Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Demands Five Twitter Users' Personal Info Over an Emoji (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: Back in May, the Justice Department -- apparently lacking anything better to do with its time -- sent a subpoena to Twitter, demanding a whole bunch of information on five Twitter users, including a few names that regular Techdirt readers may be familiar with. If you can't see that, it's a subpoena asking for information on the following five Twitter users: @dawg8u ("Mike Honcho"), @abtnatural ("Virgil"), @Popehat (Ken White), @associatesmind (Keith Lee) and @PogoWasRight (Dissent Doe). I'm pretty sure we've talked about three of those five in previous Techdirt posts. Either way, they're folks who are quite active in legal/privacy issues on Twitter. And what info does the DOJ want on them? Well, basically everything: [users' names, addresses, IP addresses associated with their time on Twitter, phone numbers and credit card or bank account numbers.] That's a fair bit of information. Why the hell would the DOJ want all that? Would you believe it appears to be over a single tweet from someone to each of those five individuals that consists entirely of a smiley face? I wish I was kidding. Here's the tweet and then I'll get into the somewhat convoluted back story. The tweet is up as I write this, but here's a screenshot in case it disappears. The Department of Justice's subpoena is intended to address allegations that Shafer, who has a history of spotting weak encryption and drawing attention to it, cyberstalked an FBI agent after the agency raided his home. Vanity Fair summarizes the incident: "In 2013, Shafer discovered that FairCom's data-encryption package had actually exposed a dentist's office to data theft. An F.T.C. settlement later validated Shafer's reporting, but in 2016, when another dentist's office responded to Shafer's disclosure by claiming he'd violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and broken the law, the F.B.I. raided his home and confiscated many of his electronics. Shafer was particularly annoyed at F.B.I. Special Agent Nathan Hopp, who helped to conduct the raid, and who was later involved in a different case: in March, he compiled a criminal complaint involving the F.B.I.'s arrest of a troll for tweeting a flashing GIF at journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who is epileptic. Shafer began to compile publicly available information about Hopp, sharing his findings on Twitter. The Twitter users named in the subpoena had started a separate discussion about Hopp, with one user calling Hopp the "least busy F.B.I. agent of all time," a claim that prompted Shafer's smiley-faced tweet."
my penis in FBI agent's mouth.
They grab your info all the time for alleged copyright infringement. They're engaging in a public forum where literally anyone can read what they said--and that's the entire purpose of the medium. It's the electronic equivalent of speaking at full volume on a sidewalk. What expectation of privacy did they really have?
I really don't see a problem with "requesting" information. The police can request your info from your phone calls, your bank account, and tons of other things _for the purpose of solving crimes_. And here, it's even less bad, because requesting doesn't mean they're snooping through and finding your new secrets (like password protected data). It's merely validating WHO said WHAT. Whether a crime has been committed is an orthogonal issue.
That is to say, I can call whoever I want and police can get my info in the process of investigating crimes. However, what is a CRIME or NOT is whether or not I used that phone to call in a bomb threat. The BOMB THREAT is the crime, whether it's over Twitter (and many have been!), a sidewalk, or a phone.
The only reason people are actually caring (which they didn't when the last president was in office--Google that shit), is because... of "evil Trump." ... Even though it's the same Department of Justice and the DoJ has constantly butted heads with and leaked info about Trump. But simply a new guy as President, and somehow, all the previously "acceptable" actions of federal investigators are all now suspect. As if he has the power to force an entire agency to magically turn corrupt overnight and every employee has no free will or agency.
Out of all the scary, dragnet, evil overlord stuff that's come since the Snowden leaks. The cops merely being able to confirm that I said what I DID say (when that info was ALWAYS available to advertisers, corporations, and hackers) is the least of my worries. That's a huge leap away from thermally or x-ray scanning you inside your house, or hijacking your cellphone tower to READ YOUR PRIVATE TEXTS (all of which they've done doing).
Actually it's just one AUSA doing this. He seems to like broad subpoenas, though and he's doing it because some guy decided to stalk him publicly on Twitter and send vaguely threatening Facebook messages, so they decided to try to bust him for cyberstalking.
That said, yes, it's pretty dumb that they'd subpoena Popehat's identity, it's not like people don't know who Ken White is. He's also probably the last person you should be dragging into this, but yeah, there are more than enough nuts for a jar of peanut butter here.
