7 ms·

This seems like a convenient time to remind folks that it is incredibly important to stand up against this kind of government action not only when it is conduct

This seems like a convenient time to remind folks that it is incredibly important to stand up against this kind of government action not only when it is conducted against your political allies, but especially when it is conducted against your political enemies. Even if this were a pro-Trump website being subpoenaed, this should sicken you nonetheless. Short-sighted political gain might be had by allowing the government to stomp all over political dissidents you don't agree with, but in a few short years you might find yourself on the receiving end of the same treatment you endorsed. My hope is that those in the alt-right will realize that supporting this kind of action may hurt themselves just as much as it hurts the anti-Trump folks.

buttcake 9y ago
Maybe the government action is warranted here ? A few searches bring up nothing good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8 And by the looks of it alt-right sites soon will barely have domains, they don't need to worry about the state requesting something like this.
- guelo 9y ago
  That's a strawman. The real issue is that Trump's DOJ is abusing its powers in this case to do a dragnet collection of 1.3 million of its most fervent political opponents.
  - buttcake 9y ago
    How is it a strawman exactly ? Is it ok to do anything you want just because you don't like trump ? It would be abuse if it was illegal surveilance, but this ? How exactly is this abuse ?
    - harry8 9y ago
      If you have probable cause getting a targeted warrant is not an issue. For or against Trump has exactly ZERO baring on that. If you want records for 1.3 million people you're in the realms of claiming there's a criminal conspiracy and a measurable fraction of adults in the USA are in on it. Or you're doing dragnet on your political enemies. It's wrong if someone working for Obama does it, it's wrong if Reagan does it, it's wrong if Hilary does it, it's wrong if _anyone_ does it. Including Trump. He's not special, he's the same whether you like him or not.
      - buttcake 9y ago
        Ok, I understand. Thank you.
        xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago
        There are 530k national guards /rserved and 460k actual soldiers in America, combined making up 990k. That's 310k more "threats". Need a bigger army XD Half America crying out against Nazi's, but extracting information on certain categorized groups and being pro Nationalistic is how NAZIs (Hitler) rose to power in the first place. Some tough irony right there.
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        For or against Trump is an issue. He is the president. You cannot threaten the president and expect no action from the FBI and secret service.
        brewdad 9y ago
        Are you saying 1.3 million people directly threatened the president? Really? This is a dragnet plain and simple. Will they find a few threats? Probably. My guess is 1.299 million Americans will needlessly be harmed by this action.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        dingo_bat 9y ago
        How will they be harmed? What do you suggest FBI should do to protect American interests? Will Google and other hosts block this website just like they are doing with neo Nazi domains? If yes, then probably FBI can rest. Otherwise they have to take measures that ensure the safety of America's elected president.
        charonn0 9y ago
    - nailer 9y ago
      I dislike the far left as much as anyone else but not every member of a 'disrupt' groups is an antifa member plotting violence. Most are well meaning individuals who disagree with the president on a variety of issues and have a right to their political opinion and to protest.
  - krath94 9y ago
    I am against the IP subpoena because i think it is at least a violation of privacy and at most unconstitutional. It should be noted that I am also strongly against antifa and their tactics.
- sinak 9y ago
  The video you linked to is by "Project Visuals" which is run by James O'Keefe. O'Keefe is a conservative activist has a storied history of "severely editing" videos to mislead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe
  - buttcake 9y ago
    I like how you included the fact that he is a conservative activist since "severly editing" would have been enough, and that doesn't seem to be the case with DisruptJ20. >DisruptJ20 countered that it had caught on to the Veritas operation and had thus fed its operative a false plot.
    - brewdad 9y ago
      Motive. A conservative activist certainly has motive to make DisruptJ20 look bad. Add in his past history of "editing" and you have your answer.
      - buttcake 9y ago
        What sort of mental gymnastics is this ? You can't invalidate investigative journalism just because of someone's political alignment and they didn't even make DisruptJ20 look bad they made it look like a bunch aggresive people who think it's they're job to bring the world back to balance. I'm not even defending this whole dreamhost thing, it's wrong on many levels but your thinking will hurt you.
- devnonymous 9y ago
  Since you think government action is warranted, and since it can be argued that HN seems to have an anti-trump bent, I'm assuming you'll be fine if the government wants to know about every single interaction you've had here so that you can be identified ? ...any government? ... Including the inevitable non-trump one?
dingo_bat 9y ago
What is the government action here? They are collecting info about people who are threatening the president. These people belong to groups that have perpetrated violence against those who don't share their viewpoint. There is no censorship occurring. There is no persecution.
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  The request was basically a dragnet, and they're collecting far more information than you say they are.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    They want to err on the safe side. This is the president we're talking about. These people should have thought about their criminal actions before committing them.
    - cr1895 9y ago
      >These people should have thought about their criminal actions before committing them. Who, precisely? Literally anyone who visited the website? You're projecting criminality where none exists.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Many of these people are quite likely to be innocent of making threats. If I post threats on HN, your data would be included. Are you okay with that? I'm not, and I don't even have anything to hide. Note: I'd not post threats. I try to avoid doing stupid things.
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        > If I post threats on HN, your data would be included. Are you okay with that? There's a false equivalence in your example. HN is not a website created to commit acts of treason. Consider a more apt example (but more extreme): there is a website created by ISIS. Many people visit it. A few post threats against America or its president. Is it unethical to pull data about every visitor? The whole website's purpose is terrorism. I'd want the FBI to get every IP address and ascertain the risk that each visitor poses. I'd feel safe that way. What you're saying applies to sites like Google, Facebook, HN, Twitter etc.

