10 ms·
In Which My Identity Is Sought by Federal Grand Jury Subpoena
- twoodfin 9y agoI’m sure this is great content, but the page is currently redirecting my iPhone to some scam virus warnings.
- Retric 9y agoI have seen that same thing from several websites. I have seen some websites suggest it's a Safari issue (browser hijackers) and clearing Safari data gets rid of it. But, I have not really messed with it yet.
- LoSboccacc 9y agothe mobile browser landscape has become a minefield of invisible popover, redirect and premium service subscription, only partially mitigated by adblockers (or none at all if using chrome on ios, because, reasons)
- mintplant 9y agoI browse with Firefox for Android and a combination of the uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes, and Cookies AutoDelete add-ons. Without them I'd feel almost naked.
- frandroid 9y agoYou'll always get to fall back on a tinfoil hat...
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y agoAnd yet your IP address is captured by every site you visit.
- megous 9y agoWho cares if it is a VPN server address.
- neoCrimeLabs 9y agoHave you tried uMatrix by the author of uBlock Origin? It takes getting used to but really allows you granular control of 3rd party requests on both a site-by-site and global basis. Word of warning, most uMatrix users I've met say it becomes depressing to see how many 3rd party requests most websites require before they are even usable. It becomes very obvious very quickly.
- mercer 9y agoYesterday I had the opposite experience for the first time. I had uMatrix off, and I hit a paywall. When I turned it back on, I could read the article again! I think it was the Washington Post, but not entirely sure.
- mcguire 9y agoYep. It's a pity Firefox doesn't let you select and copy the address for a link.
- lelandbatey 9y agoI am confused, that doesn't seem to be true. In FireFox for Android, I can select and copy both the address of the page that I'm on[0] and any particular link on the page[1], both by doing a long tap on the link/URL I wish to copy. [0] - http://i.xwl.me/2017-10-26%2010.57.48.png http://i.xwl.me/2017-10-26%2010.57.48.png [1] - http://i.xwl.me/2017-10-26%2011.01.24.png http://i.xwl.me/2017-10-26%2011.01.24.png
- mcguire 9y agoA long tap just selects text from the url. https://imgur.com/gallery/rHqJp https://imgur.com/gallery/rHqJp
- brewdad 9y agoI've taken to browsing on Firefox Klar unless it is a site I know I will be revisiting.
- chatmasta 9y agoAnecdotally, I’ve seen a definite uptick in pop-unders on chrome desktop the last few weeks, even with uBlock enabled.
- drivers99 9y agoNot having that problem here. Safari on iOS 10.3.3.
- LoSboccacc 9y agothose kind of advertisement only target a fraction of the viewers to reduce the chance of the noise to reach the publisher.
- zippergz 9y agoSame here.
- FLUX-YOU 9y agoIt's the second time I've gotten full screen, fake gift card ads on unrelated sites served from cloud front.
- rayiner 9y agoThe takeaway is great (and by "great" I mean "depressing but true"): > Third, when I read the subpoena yesterday, I was suddenly gripped with exactly the sort of impulses that I urge clients to resist: the overpowering urge to do something and talk to someone to straighten it all out. I was tempted to email the AUSA and introduce myself, and to argue that it's ridiculous that he subpoenaed my identity, and ask what the hell he wants. That, of course, would be extremely stupid, even though I've done nothing wrong — perhaps especially because I've done nothing wrong. Fortunately, just as I plead with clients to resist this urge to reach out to the government, I resisted it myself. But I must admit it is powerful.
- howard941 9y agoAs was this comment: > Mike says Wouldn't you also urge your clients to resist the impulse to blog about these things?
- rayiner 9y agoBlogging is less of a problem, because a statement not directed at the government can't be the basis of an 18 U.S.C. 1001 charge.
- likpok 9y agoPopehat on 18 U.S.C. 1001: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea... Although it's a pretty general overview on how it can be used to beef up a conviction.
- mcguire 9y agoI'm curious about that. I can see why it would be idiotic for me to do it, by I'm not Ken White. Why shouldn't he send them a few polite questions?
- rayiner 9y agoThe article by Ken White referenced in the sibling comment by likpok does a good job explaining it: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea.... > Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001. If you don't talk to the government, there is no danger that you'll slip up and talk yourself into a felony conviction. Yes, the risk is less if you're a lawyer and know what to watch out for, but why risk it? There is literally no upside. After all, no federal agent worth her salt is going to change her investigation just because a potential suspect "cleared up some misunderstanding" with a quick phone call.
- Overtonwindow 9y agoWith all due respect, the justice department probably got the subpoena to cover all their bases. Regardless of why, I don't think there is any right of privacy through Twitter. It's a private company. If they want to hand over Ken White's identity, without a subpoena, they can.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> With all due respect, the justice department probably got the subpoena to cover all their bases. Of course - it's cheap to fire them off, and there's virtually no downside to doing so as far as I'm aware. (Short of the fact that the time can be put to better use.)
