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."
Not right (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
http://fortune.com/2017/09/29/... [fortune.com]
https://lawnewz.com/crazy/doj-... [lawnewz.com]
Why don't you tell them why disruptj20 was busted? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Why don't you tell them why disruptj20 was bust (Score:5, Insightful)
And by "involved", you mean everyone who ever looked at their Facebook page?
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?
I'll laugh if you were one of them... (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
You're one of the 6,000, right? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Except that a lot of the supposed "AntiFa" stuff was actually a false flag op. You do understand what "false flag" means, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that Prof. Bike Lock was merely pretending to be a liberal professor for their entire life?
Sorry, no, that doesn't really make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your spanking and go shut up!
Re: (Score:2)
I had to do a double take because that was too similar to the original.
Re: (Score:2)
It is enforcing the law cops refuse to enforce.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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:3)
The Congressional investigation never made news (Score:2)
I guess that means you never saw the congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood [house.gov] that vindicated them, or the fact that full, unedited videos [house.gov] were received and reviewed by all committee members?
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously chump, you make yourself look the liar this way.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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:Why don't you tell them why disruptj20 was bust (Score:4, Insightful)
"it has been debunked". Sure. Convenient you leave no source to said debunking. So thoroughly debunked, Robert Creamer had to resign after Project Veritas exposed him : http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/... [cnn.com]
Even CNN had to report on it. "Debunked" means "It was factual, but I hate it" to some of you people.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the original, unedited video? If they have nothing to hide then there is no problem posting it for us to examine.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the original, unedited video? If they have nothing to hide then there is no problem posting it for us to examine.
From reading your reply, I am now still unconvinced the Veritas stuff is debunked, as you have provided no debunking yet. Also, do you ask CNN for unedited material too ? Or do you just take their stuff at face value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This ever happen to their victims?
Completely debunked
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I forgot you can debunk 90% of this stuff just but googling "thing + snopes".
Re: (Score:2)
Factcheck.org
Politifact.org
NYtimes Ombudsman
Washington Post fact check
Re: (Score:2)
> If only the second line of the summary said "search warrant" ... Oh wait, it does
This is Slashdot. A few posts up, you'll find that even the submitter didn't bother read any of this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you happen to be one, you SHOULD be offended, often, and pointedly
Re: (Score:3)
Even for a rightwing buffoon, that was a stupid line
Re: (Score:3)
Using the word in their name NDSP no more proves them socialist than People's Republic makes NK a Republic.
Believe all that truth about the racist republicans, like White Power Conference headline speakers Tom DeLay, Trent Lott and Dick Armey in 1992-1997
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of Like Trump
You Lose
Re:Not right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Where's the ironic mod again? (Score:2)
Anyone who disagrees with me is Russian, so I don't have to answer their points. Time to lament how we live in a post-fact world, that's another good way to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.
Does no one remember #disruptj20? (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I fail to see how the government could use the credit card information or the password for any legitimate reason.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Not right (Score:5, Insightful)
Because EVERYBODY who got destroyed by the House Un-American Activities Committee [wikipedia.org] was trying to overthrow the government... oh that's right they weren't
Those who refuse to learn from History are doomed to repeat it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
If you don't want to get caught up in an investigation of people who incited riots and conspired to violate others' civil liberties, don't "like" the pages those people use to plan riots and conspire to violate civil liberties.
Don't worry, I'd never "like" trumpist pages anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you go to the DisruptJ20 website and look around a bit, you'll see that they distribute publications that include how to fight with riot police and armored vehicles"
I'm no expert on USA Constitution, but wasn't that at least on its spirit? Isn't the ultimate reason for a "well regulated militia" to be able to overcome government when need arises? Or is fighting riot police and armored vehicles the exclusive privilege of the government? On top of that, isn't this kind of things what free speech is all
Re: Not right (Score:2)
You're right - those people have really terrifying wrists.
A witch hunt. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Trump Administration is evil. I suppose I am now a target.
