What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Another Big Brother Snooping Tactic Exposed, A Sign Of The Future?

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
The US government is seeking to unmask every person who visited an anti-Trump website in what privacy advocates say is an unconstitutional “fishing expedition” for political dissidents.

The warrant appears to be an escalation of the department of justice’s campaign against anti-Trump activities, including the harsh prosecution of inauguration day protesters.

On 17 July, the department of justice served a website-hosting company, DreamHost, with a search warrant for every piece of information it possessed that was related to a website that was used to coordinate protests during Donald Trump’s inauguration. The warrant covers the people who own and operate the site, but also seeks to get the IP addresses of 1.3 million people who visited it, as well as the date and time of their visit and information about what browser or operating system they used.

The website, www.disruptj20.org, was used to coordinate protests and civil disobedience on 20 January, when Trump was inaugurated.

“This specific case and this specific warrant are pure prosecutorial overreach by a highly politicized department of justice under [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions,” said Chris Ghazarian, general counsel for DreamHost. “You should be concerned that anyone should be targeted simply for visiting a website.”
<Snip>
“We’re a gatekeeper between the government and tens of thousands of people who visited the website,” said Ghazarian. “We want to keep them protected.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been advising DreamHost, characterized the warrant as “unconstitutional” and “a fishing expedition”.

“I can’t conceive of a legitimate justification other than casting your net as broadly as possible to justify millions of user logs,” senior staff attorney Mark Rumold told the Guardian.

Logs of IP addresses don’t uniquely identify users, but they link back to specific physical addresses if no digital tools are used to mask it.

“What they would be getting is a list of everyone who has ever been interested in attending these protests or seeing what was going on at the protests and that’s the troubling aspect. It’s a short step after you have the list to connect the IP address to someone’s identity,” he said.

Wide-reaching warrants for user data are sometimes issued when the content of a site is illegal such as pirated movies or child sexual abuse imagery, but speech is rarely prohibited.

“This [the website] is pure first amendment advocacy – the type of advocacy the first amendment was designed to protect and promote,” Rumold added. “Frankly I’m glad DreamHost is pushing back on it.”

It’s not the first time that the US government has sought to unmask people protesting against Donald Trump or his policies.
US government demands details on all visitors to anti-Trump protest website
================================================================
The fourth amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and is often argued as protecting our right to privacy.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Paranoid Donald, wants to get all information about those who oppose him. He wants all the voting data from the 2016 election. Now he wants more private from people who used the guaranteed right to protest, which is Freedom of Speech.
Poof! There goes our Constitution. What's going to be the next target of the growing autocracy in Washington.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
75,100
Reaction score
24,280
Points
2,250
While i am totally against this as i am any abuse of power, how is this any different than what has been done for two decades?
 
OP
kiwiman127

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
While i am totally against this as i am any abuse of power, how is this any different than what has been done for two decades?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, other than wiretapping private citizens, which I strongly disapprove this act by Bush and Obama.
These moves by Trump, are an add on and are attempts to gather all information regarding those who oppose Trump.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
70,578
Reaction score
4,437
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The US government is seeking to unmask every person who visited an anti-Trump website in what privacy advocates say is an unconstitutional “fishing expedition” for political dissidents.

The warrant appears to be an escalation of the department of justice’s campaign against anti-Trump activities, including the harsh prosecution of inauguration day protesters.

On 17 July, the department of justice served a website-hosting company, DreamHost, with a search warrant for every piece of information it possessed that was related to a website that was used to coordinate protests during Donald Trump’s inauguration. The warrant covers the people who own and operate the site, but also seeks to get the IP addresses of 1.3 million people who visited it, as well as the date and time of their visit and information about what browser or operating system they used.

The website, www.disruptj20.org, was used to coordinate protests and civil disobedience on 20 January, when Trump was inaugurated.

“This specific case and this specific warrant are pure prosecutorial overreach by a highly politicized department of justice under [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions,” said Chris Ghazarian, general counsel for DreamHost. “You should be concerned that anyone should be targeted simply for visiting a website.”
<Snip>
“We’re a gatekeeper between the government and tens of thousands of people who visited the website,” said Ghazarian. “We want to keep them protected.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been advising DreamHost, characterized the warrant as “unconstitutional” and “a fishing expedition”.

“I can’t conceive of a legitimate justification other than casting your net as broadly as possible to justify millions of user logs,” senior staff attorney Mark Rumold told the Guardian.

Logs of IP addresses don’t uniquely identify users, but they link back to specific physical addresses if no digital tools are used to mask it.

“What they would be getting is a list of everyone who has ever been interested in attending these protests or seeing what was going on at the protests and that’s the troubling aspect. It’s a short step after you have the list to connect the IP address to someone’s identity,” he said.

Wide-reaching warrants for user data are sometimes issued when the content of a site is illegal such as pirated movies or child sexual abuse imagery, but speech is rarely prohibited.

