3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoThey 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 agoYea. 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 agoBasically 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 agoOne 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 Either way, I'm glad to see the negative attention the request received and even more glad to see the request withdrawn.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 agoOr 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 agoThat 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 agoAccording 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