Stupid Slashdot editors who write headlines like the Drudge Report.
Hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha ha hahahaha hahaha HA!
:)
That whole garbled mess sounds like tween prattling on about inane gossip.
Can anyone translate into adult english what happened? Does any of it even matter or is it all just a bunch of gibberish anyway?
twitter is shit.
Seems like maybe they did not choose the proper response to their annoyance. Sounds much like the kids who whine "he came over on my side of the car seat!".
Dissent's thoughts on the whole situation are just gold and provide a deep look at how the FBI is hiding evidence: https://www.databreaches.net/i...
Nothing that could validate the use of a warrant here
fresh hell?
-Dorothy Parker
I, Spartacus, am the one who tweeted the emoji, rebelled against Rome, balefired Asmodean, fathered Anakin Skywalker and shot Thomas and Martha Wayne.
Goes Unpunished.
Law enforcement are like tigers. Be glad they are in the world, but hope to God you don't meet one face to face.
(my scared face)
https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-sought-by-federal-grand-jury-subpoena/
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The FBI is upset that someone collected public information about someone and compiled it in one place. Amazing.
As I've pointed out in other related topics, treating people calling you and telling you about a problem YOU created. Geezeus, the guy is trying to help. And you treat him like a criminal... not cool. This is why criminals get the sploits. This crap right here is a huge part of the problem.
And the criminal justice system following lockstep to prosecute someone trying to be helpful... well... when you get that bill for a few grand on a newly minted credit card in your name.. you know who to thank now.
Can anyone spell Streisand effect?
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)
---
Landay: "...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American's right against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Gen. Hayden: "No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "But the --"
Gen. Hayden: "That's what it says."
Landay: "The legal measure is probable cause, it says."
Gen. Hayden: "The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "But does it not say 'probable cause'?"
Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: "No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "The legal standard is probable cause, General -- "
Gen. Hayden [indignant]: "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'" ( h/t Dale)
-- Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay questioned Gen. Michael Hayden at the National Press Club in January.
----Text of the 4th..
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
One electronic would be one electronic too many. Or should that be too much?
I don't know. Aaaaaaaargh!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm stuck on the part where someone would intentionally try and give another person a seizure. That's terrible. I understand people can be rude or mean because they disagree with a post, but to physically harm someone? That's just sick.
I'm sure there was something else in there that I should be mad about, but I never made it that far.
Usually we see Yelp reviews for the offender drop to 1 star with funny reviews at this point...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key point that people consistently fail to understand is that a warrant is not just a piece of paper, or one of several ways to show that a search is "reasonable". It is instead synonymous with the legal authority to perform the search—or more generally, to overrule someone's property rights for the sake of law enforcement. No warrant equals no legal authority to make someone submit to a search or stand aside while law enforcement seizes their property. A law enforcement officer without a warrant has no more authority over others' property than a private security guard. And per the 4th Amendment, you cannot be issued that warrant unless you first state for the record specifically what you intend to do and why you believe it to be justified.
This is all really rather obvious if you think about it a bit, since the "no Warrants shall issue" half of the amendment would be meaningless if "reasonableness" was sufficient on its own to make a search or seizure legal.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The constitutional standard is "reasonable". The other half of the amendment describes what's needed to get a warrant. With a warrant, all searches are reasonable. Without a warrant, the government has the burden of showing that the search is reasonable.
If a police officer arrests you, the police officer will need to search you for weapons, and that's not the sort of thing that can wait for a warrant. Hence, the courts have held that it's reasonable to search someone for weapons upon arrest, and therefore constitutional.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If a police officer arrests you, the police officer will need to search you for weapons, and that's not the sort of thing that can wait for a warrant. Hence, the courts have held that it's reasonable to search someone for weapons upon arrest, and therefore constitutional.
Which police regularly abuse by searching for "weapons" in places where either weapons couldn't be (cellphones) or couldn't be a threat (locked car trunks).
I'm not claiming that police never violate people's Constitutional rights. Searching for available weapons is reasonable. Searching for anything else on the pretense of searching for available weapons isn't, and ideally this will come up in any trial or lawsuit. That's generally not how things work nowadays, which is unfortunate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes