5 ms·

U.S. has withdrawn its request to identify a Trump critic

118 points by Bedon292 10y ago

moonka 10y ago
>The government, in order to enforce its subpoena, would have had to demonstrate that whoever is behind the Twitter account was likely violating some law. There also were serious questions about whether the type of subpoena used, which is typically for investigating violations of export rules, was appropriate for the type of case DHS was probing, experts said. Based on how fast the government dropped their request, it seems very clear that this was nothing more than an attempt at stifling dissent. How disturbing.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  They might have found some other way to get to him. It'll be interesting to see if the criticism continues or is silenced.
  - leetrout 10y ago
    Yea. It's a shame but that was exactly that I thought. The withdrew the _public_ request... because they don't need the request at all or they have another request they can make that isn't public.
    - Jach 10y ago
      Basically what happened with the locked iPhone: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/justice-department-withdraws-request-apple-iphone-encryption-case/story?id=37986428 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/justice-department-withdraw...
- alttag 10y ago
  One of the more interesting lines of thought on Ars was that the request was so badly implemented (without a judge's signature; could have a been a National Security Letter instead; other similar reasons), that it was almost as if the person implementing it was doing it because he was pressured to by higher-ups, not because of true desire to see the request succeed. Either way, I'm glad to see the negative attention the request received and even more glad to see the request withdrawn.
  - gotodengo 10y ago
    Or from a more paranoid standpoint, they got exactly the public response they wanted. Dissenters, or at least supposed dissenting federal employees now know they're considered suspect. This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to risk being next?
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      > This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to risk being next? yes, actually. this is encouraging exactly that. the government withdrawing its request in less than 24 hours because it didn't have a leg to stand on means that even in Trumpistan the constitution still means something. that said, encryption and anonymity seem more important now than ever.
- rhino369 10y ago
  That isn't the only reason why they'd drop the request so fast. Even if they had a good reason for the subpoena, they were using the wrong type.
- leereeves 10y ago
  According to Twitter's filing [1], the summons was signed by a CBP SAIC in Miramar, Florida and delivered by a CBP special agent. The communications mentioned in the filing were between Twitter and this CBP agent. Is there any evidence the White House was involved? 1: https://www.scribd.com/document/344292934/Twitter-Filing https://www.scribd.com/document/344292934/Twitter-Filing paragraph 42
payne92 10y ago
Now, when do we have the discussion how this request should never have been submitted in the first place? And better training (or retraining) for CBP agents on the proper scope of the law?
ghughes 10y ago
Any government employees who played a part in this outrageous attempted abuse of power should be removed from their position(s) of authority.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  bring back zyklon b
- amorphid 10y ago
  I don't know enough about this case to comment on the specifics. As a general rule, I am not in favor of terminating someone's employment because they made a bad call. You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things when their failure means unemployment. People need to be able to learn from their mistakes.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    > You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things This is a branch of the government and law enforcements, whose responsibilities, powers and limitations are codified in writing. This is not a scrappy little startup - there are edicts in place about how to do things, not to "be bold" when you have such power behind you.
    - amorphid 10y ago
      Being bold can include doing what you think is right, knowing that taking a stand will be extremely hard. Say an Islamaphobic Congress passes a law that bans wearing turbans, and that becomes extremely popular. A bold for someone in the executive branch could be actively defying that law, challenging it in the court system. Someone has to fight the good fight, and I hope government has people like this.
      - jaredklewis 10y ago
        Right，but it cuts both ways. If you can't fire people for illegal behavior then the situation could just as easily be the opposite with an isalmaphobic government employee violating the the first amendment or civil rights act. At the end of the day, it's hard to imagine how governments or for that matter businesses could operate if employees were immune to being fired for their job performance. There would be little motivation for actual work and little penalty for taking outsized risks. Seems hopelessly naive. Of course this might make fighting the good fight harder sometimes, but that's how it is. If doing the right thing were always easy, everyone would do it.
jbmorgado 10y ago
"request to identify a Trump critic" That was seriously what the subpoena was made about, a "critic"? No wonder moderates feel totally detached from this kind of alt-left (or in other cases alt-right) echo chambers. Journalism these days...
- chambo622 10y ago
  In what way is that description inaccurate?
  - jbmorgado 10y ago
    The request was to identify a "government official impersonator" not a "critic". Either that was really the real motive of the officials that made the subpoena or not (my guess is actually not btw), is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide.
    - danso 10y ago
      > is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide. Journalists are allowed to interpret. In fact, that's a core part of journalism.
      - jbmorgado 10y ago
        I think you are mistaking journalism with creative writing. The core part of journalism is to present facts and let the interpretation up to the reader.
        mrunkel 10y ago
        So, like a phone book? Journalism should be about illuminating a topic, including providing context. I have my gripes with journalism that misuses facts and statistics to spin an alternate reality, but I don't think this was the case. The twitter account never pretended to be a US official, it's always been clear that they are an "alt" account. So for you to claim (someone who, if I'm not mistaken, has zero first hand knowledge about the situation) that your interpretation is more accurate than a "lousy" journalist who actually researched the issue is to my mind a little weird. BTW, I'm sure you're aware that editors write headlines, not journalists right?
partycoder 10y ago
It backfired tremendously. That Twitter account wasn't very well known, and the controversial government actions helped it become a trending topic in social networks. That twitter account and others form what they call the "alt gov", and they invite followers to follow other alt gov accounts. At the end of this exchange, the alt gov people won many followers. The government actually unintentionally helped them with free publicity.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  Exactly. Maybe a honey pot? Take the opportunity to list malcontents in case it's needed later? Narrow the search space in case something come up on down the line? Starting at these nodes who knows what kind of interesting trees might unfold? I image after all they most likely could identify the person if they _really_ wanted to. Twitter's well publicized "stand" aside.
AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
Can the lawsuit proceed anyway even if the request has been dropped?
- plorkyeran 10y ago
  No, courts are not very interested in wasting their time with a lawsuit where the person suing isn't actually asking for anything if they win.
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    IANAL, but this sounds incomplete. Declaratory judgements are a thing. Presumably that doesn't apply in this case for various reasons.
    - slededit 10y ago
      Declaratory judgement are only for cases where the mere possibility of an adverse decision is materially impacting you. For example investors being nervous. Its not intended to be a way to make a point.
hoodoof 10y ago
So many secret, flippant requests for it companies to give up user data.

