6 ms·

> Of course, they may have just asked all the authorized users, and had each of them deny it. Or they could... check the logs, pull the IP, get a warrant, and

> Of course, they may have just asked all the authorized users, and had each of them deny it. Or they could... check the logs, pull the IP, get a warrant, and get the account/ address associated with that IP. This is basic stuff. They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message.

blake1 6y ago
Have you ever read a warrant application? I have read a few, and they love to use the phrase "information and belief" to persuade the judge. That's just a fancy way of saying "speculate," and judges don't seem to object. We should see when the warrant application becomes public.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  Another way to interpret it is, law and order types have been co-opted by Republicans, rather than the other way around. It shouldn't take a Dave Chapelle colorfully telling you it doesn't fucking matter that some Florida data scientist broke a dumb law when she was disclosing information implicating Republicans of incompetence.
- bigiain 6y ago
  > they love to use the phrase "information and belief" Yep, often followed with "based on my training and experience". Which is just a fancy way of saying "this is what the other cops in the lunchroom reckoned", and judges don't seem to object.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > We should see when the warrant application becomes public. Don't have to wait, they updated the linked article with more details. As I figured, they got her IP address from the logs.
fountainofage 6y ago
Have you even bothered researching the Breonna Taylor case? The judge issued a warrant in spite of evidence clearly saying she's not guilty, and she's dead now. Judges routinely issue warrants just because the good ol police officer man says it's totally ok and he'll get a nice lollipop for doing it.
- tptacek 6y ago
  As I understand it, the warrant for Taylor's house had nothing to do with Taylor herself, but with another person believed to be using her house. Her guilt or innocence were never at issue.
  - fountainofage 6y ago
    The issue is: the evidence they gathered was that her home was specifically NOT part of any drug rings. The judge went ahead and issued a warrant even though all actual evidence said her house was not involved. Cops lied and said it totally was, and the judge just said "sure thing bros, we're all such buds." My point is just because a judge issues a warrant doesn't actually mean anything at all. It has the same factual basis as me saying the sky is actually made of M&M's and judge granting a decree that it must be true because I said it.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Aren't magistrate judges supposed to take the police's word for this? You can't have an adversarial process for getting a search warrant. The remedy for broken warrants happens at trial, with motions to exclude evidence. There was grave misconduct in the Taylor case! Police shouldn't routinely be assaulting homes with weapons drawn. My issue is just the process you're describing here.
      - fountainofage 6y ago
        I'm mainly commenting on the way up parent here: "They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message." Judges absolutely issue warrants all the time just for the hell of it. The very up parent seems to be indicating that some sort of due process was done because "oh, a judge issued a warrant" and I'm emphatically stating: a judge issuing a warrant means as much as me saying the sky is made of M&M's - just the ravings of irrelevant madmen in the face of actual facts. Edit: I will say - the warrant process should absolutely be adversarial. Justice is to be blind. Which means if a crackhead and a cop come to a judge and requests the legal authority to break into a home with lethal force, the judge should weigh both requests the same. That's the intent of our legal system - the executive does what it thinks it's supposed to do in light of what the legislative has passed, while the judicial watches them to make sure they don't screw up. Instead they all get together as buddies and stomp their collective boots into the skull of their fellow citizens.
tedunangst 6y ago
"The perpetrator used tor. Therefore it can only be this disgruntled employee."
tfehring 6y ago
Aren't the requirements for being a judge basically just (1) be a lawyer (2) get elected? I'd hazard a guess that the bar in terms of technical sophistication for a Tallahassee judge is not that high and that it wouldn't be inconceivable for police to sell them a story about a scary hacker stealing people's medical data.
- runnr_az 6y ago
  You don’t even really need to be a lawyer in a lot of cases...
- zests 6y ago
  > I'd hazard a guess that the bar in terms of technical sophistication for a Tallahassee judge is not that high I do wonder how much of the response to this post just begins with the assumption that red states are incompetent. If this had happened in a blue state no doubt the comments would be different. On the internet it's all ideology all the time.
  - tfehring 6y ago
    Florida is still a purple state and Wikipedia says Tallahassee is 2:1 Democrat:Republican. I'd have said the same about judges in most areas of the US that don't have a significant tech presence. I would not feel that way about a judge in, say, Austin.

