4 ms·

This is less objectionable on a procedural basis than many of our current problems. WikiLeaks received classified information, which means someone in the US com

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.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Tell that to the judge man, he or she signed the warrant. Maybe the government was able to put forward the theory that there's a whole network of like-minded people working with Assange, a network that cooperated to run a website or something, and that this guy's emails should be useful in piecing that together for use in the eventual trial against whoever the hell they're investigating.
    - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
      This is not how subpoenas work, at all. This is straight up surveillance. It doesn't matter that a judge rubber stamped it. That isn't the bar for what is okay, as we all know.
- Zak 13y ago
  Obtaining a warrant does not require that there be probable cause that the target or subject of the warrant committed a crime. Obtaining a warrant requires that there be probable cause that the specified search will find evidence of a crime. If the police have probable cause to believe that a third party buried a body in my backyard without my knowledge, a judge can and should issue a warrant directing the police to dig up my backyard.
- kevinpet 13y ago
  "It doesn't matter if it's widespread or wholesale, it matters that they can do it when they want to." That is precisely what matters. The 4th amendment requires a warrant that some specific person or location (or in our modern world, set of files) is evidence of a crime. In a free country, you may still get caught up in an investigation. In an unfree country, everyone is constantly unsure whether the government is spying on them.
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.

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.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Tell that to the judge man, he or she signed the warrant. Maybe the government was able to put forward the theory that there's a whole network of like-minded people working with Assange, a network that cooperated to run a website or something, and that this guy's emails should be useful in piecing that together for use in the eventual trial against whoever the hell they're investigating.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    This is not how subpoenas work, at all. This is straight up surveillance. It doesn't matter that a judge rubber stamped it. That isn't the bar for what is okay, as we all know.
Zak 13y ago
Obtaining a warrant does not require that there be probable cause that the target or subject of the warrant committed a crime. Obtaining a warrant requires that there be probable cause that the specified search will find evidence of a crime. If the police have probable cause to believe that a third party buried a body in my backyard without my knowledge, a judge can and should issue a warrant directing the police to dig up my backyard.
kevinpet 13y ago
"It doesn't matter if it's widespread or wholesale, it matters that they can do it when they want to." That is precisely what matters. The 4th amendment requires a warrant that some specific person or location (or in our modern world, set of files) is evidence of a crime. In a free country, you may still get caught up in an investigation. In an unfree country, everyone is constantly unsure whether the government is spying on them.

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.