118 points by Bedon292 10y ago

>The government, in order to enforce its subpoena, would have had to demonstrate that whoever is behind the Twitter account was likely violating some law. There also were serious questions about whether the type of subpoena used, which is typically for investigating violations of export rules, was appropriate for the type of case DHS was probing, experts said. Based on how fast the government dropped their request, it seems very clear that this was nothing more than an attempt at stifling dissent. How disturbing.

pmoriarty 10y ago
They might have found some other way to get to him. It'll be interesting to see if the criticism continues or is silenced.
- leetrout 10y ago
  Yea. It's a shame but that was exactly that I thought. The withdrew the _public_ request... because they don't need the request at all or they have another request they can make that isn't public.
  - Jach 10y ago
    Basically what happened with the locked iPhone: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/justice-department-withdraws-request-apple-iphone-encryption-case/story?id=37986428 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/justice-department-withdraw...
alttag 10y ago
One of the more interesting lines of thought on Ars was that the request was so badly implemented (without a judge's signature; could have a been a National Security Letter instead; other similar reasons), that it was almost as if the person implementing it was doing it because he was pressured to by higher-ups, not because of true desire to see the request succeed. Either way, I'm glad to see the negative attention the request received and even more glad to see the request withdrawn.
- gotodengo 10y ago
  Or from a more paranoid standpoint, they got exactly the public response they wanted. Dissenters, or at least supposed dissenting federal employees now know they're considered suspect. This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to risk being next?
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    > This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to risk being next? yes, actually. this is encouraging exactly that. the government withdrawing its request in less than 24 hours because it didn't have a leg to stand on means that even in Trumpistan the constitution still means something. that said, encryption and anonymity seem more important now than ever.
rhino369 10y ago
That isn't the only reason why they'd drop the request so fast. Even if they had a good reason for the subpoena, they were using the wrong type.
leereeves 10y ago
According to Twitter's filing [1], the summons was signed by a CBP SAIC in Miramar, Florida and delivered by a CBP special agent. The communications mentioned in the filing were between Twitter and this CBP agent. Is there any evidence the White House was involved? 1: https://www.scribd.com/document/344292934/Twitter-Filing https://www.scribd.com/document/344292934/Twitter-Filing paragraph 42

payne92 10y ago

Now, when do we have the discussion how this request should never have been submitted in the first place? And better training (or retraining) for CBP agents on the proper scope of the law?

