
DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists - stefmonge
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/15/543782396/doj-demands-files-on-anti-trump-activists-and-a-web-hosting-company-resists
======
greglindahl
Previous discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15011636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15011636)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15018429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15018429)

------
wmil
DreamHost is probably going to lose. The warrant is actually quite standard.

Basically the DOJ is just grabbing everything so they can filter through the
comments and logs at their convenience.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/08/15/a-closer-look-at-dojs-warrant-to-collect-website-
records/?utm_term=.f0f3495156af)

~~~
blfr
_In the physical world, the government can search only one apartment in an
apartment building with a single warrant; it can’t search the entire apartment
building. Are the collective records of a website more like an apartment
building or a single apartment?_

If this is the reasoning they're going then yes, Dreamhost is out of luck. One
account is pretty obviously an apartment on a server (building) with the
website being an even smaller part than that.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
It's also extremely pertinent that the warrant is being executed against an
organization exercising political speech. That's very different from, say, the
DoJ requesting visitor logs to a film torrent site.

~~~
pdx

       > It's also extremely pertinent that the warrant is being 
       > executed against an organization exercising political 
       > speech. 
    

Why? If you hurt me (many innocent people were hurt), but you do it because
you feel "political", it's OK?

Isn't the law supposed to be blind, or do political groups have a "get out of
jail free" card?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Isn 't the law supposed to be blind, or do political groups have a "get out
> of jail free" card?_

Yes, core political speech is Constitutionally protected [1]. You can charge
people being violent while protecting their rights to say stupid things.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States)

 _Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice._

~~~
mrbabbage
Free speech protection in American law is with its limits. Speech itself isn't
protected if it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action. See
Brandenburg v. Ohio.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Speech itself isn 't protected if it is directed to incite or produce
> imminent lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio_

Correct, but for that argument to hold within the context of this case (EDIT:
warrant) we would need the government to show that most people who visited
this site did so with the intent to incite imminent lawless action. (Note,
too, that Brandenburg v. Ohio specifically struck down a law banning the mere
advocacy of violence.)

 _Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice._

~~~
pdx

       > Correct, but for that argument to hold within the 
       > context of this case we would need the government to 
       > show that most people who visited this site did so with 
       > the intent to incite imminent lawless action. 
    

Of course that's not true. For the government to prosecute all of those
visitors requires additional proof, to be sure. However, for the government to
gather evidence on a subset of those visitors who have already been arrested
and are being charged with politically inspired violence, is perfectly
appropriate.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _for the government to gather evidence on a subset of those visitors who
> have already been arrested and are being charged with politically inspired
> violence, is perfectly appropriate_

If this warrant were replaced with demands for visitation logs from specific
IP addresses or relating to certain people, it would be far less
controversial.

------
tehlike
I wonder if eff will support them.

Probably semi annual reminder time to consider donating to eff

~~~
EpiphanyMachine
Yes they are helping.

 _Is the government really asking for all those visitor logs?

"Yes, they definitely are," says Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff
attorney Mark Rumold. EFF advocates for Internet privacy and free speech, and
has advised DreamHost in its case.

Rumold tells NPR that when DreamHost first approached EFF about responding to
the warrant, he guessed "that DOJ would realize how broad the warrant was, and
say, oh you know, in fact we're not actually looking for IP logs for everyone
who's ever visited the site" and would narrow its request accordingly.

But instead, the government insisted on DreamHost's compliance with the
warrant as written._

~~~
dmix
So if any charges are brought against anyone as a result they could most
likely get any evidence from it thrown out because the initial warrant was too
broad and violated their right preventing unlawful search?

The real test for the legality of these warrants is typically in the courts
for the defendant's trial, which is unfortunate. It's not often thoroughly
challenged by the initial judge from what I've heard.

Which is interesting when you think of the implications of NSA FISA warrants
not having any public scrutiny at all, just a judge's opinion in total secret.

I know in Canada it's not even full judges who sign off on police warrants but
people called "Justice of the Peace" who are less trained than a judge and
spend all day working with police signing off warrants.

Various defense attorneys I've spoken to have said they sign almost everything
the police give them and tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt.
Which is why the first thing every defense attorney does is look to challenge
any warrants because they are usually the lowest hanging fruit in terms of how
well thought out the police investigation was.

~~~
dragonwriter
> So if any charges are brought against anyone as a result they could most
> likely get any evidence from it thrown out because the initial warrant was
> too broad and violated their right preventing unlawful search?

No, IIRC, because you can only get evidence excluded if our were the target of
the unlawful search; an unlawful search of Art's papers that turns up evidence
used against Beth doesn't qualify for the exclusionary rule.

------
whipoodle
Somehow I doubt all our stalwart free-speech proponents from the other week
will come out in force for this issue.

