Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Communications Network Privacy Social Networks The Courts The Internet

Department of Justice Demands Facebook Information From 'Anti-Administration Activists' (cnn.com) 253

PopeRatzo shares a report from CNN: Trump administration lawyers are demanding the private account information of potentially thousands of Facebook users in three separate search warrants served on the social media giant, according to court documents obtained by CNN. The warrants specifically target the accounts of three Facebook users who are described by their attorneys as "anti-administration activists who have spoken out at organized events, and who are generally very critical of this administration's policies." One of those users, Emmelia Talarico, operated the disruptj20 page where Inauguration Day protests were organized and discussed; the page was visited by an estimated 6,000 users whose identities the government would have access to if Facebook hands over the information sought in the search warrants. In court filings, Talarico says if her account information was given to the government, officials would have access to her "personal passwords, security questions and answers, and credit card information," plus "the private lists of invitees and attendees to multiple political events sponsored by the page."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Department of Justice Demands Facebook Information From 'Anti-Administration Activists'

Comments Filter:
  • Not right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 )

    This just isn't right. If they are seeking the ID of people who posed actual physical threats, or were involved in UNLAWFUL activity (such as genuine libel, inciting riots, participating in violence or riots, etc), that might be justified.

    Being caught up in an ID disclosure just because one visited a web site or Facebook page goes well beyond what could possibly necessary.

    More info needed, especially when it is a CNN article.

    • Re:Not right (Score:5, Informative)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @06:00PM (#55280537) Journal

      More info needed, especially when it is a CNN article.

      http://fortune.com/2017/09/29/... [fortune.com]

      https://lawnewz.com/crazy/doj-... [lawnewz.com]

      • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @08:26PM (#55281245) Journal

        I note that you conveniently leave out the part where #disruptj20 was caught on camera [youtube.com] plotting to attack people at the inaugural ball? Or how they planned to chain trains [youtube.com] and otherwise shut down DC? Have we forgotten about violent assaults like the woman whose hair was lit on fire [youtube.com]?

        They're investigating all of the people who were plotting violent attacks, including the planned release of butyric acid into the ventilation systems of the ball. Oh, that's just a "stink bomb" you say, but c'mon, really? You expect people to identify which acid they're breathing in and not be forced to evacuate the building into a pile of police and protesters on a freezing cold day?

        Sorry, but this is a criminal act that they're investigating. They're allowed to find out who was involved in it and given that #disruptj20 was criminal, they have reasonable suspicion to look at anyone involved. You don't get to plot crimes and then complain because the police are investigating. They're going after #disruptj20 because the leaders of it were caught planning criminal activity, not because they criticized the president.

        The people who tried to attack others at the inauguration knew or should've known what they were getting into.

        • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @09:19PM (#55281473) Journal

          Sorry, but this is a criminal act that they're investigating. They're allowed to find out who was involved in it and given that #disruptj20 was criminal, they have reasonable suspicion to look at anyone involved.

          And by "involved", you mean everyone who ever looked at their Facebook page?

          [youtube.com]

          You're citing Project Veritas videos as evidence, dude. How many times do you need James O'Keefe to be exposed as a fraudster before you'll learn?

          • > And by "involved", you mean everyone who ever looked at their Facebook page?

            No, everyone who decided to "like" it. That's literally the first line of the first link you posted, telling us that 6,000 people apparently like endangering lots of people by putting acid into ventilation systems and whatnot.

            > You're citing Project Veritas videos as evidence, dude.

            And you're leaving out the full story, once again. They have people on video, that's enough for police to investigate. It'll be pretty damned

            • But liking the page isn't a crime. It doesn't mean you're planning to commit a crime. Approving of people planning a crime is not illegal. Had they confined their information demand to people who posted something indicating participation, I'd agree with you. They did not, instead opting to make the demand as broad as possible in a clear bid to chill speech.
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

              No, everyone who decided to "like" it. That's literally the first line of the first link you posted, telling us that 6,000 people apparently like endangering lots of people by putting acid into ventilation systems and whatnot.

              Why, you stupid sonofabitch. You actually believe that "liking" something should make you a suspect in a criminal investigation. No wonder you would support a wannabe fascist as president.

