3 ms·

It definitely implies one of these, and at face value, they're both terrible. A single IP being used somewhere makes sense to go to the ISP and ask "hey who was

It definitely implies one of these, and at face value, they're both terrible. A single IP being used somewhere makes sense to go to the ISP and ask "hey who was this IP assigned to at this time?". It does not make sense that the police should be able to get a warrant for data from every single website in the western world based only on a single IP. But Snowden already proved that PRISM is a thing. Also why stop at Facebook/Twitter/Discord? Should police also get warrants for AshleyMadison.com, Tryst.link, UnitedNuclear.com, DonateToPoliticalParty.org, INeedAnAbortion.org, etc etc? "Hey did anyone with this IP perform a transaction on your site and can you give us their name?"

vkou 4y ago
> It does not make sense that the police should be able to get a warrant for data from every single website in the western world based only on a single IP. Why not? The police can go around every single business in town, and ask if a man matching some particular description patronized it. This isn't a fishing expedition, this is the police asking for particular information about a particular person, who they are investigating for a particular crime. This is... Normal police work.
- runnerup 4y ago
  They can go around to every business in town and ask, they can’t get a warrant though.
  - vkou 4y ago
    It's quite likely that the police came to Facebook et al with warrants.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      Yes and some people think the issuance of those presumed warrants are inappropriate. However, it’s been proven that the government doesn’t necessarily need warrants as they’ve had unlimited access to the firehouse of data directly through the PRISM program.
      - vkou 4y ago
        Prism was a web portal for serving warrants and NSLs, but if we repeat the original misreporting enough times, I guess it'll stick. If what you're saying is true, these guys will walk because they'll challenge the lack of warrant in court. I have strong doubts that they are going to be walking anytime soon.
        runnerup 4y ago
        Well, I don’t think they’ll walk if there’s no warrant because the third party doctrine allows Facebook to share whatever they want to with the police. A warrant would actually be “worse” … if it’s based solely on a single one-time IP.

vkou 4y ago

> It does not make sense that the police should be able to get a warrant for data from every single website in the western world based only on a single IP. Why not? The police can go around every single business in town, and ask if a man matching some particular description patronized it. This isn't a fishing expedition, this is the police asking for particular information about a particular person, who they are investigating for a particular crime. This is... Normal police work.

runnerup 4y ago
They can go around to every business in town and ask, they can’t get a warrant though.
- vkou 4y ago
  It's quite likely that the police came to Facebook et al with warrants.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    Yes and some people think the issuance of those presumed warrants are inappropriate. However, it’s been proven that the government doesn’t necessarily need warrants as they’ve had unlimited access to the firehouse of data directly through the PRISM program.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Prism was a web portal for serving warrants and NSLs, but if we repeat the original misreporting enough times, I guess it'll stick. If what you're saying is true, these guys will walk because they'll challenge the lack of warrant in court. I have strong doubts that they are going to be walking anytime soon.
      - runnerup 4y ago
        Well, I don’t think they’ll walk if there’s no warrant because the third party doctrine allows Facebook to share whatever they want to with the police. A warrant would actually be “worse” … if it’s based solely on a single one-time IP.