~~~
yew
It's for the best. Now if they just learn to stay away from right-wing causes
too, maybe they'll actually make the world a better place.

------
pmarreck
Good for them.

~~~
cypherpunks01
'Them' meaning Dreamhost? Sorry to be pedantic but there are multiple subjects
in the article/title and no other context.

~~~
ceejayoz
The headline was edited from a "Dreamhost resists demands..." sort of
construction.

~~~
cypherpunks01
Ah, gotcha, thanks.

------
marcoperaza
They're seeking the identities of the rioters on January 20th. Over 200 people
were arrested but many more have yet to face the consequences for what they
did.

~~~
marricks
So there's a million or so people that visited that website and they want to
unmask all those people to attempt to find 200 alleged rioters?

That sure sounds like an overreaching fishing expedition.

~~~
borisj
They already found 200+ alleged rioters. They're looking for the identities of
the other 65,844,400.

~~~
marricks
Wow, ambitious!

------
dsfyu404ed
Why is a political organization retaining any info that isn't the minimum to
do their job?

It's not like both sides haven't been trying to get their enemies membership
lists for the past 100+yr.

~~~
mulmen
Why would a _political_ organization feel the need to protect their
information from the DOJ?

This isn't a matter of "sides", it is a matter of extreme overreach by the
executive branch.

~~~
gozur88
It's not overreach if the political organization is behaving like a _criminal_
organization. Much of the rioting and property damage at the inauguration was
clearly planned, so the DOJ is just doing its job here.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
An across-the-aisle analog would be a Democrat President demanding detailed
visitation logs to Breitbart in response to the Charlottesville riots. You can
prosecute violent crime without lazily trampling over the First and Fourth
Amendments.

~~~
gozur88
Except that there's no indication Breitbart had any involvement in
Charlottesville (and anyway the rioting was mostly Antifa). Here we have
tweets from people plugging their organizations and promising disorder.

------
sergiotapia
The alt-left are dangerous but Dreamhost should resist until all legal
channels are exhausted. Checks and balances!

~~~
knieveltech
What alt-left? Are you referring to community defense groups trying to protect
their communities from Nazis? Dangerous to whom?

~~~
MollyR
I believe its a new term for what used to be called the radical left. There is
evidence they go beyond attacking nazi's, to attacking journalists or just
people who "look" like nazis.

Antifa is a good example with their huge riots and firebombing of cars during
Trump's inauguration.

The son of Israel's PM considers them a bigger threat to the jewish people
than actual neo-nazis (surprising to me).
[http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-junior-says-
leftists-...](http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-junior-says-leftists-
more-dangerous-than-neo-nazis/)

~~~
knieveltech
Huge riots: 40 guys running around knocking over trash cans. Firebombing cars:
one limo got torched at one protest that one time. Antifa: some group of
random protestors, or maybe those two dudes that punched Richard Spencer.
IDGAF if the son of Israel's PM prefers Duke's mayonnaise, much less his
opinion of the American protest landscape.

------
generic_user
The lesson to take away from this regardless of your political leanings is
that whatever power you give the state to go after a group you may disagree
with will always, eventually be used against you.

It makes no difference if the target groups are alleged terrorists, alt-right,
alt-left or or any other group. When you expand the power of the state that
diminishes the privacy rights of the citizen that law applies to you, your
family and your friends also.

------
krath94
Sorry, but antifa is more than Anti-Trump Activists, they are dangerous. They
attack people for political reasons and are largely unpunished because they
wear all black and wear masks. They are the clowns that started fires in
berkeley and hit the Trump support in the head with a bike lock, causing a
fractured skull. That's no good imo.

~~~
sergiotapia
Correct.

Pardon the source but I just searched for "antifa knife" and copied the first
link: [http://bigleaguepolitics.com/man-stabbed-antifa-mob-
outside-...](http://bigleaguepolitics.com/man-stabbed-antifa-mob-outside-home-
not-condemning-nazis-hard-enough/)

The alt-left is getting bolder and more dangerous.

~~~
1_2__4
And the alt-right is getting dumber. Seriously, "bigleaguepolitics.com"? Are
you going to peddle Seth Rich conspiracy theories now too? Because that's also
on their front page.

~~~
sergiotapia
Like I said, I just searched on twitter for the knife attack and clicked the
first link. Disregard the source. Was this man not knifed?

~~~
FireBeyond
Quite possibly "not"?

[https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS753US753&q=sam...](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS753US753&q=sam+wormer+stabbed)

I find it ... odd that not one mainstream media source is in the results
there.

For a stabbing...

Not even a local paper.

Not even Fox News.

Just Infowars, Breitbart, AboveTopSecret, all right wing and/or conspiracy
sites.

