I'm not really surprised at this. I was in DC for the inauguration at an officially permitted protest. Afterwards I'm heading back on the Metro with a small sign saying "illegitimate president." When I get to the platform level there are several armed people in camoflauge, I'm assuming military, but I'm not 100% positive. I'm told by one of them that I need to leave the station immediately. I responded "is this a joke?" (Hindsight 20/20 that probably wasn't the best idea) and she says "no" as more armed people start approaching. Needless to say I left the station, but at that moment I realized something was different this time. You may disagree with the message I was carrying, but having military (or their look-a-likes) booting out people with messages against the official government line is pretty scary.
This is terrifying; am I reading it correctly that the government is, on behalf of the President, going after people who have opposed him and is starting a register maybe of those persons who hurt the feelings of the glorious leader? I wonder how far down the rabbit hole we are going :-(
There's lots of disturbing internet precedents being set in the last few weeks, both legal and corporate policy. I try not to be hyperbolic but I really am beginning to worry about the future of freedom of expression and association on the net.
How did this travesty pass 4th Amendment muster?<p>"Yes Mr. Bar Owner, a few of your patrons stole a car a few weeks back. We'll need the names and addresses of all the people who visited this place for the last year please."
Dreamhost is a hosting provider. Why do they keep these records in the first place and especially over six months later? It seems to me that there will be a big market for hosts that don't keep such logs or delete them after a specified period where they might be useful to debug issues (24-48hrs).
Every week we're seeing more and more news like that - whether its the government or internet companies - in which people's right to privacy and to freedom online are being severely threatened. I'm not an american, but I grew up seeing the USA as an example of freedom and progress. It's very sad that this is becoming less and less true every passing day.<p>We must build a decentralised web. Now.
>Prosecutors’ original request in July would have yielded IP addresses for about 1.3 million users of the site, court filings show.<p>Whether I agree or not, here is another example of sensationalism which has made me distrustful of news media. How many of those "1.3m users" were actually unique?
Buried in the article is a key detail.<p>>Prosecutors earlier this week scaled back their request and changed it to seek emails associated with Disruptj20.org and email addresses of third parties associated with the website, such as individuals who volunteered to help provide supplies or support to rioters.<p>>As part of his ruling, Morin ordered prosecutors to tell him who was going to review the data DreamHost provides and, once that information is found, explain to him why prosecutors deem the information “critical” to their case.<p>>Under Morin’s ruling, any information prosecutors find unrelated to the rioting would be sealed and could not be shared by prosecutors with anyone else or any other government authority.
I wonder if this isn't part of the games that prosecutors play. It seems like prosecutors might request the largest amount of data possible, knowing that someone will object and they'll get only a fraction of that.<p>In general the logic in the article doesn't follow. It says 200 people have been charged, so why not request information relating only to those 200 people? Regardless, internet messages can't prove participation in a violent riot, so I would assume the prosecutors have other, harder, evidence. if not they're just wasting everyone's time.
why does the site seem like a place to investigate a riot? were there posters saying "I'm leaving now to go riot"?<p>If there is nothing specific, then why is this allowable at all?<p>And if there is something specific, then why can't they request those specific messages?
The article is pretty vague on the specifics of the ramifications of the new request. It says 1.3 million, but that seems to be in reference to the broader request. From what I can tell the more narrow request both narrows down the timeframe, and specifies disruptj20.org visitors? It's hard for me to tell from the article.
> Prosecutors John Borchert and Jennifer Kerkhoff argued that their request had to be somewhat broad because they have no idea who was associated with the rioting through the website until they review the data.<p>For people who think this is wrong, assuming you accept the premise that they should be investigating rioters, what alternative is there to find out who they are?