Slashdot Mirror
US Government Has 'No Right To Rummage' Through Anti-Trump Protest Website Logs, Says Judge (theregister.co.uk)
A Washington D.C. judge has told the U.S. Department of Justice it "does not have the right to rummage" through the files of an anti-Trump protest website -- and has ordered the dot-org site's hosting company to protect the identities of its users. The Register reports: Chief Judge Robert E. Morin issued the revised order [PDF] Tuesday following a high-profile back and forth between the site's hosting biz DreamHost and prosecutors over what details Uncle Sam was entitled to with respect to the disruptj20.org website. "As previously observed, courts around the country have acknowledged that, in searches for electronically stored information, evidence of criminal activity will likely be intermingled with communications and other records not within the scope of the search warrant," he noted in his ruling. "Because of the potential breadth of the government's review in this case, the warrant in its execution may implicate otherwise innocuous and constitutionally protected activity. As the Court has previously stated, while the government has the right to execute its Warrant, it does not have the right to rummage through the information contained on DreamHost's website and discover the identity of, or access communications by, individuals not participating in alleged criminal activity, particularly those persons who were engaging in protected First Amendment activities." The order then lists a series of protocols designed to protect netizens "to comply with First Amendment and Fourth Amendment considerations, and to prevent the government from obtaining any identifying information of innocent persons."
Most websites record access logs for intrusion detection. Any large website saves their logs. It has nothing to do with privacy or protecting users.
Do it to Facebook and Twitter when its in line with the lefts "Agenda" though.... Pretty sure a lot of the info it scoured over when looking for Russian "Ads" was of an innocuous nature too. But THAT was ok. Because. Trump. Careful lefties, your extreme double standards are showing.
upholding the constitution against the nascent police state.
Probably be retiring soon then.
It does make me wonder how the judge would have ruled if the website had been an anti-Obama website a couple of years ago. I bet the ruling would have been 180 degrees from this ruling.
Reading is hard. Thank you for demonstrating.
OP says: "Assuming the website is publically acecssible[sic], of course it does"
The reasonable interpretation the parent reply fails to detect is: "As previously observed, courts around the country have acknowledged that, in searches for electronically stored information, evidence of criminal activity will likely be intermingled with communications and other records not within the scope of the search warrant," [...] of course it does.
Or: Assuming the website is publically acecssible[sic], of course it contains records not within the scope of the search warrant.
Obama has done worst...