4 ms·

This is deliberate, no? "This website's agitating negative feelings towards the Federal judiciary! Let's tie them up for three months. It'll fester in their st

This is deliberate, no? "This website's agitating negative feelings towards the Federal judiciary! Let's tie them up for three months. It'll fester in their staff's minds. Maybe they'll see it's easier to say nothing in future..." It's intimidation. I hope they push back harder than just writing about the incident. The initial investigation was entirely meritless.

gtirloni 5y ago
What do you propose they should do next to push back harder?
- praptak 5y ago
  I could tell you but then HN would get the subpoena.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- oliwarner 5y ago
  Resist the preservation order? FOI the comms leading up to the preservation order? They'd probably shrug both off, but I guess there's an outside chance you get a good judge who sees right through the BS and orders them to fess up.
- mrcartmenez 5y ago
  I would be surprised if instead of going through discovery they... wait, no, no no no no no no no no
bogwog 5y ago
So you're saying there's a conspiracy?
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  Unless the facts in the article are fabricated, we can say for sure that members of the US Marshal service conspired to interfere with tech dirt’s business. Conspiracies happen all the time. It’s not a synonym for “something that isn’t real”.
  - II2II 5y ago
    No, we cannot say that with any certainty. The most probable explanation is they had to investigate a threat and did not want evidence to be destroyed in the meantime. There is no reason to believe there was an intent to interfere with a business and it sounds like there would have been no interference with the business if they maintained logs for 90 days.
    - AmericanChopper 5y ago
      Then they conspired to investigate tech dirt, or one of its users, it’s still a conspiracy. The US Marshals (secretly) acted in harmony toward a common end. The article describes what is factually a conspiracy. That’s what the word conspiracy means, it’s just become a word people use to try and undermine people or their arguments without providing any substantive criticism for them. As the commenter does above.
      - II2II 5y ago
        Still, no. If you are insisting that a conspiracy is a secretive action towards a common end, then the US Marshals and TechDirt are the colluding parties based upon the information provided. The person who made the post is the stated target. That being said, the definition of conspiracy involves illegal or immoral actions. There is no evidence of the former in the article. The latter is largely an individual judgement call, yet there is no evidence that data exchanged hands (simply that it was preserved for a longer duration than it normally would have) so I trouble seeing it as immoral. Calling or implying that the US Marshals' actions with respect to TechDirt a conspiracy is a large part of the reason why people dismiss conspiracies as fictional.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Any time two people are secretly obnoxious on purpose it's a conspiracy. So sure, it might be that. I hope you're not invoking the word 'conspiracy' to make such a mundane thing sound ridiculous.

gtirloni 5y ago

What do you propose they should do next to push back harder?

praptak 5y ago
I could tell you but then HN would get the subpoena.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oliwarner 5y ago
Resist the preservation order? FOI the comms leading up to the preservation order? They'd probably shrug both off, but I guess there's an outside chance you get a good judge who sees right through the BS and orders them to fess up.
mrcartmenez 5y ago
I would be surprised if instead of going through discovery they... wait, no, no no no no no no no no

bogwog 5y ago

So you're saying there's a conspiracy?

AmericanChopper 5y ago
Unless the facts in the article are fabricated, we can say for sure that members of the US Marshal service conspired to interfere with tech dirt’s business. Conspiracies happen all the time. It’s not a synonym for “something that isn’t real”.
- II2II 5y ago
  No, we cannot say that with any certainty. The most probable explanation is they had to investigate a threat and did not want evidence to be destroyed in the meantime. There is no reason to believe there was an intent to interfere with a business and it sounds like there would have been no interference with the business if they maintained logs for 90 days.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    Then they conspired to investigate tech dirt, or one of its users, it’s still a conspiracy. The US Marshals (secretly) acted in harmony toward a common end. The article describes what is factually a conspiracy. That’s what the word conspiracy means, it’s just become a word people use to try and undermine people or their arguments without providing any substantive criticism for them. As the commenter does above.
    - II2II 5y ago
      Still, no. If you are insisting that a conspiracy is a secretive action towards a common end, then the US Marshals and TechDirt are the colluding parties based upon the information provided. The person who made the post is the stated target. That being said, the definition of conspiracy involves illegal or immoral actions. There is no evidence of the former in the article. The latter is largely an individual judgement call, yet there is no evidence that data exchanged hands (simply that it was preserved for a longer duration than it normally would have) so I trouble seeing it as immoral. Calling or implying that the US Marshals' actions with respect to TechDirt a conspiracy is a large part of the reason why people dismiss conspiracies as fictional.
Dylan16807 5y ago
Any time two people are secretly obnoxious on purpose it's a conspiracy. So sure, it might be that. I hope you're not invoking the word 'conspiracy' to make such a mundane thing sound ridiculous.