Speculated reasoning in the comments on the article was that it then gives an admissible account of who owns the twitter name. Otherwise the assertions about who owns it are inadmissable hearsay. That said it's still really weird that the accounts were subpeonaed
EDIT: fixed link. Just noticed it went to an old article. Apparently the new one is up but not listed on the homepage? (Similar topics so I didn't notice right away)
What amazes me is somewhere along the process someone with power didn't notice and think "Hey you know this all seems like a bit much considering what we're looking at here..."
I used to tell my son that there will always be work for computer security specialists and that he should go for that. This makes me wonder about my advice.
I assume that if you're freelance you're at more risk of finding yourself on the receiving end of a CFAA violation. What I wonder is that if security researchers who work for domestic companies face the same degree of scrutiny that these freelance researchers do.
I guess that if you work for a company you're probably not looking at anyone's website that's not explicitly paying you/your company and under some contract.
Well the last 20 years was ridiculous good to security specialists. If you could spell nmap, you would get a 6 figure job. It's ridiculous. The gravy train has to end sooner or later but who knows when.
I can't even anymore. If this story is anywhere near true -- and I have no reason to believe it is not -- then what the hell do we as citizens DO about it?
How can we put an end to ridiculous infringements on rights and wasteful use of resources?
It certainly starts with voting for representatives that won't allow thus, but damn. There aren't a lot of good choices out there. And even if there are, how do we fix the issues that allow the bad actors to get elected over a "good" rep?
The problem isn't the government, it's the "citizens." We're a society of cowards, who are afraid of everything and want the government to do something about it. E.g. crime rates are at historic lows, but more than half of Americans say that they worry a "great deal" about crime: http://news.gallup.com/poll/190475/americans-concern-crime-c....
I'm as upset as you, but the abuses of federal law enforcement are nothing new. In fact they may have improved compared to the past, but it's impossible and pointless to compare too closely.
The internet age changes the dynamics and visibility, so that is actually some comfort. In decades past, this exact same action to "protect their own" would have gone down without a blip on the national radar. It should be noted, however, the agency's power to use all the data they're wanting (phone IDs, in particular) to conduct ongoing intrusive surveillance at low cost is new and worrisome.
It should also be noted that prosecutorial power works both ways: reading about the tactics used by Mueller against Trump, et al, is both encouraging and scary to me. It's nice when your friends are powerful, but scary when you realize their loyalty is fleeting.
Call your Congressperson [1], U.S. Senator [2] and state representatives. Tell them why you think this is ridiculous, in a calm and collected manner. Ask them, politely, for written follow-up.
I do this about issues I care about. In my urban district of three-quarters of a million people, I'm almost always the only person calling about tech-related issues. Multiple times, the LA has asked me to email them supporting materials I reference.
More like what can we do, which is essentially nothing besides begging elected officials to do something about it (spoiler: they won't).
Alternative is court cases, but those take a lot of time and money, and rulings won't necessarily have the reach you want even if they're in your favor.
We're probably indefinitely fucked. The future is an abject morass straddled between 1984 and Brave New World.
A violent uprising looks to be the only way. The problem is that it's against the mightiest military humanity has ever seen. Now watch me get subpoenaed for this...
And this is why you should be very careful what you tweet. Once its out there it can never be deleted. Even with a fake name and handle. Your ip address, mac address, location, etc.
So a security researcher who was angry about getting raided and hit with a CFAA accusation after an unauthorized access of private medical data started doxxing the FBI agent responsible on Twitter. And in response the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users that were part of the conversation.
Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. The author is right that the charges aren't the strongest but we can't be obtuse and pretend that posting the personal information of the officer and his family couldn't meet the bar for intimidation or harassment.
the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users
that were part of the conversation.
What an exceptionally flippant dismissal of what is clearly an overstep. "FBI is requesting information" i.e. the FBI is subpoenaing Twitter about "users that were part of the conversation" -- users who discussed a case on twitter.
I feel like your use of the phrase "part of the conversation" -- a phrase often used as euphemism for actual involvement -- is a subtle deception to anyone reading your comment. The totality of their involvement is tweets discussing the case.
You go even further by following up claiming it "doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory" and in the next sentence you mention the alleged crime that they were talking about, not that they were involved in.
To me, it feels like your comment is either missing the point that these 5 were simply talking about the case; or you are being willfully deceptive.
