Justice demands 1.3M IP addresses related to Trump resistance site

[Objective Voice]

Just the Trump administration though.

I had the same sentiments when the Obama administration played fast and loose with my online privacy, and a raised a fuss with the Patriot Act.

Let me put it as succinctly as I can: Anytime the federal government uses the Justice Department for the purpose of mass collection of personal data, you'd better demand that your 4th and 5th Amendments rights are not violated. And if they succeed in going beyond those rights, prepare yourself for a tough legal battle under the 6th Amendment.

Doesn't matter to me if it's the GWBush Administration, the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration or any Administration that comes afterwards. What this "request" from the DoJ is really trying to do is suppress the digital free speech of those of oppose Pres. Trump. I stand by what I initially posted despite your attempt to deflect. The only way I'd give up those IP Addresses is if the Trump Administration goes after the online accounts of Alt-Right affiliates who gathered in Charlottseville, VA - warrant or no warrant. Until then (or even in spite of) I'd fight this tooth and nail.

 

[Objective Voice]

Jeez, the Trumpanzees get pissed about gun registration, but want to register protesters? Who would have thunk it? Oh, I'd say just about everybody. LOL.

"Find those radical agitators...root them out!"

I can't believe some of you on the Right are blindly supporting this obvious attempt at suppressing free speech in a democratic society. It's different if these people were proven to gather for the sole purpose of committing mayhem, i.e., destruction of specific public or private property as that would be deemed a terrorist plot, but if all they're doing is coordinating their efforts to publicly demonstrate to have their voices heard, where's the problem?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I didn't like the "Name/shame a nazi" lists the left were doing on twitter that got Kyle Quinn falsely accused, harassed and threatened.
I don't like this either. I really don't like registries period, let alone people compiling wrongthink lists. The potential for abuse, or worse, emulation, is astronomical.

Especially if these lists are secret, there are consequences to them and there is no due process to be removed from them.

 

[Angelus]

Try reading between the lines...

I was basically saying this company should tell the Trump Administration/DoJ to go ***k themselves in a polite way. :roll:

I wouldn't turn over a single IP Address without a federal warrant and even then I'd fight it.

They have received a federal warrant from the justice department - and they are fighting it.

 

[Angelus]

Looks like it's part of a criminal investigation.
If these guys operate like Antifa in Germany does, they use websites to coordinate activities and logistics.
Seems like it would make sense.

A criminal investigation of every single person who logged on to a website....an investigation to make sure people are not criminals.
I'll put you down as one of the Big Brother large govt supporters.

 

[Angelus]

Let me put it as succinctly as I can: Anytime the federal government uses the Justice Department for the purpose of mass collection of personal data, you'd better demand that your 4th and 5th Amendments rights are not violated. And if they succeed in going beyond those rights, prepare yourself for a tough legal battle under the 6th Amendment.

Doesn't matter to me if it's the GWBush Administration, the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration or any Administration that comes afterwards. What this "request" from the DoJ is really trying to do is suppress the digital free speech of those of oppose Pres. Trump. I stand by what I initially posted despite your attempt to deflect. The only way I'd give up those IP Addresses is if the Trump Administration goes after the online accounts of Alt-Right affiliates who gathered in Charlottseville, VA - warrant or no warrant. Until then (or even in spite of) I'd fight this tooth and nail.

I will fight this tooth and nail no matter what information is wanted. This is not the role of govt in a democracy with assured civil liberty. Once this cherry is busted, every single person who logs into any site can have their personal information given to a Justice Department that is going under the assumption people at a certain site must prove their innocence.

 

[Angelus]

I didn't like the "Name/shame a nazi" lists the left were doing on twitter that got Kyle Quinn falsely accused, harassed and threatened.
I don't like this either. I really don't like registries period, let alone people compiling wrongthink lists. The potential for abuse, or worse, emulation, is astronomical.

Especially if these lists are secret, there are consequences to them and there is no due process to be removed from them.

Name/shame a nazi is not the US Justice Department issuing a warrant. There is no comparison.

 

[MTAtech]

There was a search warrant issued? That would require a judge to sign, which I would be surprised.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Name/shame a nazi is not the US Justice Department issuing a warrant.

And a hotdog is not a taco.

There is no comparison.

I made no comparison, I equated. I condemned all registries based on wrongthink, public or private.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

A criminal investigation of every single person who logged on to a website....an investigation to make sure people are not criminals.
I'll put you down as one of the Big Brother large govt supporters.

It's not quite that simple.
While I agree that all the IPs are not necessary, it's not immediately present if the website logs user names to IP addresses.

 

[Angelus]

There was a search warrant issued? That would require a judge to sign, which I would be surprised.

