
U.S. has withdrawn its request to identify a Trump critic - Bedon292
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/07/the-u-s-government-has-withdrawn-its-request-ordering-twitter-to-identify-a-trump-critic/
======
moonka
>The government, in order to enforce its subpoena, would have had to
demonstrate that whoever is behind the Twitter account was likely violating
some law. There also were serious questions about whether the type of subpoena
used, which is typically for investigating violations of export rules, was
appropriate for the type of case DHS was probing, experts said.

Based on how fast the government dropped their request, it seems very clear
that this was nothing more than an attempt at stifling dissent. How
disturbing.

~~~
alttag
One of the more interesting lines of thought on Ars was that the request was
so badly implemented (without a judge's signature; could have a been a
National Security Letter instead; other similar reasons), that it was almost
as if the person implementing it was doing it because he was pressured to by
higher-ups, not because of true desire to see the request succeed.

Either way, I'm glad to see the negative attention the request received and
even more glad to see the request withdrawn.

~~~
gotodengo
Or from a more paranoid standpoint, they got exactly the public response they
wanted.

Dissenters, or at least supposed dissenting federal employees now know they're
considered suspect. This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous
federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your
department, want to risk being next?

~~~
metaphorm
> This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee
> considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to
> risk being next?

yes, actually. this is encouraging exactly that. the government withdrawing
its request in less than 24 hours because it didn't have a leg to stand on
means that even in Trumpistan the constitution still means something. that
said, encryption and anonymity seem more important now than ever.

------
ghughes
Any government employees who played a part in this outrageous attempted abuse
of power should be removed from their position(s) of authority.

~~~
amorphid
I don't know enough about this case to comment on the specifics.

As a general rule, I am not in favor of terminating someone's employment
because they made a bad call. You can't expect people to take risks & try bold
things when their failure means unemployment. People need to be able to learn
from their mistakes.

~~~
FireBeyond
> You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things

This is a branch of the government and law enforcements, whose
responsibilities, powers and limitations are codified in writing. This is not
a scrappy little startup - there are edicts in place about how to do things,
not to "be bold" when you have such power behind you.

~~~
amorphid
Being bold can include doing what you think is right, knowing that taking a
stand will be extremely hard.

Say an Islamaphobic Congress passes a law that bans wearing turbans, and that
becomes extremely popular. A bold for someone in the executive branch could be
actively defying that law, challenging it in the court system. Someone has to
fight the good fight, and I hope government has people like this.

~~~
jaredklewis
Right，but it cuts both ways. If you can't fire people for illegal behavior
then the situation could just as easily be the opposite with an isalmaphobic
government employee violating the the first amendment or civil rights act.

At the end of the day, it's hard to imagine how governments or for that matter
businesses could operate if employees were immune to being fired for their job
performance. There would be little motivation for actual work and little
penalty for taking outsized risks. Seems hopelessly naive.

Of course this might make fighting the good fight harder sometimes, but that's
how it is. If doing the right thing were always easy, everyone would do it.

------
payne92
Now, when do we have the discussion how this request should never have been
submitted in the first place?

And better training (or retraining) for CBP agents on the proper scope of the
law?

------
partycoder
It backfired tremendously. That Twitter account wasn't very well known, and
the controversial government actions helped it become a trending topic in
social networks.

That twitter account and others form what they call the "alt gov", and they
invite followers to follow other alt gov accounts.

At the end of this exchange, the alt gov people won many followers. The
government actually unintentionally helped them with free publicity.

~~~
mythrwy
Exactly. Maybe a honey pot?

Take the opportunity to list malcontents in case it's needed later? Narrow the
search space in case something come up on down the line? Starting at these
nodes who knows what kind of interesting trees might unfold?

I image after all they most likely could identify the person if they _really_
wanted to. Twitter's well publicized "stand" aside.

------
hoodoof
So many secret, flippant requests for it companies to give up user data.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Can the lawsuit proceed anyway even if the request has been dropped?

~~~
plorkyeran
No, courts are not very interested in wasting their time with a lawsuit where
the person suing isn't actually asking for anything if they win.

~~~
belovedeagle
IANAL, but this sounds incomplete. Declaratory judgements are a thing.
Presumably that doesn't apply in this case for various reasons.

~~~
slededit
Declaratory judgement are only for cases where the mere possibility of an
adverse decision is materially impacting you. For example investors being
nervous. Its not intended to be a way to make a point.

------
jbmorgado
_" request to identify a Trump critic"_

That was seriously what the subpoena was made about, a "critic"? No wonder
moderates feel totally detached from this kind of alt-left (or in other cases
alt-right) echo chambers.

Journalism these days...

~~~
chambo622
In what way is that description inaccurate?

~~~
jbmorgado
The request was to identify a "government official impersonator" not a
"critic".

Either that was really the real motive of the officials that made the subpoena
or not (my guess is actually not btw), is certainly not up to the lousy
journalist that wrote that title to decide.

~~~
danso
> is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide.

Journalists are allowed to interpret. In fact, that's a core part of
journalism.

~~~
jbmorgado
I think you are mistaking journalism with creative writing.

The core part of journalism is to present facts and let the interpretation up
to the reader.

~~~
mrunkel
So, like a phone book?

Journalism should be about illuminating a topic, including providing context.

I have my gripes with journalism that misuses facts and statistics to spin an
alternate reality, but I don't think this was the case.

The twitter account never pretended to be a US official, it's always been
clear that they are an "alt" account.

So for you to claim (someone who, if I'm not mistaken, has zero first hand
knowledge about the situation) that your interpretation is more accurate than
a "lousy" journalist who actually researched the issue is to my mind a little
weird.

BTW, I'm sure you're aware that editors write headlines, not journalists
right?

~~~
jbmorgado
_" So, like a phone book?"_

No, like a scientific paper. Have you ever tried to read one and understand
this alien concept on how you can actually present facts without giving leeway
to your personal politic views and fantasies?

~~~
danso
Scientific papers are opinionated. Look at the one for PageRank:

[http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html](http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html)

