7 ms·

In WikiLeaks Probe, Feds Used a Secret Search Warrant to Get Volunteer’s Gmail

167 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

teawithcarl 13y ago
Jacob Applebaum (@ioerror) on Twitter just minutes ago -- I've long heard rumors that there has been a sealed search warrant for my Gmail account that's probably like this.
- rdl 13y ago
  Jake is kind of a human warrant canary; I suspect any service on which has has an account gets secret search warrants, so any major service which hasn't publicly pushed back on warrants (or warrants about him) is secretly complying.
laughfactory 13y ago
This is ridiculous. This kind of abuse of anyone and everyone whom the government finds inconvenient has got to stop!
kevinpet 13y ago
This is less objectionable on a procedural basis than many of our current problems. WikiLeaks received classified information, which means someone in the US committed a crime. They went to a judge and got a search warrant based on a an affidavit establishing probable cause of being related to a crime they are investigating. The secret warrant is a little iffy, but far better than secret courts or wholesale collection of "metadata" on everyone.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  No, this is outrageous. This guy was not suspected of a crime, he was suspected of talking to someone who committed a crime. This is identical to the feds now slurping up all personal email (and probably facebook accounts, and whatever else) belonging to Washington Post and Guardian employees under a gag order, because they talked to Snowden, who "committed a crime". It doesn't matter if it's widespread or wholesale, it matters that they can do it when they want to.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    He was not even suspected of talking to someone who committed a crime. He was suspected of talking to someone who was under investigation. The really appalling part of this story is that Google was ordered to turn over all of this guy's email -- not just that email which was related to Wikileaks or Julian Assange, but all of it.
    - aspensmonster 13y ago
      It's just another example of why grand juries in particular need to cease existing.
      - tbrownaw 13y ago
        To be replaced with what?
        aspensmonster 13y ago
        Courts.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I'm confused, again. Don't we subpoena people all the time just because they are associated with the subject of an active investigation? That's literally Law Enforcement 101. Do you think they didn't bother to search the available records for close associates of a Mob boss under investigation for racketeering? That they just wiretap the one guy and that's all?
      - betterunix 13y ago
        What do emails not sent to or received from the subject of the investigation have to do with the investigation? It might have been reasonable, if the government had real reason to believe Julian Assange have broken our laws, to request emails related to him or to Wikileaks. It is not acceptable to just demand everything, unless they are also seeking to prosecute this person.
- A1kmm 13y ago
  Certainly it is less broad than the NSA dragnet. However, WikiLeaks is a journalism organisation, and investigating such an organisation to suppress its free speech is objectionable. To cite article 19, clause 2 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". If the government is trying to shut down WikiLeaks for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment, and this is part of an effort to harass those involved in the organisation, then that is objectionable.
betterunix 13y ago
All the more reason to run and use anonymous remailers.
pvnick 13y ago
This is exactly the reason the fourth amendment was written. Not to learn the secret recipe behind your grandma's cookies. But because it's extremely tempting for those in power to want to abuse their power to avoid being accountable to the public for their actions. After all, they're human, and in cases of stress, like potential embarassment some folks would be facing under Wikileak's releases, it's easy to justify bending the rules in your favor.
- rayiner 13y ago
  No, the 4th amendment was written to insert the judiciary as a check on police searches of peoples' houses. Literally, that was the factual circumstance that prompted the drafting of the amendment.
  - aspensmonster 13y ago
    And that is why the fourth amendment reads: >The right of the people to be secure in their houses against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the house to be searched. Don't get me wrong. I get the pedantry. It just has a habit of completely missing the point.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      That's not the Fourth Amendment in my Constitution. The Framers were nowhere near stupid enough to use as specific a term as "house".
      - ctidd 13y ago
        That's exactly the point aspensmonster was making by misquoting the amendment to make light of the rayiner's comment.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Well aspenmonster's doing a poor job at it then. rayiner could be exactly right in his description of the specific fear that the Framers had which lead to them including that general protection into the Bill of Rights. In fact I would be surprised if rayiner wasn't correct on that there was a specific instance. And rayiner never tried to claim the 4th Amendment says something different other than its actual text either. He simply explained why the actual text of the 4th Amendment was thought to be required, which can be helpful in court deliberations when trying to apply a vague law to a given case.
rayiner 13y ago
A sealed warrant is not a "secret warrant." It's to avoid tipping off the subject of an active investigation: "The warrant also ordered Google not to disclose the search to anyone." Nothing in the 4th amendment says that warrants must be publicly broadcast. The purpose is to insert a judge as a check on the search power of the police. This warrant was validly issued by a U.S. District Court. A sealed warrant may, however, run afoul of the 6th amendment right to confront your accusers if they are sealed to protect confidential informants. In that circumstance, they can be challenged by defense counsel in a prosecution in which the evidence is used. There are also time limits. See: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/courtdocs/LocalRulesEDVA.html#crim49 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/courtdocs/LocalRulesEDVA.html#c... (Criminal Rule 49(b)(3)).
- cabalamat 13y ago
  The fact that something is secret to avoid tipping someone off does not preclude it from being secret.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    "Secret" has a specific historical implication, which is that in prosecutions based on secret evidence, the accused was not able to evaluate and challenge that evidence. Sealed warrants cannot be used to indefinitely keep targets from confronting the evidence against them.
coldcode 13y ago
None of this is surprising anymore. Neither is powering your house with all the writers of the constitution spinning in their graves.
kimlelly 13y ago
Gmail - Because stupidity will always be punished.

