4 ms·

You reap what you sow. Those techniques and legal doctrines people are so eager for when they're used against tax dodging crypto bros, drug runners and petty sc

You reap what you sow. Those techniques and legal doctrines people are so eager for when they're used against tax dodging crypto bros, drug runners and petty scofflaws (or illegal immigrants and abortion clinics if those are groups you don't like) don't end there. So long as people feel justified remaining quiet when these affronts to privacy, freedom and rule of law are perpetrated against people they don't like there will never be critical mass of opposition to challenge them even when they are perpetrated against people they do like (because whoever you feel justified speaking up to defend others will inevitably not).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
neuronexmachina 4y ago
Do you have some other examples where 1509 custom summonses were abused, but the abuse didn't get enough attention? This is honestly the first I've heard of them: > The 1509 customs summons is an administrative subpoena explicitly and exclusively meant for use in investigations of illegal imports or unpaid customs duties under a law known as Title 19 US Code 1509. Its goal is to provide agencies like ICE with a way to obtain business records from companies without having to go to a judge for a warrant. > The subpoena-tracking database that WIRED obtained offers the most detailed breakdown of how ICE has been using the customs summons to date. The data shows that between January 4, 2016, and August 22, 2022, ICE issued 172,679 summonses, averaging more than 70 per day. Half of these were sent to telecommunications companies like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Comcast. Big technology companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft collectively received nearly 15,000 summonses. Of the thousands of summonses sent to social media companies, Meta and Snapchat make up the vast majority.
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  So, if what the article says is true, it should be inadmissible in any other kind of preceding once a judge gets in the mix. The real problem is that it appears that there's no due process in issuing the subpoena, at least what it seems like. A normal subpoena can be objected to and limited if it's not valid, though most third parties have little incentive to fight it. The problem is that all of this information is being collected and is subject to subpoena. Just because they don't get it with one of these doesn't mean it can't be had. So the reason no one is paying any attention is because until they have an example of it being used to do anything other than collect data. That can be bad, but it's not the same as it being used later to, say, prosecute people.
garbagecoder 4y ago
The reason slippery slope arguments don't hold up like that is because as you say there will never be a critical mass against something until it's being used for something people don't agree with. Wishing it weren't so because it shouldn't be so is just as fruitless as people doing nothing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

neuronexmachina 4y ago

Do you have some other examples where 1509 custom summonses were abused, but the abuse didn't get enough attention? This is honestly the first I've heard of them: > The 1509 customs summons is an administrative subpoena explicitly and exclusively meant for use in investigations of illegal imports or unpaid customs duties under a law known as Title 19 US Code 1509. Its goal is to provide agencies like ICE with a way to obtain business records from companies without having to go to a judge for a warrant. > The subpoena-tracking database that WIRED obtained offers the most detailed breakdown of how ICE has been using the customs summons to date. The data shows that between January 4, 2016, and August 22, 2022, ICE issued 172,679 summonses, averaging more than 70 per day. Half of these were sent to telecommunications companies like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Comcast. Big technology companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft collectively received nearly 15,000 summonses. Of the thousands of summonses sent to social media companies, Meta and Snapchat make up the vast majority.

garbagecoder 4y ago
So, if what the article says is true, it should be inadmissible in any other kind of preceding once a judge gets in the mix. The real problem is that it appears that there's no due process in issuing the subpoena, at least what it seems like. A normal subpoena can be objected to and limited if it's not valid, though most third parties have little incentive to fight it. The problem is that all of this information is being collected and is subject to subpoena. Just because they don't get it with one of these doesn't mean it can't be had. So the reason no one is paying any attention is because until they have an example of it being used to do anything other than collect data. That can be bad, but it's not the same as it being used later to, say, prosecute people.

garbagecoder 4y ago

The reason slippery slope arguments don't hold up like that is because as you say there will never be a critical mass against something until it's being used for something people don't agree with. Wishing it weren't so because it shouldn't be so is just as fruitless as people doing nothing.