4 ms·

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 appallin

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.

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.