

DOJ takes bloggers laptops over reader comments left at Wordpress hosted blog - doj_seizure
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=opinion.financialpost.com/2011/12/20/climate-crackdown

======
mcastner
Seems like this is written by a conspiracy nut. Facts are wrong (Michael Mann
isn't a professor at UPenn) and the story is one-sided. There's no mention of
what else Tallbloke wrote on his blog or the fact that the equipment seizure
was due to the email hacking that occurred
([http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-police-
seize-e...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-police-seize-
equipment-as-part-of-investigation-into-climategate-email-
scandal/2011/12/15/gIQAPWYOwO_story.html)), not because of any comments.

Here's the opposite side of the story with its own biases:
[http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/computers_of_crimi...](http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/computers_of_criminal_cyber-
th.php)

~~~
nkurz
I was reading on my phone in bed, but your comment so missed the point that I
was compelled to get up in the middle of the night and write a full response.

1) Yes, the author confused Penn State with the UPenn. The Financial Post
should probably correct it, but I find it excusable that a Canadian author
writing in a Canadian paper might not properly distinguish them. This did not
cause me to discount the rest of the article.

2) Yes, it's one sided. It's an opinion piece in the comment section, and
labelled as such. This is indicated by the breadcrumbs at the top reading
"Home / Opinion / FP Comment".

3) No mention of email hacking? What about the "link to a zip file posted
online at a Russian Web address" that "contained 5,000 emails written by some
of the most prominent names in climate science." Sure, it didn't use the word
hacking, but for all we know it might have been an inside job. Unless you have
personal knowledge to the contrary? (cue the police coming to seize your
computers)

4) Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment
left on his blog by someone unknown? You do realize that Tallbloke is not a
suspect in the case, and that his computers were seized _explicitly_ in an
effort to track down the source of that comment containing that link? Is this
the first time you've come across this story?

5) "Seems like this is written by a conspiracy nut". Well, that's a matter of
opinion, but "seems" is an odd word choice. As the byline mentions, she's the
proud author of the "recently published exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s
Top Climate Expert." I haven't read it, and so can't comment on its quality.
Have you? I've read some of Matt Ridley's books, though, and he called it "one
of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in recent years".
(<http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/delinquent-teenager>)

5) I do appreciate the link. In particular the part where he retracted his
clearly libelous statements, in which he coyly refers to "certain things that
could be misinterpreted", as if "the seizure of computer equipment that
appears to be linked to the storage and dissemination of the stolen documents"
might have a completely different meaning Mr Tatershall's legal jurisdiction?
And the part where he offers Mr Tatersall space for a response in return for
not "pursuing legal action that was previously suggested"? Was this perhaps
added after you read it? Or is that the part you are calling attention to?

~~~
YmMot
> Yes, it's one sided. It's an opinion piece in the comment section, and
> labelled as such. This is indicated by the breadcrumbs at the top reading
> "Home / Opinion / FP Comment".

This strikes me as a rather poor excuse (if it's intended as such). I agree
nobody should expect an opinion piece to be vigorously researched, cited,
etc....but all opinions are not equal. There's a difference between someone
who is just casually writing their thoughts with the understanding that they
are not fully vetting them...and someone who is clearly biased and pushing a
particular agenda.

> Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment left
> on his blog by someone unknown?

Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no
they didn't. They seized them because he referred to a possible hacker as "our
old friend" and wrote an article/linked to the hacked emails....AND because a
potential hacker commented on his blog, possibly leaving evidence in his
account/on the server...then refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Are they justified doing so? I don't know. I think the "old friend" comment is
innocent. I also think based on what we know it's pretty frivolous. Unless
they have some clear evidence linking this guy, I think they are overstepping
their bounds. Of course they might have it...they're not gonna say.

One thing I would also say is that I don't think this guy is being treated any
differently than anyone else who gets in the way of any government
investigation (that is to say, poorly).... I hope climate change denialists
don't hold this up as some sort of proof of their conspiracy theories.

~~~
nkurz
_This strikes me as a rather poor excuse (if it's intended as such)._

I didn't really intend it to excuse the quality of the content, only to assert
that it's allowed to be one-sided. My view (biased, but not self-interested)
is that the piece is both well researched and biased, and that the research
produced the bias. The author isn't author casually writing scattered
thoughts, but rather reiterating the book that she's spent the last year
writing. She may be wrong or misleading, but she's spent a lot of effort
learning about the subject.

 _Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no
they didn't._

You're right. I'm presuming that Tallbloke was merely an running a blog that
allowed comments, rather than a conspirator. I conclude this because there
were three blogs being investigated simultaneously, and I find it highly
unlikely that all of them are colluding. But I guess we'll have to wait to see
how it turns out. If they have inside knowledge not yet released, I'd have to
revise my thinking.

 _I hope climate change denialists don't hold this up as some sort of proof of
their conspiracy theories._

I'm sure some will, but I don't think there's any monolithic set of
denialists. On the blogs in question (<http://climateaudit.org/>,
<http://noconsensus.wordpress.com>, and <http://tallbloke.wordpress.com>, all
more skeptical than denialist), most of the commenters seem to be
concentrating on the civil liberties aspect. It's seen as a precursor of the
potential downsides of SOPA. There's a lot of libertarian beliefs among the
skeptics.

------
ck2
So this means if now they want to search your home and seize your computers,
all they have to do is use a proxy to post just a LINK to this zip file on
your public blog, maybe even your facebook - boom, instant seizure without
judicial review.

Also works if a blogger is your competition or you just don't like them.

Kudos to Matt for not obeying any kind of gag order.

I guess the future is government hassling people for having knowledge, can't
have that.

Did they use a "National Security Letter" for this without judicial review?

------
etfb
The definition of a mixed blessing: your mother-in-law driving off a cliff in
your new Porsche.

No, scratch that. I quite like my mother-in-law, and I wouldn't own a Porsche
in a pink fit. Revised version:

The definition of a mixed blessing: a conspiracy nut is prevented from lying
about important stuff by a government that wouldn't know Freedom of Speech if
it bit them on the arse.

------
Tangaroa
It looks like the joint UK/US investigation has run out of leads and is going
after the bloggers' computers in the hopes that the hacker had some
communication with them. Or the police might have evidence that we won't hear
about until trial. It will look the same to us either way; we weren't at the
warrant request hearing. In the meantime, a few bloggers are without their
computers for the foreseeable future.

There was apparently another hacking last month. This might have influenced
the police to act aggressively. [http://www.desmogblog.com/climategate-
hackers-slither-again-...](http://www.desmogblog.com/climategate-hackers-
slither-again-night)

~~~
rvkennedy
+1 for the cartoon, but is HN seriously going to be a platform for this kind
of non-story story? Polite Yorkshire policemen enforcing a search warrant?
Would that Occupy Wall Street had them to deal with instead of the pepper-
spray brigade!

------
rsanchez1
It's things like these that make me not want to add commenting to any
blog/website I work on. It's bad enough when someone anonymously makes a
comment and people actually believe it. When the DOJ start raiding your home
because of comments though... That pushes it over the edge for me.