Re:A witch hunt. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
#disruptj20 tried to light this "witch" on fire (Score:4, Informative)
> 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Credit card information? (Score:2)
Why exactly would FB have Talarico's credit card information in the first place? Is FB not free anymore?
Yet another Constitutional Travsity (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yet another Constitutional Travsity (Score:4)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Yet another Constitutional Travsity (Score:2)
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?
Seems like they don't like the target (Score:1)
Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump must have watched the Catalan news reports and said... Can I do that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
If what you're resisting is respect for people of other races, that makes you racist.
If what you're resisting is racism, that makes you not racist.
What you appear to be doing is playing word games, because it's easier to be right when you control all the words. But resisting bad things is good, and resisting good things can be bad.
Step away from the words and start working on the concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
>"What you appear to be doing is playing word games, because it's easier to be right when you control all the words. But resisting bad things is good, and resisting good things can be bad."
"Bad" and "Good" are very relative, subjective, and even flexible. Apparently the mode du jur is to do bad things in the [often wrong] belief that it is for good. I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.
Re: (Score:2)
because it's easier to be right when you control all the words.
funny you bring that up because that is EXACTLY what the left is doing with words like "racism" in todays climate. racism has a pretty simple definition, however today you wouldnt know it, because anything they dont like = racism today
Re: (Score:2)
His positions on Muslims,
muslim isnt a racie.
Mexicans,
context matters. has he called out all mexicans? no, he didnt. he even sent aid after the earthquakes
black football protestors,
did he call them out by race? or are YOU applying race to the equation? Pretty sure he never said a word about race
and refusal to denounce white power marches are all strong evidence that he's a racist.
he has denounced them 1000 times over so far, if you didnt hear that, blame your prefered media company for neglecting to give you the truth
in short, the man who was awarded the NAACP award and loved by the black community until 2015 is not in fact racist like you pe
Re: (Score:2)
Less racist than Black Lives Matter, whose name is an explicit statement of racism and black supremacism.
Some here seem to miss the very important point that the simple words "Black Lives Matter" does nothing to indicate that any other color of life does not matter equally. Yes there are certainly those who take up the banner and misuse the concept. But the concept is fundamentally correct. To argue against the words Black Lives Matter is the same as agreeing with the prejudiced assholes in Newfoundland where the popular theme is that they dealt with their uppity native Indians long ago and they were nothing b
Re: (Score:1)
Some of us deplored government overreach under the previous administration, and still deplore it under the current administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us deplored government overreach under the previous administration, and still deplore it under the current administration.
The difference is that now you're willing to speak about it publicly.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us have been complaining loudly for years and have been told to "shut up" because we have roads, education, and everything's fine.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
When we used to hold the Soviet Union up to the light, we'd point to their jailing and beating and disappearances of dissidents and say "The USSR is a police state!"
Nothing's changed here except the geography. These tactics are still police state tactics, no matter which dictator-wannabe is practicing them.
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Do you suppose the Soviets publicized their abuses in Pravda?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between resisting taxation because you don't like Obama and resisting the government trying to deport your family or take away the healthcare that is keeping you alive.
This kind of false equivalence argument is the new favourite of the far right. "Yes we are bad, but they are the same and you are a hypocrite for not acknowledging that".
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to be deported, there's an easy way : Don't enter the country illegally and while if in said country illegally, don't commit a felony.
Otherwise, you absolutely should be deported, and resisting being deported after committing a crime should be ridiculed, not lauded and praised.
Or are you actually just resisting Law and Order ? Would you prefer to live in anarchy ? I don't think you'd like actual anarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
if you are here illegally, you have no legit reason to resit deportation because those are the rules, you broke them, and now you live with the consequences of your actions.
if i have something i shouldnt have on me (look at my name) and get stopped by the cops, i dont argue that it shouldnt matter because its wrong, i pay the fine, i knew it might happen and i made the decision on my own, therefore i live with the consequences if i get caught.
s
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Actually, no, nothing like that ever happened to me before Obamacare. And now that I live abroad, I have gold-plated health insurance for a fraction of the cost of my former worthless Obamacare coverage.
