack, it is anyone who does not side with the ultra-left. Maher ridiculing a 9 year old is a great example, but we can also look at Google publicly ridiculing a person and firing them for "wrong" opinions based on scientific fact.

Facts have become so dangerous that if you discuss them you are targeted by media, politicians, and corporations for discussing them. These are frightening times, and unless we get issues out in the open they can't improve.

Re: Censorship at work

[Tenebrousedge]

The world has some problems. That children are occasionally insulted isn't something to get worked up about. We appreciate your clarification that you have no idea what the words "police state" mean. Your outrage is completely artificial.

Re: Censorship at work

[s.petry]

Holistic dumbass. See what that word means. Working definition: Not cherry picking one item out of a list of 6, first providing justification that it's okay to ridicule and attack kids, then ignoring the remainder of the list to and still denying the premise.

So not only are you a despicable person who is okay with kids being targeted, you also fail at basic logic and reason. I'd be willing to bet that your IQ is not high enough to enter the Military. Or you would qualify as a Sandbag.

Re: Censorship at work

[david_thornley]

"Traditionally" seems to mean pre-1993. There was trash talking about Chelsea in the 90s. If you missed attacks on the entire Obama family, you weren't paying attention. Ignoring actual history and claiming what you wish instead of what is real is poor form.

Verbal attacks by private parties are not Police State tactics. Please familiarize yourself with police states and what happens in them before posting again. Police state tactics are not a company firing an employee. Police state tactics are the person writing the manifesto disappearing and never being seen again. This happens enough in police states that "disappear" is used as a transitive verb. Please inform me when the President actually is hauled off in the night, never to be seen again, no explanation ever given, or if Melania is not seen for weeks and then is found, much the worse for wear, totally afraid to talk about what happened.

I don't know exactly what "ultra-left" means here, but there's plenty of people who can't possibly be in the ultra-left who are supporting things like UBI and free tuition and health care for all. Free tuition and health care for all are centrist policies in many European countries, and they have left-wing parties who are presumably further to the left of that. Lots of leftists (US style) are centrists or right-wing by many Western European standards, so they can't be ultra-left, and are not heavily criticized by leftists, Democrats, and RINOs.

Unfortunately, the part about facts is true. There have been massive libel campaigns against climate scientists by the right wing, and the facts are being suppressed as possible by media, politicians, and corporations.

Nothing to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is the answer to the question:
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."

This is for the people who don't care about privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Which is precisely why...

[Anonymous Coward]

my default online posture is to surf exclusively through a VPN tunnel.

Re:Which is precisely why...

[ebvwfbw]

So some guy at the other end of that VPN knows everything about you and you're ok with that. Interesting. For all you know you could be connecting to the FBI's sucker VPN service. You're the sucker.

At least it is not the IRS

[jlgreer1]

Obumma used the IRS....

Re:What?!?!? How dare they?

[hyades1]

Do you know what a "fishing expedition" is? Do you know why courts all over the free world, and also in America, forbid them?

SNOPES

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice Dept and Anti Trump:

The United States Department of Justice is attempting to seize the information of every person who ever visited the anti-trump website disruptj20.org.
RATING
  TRUE

Re:SNOPES

[ebvwfbw]

Wow, someone still believes snopes? I thought everyone knew by now it's just a liberal couple out in Cali.

Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace Trump's name with Obama. We should ALWAYS protect our President!