In Which My Identity Is Sought by Federal Grand Jury Subpoena
popehat.comHere is the techdirt article: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171023/18275838465/doj-s...
That also includes this gem:
"* As an aside, look closely at that criminal complaint against Shafer. I have no idea why but it appears that the FBI/DOJ is so clueless that rather than submitting the final complaint, they actually submitted the copy showing the "comments" on the Word doc they were using to prepare the complaint -- which shows two comments that both suggest the FBI is well aware that this complaint is weak sauce and probably doesn't meet the standard under the law... but this story is crazy enough without spending too much time on that."
> Fast forward to March of this year, to an entirely different story: the FBI arresting John Rivello for "assaulting" journalist Kurt Eichenwald with a tweet.
TechDirt phrases this as if to make light of the charge, but Rivello intentionally triggered Eichenwald's epilepsy by sending him a flashing GIF that read "YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS". He followed this up with messages such as "I hope this sends him into a seizure", "spammed this at [Eichenwald] let's see if he dies", and "I know he has epilepsy". So what we're talking here extends beyond the typical case of Twitter harassment.
I wonder how long it will be before someone develops a program that defends people from such content automatically?
I know there's been some research in the area, but I don't see much in the way of practical programs or screen filters:
https://phys.org/news/2009-07-software-tool-web-seizure-caus...
If the trigger is only rapid alternation of frames with a high luminance and/or contrast delta, it seems like that could be detected fairly easily by methods not wholly dissimilar to those used in MPEG compression. But I'm not at all sure that is indeed the only trigger, and also not sure how that kind of analysis could be done close enough to realtime to make a usable display filter.
Might still be worth putting together as a library, though. I can see an easy win for sites like Twitter, which could apply it to user-submitted content before showing it to anyone.
Snowcrash IRL
> which shows two comments that both suggest the FBI is well aware that this complaint is weak sauce and probably doesn't meet the standard under the law...
Wonder if that'll get brought up in court. Can any lawyers weigh in?
I don't think the comments suggest that the FBI thinks the complaint "probably doesn't meet the standard under the law." They indicate that some specific posts are maybe a stretch under the law (e.g. something like it "comes close to the line"). It's embarrassing as hell, but that's about it.
Techdirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill. Taking a particular viewpoint and expounding on it endlessly as proper context, leaves a lot of telltale quips like how "clueless" actors are being. Postmortems years later consistently show a misunderstanding of what the goals were and why the actions seemed misdirected. The DoJ almost always has a strategy. With the litany of secret processes the US Government navigates, there's no reason to think that they are acting "crazy" when we know there is a lack of information about what is possible.
> Techdirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill.
Really? I've been reading it pretty regularly since the year it started (20 years ago) and wouldn't characterize it that way at all. One of the authors is quite snarky, true, but Masnick, the founder, isn't.
> The DoJ almost always has a strategy. With the litany of secret processes the US Government navigates, there's no reason to think that they are acting "crazy" when we know there is a lack of information about what is possible.
(This is independent of my comment about Techdirt). The DoJ is an institution constituted of humans and is capable of the same rationalities, irrationalities, and prejudices as any other organization. Looking over the last 120 years (since 1900) it's had highs to be proud of and lows to be ashamed of.
> I've been reading it pretty regularly since the year it started (20 years ago) and wouldn't characterize it that way at all.
My account was purged sometime in the last 10 years, so whatever.
Here's Mike Masnick responding to me... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050809/2227209.shtml?thr...
What possible justification is there for submitting an in-progress legal document besides a mistake?