Please check the links I have posted - there is a link to a PDF showing the warrant on the second one.

It's not quite that simple.
While I agree that all the IPs are not necessary, it's not immediately present if the website logs user names to IP addresses.

Once again - read the links. I have been quoting them. This is the information demanded by the Justice Department. This is the demand that the server is fighting.

And a hotdog is not a taco.



I made no comparison, I equated. I condemned all registries based on wrong think, public or private.

Cool - so when the next govt wants the links to a website you go to in order to do whatever they think necessary, it will be the same as a group of people looking up pictures. Thought you guys were the black helicopter, small govt types - the people against a govt that selects personal data. Once this is enshrined in law, it will be legal for the govt to do the exact same to every internet site - and governments change a lot.

So bend over and enjoy that hot dog.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Let me put it as succinctly as I can: Anytime the federal government uses the Justice Department for the purpose of mass collection of personal data, you'd better demand that your 4th and 5th Amendments rights are not violated. And if they succeed in going beyond those rights, prepare yourself for a tough legal battle under the 6th Amendment.

Doesn't matter to me if it's the GWBush Administration, the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration or any Administration that comes afterwards. What this "request" from the DoJ is really trying to do is suppress the digital free speech of those of oppose Pres. Trump. I stand by what I initially posted despite your attempt to deflect. The only way I'd give up those IP Addresses is if the Trump Administration goes after the online accounts of Alt-Right affiliates who gathered in Charlottseville, VA - warrant or no warrant. Until then (or even in spite of) I'd fight this tooth and nail.

You recognize the weapon being aimed at you, but your issue is that it's not fair unless the weapon is aimed in a direction you find more pleasing.

I'd personally prefer the weapon was dismantled and taken away from the government, but I'm a reasonable sort of cat. I didn't like it when Obama did it, and my counterarfument wasn't "use this against liberals too", it was, "it's wrong to use this".

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Cool - so when the next govt wants the links to a website you go to in order to do whatever they think necessary, it will be the same as a group of people looking up pictures. Thought you guys were the black helicopter, small govt types - the people against a govt that selects personal data. Once this is enshrined in law, it will be legal for the govt to do the exact same to every internet site - and governments change a lot.

So bend over and enjoy that hot dog.

You don't read what you quote at all do you?

 

[Objective Voice]

You recognize the weapon being aimed at you, but your issue is that it's not fair unless the weapon is aimed in a direction you find more pleasing.

I'd personally prefer the weapon was dismantled and taken away from the government, but I'm a reasonable sort of cat. I didn't like it when Obama did it, and my counterarfument wasn't "use this against liberals too", it was, "it's wrong to use this".

My point in all this is very simple: The Trump Administration (DoJ) will never go after Trump supporters/organizers. So, why should any anti-Trump organization willingly give up any information concerning their affiliates? It's got nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" or compromising. It's about standing firmly behind privacy rights of the individual clients and property rights of the company. That's the point that went clearly over your head.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

My point in all this is very simple: The Trump Administration (DoJ) will never go after Trump supporters/organizers. So, why should any anti-Trump organization willingly give up any information concerning their affiliates? It's got nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" or compromising. It's about standing firmly behind privacy rights of the individual clients and property rights of the company. That's the point that went clearly over your head.

Is it about standing for the rights individuals?

I never once posited that I wanted to see Obama use the IRS to go after liberal groups. I wanted the mechanism by which the government could persecute - selectively or otherwise - removed from government control.

 

[Objective Voice]

Is it about standing for the rights individuals?

I never once posited that I wanted to see Obama use the IRS to go after liberal groups. I wanted the mechanism by which the government could persecute - selectively or otherwise - removed from government control.

If the issue is national in scope and violates federal law, then the government should be able to prosecute. However, I don't think that's the case in this situation.

The Internet Service/Web Hosting Provider, DreamHost hasn't broken any laws here short of not complying with the search warrant. I can't say I blame them given the scope of information the DC Superior Court is looking for.

The federal government, specifically, the Dept of Justice (under a Trump Presidency and by extension Pres. Trump) has decided it doesn't like the fact that private citizens banded together using an web hosting service to collaborate and coordinate their efforts to exercise democracy and speak out against the then President-elect on Inauguration Day. Pres. Trump doesn't like that, so the "law and order" President is using his Cabinet (DoJ) (and by extension his Office (of the President)) to bully a private company to name names.

