It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. judge approves government warrant for data from anti-Trump website

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A District of Columbia Superior Court judge on Thursday approved a government warrant seeking data from an anti-Trump website ...


A lot of threads on ATS are floating around right now about free speech/the 1st

This here's the killer !

The first insidious move towards curbs on free speech on the internet
Many 'rulers' in many countries want to go that way
Dissidence is unsightly

But how does one justify it ... ?

...to safeguard "innocent users."


And there you go !

As long as ATS safeguards "innocent users"
i guess there's nothing to worry about




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

Also, since when is wearing a Guy Fawkes mask grounds for a warrant?

Is this a serious question?

The grounds for the warrant is based on the...well, let's just quote the story that you apparently neglected to read or comprehend:

The U.S. Justice Department said it sought the records connected to the site because of concerns that it helped facilitate the planning of protests on Inauguration Day, when more than 200 people were arrested for rioting and vandalising businesses in downtown Washington.

The warrant was issued because the protests became violent and destructive, making them illegal assemblies and full of law-breaking people. The site, which organized the protest, probably has a list of people who were committing said illegal acts that may not have been arrested or caught that day.

This is how investigations go--what is so difficult to understand? It's not because they were protesting Trump, it's because they organized a "protest" which, in reality, was a violent, destructive riot.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Disruptj20 is a little bit more than just anti Trump. I posted a thread back in January, these guys are just like the Weather Underground, domestic terrorist hiding under the guise of "anti Trump" and "protesters"

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-8-2017 by PlasticWizard because: Link



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




The warrant was issued because the protests became violent and destructive, making them illegal assemblies and full of law-breaking people. The site, which organized the protest, probably has a list of people who were committing said illegal acts that may not have been arrested or caught that day.


ummm... speaking of violent and destructive people... chris cantwell has turned himself in to police..

link

so, when are they gonna demand information from those websites that organized the unite the rite rally in charlottesville???



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

And what will the data prove. Even if someone said they were planning on going to the protest and causing destruction there's no way to prove they were actually there. Unless of course the Feds have other evidence. In which case they should be able to narrow down their list of suspects instead of asking for data on a large collective of Americans that did nothing wrong other than visiting a website.

Jared Loughner was a member of ATS. For all the Feds know there were others on here that shared his sentiments. Should the owners have turned over the personal data of every member of this site if the Feds had asked?

I don't know if the Feds have approached ATS about the Loughner case but I do know they have approached ATS in the past asking for user data. SO and Springer have made it clear that in every case they told the Feds, "No." Would you argue that the owners of this site were in the wrong when they told the government to shove it?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Understood, but is the only alternative to let everyone wear disguises in violent rallies, while toting sticks and peepee balloons?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Butterfinger

Isn't the way someone dresses covered by Freedom of Expression? If someone assaults someone else while wearing the mask the assault is the crime. Not the mask. So why should a group of people forfeit their rights because of the action of one?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Innocents arent the ones they can confirm identity visually, too bad they were all wearing masks.


All this will do is force more people to cover their faces.



That alone will reduce the number of ambulances and guidance counselors needed because less people will see their faces.




Honest question: Do you think face coverings should be legal or illegal for all protesters?


I have always advocated for Halloween to be a Federal National Holiday.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: SlapMonkey

And what will the data prove. Even if someone said they were planning on going to the protest and causing destruction there's no way to prove they were actually there. Unless of course the Feds have other evidence. In which case they should be able to narrow down their list of suspects instead of asking for data on a large collective of Americans that did nothing wrong other than visiting a website.

It's one step in an investigation. What you are claiming is tantamount to saying, "Why should investigators be allowed to view security camera footage during an investigation--it will show people who may not have been part of the committed crime."

Just because there are names of visitors--hell, I may be one, because I recall researching who the group was and what their plans/goals were at the time--who may not have participated in the violence doesn't mean that it's not appropriate to review those who visited the site...a site that was a central hub in organizing a protest-turned-riot.

Anyone who understands how actual investigations work would understand why this is absolutely appropriate.


Jared Loughner was a member of ATS. For all the Feds know there were others on here that shared his sentiments. Should the owners have turned over the personal data of every member of this site if the Feds had asked?

If a judge signed a warrant, then of course they should turn over the information. But you are not comparing like things, here--just because ATS is a website that happened to have a person as a member who committed atrocious acts doesn't mean that it's the same thing as a website specifically set up to encourage disruption of a presidential inauguration that ended as a riot. That is not the function of ATS; that was the function of the J20 website at the time.



I don't know if the Feds have approached ATS about the Loughner case but I do know they have approached ATS in the past asking for user data. SO and Springer have made it clear that in every case they told the Feds, "No." Would you argue that the owners of this site were in the wrong when they told the government to shove it?

Nope...because, apparently, there was no warrant. In the case of a warrant, they would have no choice.

Again, it's inappropriate to compare unlike scenarios, and that's pretty much all that you have done in your comment.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Honest question: Do you think face coverings should be legal or illegal for all protesters?

Can I answer?

I would say illegal, because the intent, in general, of concealing one's identity is in order to not be identified after the fact, regardless of whether said protest turns the corner if illegality. I think that this is a very logical limitation on legal protesting--or, to use a "buzzword," it's common-sense legislation.

And there are many reasons why I feel this way, but just suffice to say that if you're too cowardly to protest under your own open identity, maybe its time for a little introspective searching as to whether or not the cause is something to be proud of.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

While I see what you're implying (you think that they won't), the intelligent answer is that only time will tell. But considering that the majority of these people on the UtR side weren't cowering behind masks and concealing their identities, it's probably a lot easier for police to investigate the matter and arrest people after-the-fact appropriately.

If necessary, though, they certainly should get a warrant and retrieve the information. Remember, though, it's not the police demanding it, it's the judge demanding it--the police are asking for it through the judge.

And to be fair, if necessary, a warrant should be obtained for website information for Antifa and other groups who were there committing illegal acts as well. It's all relevant in the end.

And I'm glad that Mr. Cantwell has turned himself in--that dude, judging from the VICE video, is a lit powder keg disguised as an asshat hiding behind crap ideology. The fact that he has an e-cig machine sitting on the table in front of him in that pic in your link is proof of his douche-baggery. Eff that guy.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

This is way too logical for this discussion. Please refrain from making sense.

And to the "But what about Charlottesville!!!?" folks:

That just happened. This happened 7 months ago. The investigation is further along. Stop pretending you don't know that. Charlottesville is being investigated, that's a fact, and you know that. Stop dishonestly suggesting otherwise.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join