5 ms·

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.
    - iebgener2017 9y ago
      Criticizing the President or members of Congress is not treason. Organizing and conducting peaceful protest is not only not treason, it is protected by the Constitution. Thousands of sites were created and used from 2009-2017 to plan, organize and conduct protests against the President, were you as concerned then about such sites?
    - PrimHelios 9y ago
      >HN is not a website created to commit acts of treason Dreamhost wasn't created to commit acts of treason either. >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. You don't understand how websites or IP addresses work. Any moron can visit a site, and IP addresses mean literally nothing. Give me your IP, and I'll prove that by spoofing it and getting the secret service showing up on your front porch. >I'd feel safe that way. I wouldn't. I would rather have a terrorist attack daily than live in a totalitarian regime. >What you're saying applies to sites like Google, Facebook, HN, Twitter etc. Pot? This is kettle. You're black.

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.
  - iebgener2017 9y ago
    Criticizing the President or members of Congress is not treason. Organizing and conducting peaceful protest is not only not treason, it is protected by the Constitution. Thousands of sites were created and used from 2009-2017 to plan, organize and conduct protests against the President, were you as concerned then about such sites?
  - PrimHelios 9y ago
    >HN is not a website created to commit acts of treason Dreamhost wasn't created to commit acts of treason either. >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. You don't understand how websites or IP addresses work. Any moron can visit a site, and IP addresses mean literally nothing. Give me your IP, and I'll prove that by spoofing it and getting the secret service showing up on your front porch. >I'd feel safe that way. I wouldn't. I would rather have a terrorist attack daily than live in a totalitarian regime. >What you're saying applies to sites like Google, Facebook, HN, Twitter etc. Pot? This is kettle. You're black.