7 ms·

I said less conspiratorial in context of the third option because the other two were obviously much more sketchy options? Obviously if the investigators had a l

• ajross 4y ago
  > Unless you mean you think it's "normal" for police to ask Google/Twitter/etc for data dumps of every account that ever connected from x IP address? I don't see where "data dumps of every account" is substantiated anywhere, you're introducing that as a prior. They no doubt had a suspect[1], got something incriminating, took it to a judge and that was enough to get Meta or whoever to cough up the logs. If you're genuinely curious just wait for the court case and follow it. The defense will be presented with all the warrants and will challenge things if they don't look legal. [1] No doubt because someone got sloppy with opsec and posted something from the wrong account. It's always something like that. Crime is actually really hard to do anonymously.
  • dmix 4y ago
    > They no doubt had a suspect[1], got something incriminating, took it to a judge and that was enough to get Meta or whoever to cough up the logs. So literally what I said in my original comment: >> Or, less conspiratorial, the investigators had some leads on x group of accounts -> got warrants for account IP addresses -> confirmed hypothesis.