- monochromatic 9y agoSure, they can if they want to. But a judge shouldn’t be able to force them to do so, not without more than receiving a smiley face tweet.
- compiler-guy 9y agoYes, twitter can do what it wants. But the government can't _make_ twitter do what the government wants, at least not without good reason.
- neom 9y agoHere is the techdirt article: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171023/18275838465/doj-subpoenas-twitter-about-popehat-dissent-doe-others-over-smiley-emoji-tweet.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171023/18275838465/doj-s... That also includes this gem: "* As an aside, look closely at that criminal complaint against Shafer. I have no idea why but it appears that the FBI/DOJ is so clueless that rather than submitting the final complaint, they actually submitted the copy showing the "comments" on the Word doc they were using to prepare the complaint -- which shows two comments that both suggest the FBI is well aware that this complaint is weak sauce and probably doesn't meet the standard under the law... but this story is crazy enough without spending too much time on that."
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> which shows two comments that both suggest the FBI is well aware that this complaint is weak sauce and probably doesn't meet the standard under the law... Wonder if that'll get brought up in court. Can any lawyers weigh in?
- rayiner 9y agoI don't think the comments suggest that the FBI thinks the complaint "probably doesn't meet the standard under the law." They indicate that some specific posts are maybe a stretch under the law (e.g. something like it "comes close to the line"). It's embarrassing as hell, but that's about it.
- jack9 9y agoTechdirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill. Taking a particular viewpoint and expounding on it endlessly as proper context, leaves a lot of telltale quips like how "clueless" actors are being. Postmortems years later consistently show a misunderstanding of what the goals were and why the actions seemed misdirected. The DoJ almost always has a strategy. With the litany of secret processes the US Government navigates, there's no reason to think that they are acting "crazy" when we know there is a lack of information about what is possible.
- 9y ago
- joering2 9y agoI hate to be this guy, but prepare to see much more of similar stuff happening. While I think Trump is better president than Hillary would ever be, Mr. Trump stance on your privacy is that it should be given up to government. In other words, don't expect for the guy at the top to be outraged or actually do something about it, as he is not a champion of privacy himself. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/700795170023825408 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/70079517002382540...
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoTrump doesn't know how government works other than playing king. How is that better?
- alexanderstears 9y agoHe's less capable and more easily thwarted and has awakened the fourth estate.
- oh_sigh 9y agoAwakened the 4th estate to violent irrelevant screeching...which will go right back to sleep(Or rather, into their hypnotic state) as soon as a D enters the white house.
- alexanderstears 9y agoPerhaps but now we can document it better, and he seems to be taking the MSM down with him so that's a plus.
- oh_sigh 9y agoSource please. He appears to know how government works from his working with Congress to pass bills
- wavefunction 9y ago
- lloydde 9y agoThis article needs to be flagged. Popehat or 3rd-party scripts there are triggering redirects to malicious ads about my mobile device being “infected”.
- lloydde 9y agoI’ve made contact on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/lloydde_/status/923575433798434817 https://mobile.twitter.com/lloydde_/status/92357543379843481...
- ceejayoz 9y agoI've seen a big uptick on this today, including on major sites like Snopes and NBCNews. It's almost certainly coming from bad ads slipping through into an ad network.
- dabernathy89 9y agoI've been seeing this a lot more recently - not on Popehat, but on other sites including The Hill (although in my case it was a fake Amazon gift card giveaway).
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoAre you sure it's not you, or your ISP, or DNS, or ...
- dredmorbius 9y agoWhat's your DNS server?
- Skunkleton 9y agoEven is you manually specify your DNS server, your ISP may override your decision. MITM attacks on DNS are trivial and commonplace.
- krallja 9y agoThis site redirected me to malware almost immediately.
- yayana 9y agoIn which we find out the DOJs motive is getting those who might be critical of civil rights abuses to a site with advertiser networks that can be hijacked.
- emeraldd 9y agoHow is this not a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15552170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15552170 ?
- dang 9y agoWe don't count articles as dupes when they haven't had significant attention yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. If we did, many of the best articles would never get attention. There's a lot of randomness in which submission of an article happens to get noticed. It sucks if you got there sooner and someone else wins the lottery, but if you repeatedly submit good stories, it evens out in the long run. When we put stories in the second-chance queue (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 and links back from there), we always try to privilege the original submitter.
- emeraldd 9y agoMake sense.
- c3534l 9y agoThe whole purpose of the court system is to prevent abuses such as this and to deny these subpoenas which are not necessary to the investigation of a crime. It seems as if our court systems have forgotten that they exist to be a check on the executive branch, not co-conspirators of it.
- dang 9y agoEarlier discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15549632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15549632.