Slashdot Mirror
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.
"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.
However: Would like a little bit more background here. Too much conspiracy theory going on now..
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?
Silence is a state of mime.
You should start with 127.0.0.1. They're the worst.
This guy again?
https://www.rt.com/business/399645-soros-stock-market-bet-trump/
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?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
Ken
Were there 1.3 million rioters?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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?
Exactly!
... and if "they" did it, "we" can do it, cause two wrongs makes a right!
Oh, wait...
So it's finally confirmed, it was not fake news? There were more protesters than visitors at the inauguration?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I would support converting Washington's head into Obama's should there not be enough space to add another President.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
I see you believe two wrongs make a right. You must be a conservative.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
At least sometimes now, when the justice department trounces on our rights, we hear about it.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Trump is merely looking for proof of his massive inauguration crowd size.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
"Narrow scope" (defined & specific) is one of the legal requirements for a valid search warrant.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
How about we put them both in jail? Would that make you happy?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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?
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Phew! That won't pick me up... a modern terrorist rioter uses IPv6!
#DeleteChrome
Rofl no you're not
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?
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
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.
Oh look its AC adding nothing of value to anything. Keep on being a coward.
Yeah she was guilty, of being in the path of a murdering Nazi's car.
Fuck you very much, Nazi AC.
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.
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
everybody looks like a nazi, don't they?
More USAPATRIOTACT Fallout.
Perhaps the gummint would like to issue us all mandated, always-on bodycams...
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.
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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
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:After people got outraged about this solicitation, the above text was eventually removed.
The IRS really did target conservatives: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.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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 "If you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix your program."
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.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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."
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.
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:
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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Keep going - you still several to do!
Yeah, right.
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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?
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.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
Trump is a better man than you.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yes, I know enough about the Constitution to know that a warrant for 1.3 million people is bullshit.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
My cat is a better man than Trump, and my cat is an asshole.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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"
That's a good one. Our court system rubber stamps warrants, especially if you can shop around.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Holy shit, you're retarded.
mi literally proved the AC's claims right before your eyes and you refuse to see it.
Except that the concern is privacy, not cleanliness or disruption. the government has no business spying on its political enemies.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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*.
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
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.
Downmod anything honest that harms _your_ side. Disgusting problem on /. and growing worse.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There is no sane argument for collecting the data for 1.3 million users.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
No, the stated purpose was to protest. if this has your panties in a bunch, you'd piss yourself during a French protest.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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?
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.
, 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.
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?!
Any evidence that Obama did this?
I bet Obama would gladly take one for the team, if it meant getting the orange buffoon out of power.
Then why did the IRS apologize for "targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names"? Just playing footsies?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The left is much more efficient, preferring to shoot their political opponents.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nowhere does it say 1.3 million unique visitors.
There _aren't_ 1.3 million antifa tards in the USA.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There aren't 1.3 million unique visitors. 1.3 million visits by a few thousand people.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I see nothing claiming 1.3 million unique IP addresses. '1.3 million IP addresses' doesn't imply 1.3 million _different_ IP addresses.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Cool story bro. Keep on justifying your cowardice.
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."
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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?
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Why is it different for other criminal activity on other servers?
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?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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?
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
It's probably because your hypothetical has nothing to do with this scenario, where the site stated purpose was disruptive protest.
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."
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
From the other thread: See Alexa...(TLDR I'm right, you're wrong.)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
why would you want torch receipts from Charlotte, NC which is about 250 mi from Charlottesville, VA?
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Do you know what a "fishing expedition" is? Do you know why courts all over the free world, and also in America, forbid them?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Your faith in the rectitude of government, particularly the FBI, is touching.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, someone still believes snopes? I thought everyone knew by now it's just a liberal couple out in Cali.
Sure. I notice that the warrant is being contested in court, so the system is working, at least so far.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.