But thank you for your concern and compassion. Fake-progressives really do care about their fellow man.
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:2)
BTW... My issues were a bicycle crash and complications thereof. What's needed was an x-ray and physical therapy, not painkillers.
Otoh, for my pill-popping opiate-addled hypochondriac former colleague in San Francisco, Obamacare has been a dream come true.
But hey man, keep on lying to yourself and others.
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Because before Obamacare, my coverage through Kaiser was way, way better and also somewhat cheaper.
But hey, cling to the patently false narrative you were fed by the capitalist news media. It's makes you look smart!
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Oh yes, one of the medigreed professionals did give me the option of going $10,000 into debt - i.e. instant bankruptcy - just to get diagnosed. Glad I didn't do that.
Here in HCMC, a doc at the best most super expensive hospital in town was able to diagnose the issue for $158, including tests.
But hey, thanks for your concern and compassion. Fake-progressive running dogs really are the best people!
Re: Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
I try not to get too political.
You mean to say, that you try to cover yourself with a pretense of being "not too political" in order to give a false air of legitimacy to your faux grievances?
However, I can't help but notice how it's now "your civic duty" to "resist" and generally disparage the government.
Ah, picking up the messaging of the right-wing that carried over from Reagan, huh?
Questioning their authority has long been a problem of the right-wing conservative branch. They were even worse when beating the anti-Communist drum. There's a reason why McCarthy ran rampant.
Prior to January 20, 2017, that meant you were a racist deplorable scumbag.
When you embrace Cliven Bundy, Phil Robertson, Joe Arpaio and the birther-in-chief himself, Donald Trump, does that not make you one of their racist brotherhood? I mean, it isn't like you are giving them like the love to a leper victim, you were shouting your devotion in chorus.
Still are. You can't even let NFL players kneel in protest without having a fit. You'd probably explode if they used the Black Power Salute.
Journalists were being tossed in the pokey, phones were being tapped to find "leakers", etc. Apparently, now that's all just police state tactics.
Yeah, sorry, Fox News tried that already. [cc.com]
The real question is, why are you so suddenly supportive of the "police" state you allegedly deplored, why do you demand everybody march to the orders of your glorious leader, why do you insist so vehemently that everything is going well and that you should get all the credit for it?
Re: (Score:2)
it wasnt trump who started with the birther movement, it was hillary when she was trying to beat obama for the dem nomination in 08.
if the left didnt lie all the time, they wouldnt have anything to say ever
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll fucking beat your punk nazi ass if you compare white supremacy to free speech again, bitch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Either the First Amendment applies to all of us or it applies to none of us. If you can pick and choose who gets to voice their opinion, then we've all already lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they investigating "bashing random peoples heads in" or are they "demanding the private account information of potentially thousands of Facebook users in three separate search warrants"? Those are two very different conversations and you really need to make up your mind which one you want to talk about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate freedom? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Re: (Score:2)
They're demanding all the information of people who had direct participation in an account integral in setting up riots during the inauguration. They will then cross reference this information with all the people they arrested and charge any successful hits with conspiracy as well as the other charges they're up on.
Re: (Score:2)
Next, you'll be suggesting that they can't do this without a warrant!
Wait, there are warrants which a judge signed off on? oh, ok... wonder if maybe there is more to the story than CNN is letting on. You know, like probable cause related to a crime...
Re: Fuck Donald Drumpf (Score:2)
Such persuasive eloquence!
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these fools are engaged in terrorism. They are unwilling to tolerate people they disagree with so they challenge states monopoly on violence to achieve their political objectives. Of course this or any government is going to go after them.
Would those of you who modded this down care to explain yourselves? Are you condoning violence as a means to an end? Do you disagree with my definition of terrorism? Do you think there is insufficient evidence to support violence? YouTube video exist of these same people in their own words plotting to use violence to shut down metro system and "throat punching" others.