He's seeking information to help the private detective that was hired by the federal government to identify people Capital Police belief were involved in the DisrupteJ20 protests and ensuing riots on Inauguration Day (Jan. 20, 2017) and caused harm to members of the public or damaged public or private property. Basically, Pres. Trump (via DoJ) is treating anyone who visited (or visits) www.disruptpj20.org via DreamHost hosting services and participated in the DisrupteJ20 protests and/or riots as domestic terrorist. From Attachment B, Section II of the search warrant:

All information described above in Section I (account ID/ISP Address, names, addresses, telephone numbers, email address, business information, length of service (how long have account been active), payment methods to account including bank acct, credit/debit card numbers, etc.) that constitutes fruits, evidence and instrumentalities of violations of DC Code 22-1322 involving the individuals who participated, planned, organized or incited the January 20 riot, relating to the development, publishing, advertising, access, use, administration or maintenance of any website enumerated in Attachment A...

In short, DoJ isn't looking to assist the Capital Police or this Private detective identifying specific suspects they believe caused mayhem that day. It's looking for anyone and everyone whose name appears on DisruptJ20's mailing/contact/registered lists. Make no mistake...this is a Texas round up! The Orange One is pissed and he's going after every private citizen he can find from Inauguration Day he believes caused him to have a "no good, terrible, horrible, very bad day" on January 20, 2017.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

If the issue is national in scope and violates federal law, then the government should be able to prosecute. However, I don't think that's the case in this situation.

The Internet Service/Web Hosting Provider, DreamHost hasn't broken any laws here short of not complying with the search warrant. I can't say I blame them given the scope of information the DC Superior Court is looking for.

The federal government, specifically, the Dept of Justice (under a Trump Presidency and by extension Pres. Trump) has decided it doesn't like the fact that private citizens banded together using an web hosting service to collaborate and coordinate their efforts to exercise democracy and speak out against the then President-elect on Inauguration Day. Pres. Trump doesn't like that, so the "law and order" President is using his Cabinet (DoJ) (and by extension his Office (of the President)) to bully a private company to name names.

He's seeking information to help the private detective that was hired by the federal government to identify people Capital Police belief were involved in the DisrupteJ20 protests and ensuing riots on Inauguration Day (Jan. 20, 2017) and caused harm to members of the public or damaged public or private property. Basically, Pres. Trump (via DoJ) is treating anyone who visited (or visits) www.disruptpj20.org via DreamHost hosting services and participated in the DisrupteJ20 protests and/or riots as domestic terrorist. From Attachment B, Section II of the search warrant:



In short, DoJ isn't looking to assist the Capital Police or this Private detective identifying specific suspects they believe caused mayhem that day. It's looking for anyone and everyone whose name appears on DisruptJ20's mailing/contact/registered lists. Make no mistake...this is a Texas round up! The Orange One is pissed and he's going after every private citizen he can find from Inauguration Day he believes caused him to have a "no good, terrible, horrible, very bad day" on January 20, 2017.

So, let's see him do it to Republicans.

Right?

 

[Caine]

This is concerning and not a good road to go down.

Definitely concerning.

Could be there are looking for a specific person, specified threat..... could be they are looking to build a "how dare they dislike me" catalog of people....

 

[Caine]

as members of an online political debate site, this kind of thing affects all of us regardless of where we consider ourselves to be on the political spectrum. it's utterly chilling.

Its also important to remember that this warrant was issued by a judicial official as a part of an investigation. What type of investigation? Who knows.

It may be completely legitimate, despite the very bad optics of the whole ordeal.

 

[Caine]

My point in all this is very simple: The Trump Administration (DoJ) will never go after Trump supporters/organizers. So, why should any anti-Trump organization willingly give up any information concerning their affiliates? It's got nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" or compromising. It's about standing firmly behind privacy rights of the individual clients and property rights of the company. That's the point that went clearly over your head.

We know the face of the warrant (places to be searched, information to be seized)....

We don't know the WHY.

I'm not a fan of the optics, but we have a whole lot of baseless speculation going on in here so far as to the why.

 

[Helix]

Its also important to remember that this warrant was issued by a judicial official as a part of an investigation. What type of investigation? Who knows.

It may be completely legitimate, despite the very bad optics of the whole ordeal.

i see few scenarios in which this would be appropriate. can i argue that those few scenarios are impossible? no. can i speculate that the motivation for this is nefarious and chilling? yes.

 

[Objective Voice]

So, let's see him do it to Republicans.

Right?

This isn't about Republican or Democrat although I'm sure most of those who participated in the DisruptJ20 protest were liberals. However, that's not my why I'm against what this warrant calls for. There's no political motive behind it. It's not a right -vs- left issue; it's right -vs- wrong.

