
Google has handed information related to my account to the DoJ - DyslexicAtheist
https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1201589695894958087
======
r721
"3 things: vocal & active supporter of WL & Assange for 10yrs, was in a
twitter DM group that incl @wikileaks, visited assange several times at the
embassy"

[https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1201620076383940610](https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1201620076383940610)

~~~
mr_overalls
Yeah, physically visiting a potential Russian asset _in_the_London_embassy_
will get you more scrutiny from the DoJ. I have zero sympathy for this person.

~~~
close04
> visiting a potential Russian asset

That's unfair considering everybody is a _potential_ asset to someone, whether
the "good" or the "bad" guys.

~~~
cthalupa
Potential in this case is being used to indicate that there is significant
evidence that he is a Russian asset, but that it has not been specifically
proven. Not potential in 'well he has potential uses if he is an asset.'

Perhaps a more specific phrase would have been 'suspected Russian asset'

~~~
whamlastxmas
There is zero credible evidence that Assange is working with the Russian
government. Please stop spreading propaganda.

~~~
mr_overalls
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597pqn/mueller-assange-
wo...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597pqn/mueller-assange-worked-with-
the-russians-because-he-thought-hillary-was-a-sociopath)

"While it’s not clear whether WikiLeaks participated in that now-infamous DNC
hack, Mueller’s investigation revealed that WikiLeaks sought to spread
conspiracies about where they got the information, obscure whether they knew
it came from Russia, and release documents at times that seemingly benefited
Trump by consuming the news cycle."

[https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf)

"The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia
Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.RT’s editor-in-chief visited
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August
2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according
to Russian and Western media.Russian media subsequently announced that RT had
become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had
received access to "new leaks of secret information."RT routinely gives
Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the
United States."

~~~
whamlastxmas
You first link isn't worth anything. Wikileaks has never revealed sources, so
to say they're "obscuring whether... it came from Russia" is ridiculous. He
explicitly said it WASN'T Russia, I don't know how he could make it any
clearer. Wikileaks has a 100% track record and there's no reason to doubt that
statement. And of course evidence about HRC committing crimes benefits Trump,
but that has nothing to do with Russia. I don't know why you've even included
it.

Also - wow, a journalist meets with other journalists. How damning. Clearly
he's a Russian asset. Maybe him being in contact with American news
organizations also means he's an American asset and actually working for the
CIA.

~~~
cthalupa
You are comparing a state run propaganda organization to independent news
organizations. You simply cannot compare RT to CNN because RT is owned and
funded by the Russian government. They have done some work to try and distance
themselves from this idea, yet it's all quite surface level - even a Wikipedia
level investigation of who is who at the senior leadership level will reveal
more than enough ties to prove that the Russian government pulls the strings.
As one example, Margarita Simonyan is the Editor in Chief of both RT and fully
state-run Rossiya Segodnya (... which, "coincidentally", also translates in
English as 'Russia Today').

3rd party media watchdog organizations such as Reporters Without Borders and
Accuracy In Media consider RT as a propaganda arm of the Russian government as
the results of their investigations into their reporting accuracy. Negative
reporting of Putin is directly banned by RT.

They have a propensity for airing conspiracy theory based content as news, as
well. They keep people like Tony Gosling on staff, an anti-semite who spends
much of his time peddling conspiracy theories about a worldwide zionist
illuminati, have run stories about how the boston bombing was perpetrated by
the US government, how EU citizens have all been microchipped to release
hormones that make them submissive, etc.

RT is not a legitimate news organization. They are an arm of the Russian
government, and Assange would surely know exactly who and what they are.
Working with them is incredibly damning evidence.

Personally, I don't believe that Assange was always a Russian asset. I think
when he started WikiLeaks his intentions were relatively noble, at least in
his eyes. But I think that the position he was put in over his actions
ultimately gave the Russians significant leverage over him, and they were able
to use that to flip him. But based on his recent actions, there is a
significant body of evidence that he is a Russian asset. And to put it
bluntly, your argument that RT is a legitimate news organization really only
has 3 possible explanations that I can personally see: That you are informed
on the subject and have taken a stance counter to independent media
watchdogs/Western governments/etc. (Which may be fine, but I'm curious how you
can rectify that view with all of the evidence that is publicly available),
that you are uninformed on the subject and thus basing your defense of Assange
on an incomplete understanding of the situation, or that you are informed but
some bias in favor of Assange has you ignoring all of the evidence out there
on RT.

------
eyegor
Nice, I see we're entering the new era of us surveillance. This guy was a
public figure who associated with a party under investigation, he was not
directly involved. In other words, a judge issued a gag order and a data
handoff request on a private citizen to Google without probable cause. How
could this be anything other than a fishing expedition?

~~~
dangerface
> a judge issued a gag order and a data handoff request on a private citizen
> to Google without probable cause

They weren't a US citizen they where Australian so the judge didn't need
probable cause.

It is perfectly legal and that should make any foreigner question their
relationship with America.

