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.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A District of Columbia Superior Court judge on Thursday approved a government warrant seeking data from an anti-Trump website ...
...to safeguard "innocent users."
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96
Also, since when is wearing a Guy Fawkes mask grounds for a warrant?
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.
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?
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.
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?
originally posted by: Annee
Honest question: Do you think face coverings should be legal or illegal for all protesters?