167 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

Jacob Applebaum (@ioerror) on Twitter just minutes ago -- I've long heard rumors that there has been a sealed search warrant for my Gmail account that's probably like this.

rdl 13y ago
Jake is kind of a human warrant canary; I suspect any service on which has has an account gets secret search warrants, so any major service which hasn't publicly pushed back on warrants (or warrants about him) is secretly complying.

laughfactory 13y ago

This is ridiculous. This kind of abuse of anyone and everyone whom the government finds inconvenient has got to stop!

kevinpet 13y ago

This is less objectionable on a procedural basis than many of our current problems. WikiLeaks received classified information, which means someone in the US committed a crime. They went to a judge and got a search warrant based on a an affidavit establishing probable cause of being related to a crime they are investigating. The secret warrant is a little iffy, but far better than secret courts or wholesale collection of "metadata" on everyone.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
No, this is outrageous. This guy was not suspected of a crime, he was suspected of talking to someone who committed a crime. This is identical to the feds now slurping up all personal email (and probably facebook accounts, and whatever else) belonging to Washington Post and Guardian employees under a gag order, because they talked to Snowden, who "committed a crime". It doesn't matter if it's widespread or wholesale, it matters that they can do it when they want to.
- betterunix 13y ago
  He was not even suspected of talking to someone who committed a crime. He was suspected of talking to someone who was under investigation. The really appalling part of this story is that Google was ordered to turn over all of this guy's email -- not just that email which was related to Wikileaks or Julian Assange, but all of it.
  - aspensmonster 13y ago
    It's just another example of why grand juries in particular need to cease existing.
    - tbrownaw 13y ago
      To be replaced with what?
      - aspensmonster 13y ago
        Courts.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I'm confused, again. Don't we subpoena people all the time just because they are associated with the subject of an active investigation? That's literally Law Enforcement 101. Do you think they didn't bother to search the available records for close associates of a Mob boss under investigation for racketeering? That they just wiretap the one guy and that's all?
    - betterunix 13y ago
      What do emails not sent to or received from the subject of the investigation have to do with the investigation? It might have been reasonable, if the government had real reason to believe Julian Assange have broken our laws, to request emails related to him or to Wikileaks. It is not acceptable to just demand everything, unless they are also seeking to prosecute this person.
A1kmm 13y ago
Certainly it is less broad than the NSA dragnet. However, WikiLeaks is a journalism organisation, and investigating such an organisation to suppress its free speech is objectionable. To cite article 19, clause 2 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". If the government is trying to shut down WikiLeaks for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment, and this is part of an effort to harass those involved in the organisation, then that is objectionable.

betterunix 13y ago

All the more reason to run and use anonymous remailers.

pvnick 13y ago

This is exactly the reason the fourth amendment was written. Not to learn the secret recipe behind your grandma's cookies. But because it's extremely tempting for those in power to want to abuse their power to avoid being accountable to the public for their actions. After all, they're human, and in cases of stress, like potential embarassment some folks would be facing under Wikileak's releases, it's easy to justify bending the rules in your favor.

rayiner 13y ago
No, the 4th amendment was written to insert the judiciary as a check on police searches of peoples' houses. Literally, that was the factual circumstance that prompted the drafting of the amendment.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  And that is why the fourth amendment reads: >The right of the people to be secure in their houses against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the house to be searched. Don't get me wrong. I get the pedantry. It just has a habit of completely missing the point.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    That's not the Fourth Amendment in my Constitution. The Framers were nowhere near stupid enough to use as specific a term as "house".
    - ctidd 13y ago
      That's exactly the point aspensmonster was making by misquoting the amendment to make light of the rayiner's comment.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Well aspenmonster's doing a poor job at it then. rayiner could be exactly right in his description of the specific fear that the Framers had which lead to them including that general protection into the Bill of Rights. In fact I would be surprised if rayiner wasn't correct on that there was a specific instance. And rayiner never tried to claim the 4th Amendment says something different other than its actual text either. He simply explained why the actual text of the 4th Amendment was thought to be required, which can be helpful in court deliberations when trying to apply a vague law to a given case.

rayiner 13y ago

A sealed warrant is not a "secret warrant." It's to avoid tipping off the subject of an active investigation: "The warrant also ordered Google not to disclose the search to anyone." Nothing in the 4th amendment says that warrants must be publicly broadcast. The purpose is to insert a judge as a check on the search power of the police. This warrant was validly issued by a U.S. District Court. A sealed warrant may, however, run afoul of the 6th amendment right to confront your accusers if they are sealed to protect confidential informants. In that circumstance, they can be challenged by defense counsel in a prosecution in which the evidence is used. There are also time limits. See: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/courtdocs/LocalRulesEDVA.html#crim49 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/courtdocs/LocalRulesEDVA.html#c... (Criminal Rule 49(b)(3)).

cabalamat 13y ago
The fact that something is secret to avoid tipping someone off does not preclude it from being secret.
- rayiner 13y ago
  "Secret" has a specific historical implication, which is that in prosecutions based on secret evidence, the accused was not able to evaluate and challenge that evidence. Sealed warrants cannot be used to indefinitely keep targets from confronting the evidence against them.

coldcode 13y ago

None of this is surprising anymore. Neither is powering your house with all the writers of the constitution spinning in their graves.

kimlelly 13y ago

Gmail - Because stupidity will always be punished.