I can think of 3 without any knowledge of a specific case. Potential Delay (in clarifying this matter against the case at large), Proof of Effort, FISA routinely allows for incomplete filings and go forward anyway. They aren't the only court to do this. Pope's publicity might help squash this, but it's up to a judge to allow it or not. After the information is garnered, an appeal court can overturn it and nobody can undo the discovery. Any lawyer, can probably come up with more. I'm not explaining every obvious tactic. My advice is to get familiar with how far the US intelligence community has fallen out of jurisprudence. Good Luck.
your comments above sound reasonable, but your characterization of tech dirt as a rumor site is wrong in my opinion. They consistently find cases of government overreach and attempts to skirt the law. If anything, they'd be supportive of your comment above "My advice is to get familiar with how far the US intelligence community has fallen out of jurisprudence."
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050809/2227209.shtml?thr...
Mike Masnick had an interesting response.
How does that explain the strange behavior of submitting a document in such a state though? Couldn't they have achieved any of those goals by submitting the document without the annotations?
Subpoenas are quashed, not squashed, but maybe your phone did that one.
Is anyone surprised? The US voted for Trump who in turn picked the man to head the DOJ. Play stupid games win stupid lawsuits.
The takeaway is great (and by "great" I mean "depressing but true"):
> Third, when I read the subpoena yesterday, I was suddenly gripped with exactly the sort of impulses that I urge clients to resist: the overpowering urge to do something and talk to someone to straighten it all out. I was tempted to email the AUSA and introduce myself, and to argue that it's ridiculous that he subpoenaed my identity, and ask what the hell he wants. That, of course, would be extremely stupid, even though I've done nothing wrong — perhaps especially because I've done nothing wrong. Fortunately, just as I plead with clients to resist this urge to reach out to the government, I resisted it myself. But I must admit it is powerful.
As was this comment:
> Mike says Wouldn't you also urge your clients to resist the impulse to blog about these things?
Blogging is less of a problem, because a statement not directed at the government can't be the basis of an 18 U.S.C. 1001 charge.
Popehat on 18 U.S.C. 1001: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea...
Although it's a pretty general overview on how it can be used to beef up a conviction.
I'm curious about that. I can see why it would be idiotic for me to do it, by I'm not Ken White. Why shouldn't he send them a few polite questions?
The article by Ken White referenced in the sibling comment by likpok does a good job explaining it: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea....
> Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001.
If you don't talk to the government, there is no danger that you'll slip up and talk yourself into a felony conviction. Yes, the risk is less if you're a lawyer and know what to watch out for, but why risk it? There is literally no upside. After all, no federal agent worth her salt is going to change her investigation just because a potential suspect "cleared up some misunderstanding" with a quick phone call.
Law Enforcement 101: "When you're low on crime, just make more people criminals."
From a logical viewpoint, assuming a pragmatic approach, that'd be pretty handy. From a political approach, it's almost required.
I know, you probably think I'm wrong. Hear me out.
Imagine if Trump just announced he was laying off 75% of the judicial branch ans executive branch tomorrow. Effective immediately.
We pretty much gotta keep them all busy. The people would revolt, otherwise.
This article needs to be flagged. Popehat or 3rd-party scripts there are triggering redirects to malicious ads about my mobile device being “infected”.
I've been seeing this a lot more recently - not on Popehat, but on other sites including The Hill (although in my case it was a fake Amazon gift card giveaway).
I've seen a big uptick on this today, including on major sites like Snopes and NBCNews. It's almost certainly coming from bad ads slipping through into an ad network.
I’ve made contact on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/lloydde_/status/92357543379843481...
Are you sure it's not you, or your ISP, or DNS, or ...
What's your DNS server?
Even is you manually specify your DNS server, your ISP may override your decision. MITM attacks on DNS are trivial and commonplace.
I’m sure this is great content, but the page is currently redirecting my iPhone to some scam virus warnings.
It's the second time I've gotten full screen, fake gift card ads on unrelated sites served from cloud front.
I have seen that same thing from several websites. I have seen some websites suggest it's a Safari issue (browser hijackers) and clearing Safari data gets rid of it. But, I have not really messed with it yet.
the mobile browser landscape has become a minefield of invisible popover, redirect and premium service subscription, only partially mitigated by adblockers (or none at all if using chrome on ios, because, reasons)
I browse with Firefox for Android and a combination of the uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes, and Cookies AutoDelete add-ons. Without them I'd feel almost naked.