blake1 6y ago

Have you ever read a warrant application? I have read a few, and they love to use the phrase "information and belief" to persuade the judge. That's just a fancy way of saying "speculate," and judges don't seem to object. We should see when the warrant application becomes public.

an_opabinia 6y ago
Another way to interpret it is, law and order types have been co-opted by Republicans, rather than the other way around. It shouldn't take a Dave Chapelle colorfully telling you it doesn't fucking matter that some Florida data scientist broke a dumb law when she was disclosing information implicating Republicans of incompetence.
bigiain 6y ago
> they love to use the phrase "information and belief" Yep, often followed with "based on my training and experience". Which is just a fancy way of saying "this is what the other cops in the lunchroom reckoned", and judges don't seem to object.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> We should see when the warrant application becomes public. Don't have to wait, they updated the linked article with more details. As I figured, they got her IP address from the logs.

fountainofage 6y ago

Have you even bothered researching the Breonna Taylor case? The judge issued a warrant in spite of evidence clearly saying she's not guilty, and she's dead now. Judges routinely issue warrants just because the good ol police officer man says it's totally ok and he'll get a nice lollipop for doing it.

tptacek 6y ago
As I understand it, the warrant for Taylor's house had nothing to do with Taylor herself, but with another person believed to be using her house. Her guilt or innocence were never at issue.
- fountainofage 6y ago
  The issue is: the evidence they gathered was that her home was specifically NOT part of any drug rings. The judge went ahead and issued a warrant even though all actual evidence said her house was not involved. Cops lied and said it totally was, and the judge just said "sure thing bros, we're all such buds." My point is just because a judge issues a warrant doesn't actually mean anything at all. It has the same factual basis as me saying the sky is actually made of M&M's and judge granting a decree that it must be true because I said it.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Aren't magistrate judges supposed to take the police's word for this? You can't have an adversarial process for getting a search warrant. The remedy for broken warrants happens at trial, with motions to exclude evidence. There was grave misconduct in the Taylor case! Police shouldn't routinely be assaulting homes with weapons drawn. My issue is just the process you're describing here.
    - fountainofage 6y ago
      I'm mainly commenting on the way up parent here: "They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message." Judges absolutely issue warrants all the time just for the hell of it. The very up parent seems to be indicating that some sort of due process was done because "oh, a judge issued a warrant" and I'm emphatically stating: a judge issuing a warrant means as much as me saying the sky is made of M&M's - just the ravings of irrelevant madmen in the face of actual facts. Edit: I will say - the warrant process should absolutely be adversarial. Justice is to be blind. Which means if a crackhead and a cop come to a judge and requests the legal authority to break into a home with lethal force, the judge should weigh both requests the same. That's the intent of our legal system - the executive does what it thinks it's supposed to do in light of what the legislative has passed, while the judicial watches them to make sure they don't screw up. Instead they all get together as buddies and stomp their collective boots into the skull of their fellow citizens.

tedunangst 6y ago

"The perpetrator used tor. Therefore it can only be this disgruntled employee."

tfehring 6y ago

Aren't the requirements for being a judge basically just (1) be a lawyer (2) get elected? I'd hazard a guess that the bar in terms of technical sophistication for a Tallahassee judge is not that high and that it wouldn't be inconceivable for police to sell them a story about a scary hacker stealing people's medical data.

runnr_az 6y ago
You don’t even really need to be a lawyer in a lot of cases...
zests 6y ago
> I'd hazard a guess that the bar in terms of technical sophistication for a Tallahassee judge is not that high I do wonder how much of the response to this post just begins with the assumption that red states are incompetent. If this had happened in a blue state no doubt the comments would be different. On the internet it's all ideology all the time.
- tfehring 6y ago
  Florida is still a purple state and Wikipedia says Tallahassee is 2:1 Democrat:Republican. I'd have said the same about judges in most areas of the US that don't have a significant tech presence. I would not feel that way about a judge in, say, Austin.