buttcake 9y ago

Maybe the government action is warranted here ? A few searches bring up nothing good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8 And by the looks of it alt-right sites soon will barely have domains, they don't need to worry about the state requesting something like this.

guelo 9y ago
That's a strawman. The real issue is that Trump's DOJ is abusing its powers in this case to do a dragnet collection of 1.3 million of its most fervent political opponents.
- buttcake 9y ago
  How is it a strawman exactly ? Is it ok to do anything you want just because you don't like trump ? It would be abuse if it was illegal surveilance, but this ? How exactly is this abuse ?
  - harry8 9y ago
    If you have probable cause getting a targeted warrant is not an issue. For or against Trump has exactly ZERO baring on that. If you want records for 1.3 million people you're in the realms of claiming there's a criminal conspiracy and a measurable fraction of adults in the USA are in on it. Or you're doing dragnet on your political enemies. It's wrong if someone working for Obama does it, it's wrong if Reagan does it, it's wrong if Hilary does it, it's wrong if _anyone_ does it. Including Trump. He's not special, he's the same whether you like him or not.
    - buttcake 9y ago
      Ok, I understand. Thank you.
      - xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago
        There are 530k national guards /rserved and 460k actual soldiers in America, combined making up 990k. That's 310k more "threats". Need a bigger army XD Half America crying out against Nazi's, but extracting information on certain categorized groups and being pro Nationalistic is how NAZIs (Hitler) rose to power in the first place. Some tough irony right there.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      For or against Trump is an issue. He is the president. You cannot threaten the president and expect no action from the FBI and secret service.
      - brewdad 9y ago
        Are you saying 1.3 million people directly threatened the president? Really? This is a dragnet plain and simple. Will they find a few threats? Probably. My guess is 1.299 million Americans will needlessly be harmed by this action.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        dingo_bat 9y ago
        How will they be harmed? What do you suggest FBI should do to protect American interests? Will Google and other hosts block this website just like they are doing with neo Nazi domains? If yes, then probably FBI can rest. Otherwise they have to take measures that ensure the safety of America's elected president.
        charonn0 9y ago
  - nailer 9y ago
    I dislike the far left as much as anyone else but not every member of a 'disrupt' groups is an antifa member plotting violence. Most are well meaning individuals who disagree with the president on a variety of issues and have a right to their political opinion and to protest.
- krath94 9y ago
  I am against the IP subpoena because i think it is at least a violation of privacy and at most unconstitutional. It should be noted that I am also strongly against antifa and their tactics.
sinak 9y ago
The video you linked to is by "Project Visuals" which is run by James O'Keefe. O'Keefe is a conservative activist has a storied history of "severely editing" videos to mislead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe
- buttcake 9y ago
  I like how you included the fact that he is a conservative activist since "severly editing" would have been enough, and that doesn't seem to be the case with DisruptJ20. >DisruptJ20 countered that it had caught on to the Veritas operation and had thus fed its operative a false plot.
  - brewdad 9y ago
    Motive. A conservative activist certainly has motive to make DisruptJ20 look bad. Add in his past history of "editing" and you have your answer.
    - buttcake 9y ago
      What sort of mental gymnastics is this ? You can't invalidate investigative journalism just because of someone's political alignment and they didn't even make DisruptJ20 look bad they made it look like a bunch aggresive people who think it's they're job to bring the world back to balance. I'm not even defending this whole dreamhost thing, it's wrong on many levels but your thinking will hurt you.
devnonymous 9y ago
Since you think government action is warranted, and since it can be argued that HN seems to have an anti-trump bent, I'm assuming you'll be fine if the government wants to know about every single interaction you've had here so that you can be identified ? ...any government? ... Including the inevitable non-trump one?

dingo_bat 9y ago

What is the government action here? They are collecting info about people who are threatening the president. These people belong to groups that have perpetrated violence against those who don't share their viewpoint. There is no censorship occurring. There is no persecution.

PrimHelios 9y ago
The request was basically a dragnet, and they're collecting far more information than you say they are.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  They want to err on the safe side. This is the president we're talking about. These people should have thought about their criminal actions before committing them.
  - cr1895 9y ago
    >These people should have thought about their criminal actions before committing them. Who, precisely? Literally anyone who visited the website? You're projecting criminality where none exists.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Many of these people are quite likely to be innocent of making threats. If I post threats on HN, your data would be included. Are you okay with that? I'm not, and I don't even have anything to hide. Note: I'd not post threats. I try to avoid doing stupid things.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      > If I post threats on HN, your data would be included. Are you okay with that? There's a false equivalence in your example. HN is not a website created to commit acts of treason. Consider a more apt example (but more extreme): there is a website created by ISIS. Many people visit it. A few post threats against America or its president. Is it unethical to pull data about every visitor? The whole website's purpose is terrorism. I'd want the FBI to get every IP address and ascertain the risk that each visitor poses. I'd feel safe that way. What you're saying applies to sites like Google, Facebook, HN, Twitter etc.