7 ms·
DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
- pmarreck 9y agoGood for them.
- cypherpunks01 9y ago'Them' meaning Dreamhost? Sorry to be pedantic but there are multiple subjects in the article/title and no other context.
- ceejayoz 9y agoThe headline was edited from a "Dreamhost resists demands..." sort of construction.
- cypherpunks01 9y agoAh, gotcha, thanks.
- pmarreck 9y agoThe subject line of this submission was edited in the meantime.
- greglindahl 9y agoPrevious discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15011636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15011636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15018429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15018429
- mankash666 9y agoThis is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just like DreamHost resisting the DOJ request
- whateveracct 9y ago> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect class. It's perfectly legal for a business to discriminate against such views.
- nostromo 9y agoI wonder where we draw the line, particularly with ubiquitous companies like Google, Facebook, and ISPs. Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.
- ceejayoz 9y ago"No Nazis" is a perfectly fine side to draw the line on, in my book.
- mankash666 9y agoYes - a moral line. However, censoring speech, however vile the said speech is, is illegal and not compliant with net neutrality
- roywiggins 9y agoNo webhost is obligated to host anyone who asks. That's not what net neutrality is about at all.
- eropple 9y agoNazis are being told they can't speak in others' places of business. It is no more "illegal" to make that rule in a private space than to throw out people who talk in a movie theater.
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoWhy is a political organization retaining any info that isn't the minimum to do their job? It's not like both sides haven't been trying to get their enemies membership lists for the past 100+yr.
- marcoperaza 9y agoParty registration is a matter of public record in almost every state in the US. Though that is admittedly different than a smaller group of people who participated in a particular riot.
- bobsky 9y agoRegarding logs: "...the site's administrators didn't keep this data for DisruptJ20.org, but DreamHost did... DreamHost keeps server logs in order to manage the sites of its 400,000-plus customers and identify issues like Distributed Denial of Service attacks. "We only retain those logs for a very brief time," Dunst wrote. "The DOJ served us with a preservation notice immediately after the inauguration, which is why we still have access to that data in this case."
- mulmen 9y agoWhy would a political organization feel the need to protect their information from the DOJ? This isn't a matter of "sides", it is a matter of extreme overreach by the executive branch.
- gozur88 9y agoIt's not overreach if the political organization is behaving like a criminal organization. Much of the rioting and property damage at the inauguration was clearly planned, so the DOJ is just doing its job here.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoAn across-the-aisle analog would be a Democrat President demanding detailed visitation logs to Breitbart in response to the Charlottesville riots. You can prosecute violent crime without lazily trampling over the First and Fourth Amendments.
- marcoperaza 9y agoThey're seeking the identities of the rioters on January 20th. Over 200 people were arrested but many more have yet to face the consequences for what they did.
- greekyogurt21 9y agoSo let's give up 1.3 million records of user info. Makes sense. /s
- borisj 9y agoNo, they are seeking available personal information on 1.3 million visits to the site.
- marricks 9y agoSo there's a million or so people that visited that website and they want to unmask all those people to attempt to find 200 alleged rioters? That sure sounds like an overreaching fishing expedition.
- borisj 9y agoThey already found 200+ alleged rioters. They're looking for the identities of the other 65,844,400.
- wmil 9y agoNo, they are grabbing all of the comments and all of the logs so that they don't have to go back and get a new warrant every time they find something of interest. Broad warrants for electronic records are quite common.
- tehlike 9y agoI wonder if eff will support them. Probably semi annual reminder time to consider donating to eff
- saosebastiao 9y agoIn the last four years or so, we've (rightfully) had about 300 semi-annual reminders to consider donating to eff.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- EpiphanyMachine 9y agoYes they are helping. Is the government really asking for all those visitor logs? "Yes, they definitely are," says Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Mark Rumold. EFF advocates for Internet privacy and free speech, and has advised DreamHost in its case. Rumold tells NPR that when DreamHost first approached EFF about responding to the warrant, he guessed "that DOJ would realize how broad the warrant was, and say, oh you know, in fact we're not actually looking for IP logs for everyone who's ever visited the site" and would narrow its request accordingly. But instead, the government insisted on DreamHost's compliance with the warrant as written.
- dmix 9y agoSo if any charges are brought against anyone as a result they could most likely get any evidence from it thrown out because the initial warrant was too broad and violated their right preventing unlawful search? The real test for the legality of these warrants is typically in the courts for the defendant's trial, which is unfortunate. It's not often thoroughly challenged by the initial judge from what I've heard. Which is interesting when you think of the implications of NSA FISA warrants not having any public scrutiny at all, just a judge's opinion in total secret. I know in Canada it's not even full judges who sign off on police warrants but people called "Justice of the Peace" who are less trained than a judge and spend all day working with police signing off warrants. Various defense attorneys I've spoken to have said they sign almost everything the police give them and tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Which is why the first thing every defense attorney does is look to challenge any warrants because they are usually the lowest hanging fruit in terms of how well thought out the police investigation was.