“This [the website] is pure first amendment advocacy – the type of advocacy the first amendment was designed to protect and promote,” Rumold added. “Frankly I’m glad DreamHost is pushing back on it.”

It’s not the first time that the US government has sought to unmask people protesting against Donald Trump or his policies.
US government demands details on all visitors to anti-Trump protest website
================================================================
The fourth amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and is often argued as protecting our right to privacy.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Paranoid Donald, wants to get all information about those who oppose him. He wants all the voting data from the 2016 election. Now he wants more private from people who used the guaranteed right to protest, which is Freedom of Speech.
Poof! There goes our Constitution. What's going to be the next target of the growing autocracy in Washington.
Should federalists practice their fishing ethic?
 

Muhammed

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
23,856
Reaction score
10,063
Points
950
Location
North Coast, USA
While i am totally against this as i am any abuse of power, how is this any different than what has been done for two decades?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, other than wiretapping private citizens, which I strongly disapprove this act by Bush and Obama.
These moves by Trump, are an add on and are attempts to gather all information regarding those who oppose Trump.
Are you sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks at the presidential inauguration?
 
OP
kiwiman127

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
While i am totally against this as i am any abuse of power, how is this any different than what has been done for two decades?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, other than wiretapping private citizens, which I strongly disapprove this act by Bush and Obama.
These moves by Trump, are an add on and are attempts to gather all information regarding those who oppose Trump.
Are you sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks at the presidential inauguration?

Ah, this site that Trump wants private information of it's visitors, was for the women's march, which were peaceful nationwide.
So your point is?
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
31,447
Reaction score
9,625
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
The US government is seeking to unmask every person who visited an anti-Trump website in what privacy advocates say is an unconstitutional “fishing expedition” for political dissidents.

The warrant appears to be an escalation of the department of justice’s campaign against anti-Trump activities, including the harsh prosecution of inauguration day protesters.

On 17 July, the department of justice served a website-hosting company, DreamHost, with a search warrant for every piece of information it possessed that was related to a website that was used to coordinate protests during Donald Trump’s inauguration. The warrant covers the people who own and operate the site, but also seeks to get the IP addresses of 1.3 million people who visited it, as well as the date and time of their visit and information about what browser or operating system they used.

The website, www.disruptj20.org, was used to coordinate protests and civil disobedience on 20 January, when Trump was inaugurated.

“This specific case and this specific warrant are pure prosecutorial overreach by a highly politicized department of justice under [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions,” said Chris Ghazarian, general counsel for DreamHost. “You should be concerned that anyone should be targeted simply for visiting a website.”
<Snip>
“We’re a gatekeeper between the government and tens of thousands of people who visited the website,” said Ghazarian. “We want to keep them protected.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been advising DreamHost, characterized the warrant as “unconstitutional” and “a fishing expedition”.

“I can’t conceive of a legitimate justification other than casting your net as broadly as possible to justify millions of user logs,” senior staff attorney Mark Rumold told the Guardian.

Logs of IP addresses don’t uniquely identify users, but they link back to specific physical addresses if no digital tools are used to mask it.

“What they would be getting is a list of everyone who has ever been interested in attending these protests or seeing what was going on at the protests and that’s the troubling aspect. It’s a short step after you have the list to connect the IP address to someone’s identity,” he said.

Wide-reaching warrants for user data are sometimes issued when the content of a site is illegal such as pirated movies or child sexual abuse imagery, but speech is rarely prohibited.

“This [the website] is pure first amendment advocacy – the type of advocacy the first amendment was designed to protect and promote,” Rumold added. “Frankly I’m glad DreamHost is pushing back on it.”

It’s not the first time that the US government has sought to unmask people protesting against Donald Trump or his policies.
US government demands details on all visitors to anti-Trump protest website
================================================================
The fourth amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and is often argued as protecting our right to privacy.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Paranoid Donald, wants to get all information about those who oppose him. He wants all the voting data from the 2016 election. Now he wants more private from people who used the guaranteed right to protest, which is Freedom of Speech.
Poof! There goes our Constitution. What's going to be the next target of the growing autocracy in Washington.

I am for privacy, but you are not allowed to use THE INTERNET to perpetrate Crimes, so unlike the Warrant issued to Mueller and THE FBI to Raid Manafort's home Illegally AND FOR NO CAUSE, this looks like a valid warrant. And where is proof of your accusation of UNMASKING? Where does anything you are bitching about show where The GOV is going to make names KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC like THE OBAMA REGIME did ILLEGALLY?
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
66,400
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,180
217 people charged with " felony rioting" what kind of charge is that? Never heard of it who made that crime up?


.
 

koshergrl

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
79,997
Reaction score
13,032
Points
2,190
217 people charged with " felony rioting" what kind of charge is that? Never heard of it who made that crime up?