Do we really want an ally that has proven them selves as totalitarian as China
and is determined to spy on us?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_They weren 't a US citizen they where Australian so the judge didn't need
probable cause._

Why do so many people think that human rights flow from US citizenship? That's
not how the Constitution works. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't
say anything about citizenship:

 _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._

The Bill of Rights is a set of limitations on the government, saying that the
government is not allowed to do these things. It doesn't say anything about
who they might hypothetically be doing them _to_ , just that they cannot do
it.

So regardless of your citizenship, the government can't prevent you from
practicing your religion, can't throw you in jail without a trial, and they
can't search you without a warrant. This applies to any actions the US
government takes, regardless of who they're directed against and where.

~~~
refurb
That's clearly untrue. Otherwise we wouldn't have the CIA as an organization
to spy on foreigners.

It is true you don't need to be a US citizen to have protection. However, you
do need to be under the jurisdiction of the US (on US soil). Otherwise, the US
Constitutional rights don't apply to you.

~~~
salawat
The CIA doesn't feed or perform as a part of the United States Justice system
(parallel construction or the occasional slip aside).

Therefore, using it as a argument for why due process is only restricted to a
certain group is a bit of a non-sequitur. A case against a foreign person
still has to be conducted through proper channels, either with Constitutional
protections in force if the U.S. has ultimate jurisdiction, or through
diplomatic channels to ensure conformance with whatever other country
considers due process or actionable if the U.S. doesn't have ultimate
jurisdiction. This doesn't really negate the GP's point in the way you may
have been intending to.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I agree (unfortunately) with everything you said.

While the government technically isn't _allowed_ to do some of these things,
the way our judicial system works, there's no lever with which these can be
stopped (other than at the ballot box, and it seems no one cares enough to
vote based on this). In particular, what little controversy there was
surrounding the Edward Snowden revelations showed us that the Courts don't
recognize any of us as having standing to pursue the question in court.

------
sudoaza
Ddin't know this person, now i know, the twitter account has lots of great
info, thanks DOJ for bringing this into my attention.

------
leonixyz
With regard to email services, I'm a happy Protonmail user. I recommend it to
everybody. It's free and it allegedly stores only encrypted data on the
servers.

I try also to avoid spreading too much information while browsing by using
some Firefox Add-ons like Noscript (set to block Google Analytics and others
by default) and Cookie Autodestruct to allow persistent cookies only on
Personal and Work tab containers.

Mozilla is doing a pretty good job with privacy issues.

~~~
bduerst
Does protonmail also ignore government subpoenas? Even the equivalent in the
EU?

~~~
sharkflow
The answer you're looking for is... it depends:
[https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-
report/](https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-report/)

Details here: [https://protonmail.com/fr/law-
enforcement](https://protonmail.com/fr/law-enforcement)

~~~
bduerst
According to that link, Protonmail would observe and respond to a warrant from
local government the same way Google does.

~~~
leonixyz
the difference is all data on protonmail servers is stored encrypted, and
users have decryption keys in their client apps

------
viridian
Reading this comment thread hours after everyone else has posted, it sure is
strange that a handful of individuals are defending the state from pretty much
every objection by random commenters. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but this feels
like when I watched the Hong Kong Blizzard protest, and you had all these guys
named like "John Harrison" and "Alex Jeffries" spamming messages about how
Tienanmen Square was just western propaganda. It feels like a couple of
accounts pushing a specific agenda.

------
gesman
"SEALED v. SEALED"!

I think you may politely respond with politically correct statement:

I don't give a [REDACTED] and "SEALED" may go and [REDACTED] themselves in the
[REDACTED].

~~~
rvz
Well this is ■■■■■■ we are talking about and after all, this an ■■■■■■■■■■■■
issue anyway.

Having ■■■■■■ run our lives like this and with the crowning of ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■
of ■■■■■■■■ and ■■■■■■, I don't see ■■■ changing or ■■■■■■ doing the same
anytime soon.

So as long as we all have ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■, we are all absolutely ■■■■■■■!

------
campuscodi
A PACER search didn't return anything for the case number referenced in the
email.

Although, the user did post an update later on:
[https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1201913860745236481](https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1201913860745236481)

~~~
phyalow
Still sealed?

------
agustif
They were already listening on those embassy meetings though:
[https://www.globalresearch.ca/julian-assange-video-
conferenc...](https://www.globalresearch.ca/julian-assange-video-conference-
spanish-case-takes-turn/5696557)

------
deogeo
Can said information include everything gleaned from Google searches and pages
with Google analytics? I.e. a full browsing history?

~~~
dangerface
Yes, and gmail if you use, you'r gps/gsm cordinates over the past 3 years and
more if you have an android phone.

The scary thing as you pointed out with analytics, even if you have no google
account google still hold data on you. If you use a private email server
google still have a copy of every email you sent to gmail or received and will
hand them over as its associated with you.

~~~
leonixyz
What do you mean with "If you use a private email server google still have a
copy of every email you [..] received"?

~~~
jlokier
I believe they mean: _Even if you don 't use gmail_, but you correspond with
other people who do use gmail, _the other people 's copies of your messages_
are linked to you and handed over.

It's hard to avoid corresponding with other people who use gmail. But it's
even harder, when you realise this includes people using their own private
email domains that are handled by the gmail service without your knowledge.
Many companies do this, even if it's just for the excellent spam filtering.

------
AshwinDurairaj
Does someone know if in cases like these Google will inform you why this
happened?