ghughes 10y ago

Any government employees who played a part in this outrageous attempted abuse of power should be removed from their position(s) of authority.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
bring back zyklon b
amorphid 10y ago
I don't know enough about this case to comment on the specifics. As a general rule, I am not in favor of terminating someone's employment because they made a bad call. You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things when their failure means unemployment. People need to be able to learn from their mistakes.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  > You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things This is a branch of the government and law enforcements, whose responsibilities, powers and limitations are codified in writing. This is not a scrappy little startup - there are edicts in place about how to do things, not to "be bold" when you have such power behind you.
  - amorphid 10y ago
    Being bold can include doing what you think is right, knowing that taking a stand will be extremely hard. Say an Islamaphobic Congress passes a law that bans wearing turbans, and that becomes extremely popular. A bold for someone in the executive branch could be actively defying that law, challenging it in the court system. Someone has to fight the good fight, and I hope government has people like this.
    - jaredklewis 10y ago
      Right，but it cuts both ways. If you can't fire people for illegal behavior then the situation could just as easily be the opposite with an isalmaphobic government employee violating the the first amendment or civil rights act. At the end of the day, it's hard to imagine how governments or for that matter businesses could operate if employees were immune to being fired for their job performance. There would be little motivation for actual work and little penalty for taking outsized risks. Seems hopelessly naive. Of course this might make fighting the good fight harder sometimes, but that's how it is. If doing the right thing were always easy, everyone would do it.

jbmorgado 10y ago

"request to identify a Trump critic" That was seriously what the subpoena was made about, a "critic"? No wonder moderates feel totally detached from this kind of alt-left (or in other cases alt-right) echo chambers. Journalism these days...

chambo622 10y ago
In what way is that description inaccurate?
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  The request was to identify a "government official impersonator" not a "critic". Either that was really the real motive of the officials that made the subpoena or not (my guess is actually not btw), is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide.
  - danso 10y ago
    > is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide. Journalists are allowed to interpret. In fact, that's a core part of journalism.
    - jbmorgado 10y ago
      I think you are mistaking journalism with creative writing. The core part of journalism is to present facts and let the interpretation up to the reader.
      - mrunkel 10y ago
        So, like a phone book? Journalism should be about illuminating a topic, including providing context. I have my gripes with journalism that misuses facts and statistics to spin an alternate reality, but I don't think this was the case. The twitter account never pretended to be a US official, it's always been clear that they are an "alt" account. So for you to claim (someone who, if I'm not mistaken, has zero first hand knowledge about the situation) that your interpretation is more accurate than a "lousy" journalist who actually researched the issue is to my mind a little weird. BTW, I'm sure you're aware that editors write headlines, not journalists right?

partycoder 10y ago

It backfired tremendously. That Twitter account wasn't very well known, and the controversial government actions helped it become a trending topic in social networks. That twitter account and others form what they call the "alt gov", and they invite followers to follow other alt gov accounts. At the end of this exchange, the alt gov people won many followers. The government actually unintentionally helped them with free publicity.

mythrwy 10y ago
Exactly. Maybe a honey pot? Take the opportunity to list malcontents in case it's needed later? Narrow the search space in case something come up on down the line? Starting at these nodes who knows what kind of interesting trees might unfold? I image after all they most likely could identify the person if they _really_ wanted to. Twitter's well publicized "stand" aside.

AdmiralAsshat 10y ago

Can the lawsuit proceed anyway even if the request has been dropped?

plorkyeran 10y ago
No, courts are not very interested in wasting their time with a lawsuit where the person suing isn't actually asking for anything if they win.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  IANAL, but this sounds incomplete. Declaratory judgements are a thing. Presumably that doesn't apply in this case for various reasons.
  - slededit 10y ago
    Declaratory judgement are only for cases where the mere possibility of an adverse decision is materially impacting you. For example investors being nervous. Its not intended to be a way to make a point.

hoodoof 10y ago

So many secret, flippant requests for it companies to give up user data.