.
Under our law, a person is guilty of Riot in the First Degree when, simultaneously with ten or more other persons, he or she engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly causes or creates a grave risk of causing public alarm, and in the course of and as a result of such conduct, a person other than one of the participants suffers physical injury, or substantial property damage occurs.

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/240/240-06.pdf
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
66,400
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,180
So this is where all these special laws came from...the 1967 felony riot law..



Why not just call it assault, vandalism?


.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
95,214
Reaction score
16,786
Points
2,180
Did I not say Trump would embrace the police state?

Yeah. I did.
 

BulletProof

Silver Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
212
Points
90
I think getting the info from the website is justified because the website coordinated left-wing terrorist activity. It's no different from the many IP address requests the government makes every day and has been making for years to catch law breakers.

The only difference I see is that this is broader. But, also the crime is greater.
 

koshergrl

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
79,997
Reaction score
13,032
Points
2,190
So this is where all these special laws came from...the 1967 felony riot law..



Why not just call it assault, vandalism?


.

Because it's not the assault and vandalism that are the crime.

It's the organizing of a group to commit assault and vandalism. They can be convicted of assault, vandalism, and ALSO riot.

Words mean something. They are all different things.
 

Muhammed

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
23,856
Reaction score
10,063
Points
950
Location
North Coast, USA
While i am totally against this as i am any abuse of power, how is this any different than what has been done for two decades?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, other than wiretapping private citizens, which I strongly disapprove this act by Bush and Obama.
These moves by Trump, are an add on and are attempts to gather all information regarding those who oppose Trump.
Are you sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks at the presidential inauguration?

Ah, this site that Trump wants private information of it's visitors, was for the women's march, which were peaceful nationwide.
So your point is?
You are a liar.
 
OP
kiwiman127

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
While i am totally against this as i am any abuse of power, how is this any different than what has been done for two decades?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, other than wiretapping private citizens, which I strongly disapprove this act by Bush and Obama.
These moves by Trump, are an add on and are attempts to gather all information regarding those who oppose Trump.
Are you sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks at the presidential inauguration?

Ah, this site that Trump wants private information of it's visitors, was for the women's march, which were peaceful nationwide.
So your point is?
You are a liar.

And exactly, what am I lying about? Be specific.
 

koshergrl

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
79,997
Reaction score
13,032
Points
2,190
While i am totally against this as i am any abuse of power, how is this any different than what has been done for two decades?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, other than wiretapping private citizens, which I strongly disapprove this act by Bush and Obama.
These moves by Trump, are an add on and are attempts to gather all information regarding those who oppose Trump.
Are you sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks at the presidential inauguration?

Ah, this site that Trump wants private information of it's visitors, was for the women's march, which were peaceful nationwide.
So your point is?
You are a liar.

And exactly, what am I lying about? Be specific.
"Peaceful women's march"....

"Hernandez said that the group of around 50 people she was marching with were harassed because of the signs they were carrying which said “Abortion betrays women.”

“I did not feel safe at all,” Hernandez continued. She added that the unexpectedly large turnout for the march made it “so overwhelming.”

“One of our girls was spit at, someone tore my sign in multiple pieces, we had people just yell at us but the main response was people just said ‘my body my choice’ when they walked past us,” said Reagan Barklage, the Western regional director for the group."

For one anti-abortion group, women's march was 'brutal'
 
OP
kiwiman127

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, other than wiretapping private citizens, which I strongly disapprove this act by Bush and Obama.
These moves by Trump, are an add on and are attempts to gather all information regarding those who oppose Trump.
Are you sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks at the presidential inauguration?

Ah, this site that Trump wants private information of it's visitors, was for the women's march, which were peaceful nationwide.
So your point is?
You are a liar.

And exactly, what am I lying about? Be specific.
"Peaceful women's march"....

"Hernandez said that the group of around 50 people she was marching with were harassed because of the signs they were carrying which said “Abortion betrays women.”

“I did not feel safe at all,” Hernandez continued. She added that the unexpectedly large turnout for the march made it “so overwhelming.”

“One of our girls was spit at, someone tore my sign in multiple pieces, we had people just yell at us but the main response was people just said ‘my body my choice’ when they walked past us,” said Reagan Barklage, the Western regional director for the group."

For one anti-abortion group, women's march was 'brutal'

Hernandez said that the group of around 50 people she was marching with were harassed because of the signs they were carrying which said “Abortion betrays women.”

I did not feel safe at all,” Hernandez continued. She added that the unexpectedly large turnout for the march made it “so overwhelming.”

“One of our girls was spit at, someone tore my sign in multiple pieces, we had people just yell at us but the main response was people just said ‘my body my choice’ when they walked past us,” said Reagan Barklage, the Western regional director for the group.

So nationally, there were over 2 million marchers and it appears according to your story, 2 pro-abortion women were hassled by a couple of marchers. That means 0.000001% of all marchers were very rude, but not exactly violent. It also seems the size of the march, was intimidating and "overwhelming" for the pro-abortion marchers. Who's fault was that?
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top