- wmil 9y agoDreamHost is probably going to lose. The warrant is actually quite standard. Basically the DOJ is just grabbing everything so they can filter through the comments and logs at their convenience. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/15/a-closer-look-at-dojs-warrant-to-collect-website-records/?utm_term=.f0f3495156af https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- blfr 9y agoIn the physical world, the government can search only one apartment in an apartment building with a single warrant; it can’t search the entire apartment building. Are the collective records of a website more like an apartment building or a single apartment? If this is the reasoning they're going then yes, Dreamhost is out of luck. One account is pretty obviously an apartment on a server (building) with the website being an even smaller part than that.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoIt's also extremely pertinent that the warrant is being executed against an organization exercising political speech. That's very different from, say, the DoJ requesting visitor logs to a film torrent site.
- pdx 9y ago> It's also extremely pertinent that the warrant is being > executed against an organization exercising political > speech. Why? If you hurt me (many innocent people were hurt), but you do it because you feel "political", it's OK? Isn't the law supposed to be blind, or do political groups have a "get out of jail free" card?
- na85 9y agoThe express purpose of Free Speech provisions is to prevent the government from persecuting citizens engaged in political speech that the government happens to dislike.
- krath94 9y agoSorry, but antifa is more than Anti-Trump Activists, they are dangerous. They attack people for political reasons and are largely unpunished because they wear all black and wear masks. They are the clowns that started fires in berkeley and hit the Trump support in the head with a bike lock, causing a fractured skull. That's no good imo.
- sergiotapia 9y agoCorrect. Pardon the source but I just searched for "antifa knife" and copied the first link: http://bigleaguepolitics.com/man-stabbed-antifa-mob-outside-home-not-condemning-nazis-hard-enough/ http://bigleaguepolitics.com/man-stabbed-antifa-mob-outside-... The alt-left is getting bolder and more dangerous.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoSo anyone who visits a far-left or far-right political website should have their identities unmasked to the federal government?
- pmiller2 9y agoDon't refer to these morons committing violent acts in the name of protest as "alt-left." It does nothing but legitimize them, much as the moniker "alt-right" legitimizes white supremacists. There is a time and a place for violent protest/revolution, but we're nowhere near there yet.
- pdx 9y ago> much as the moniker "alt-right" legitimizes white > supremacists. Actually, alt-right was coined as a term to differentiate people who adhere to the traditional republican/libertarian views about personal liberty and small government from the neo-conservatives such as Romney, McCain, Graham, and others who push so strongly for nation-building and big government. The collection of people that are drawn to the ideal of small-government and liberty is larger than the subset you describe.
- sergiotapia 9y agoThe alt-left are dangerous but Dreamhost should resist until all legal channels are exhausted. Checks and balances!
- knieveltech 9y agoWhat alt-left? Are you referring to community defense groups trying to protect their communities from Nazis? Dangerous to whom?
- zionic 9y agoThe antifa that tore up Berkley come to mind.
- sergiotapia 9y agoNo, I'm referring to the alt-left who attacked white supremacists, minorities and Trump supporters in Charlottesville.
- knieveltech 9y agoOh, so you meant the groups of counter-protestors that protected the clergy from a mob of heavily armed white supremacists? The same group that was later victims of a domestic terrorist? Alright then.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- MollyR 9y agoI believe its a new term for what used to be called the radical left. There is evidence they go beyond attacking nazi's, to attacking journalists or just people who "look" like nazis. Antifa is a good example with their huge riots and firebombing of cars during Trump's inauguration. The son of Israel's PM considers them a bigger threat to the jewish people than actual neo-nazis (surprising to me). http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-junior-says-leftists-more-dangerous-than-neo-nazis/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-junior-says-leftists-...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- whipoodle 9y agoSomehow I doubt all our stalwart free-speech proponents from the other week will come out in force for this issue.
- yew 9y agoIt's for the best. Now if they just learn to stay away from right-wing causes too, maybe they'll actually make the world a better place.
- greglindahl 9y agoThe EFF is supporting Dreamhost. Was that what you had in mind?
- generic_user 9y agoThe lesson to take away from this regardless of your political leanings is that whatever power you give the state to go after a group you may disagree with will always, eventually be used against you. It makes no difference if the target groups are alleged terrorists, alt-right, alt-left or or any other group. When you expand the power of the state that diminishes the privacy rights of the citizen that law applies to you, your family and your friends also.