              Do you also believe that liking a post about putting people in ovens should make you a suspect?

              • I am not now a supporter of National Socialism, nor have I ever been, Mr. Mcarthy. And I don't have a Facebook account, either. I also detest the brownshirt types, like the terrorist group Antifa, who go around preemptively physically assaulting anyone who has a differing opinion. Not to mention the idiot racists often found on Slashdot.

                I also know the various elements of conspiracy [lawcomic.net]. It's reasonable to say that liking the Facebook page itself shouldn't be illegal, even if there might be a technical argu

              • You actually believe that "liking" something should make you a suspect in a criminal investigation.

                What about marching in a public rally with a Nazi flag, in a demonstration in which people are run over by a Nazi in a car?

                • you mean the guy in the car who had his windows smashed and someone hitting the rear of his car with a bat before he stepped on it?

                  not to defend nazis, but lets be real here for a second. if his car wasnt assaulted, he most likely wouldnt have stepped on the gas in a panic and hit someone
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          If they are investigating a criminal act and have evidence for several plots, why don't they just get a warrant? Why ask Facebook for something that a judge can compel them to provide? Maybe the Justice Department doesn't know how warrants work?

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That video by the discredited "Veritas Project" has been debunked. It was misleadingly edited.

          In any case, it's it reasonable to then go after everyone who read anything associated with this person?

    • Re:Not right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29, 2017 @06:13PM (#55280601)

      This just isn't right. If they are seeking the ID of people who posed actual physical threats, or were involved in UNLAWFUL activity (such as genuine libel, inciting riots, participating in violence or riots, etc), that might be justified.

      Being caught up in an ID disclosure just because one visited a web site or Facebook page goes well beyond what could possibly necessary.

      More info needed, especially when it is a CNN article.

      To take one example, Antifa has gained the distinction of being labeled a 'domestic terrorist organisation' in a very short time for throwing urnine bombs and punching a few Nazis while the Ku Klux Klan is still not considered worthy of that title even though it has been waging a campaign of lynchings, murder, rape and terrorist bombings for 150 years. From the Trump administration's point of view there is nothing wrong with that picture so what makes you think they don't consider themselves to have ample justification for cracking down on people who committed the unpardonable crime of visiting Trump critical Facebook pages? After all, Antifa and other organisations like it are a clear threat to Trump's 'base'. From the point of view of the likes of Sessions, Trump, Bannon, Miller, Gorka, and the rest of that ilk nothing is more natural than a president using his authority to persecute his political opponents.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The organizers of #disruptj20 were caught, on camera, planning various attacks on people attending the inaugural ball, including the part where they wanted to use butyric acid in the A/C systems to cause everyone to panic and evacuate into the crowd of protesters outside.

      So they're investigating a crime here, not searching randomly for people "critical" of the administration.

    • Antifa committed violence. The government has the right to investigate, including issuing warrants for information. I can imagine that people would be concerned with being charged with conspiracy, they should be.
    • She also says Facebook will give officials access to her "personal passwords, security questions and answers, and credit card information,"

      Now, I can't be sure about the last two, but her "personal passwords"? Really? Facebook shouldn't even know her plain text personal passwords. At this point, and as much as I hate Trump and Jeff Sessions, I think this is just speculation on her part and she doesn't know what she's talking about.

    • by thsths ( 31372 )

      Yes, and I fail to see how the government could use the credit card information or the password for any legitimate reason.

    • This just isn't right. If they are seeking the ID of people who posed actual physical threats, or were involved in UNLAWFUL activity (such as genuine libel, inciting riots, participating in violence or riots, etc), that might be justified.

      Being caught up in an ID disclosure just because one visited a web site or Facebook page goes well beyond what could possibly necessary.

      More info needed, especially when it is a CNN article.

      Did they say only those accounts. If not, give them three for one, better, 5 for 1.

  • A witch hunt. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fredrated ( 639554 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @05:53PM (#55280499) Journal

    The Trump Administration is evil. I suppose I am now a target.

    • Re:A witch hunt. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @06:09PM (#55280583) Journal

      The gov't should investigate people based on their threat risk and NOT their political leanings. If The Right only investigates The Left, and/or the The Left only investigates The Right, then our "law" is no better than Nazi law.

      • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @08:38PM (#55281297) Journal

        > The gov't should investigate people based on their threat risk

        Why do you think they aren't?

        Here's video evidence of some of the crimes #disruptj20 was plotting:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZSfhd1X_8 [youtube.com]
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIjbkYLI1nY [youtube.com]

        And here is one of those 'peaceful protesters' at the inauguration lighting a lady's hair on fire:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY5WTDgV4ik [youtube.com]

        There's no reason for society to pick & choose, they should arrest ALL people plotting or performing violent acts.

        • 'Liking' a page is not actively participating in the planning of a crime. That you continue to say so makes you the exact same kind of scum as the people demanding the info, leaving out the critical distinction that makes it abusive instead of legitimate, because that interferes with the ultimate goal of attacking critical speech to quell such dissent in the future..
          • That depends on how far the DA wants to push the conspiracy charges and exactly how much they knew about the riot plans, actually. I tend to agree that actually charging them with a crime for merely that is unreasonable. I don't agree that they're automatically immune from further investigation.

          • by RedK ( 112790 )

            No, but having liked a page and then participated in the events can show premeditation and probably conspiracy. The DOJ probably wants the info to bolster charges or increase current charges against suspects.

  • Why exactly would FB have Talarico's credit card information in the first place? Is FB not free anymore?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This president not only hasn't read the constitution, but wouldn't care even if had, and he's made that clear. Show me where the is a violent crime or public threat to people's physical safety, and perhaps I'll consider, But this is simply a witch hunt for anyone who speaks out openly against the Trump administration. American was supposed to be a place where people political opinion and protests were supposed to be allowed without government intimidation. A government elected by the people (which the elect

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      There is nothing in the Constitution which says the executive branch can't demand this information as part of its normal law enforcement activities. That doesn't mean that Facebook is legally compelled to give them that information without a warrant, even though you may feel that is similarly intrusive.

      Here's the cold, hard truth: the Constitution cannot protect anyone's freedom if most people develop the habit of mindless compliance or expediency.

      • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @09:09PM (#55281433)

        constitution lists the rights of the government.

        if its not listed, they don't have that right.

        the people, otoh, are the opposite. all rights are assumed unless listed as a 'you dont get this right'.

        so, your statement is null. the constitution does not say the administration can't go door to door and demand us all sing his some song; but this is absurd to follow this line of reasoning.

        whatever is not listed as a power - the gov goes NOT get it, by default.

        not sure where you learned civics...

        • by hey! ( 33014 )

          It lists the functions of government, in a very broad way that allows government quite a bit of leeway. For example the framers clearly intended for Treasury functions to be exercised by Congress, but in the very first year the Constitution was in effect Congress realized this was unworkable and created the Treasury Department in the executive branch -- this by the way is why we have this whole "Debt Ceiling" nonsense that other countries don't. That was Congress exercising its Treasury powers in ways the

      • In America you have all the civil rights for which you can afford to sue in federal kangaroo court. That means I personally have no rights at all. How many rights do you have?

  • There seems to be no problem with tech disclosures as long as it hits conservatives.
  • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Friday September 29, 2017 @06:21PM (#55280671)

    The con artist has repeatedly praised his buddy Putin at every opportunity, even going so far as to apologize for Putin's military deliberately bombing hospitals and civilians in Syria, and Russia's support for the dictator Assad.

    It is well known Putin doesn't like or tolerate dissent. In Crimea, which Russia stole from the Ukraine, Russia troops went door to door in the Tartar community and rounded up anyone who spoke out against the takeover. They shut down Tartar schools and the only Tartar radio station [theguardian.com], and forbid the teaching of the Tartar language. Just recently, Russia jailed a Tartar leader [reuters.com] because he led protests against the Russian invasion of Crimea.

    Witness now in the U.S. what the con artist is trying to do. His fragile ego can't stand anyone saying a single bad word about him and so he does this. He's only following the lead of his buddy Putin.

    That using the power of the government to go after people who exercise their First Amendment rights should even be an issue speaks volumes about this administration.

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928

Working...