It would be one thing if the Private Detective listed in the warrant had a few faces he was seeking help identifying and sought a warrant from DreamHost to get specific information about specific target suspects, but that's not what's happening here. The government via this detective is CASTING A WIDE NET trying to get all kinds of information on A-N-Y-O-N-E who even visited the disruptj20.org website. That, to me, is a BIG problem and that's just on the personal privacy level. The warrant also seeks to obtain the intellectual property of DreamHost (software) they developed and/or used for its webhosting purposes.

So, you can stop trying to turn this into a partisan issue; it's not. It's a privacy issue.

Sidenote: Yes, I was being a little flippant when I suggested DreamHost shouldn't turnover any such information until the DoJ went after webhosting companies his supporters used, many of whom are White Nationalist, to coordinate their marches.

y point in all this is very simple: The Trump Administration (DoJ) will never go after Trump supporters/organizers. So, why should any anti-Trump organization willingly give up any information concerning their affiliates? It's got nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" or compromising. It's about standing firmly behind privacy rights of the individual clients and property rights of the company.

Clearly, you can see the sarcasm in that not to mention the irony in light of recent events.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

This isn't about Republican or Democrat although I'm sure most of those who participated in the DisruptJ20 protest were liberals. However, that's not my why I'm against what this warrant calls for. There's no political motive behind it. It's not a right -vs- left issue; it's right -vs- wrong.

It would be one thing if the Private Detective listed in the warrant had a few faces he was seeking help identifying and sought a warrant from DreamHost to get specific information about specific target suspects, but that's not what's happening here. The government via this detective is CASTING A WIDE NET trying to get all kinds of information on A-N-Y-O-N-E who even visited the disruptj20.org website. That, to me, is a BIG problem and that's just on the personal privacy level. The warrant also seeks to obtain the intellectual property of DreamHost (software) they developed and/or used for its webhosting purposes.

So, you can stop trying to turn this into a partisan issue; it's not. It's a privacy issue.

Sidenote: Yes, I was being a little flippant when I suggested DreamHost shouldn't turnover any such information until the DoJ went after webhosting companies his supporters used, many of whom are White Nationalist, to coordinate their marches.



Clearly, you can see the sarcasm in that not to mention the irony in light of recent events.

It would be one thing if everybody came out of the woodwork to denounce this behavior when conducted by other administrations. It is quite another to use this particular example to indict this particular administration.

Pardon my reluctance to relegate this to an example of how bad Trump is. I mean, Trump is clearly bad, but the silence of past transgressions has allowed such a request to exist. The problem isn't one of Trump's administration being guilty of an overreach, so much as the system permitting overreach in the first place (all encouraged by the silence of the Democrats during the last administration, and the Republicans during the one before that).

 

[NoParty]

Dumb politics, they should've just done it Obama-style and had the NSA get it for them.

 

[Objective Voice]

It would be one thing if everybody came out of the woodwork to denounce this behavior when conducted by other administrations. It is quite another to use this particular example to indict this particular administration.

Pardon my reluctance to relegate this to an example of how bad Trump is. I mean, Trump is clearly bad, but the silence of past transgressions has allowed such a request to exist. The problem isn't one of Trump's administration being guilty of an overreach, so much as the system permitting overreach in the first place (all encouraged by the silence of the Democrats during the last administration, and the Republicans during the one before that).

Wait a minute...here we go again with "the other guy did it, why can't we" excuse. So, let's get this cleared up right here, right now.

The U.S.A. Patriot Act/Patriot Act (as revised) started off as a good and reasonable law. It's initial purpose was to monitor telephone communications that took place between individuals (usually was a foreigner but could have been a U.S. citizen as well) who made phone calls from the U.S. to points abroad and vis versa. The idea was to catch the bad guys who at the time were using burner phones (which were nearly untraceable and disposable) to make phone calls overseas and coordinate terrorist attacks either on U.S. soil or points abroad of national security interest. As word began to spread of how there would-be terrorist were being monitored, they changed their tactics going from burner phones to the Internet. As such, our National Security Agency (NSA) changed their tactics as well only they began to go a step too far randomly monitoring the online activity of U.S. citizens who had nothing to do with terrorism.

Now, if you're trying to make that equivalency shame on you! What the GWBush and Obama Administrations did was wrong in their blanket approach to surveillance techniques, but their motives were not personal. From a strict reading of the search warrant, this appears to be personal with [the] Trump [Administration]. As I said above, I could understand if the detective had un-named suspects and all he was doing was trying to put a name to a specific face, but it's clear that is NOT the case. This is about [the] Trump [Administration] going after anyone who sought to disrupt and embarrassed the incoming President on Jan 20, 2017.

The two (or three) monitoring situation don't even come close to being on equal footing assuming that's the equivalency you're trying to make. If not, please clarify what you meant.