Have you tried uMatrix by the author of uBlock Origin?
It takes getting used to but really allows you granular control of 3rd party requests on both a site-by-site and global basis.
Word of warning, most uMatrix users I've met say it becomes depressing to see how many 3rd party requests most websites require before they are even usable. It becomes very obvious very quickly.
Yesterday I had the opposite experience for the first time. I had uMatrix off, and I hit a paywall. When I turned it back on, I could read the article again! I think it was the Washington Post, but not entirely sure.
You'll always get to fall back on a tinfoil hat...
I've taken to browsing on Firefox Klar unless it is a site I know I will be revisiting.
Yep. It's a pity Firefox doesn't let you select and copy the address for a link.
I am confused, that doesn't seem to be true. In FireFox for Android, I can select and copy both the address of the page that I'm on[0] and any particular link on the page[1], both by doing a long tap on the link/URL I wish to copy.
A long tap just selects text from the url.
And yet your IP address is captured by every site you visit.
Who cares if it is a VPN server address.
Anecdotally, I’ve seen a definite uptick in pop-unders on chrome desktop the last few weeks, even with uBlock enabled.
Not having that problem here. Safari on iOS 10.3.3.
those kind of advertisement only target a fraction of the viewers to reduce the chance of the noise to reach the publisher.
Same here.
The whole purpose of the court system is to prevent abuses such as this and to deny these subpoenas which are not necessary to the investigation of a crime. It seems as if our court systems have forgotten that they exist to be a check on the executive branch, not co-conspirators of it.
How is this not a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15552170 ?
We don't count articles as dupes when they haven't had significant attention yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. If we did, many of the best articles would never get attention.
There's a lot of randomness in which submission of an article happens to get noticed. It sucks if you got there sooner and someone else wins the lottery, but if you repeatedly submit good stories, it evens out in the long run.
When we put stories in the second-chance queue (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 and links back from there), we always try to privilege the original submitter.
Make sense.
Earlier discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15549632.
This site redirected me to malware almost immediately.
In which we find out the DOJs motive is getting those who might be critical of civil rights abuses to a site with advertiser networks that can be hijacked.
With all due respect, the justice department probably got the subpoena to cover all their bases. Regardless of why, I don't think there is any right of privacy through Twitter. It's a private company. If they want to hand over Ken White's identity, without a subpoena, they can.
Sure, they can if they want to. But a judge shouldn’t be able to force them to do so, not without more than receiving a smiley face tweet.
> With all due respect, the justice department probably got the subpoena to cover all their bases.
Of course - it's cheap to fire them off, and there's virtually no downside to doing so as far as I'm aware. (Short of the fact that the time can be put to better use.)
Yes, twitter can do what it wants.
But the government can't _make_ twitter do what the government wants, at least not without good reason.
I hate to be this guy, but prepare to see much more of similar stuff happening. While I think Trump is better president than Hillary would ever be, Mr. Trump stance on your privacy is that it should be given up to government. In other words, don't expect for the guy at the top to be outraged or actually do something about it, as he is not a champion of privacy himself.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/70079517002382540...
Trump doesn't know how government works other than playing king. How is that better?
He's less capable and more easily thwarted and has awakened the fourth estate.
Awakened the 4th estate to violent irrelevant screeching...which will go right back to sleep(Or rather, into their hypnotic state) as soon as a D enters the white house.
Perhaps but now we can document it better, and he seems to be taking the MSM down with him so that's a plus.
Source please. He appears to know how government works from his working with Congress to pass bills
I was unaware they had passed any legislation lately.
What major legislation has Congress passed from his agenda? I think the onus is on you.
You want a source? It's not clear to you that it's an exaggeration intended to cause a brief chest spasm causing air to be expelled quickly past the vocal chords resulting in a "heh" sound.
Like his healthcare "reform"?