4 ms·

Talk about a chilling effect, i.e., do not read the news because law enforcement can subpoena the list of what you read. Lawyers recommend never sharing anythi

by rapjr9 5y ago

Talk about a chilling effect, i.e., do not read the news because law enforcement can subpoena the list of what you read. Lawyers recommend never sharing anything with law enforcement because it can be used against you. So the news articles you read can now be used against you? The FBI seems to think so. This is exactly the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read. Someone at the FBI is way out of bounds.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago
To be fair this doesn't sound like a fishing expedition - they're looking for readers in a 35 minute period. Presumably they have a crime suspect or suspects who may have viewed it in that time. Ideally they would be able to narrow it down to specific IP addresses, but perhaps this is not possible.
- chii 5y ago
  if they can produce a warrant for this data, there's no reason why the site cannot comply. But to get the warrant must require a judge to grant it, and it must be lawful.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Lawful is an interesting term. Patriot Act was voted in and is the law of the land. It allows for NSLs and other rather controversial if not unconstitutional practices. Warrant is not a must. This is not a movie. You would be surprised how many companies give you what you want just by calling as LEO.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      > Patriot Act was voted in and was the law of the land.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        You may think you are pointing out a grammar error, but I stand by the sentence as written. Nothing has changed since then. It was voted. It is the law of the land.
        alisonkisk 5y ago
        A lot has changed, and a lot hasn't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act > as of December 2020, the Patriot Act remains expired But various portions were reauthorized under other laws.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        I will admit I did miss that delopment. Weird question.. was 314a(b) one of those reauthorized pieces? I would assume so, but I am curious.
- salawat 5y ago
  That is every downloader of a publication accessed potentially internationally within a 35 minute period. That is not by any definition strictly/narrowly tailored, and if they are being deliberately vague about it to obscure ways and means that is even more alarming. If they are looking for someone in particular they should be asking for the highest time resolution possible to minimize the Constitutional blast crater w/regards the 4th Amendment. Nevermind we're getting into surveillance via third party metadata via Third Party Doctrine again.
poundofshrimp 5y ago
This case seems different. Because of the tech involved, I’d wager (speculatively) cops didn’t care about the content of the article. What mattered is the technical detail like the IP which has nothing to do with intellectual interest in the particular content.
johnchristopher 5y ago
> Talk about a chilling effect, i.e., do not read the news because law enforcement can subpoena the list of what you read. Lawyers recommend never sharing anything with law enforcement because it can be used against you. So the news articles you read can now be used against you? The FBI seems to think so. This is exactly the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read. I don't understand. What's the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read ?
- firecall 5y ago
  These issues go way back to the dawn of books... If I legitimatly read books about communism, it doent make me a communist! But yet I could be persecuted for following a genuine intellectual path!
  - andi999 5y ago
    True... But it makes you suspicious...
- londons_explore 5y ago
  The fact someone got out a bunch of chemistry textbooks doesn't mean they should be investigated for bomb making...?
  - trhway 5y ago
    and the parent post is the evidence #1 for why, Your Honor, law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to ask libraries for lists of what patrons read.
- phobosanomaly 5y ago
  "In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect If the cops are scrutinizing what you read, you might be discouraged from reading what you want to read.

by rapjr9 5y ago

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

To be fair this doesn't sound like a fishing expedition - they're looking for readers in a 35 minute period. Presumably they have a crime suspect or suspects who may have viewed it in that time. Ideally they would be able to narrow it down to specific IP addresses, but perhaps this is not possible.

chii 5y ago
if they can produce a warrant for this data, there's no reason why the site cannot comply. But to get the warrant must require a judge to grant it, and it must be lawful.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Lawful is an interesting term. Patriot Act was voted in and is the law of the land. It allows for NSLs and other rather controversial if not unconstitutional practices. Warrant is not a must. This is not a movie. You would be surprised how many companies give you what you want just by calling as LEO.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    > Patriot Act was voted in and was the law of the land.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      You may think you are pointing out a grammar error, but I stand by the sentence as written. Nothing has changed since then. It was voted. It is the law of the land.
      - alisonkisk 5y ago
        A lot has changed, and a lot hasn't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act > as of December 2020, the Patriot Act remains expired But various portions were reauthorized under other laws.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        I will admit I did miss that delopment. Weird question.. was 314a(b) one of those reauthorized pieces? I would assume so, but I am curious.
salawat 5y ago
That is every downloader of a publication accessed potentially internationally within a 35 minute period. That is not by any definition strictly/narrowly tailored, and if they are being deliberately vague about it to obscure ways and means that is even more alarming. If they are looking for someone in particular they should be asking for the highest time resolution possible to minimize the Constitutional blast crater w/regards the 4th Amendment. Nevermind we're getting into surveillance via third party metadata via Third Party Doctrine again.

poundofshrimp 5y ago

This case seems different. Because of the tech involved, I’d wager (speculatively) cops didn’t care about the content of the article. What mattered is the technical detail like the IP which has nothing to do with intellectual interest in the particular content.

johnchristopher 5y ago

> Talk about a chilling effect, i.e., do not read the news because law enforcement can subpoena the list of what you read. Lawyers recommend never sharing anything with law enforcement because it can be used against you. So the news articles you read can now be used against you? The FBI seems to think so. This is exactly the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read. I don't understand. What's the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read ?

firecall 5y ago
These issues go way back to the dawn of books... If I legitimatly read books about communism, it doent make me a communist! But yet I could be persecuted for following a genuine intellectual path!
- andi999 5y ago
  True... But it makes you suspicious...
londons_explore 5y ago
The fact someone got out a bunch of chemistry textbooks doesn't mean they should be investigated for bomb making...?
- trhway 5y ago
  and the parent post is the evidence #1 for why, Your Honor, law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to ask libraries for lists of what patrons read.
phobosanomaly 5y ago
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect If the cops are scrutinizing what you read, you might be discouraged from reading what you want to read.