5 ms·

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

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.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        Umm... I have visited a number of Daesh and ISIS support sites. I have commented on their recruitment videos. I've also communicated with both the PKK and YPG. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a secular Buddhist. I just wanted to understand what they were fighting about. Additionally, no! The site in question's primary purpose is not illegal. That a subset of users have made threats in no way implicates the whole. It's not a 'make threats about Trump' site. Also, I'm not actually sure you know what treason is. Treason is actually pretty clearly defined. This isn't it. Even if someone assassinated the president, that's not treason. So, yes, it is unethical - and almost certainly a violation of the 4th. I'm not okay with ceding the protections of the constitution to assuage your fear. Terrorists scare me exactly none, nor do these people threatening the president scare me. If they were gonna assassinate the president, they'd not announce it online. If they do, they are too stupid to act on the threat. By all means, prosecute them. However, narrow the warrant to just the accounts that made threats. Fear doesn't motivate me to give up my rights. It also doesn't motivate me to insist you give up your rights.
        dingo_bat 9y ago
        > Umm... I have visited a number of Daesh and ISIS support sites. I have commented on their recruitment videos. I've also communicated with both the PKK and YPG. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a secular Buddhist. I just wanted to understand what they were fighting about. Then the DOJ/FBI/CIA will investigate you and find you harmless and innocent. No worries. I'd still want them to check, though, if you were my neighbor (nothing personal here, just hypothetically saying). > Additionally, no! The site in question's primary purpose is not illegal... It's not a 'make threats about Trump' site. I think it is. Maybe it is subjective. I'll let the DOJ and the courts decide. What do you think? > That a subset of users have made threats in no way implicates the whole. True, and I never said that. I just want them to be investigated, or even just ruled out. > So, yes, it is unethical - and almost certainly a violation of the 4th. I'm not okay with ceding the protections of the constitution to assuage your fear. Terrorists scare me exactly none, nor do these people threatening the president scare me. I don't think it is unethical. I think it is unethical to provide a platform to violent terrorists, and defend them. I'm glad you're fearless, but I want a society in which these violent anti-democracy lunatics rot inside a jail, and not roam the streets. > If they were gonna assassinate the president, they'd not announce it online. If they do, they are too stupid to act on the threat. By all means, prosecute them. However, narrow the warrant to just the accounts that made threats. DOJ thinks all accounts are suspect. They would like to check. I think it is perfectly reasonable, given the level of violence we have seen from these groups recently. > Fear doesn't motivate me to give up my rights. It also doesn't motivate me to insist you give up your rights. Amen, but let's let the police do their job. They create an environment which allows us to be free, and to say anything we want without fear of repercussions.
CaptainZapp 9y ago
So every person who has ever connected to this website threatened the president? Because the justice department is demanding the IP address of everybody who ever connected to that website It's the epitome of silencing exactly that speech, which is protected by the first amendment.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Demanding IP == silencing speech? I'm fed up of alarmist exaggerations. When protecting the president, aggressive investigations are expected.
  - CaptainZapp 9y ago
    Demanding IP == silencing speech? Yes, absolutely! You may think twice in comenting in a public discourse if you must fear to wind up in some enemy of the state database.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      The website in question was not facebook, or twitter or reddit. It's a website that specifically attacks the president. Not exactly "public discourse". Go near a police officer with a friend and talk generally about the best way to bomb the white house. See what happens. Edit: just realized that this comment may have already wound up in an NSA server somewhere lol.
      - CaptainZapp 9y ago
        It's a website that specifically attacks the president. So what? As long there is no true threat that's their first amendment right to do. But moreover: What does that have to do with visitors to the site who don't even comment, but just visit the site? Here's some insight on the subject if you want to educate yourself : https://www.popehat.com/2013/06/24/whats-the-line-between-ill-wishes-and-threats/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/06/24/whats-the-line-between-il...
    - 9y ago

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.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Umm... I have visited a number of Daesh and ISIS support sites. I have commented on their recruitment videos. I've also communicated with both the PKK and YPG. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a secular Buddhist. I just wanted to understand what they were fighting about. Additionally, no! The site in question's primary purpose is not illegal. That a subset of users have made threats in no way implicates the whole. It's not a 'make threats about Trump' site. Also, I'm not actually sure you know what treason is. Treason is actually pretty clearly defined. This isn't it. Even if someone assassinated the president, that's not treason. So, yes, it is unethical - and almost certainly a violation of the 4th. I'm not okay with ceding the protections of the constitution to assuage your fear. Terrorists scare me exactly none, nor do these people threatening the president scare me. If they were gonna assassinate the president, they'd not announce it online. If they do, they are too stupid to act on the threat. By all means, prosecute them. However, narrow the warrant to just the accounts that made threats. Fear doesn't motivate me to give up my rights. It also doesn't motivate me to insist you give up your rights.
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        > Umm... I have visited a number of Daesh and ISIS support sites. I have commented on their recruitment videos. I've also communicated with both the PKK and YPG. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a secular Buddhist. I just wanted to understand what they were fighting about. Then the DOJ/FBI/CIA will investigate you and find you harmless and innocent. No worries. I'd still want them to check, though, if you were my neighbor (nothing personal here, just hypothetically saying). > Additionally, no! The site in question's primary purpose is not illegal... It's not a 'make threats about Trump' site. I think it is. Maybe it is subjective. I'll let the DOJ and the courts decide. What do you think? > That a subset of users have made threats in no way implicates the whole. True, and I never said that. I just want them to be investigated, or even just ruled out. > So, yes, it is unethical - and almost certainly a violation of the 4th. I'm not okay with ceding the protections of the constitution to assuage your fear. Terrorists scare me exactly none, nor do these people threatening the president scare me. I don't think it is unethical. I think it is unethical to provide a platform to violent terrorists, and defend them. I'm glad you're fearless, but I want a society in which these violent anti-democracy lunatics rot inside a jail, and not roam the streets. > If they were gonna assassinate the president, they'd not announce it online. If they do, they are too stupid to act on the threat. By all means, prosecute them. However, narrow the warrant to just the accounts that made threats. DOJ thinks all accounts are suspect. They would like to check. I think it is perfectly reasonable, given the level of violence we have seen from these groups recently. > Fear doesn't motivate me to give up my rights. It also doesn't motivate me to insist you give up your rights. Amen, but let's let the police do their job. They create an environment which allows us to be free, and to say anything we want without fear of repercussions.

CaptainZapp 9y ago

So every person who has ever connected to this website threatened the president? Because the justice department is demanding the IP address of everybody who ever connected to that website It's the epitome of silencing exactly that speech, which is protected by the first amendment.

dingo_bat 9y ago
Demanding IP == silencing speech? I'm fed up of alarmist exaggerations. When protecting the president, aggressive investigations are expected.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  Demanding IP == silencing speech? Yes, absolutely! You may think twice in comenting in a public discourse if you must fear to wind up in some enemy of the state database.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    The website in question was not facebook, or twitter or reddit. It's a website that specifically attacks the president. Not exactly "public discourse". Go near a police officer with a friend and talk generally about the best way to bomb the white house. See what happens. Edit: just realized that this comment may have already wound up in an NSA server somewhere lol.
    - CaptainZapp 9y ago
      It's a website that specifically attacks the president. So what? As long there is no true threat that's their first amendment right to do. But moreover: What does that have to do with visitors to the site who don't even comment, but just visit the site? Here's some insight on the subject if you want to educate yourself : https://www.popehat.com/2013/06/24/whats-the-line-between-ill-wishes-and-threats/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/06/24/whats-the-line-between-il...
  - 9y ago