~~~
mzs
When/if the gag is lifted google does in fact notify the user with what it
can.

------
bigred100
Is this guy a political dissident or something?

~~~
shadowgovt
Suspected, it seems. Direct contact with Julian Assange.

~~~
bigred100
I’m not a lawyer but in this case that guy’s data getting sent to DoJ doesn’t
really bother me...

~~~
krzepah
That's not how it should work. You could just go fish for anyone's data on the
basis that he had a relation with someone that broke the law.

Data should be protected just like the intel you are giving to your lawyer or
your doctors. There is absolutely no reason a government should be able to
simply catch your data without a reasonable cause.

Knowing someone is NOT a reasonable cause. If they had proof that he did
something that's a different story, but then they'd just catch him wouldn't
they?

~~~
shadowgovt
> You could just go fish for anyone's data on the basis that he had a relation
> with someone that broke the law

I believe what you're describing is the way the Prohibition-era gangs were
broken up. It's a long-standing policy that this is acceptable policing in the
US; it's not generally considered a fishing expedition if police investigate a
person who associates frequently with a person they're building a criminal
case on.

------
zer0faith
I can't help but feel like this person wants this type of attention.

~~~
camdenlock
Attention is a powerful drug, and victimhood is an increasingly viable way to
get a steady supply.

None of which diminishes the underlying privacy and justice issues here, but
yeah. Just look at the Twitter thread. Plenty of adoring fans.

------
cco
>Jokes aside, the only "connection" Bean has with that inquiry is one of
association: not with Russia or Trump; but with WikiLeaks & Julian Assange.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Russia,
and Trump would all be very clearly part of an investigation into whether
Trump's campaign sought a foreign government's help in influencing a
presidential election.

Am I missing something? I have no idea who this person on Twitter is or what
their connection is with Wikileaks or Assange, i.e. did they donate once to
Wikileaks in which case this seems crazy, or are they much more involved and
thus their Google data would reasonably be included in any investigation into
the matter? But it seems quite reasonable that if the latter is true that
their data would be pulled for the Mueller investigation.

~~~
nkrisc
Well according to later tweets they went so far as to meet with Assange in
person while he was holed up in the embassy. That's certainly a step beyond
just vocally supporting him on Twitter, at least.

~~~
cco
Ah, I didn't see that. Well then in that case this seems somewhat reasonable?

~~~
nkrisc
Enough to explain why data about his Google account might have been caught up
in the investigation, perhaps.

------
ykevinator
Who is bean?

~~~
auiya
An Australian/British graphic designer who has been making graphic design
resources in support of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for ~10 years[1].

[1][https://www.gofundme.com/f/aussies-bring-assange-home-
poster...](https://www.gofundme.com/f/aussies-bring-assange-home-posters)

------
mark_l_watson
A little off topic, but as a US citizen, I find it chilling how strongly
President Obama went after whistle blowers (as much as all previous presidents
combined) and now President Trump is just as bad in this regard.

Whistle blower and journalist legal protection is a hard requirement for a
free and democratic republic.

~~~
raxxorrax
> Whistle blower and journalist legal protection

Just generalize privacy and data protection here to everyone. Restricting
protections to certain groups is a massive strategic mistake for any form of
civil liberty.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Exactly given what we know about journalists flexible approach to the law
hacking a dead teenagers phones voice mail for example.

May be journalist should have the same oversight as the police MI5 and SIS do
_innocent smile_

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
> _Oh it 's "SEALED v. SEALED; Case is not available to the public."_

House members subpoena the call records of the president’s attorney,
adversarial journalists, and other members of Congress. Secret FISA court
warrants from known garbage “research”, and being involved in a lawsuits where
you can’t even have proper legal representation because it’s all sealed.

What a garbage time for justice today.

~~~
aroch
Are you referring to the Steele dossier as "garbage 'research'"? If so, I
don't quite understand your concept of garbage, given that much of it was
proven correct. And I'd point out that the FBI says the dossier wasn't used
for the FISA warrant.

Cue the deep state conspiracy theories, I suppose....

------
blfr
Yandex has an excellent email hosting. Almost G Suite level. At least there
would be some real Russian connection.

[https://connect.yandex.com/](https://connect.yandex.com/)

~~~
tiborsaas
Do you happen to know a great North-Korean email provider? I've heard they
treat IT security even stricter than Russians.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Yandex could be a reasonable alternative to GMail for anyone who's much more
likely to quarrel with the US government than with the Russian. Which probably
applies to most denizens of the West. Sure, it's not the _best_ opsec, but at
least you know that unlike Google, when the DoJ says "jump!" Yandex is not
going to say "how high?"

~~~
monkeydreams
> Which probably applies to most denizens of the West.

Most denizens of the West seem to like Western democracy and, well, Putin
doesn't. So Russia doesn't. So Yandex doesn't.

As one of the "denizens of the West" \- we might hate on what the US does, but
only because we believe it could do better. We have no such expectation of
Putin.