Doxxing? Hardly. Looking at the Twitter thread, he did far less than a lazy casual fan of a TV star would do on an average Google/Facebook search.
> Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory.
Though your summary was sensationalised by the addition of the term doxxing (usually negative connotations there), whether you meant it to be or not. It is all about how the spin is put on it. An innocuous situation can be played up, or down, by either side.
P.S. @Spivak, it's your 1024 days anniversary on HN! :-)
So if you get @ed in a Twitter thread that meets the bar of irritating DOJ, it's totally reasonable for them to subpoena the times of day you use your Twitter account?
I guess that fits with throwing legal charges at people that laugh at you.
No one is pretending that it couldn't meet the bar. It doesn't in my opinion, but that's not the point. The point is that Ken et. al. were not harassing anyone.
No. The users were not part of the conversation in which the researcher doxxed anyone. They were part of another conversation, in which his total involvement was a smiley in response to one of their tweets.
As the article makes plain: "Then, to subpoena a ton of info on 5 totally unrelated Twitter users... just because Shafer tweeted a smiley face emoticon at them?"
[+] [-] coldcode|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simcop2387|8 years ago|reply
Speculated reasoning in the comments on the article was that it then gives an admissible account of who owns the twitter name. Otherwise the assertions about who owns it are inadmissable hearsay. That said it's still really weird that the accounts were subpeonaed
EDIT: fixed link. Just noticed it went to an old article. Apparently the new one is up but not listed on the homepage? (Similar topics so I didn't notice right away)
[+] [-] floatingatoll|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmcqk6|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TerminalJunkie|8 years ago|reply
I guess that if you work for a company you're probably not looking at anyone's website that's not explicitly paying you/your company and under some contract.
[+] [-] eighthnate|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrjarrett|8 years ago|reply
How can we put an end to ridiculous infringements on rights and wasteful use of resources?
It certainly starts with voting for representatives that won't allow thus, but damn. There aren't a lot of good choices out there. And even if there are, how do we fix the issues that allow the bad actors to get elected over a "good" rep?
[+] [-] rayiner|8 years ago|reply
It's not getting any better, it's probably getting worse. We're not that far away from people being arrested for the tweets they post: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/twitter-journalist-strobe-e.... Millennials don't see anything wrong with that sort of thing: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it....
[+] [-] ballenf|8 years ago|reply
The internet age changes the dynamics and visibility, so that is actually some comfort. In decades past, this exact same action to "protect their own" would have gone down without a blip on the national radar. It should be noted, however, the agency's power to use all the data they're wanting (phone IDs, in particular) to conduct ongoing intrusive surveillance at low cost is new and worrisome.
It should also be noted that prosecutorial power works both ways: reading about the tactics used by Mueller against Trump, et al, is both encouraging and scary to me. It's nice when your friends are powerful, but scary when you realize their loyalty is fleeting.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|8 years ago|reply
Call your Congressperson [1], U.S. Senator [2] and state representatives. Tell them why you think this is ridiculous, in a calm and collected manner. Ask them, politely, for written follow-up.
I do this about issues I care about. In my urban district of three-quarters of a million people, I'm almost always the only person calling about tech-related issues. Multiple times, the LA has asked me to email them supporting materials I reference.
[1] https://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Find your Congressperson
[2] https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/senators_cfm.cfm Find your U.S. Senator
[+] [-] hood_syntax|8 years ago|reply
More like what can we do, which is essentially nothing besides begging elected officials to do something about it (spoiler: they won't).
Alternative is court cases, but those take a lot of time and money, and rulings won't necessarily have the reach you want even if they're in your favor.
[+] [-] Dirlewanger|8 years ago|reply
A violent uprising looks to be the only way. The problem is that it's against the mightiest military humanity has ever seen. Now watch me get subpoenaed for this...
[+] [-] Floegipoky|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d0lph|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] znpy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chowells|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seangrant|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bitwize|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PatientTrades|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loeg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spivak|8 years ago|reply
Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. The author is right that the charges aren't the strongest but we can't be obtuse and pretend that posting the personal information of the officer and his family couldn't meet the bar for intimidation or harassment.
[+] [-] mmanfrin|8 years ago|reply
I feel like your use of the phrase "part of the conversation" -- a phrase often used as euphemism for actual involvement -- is a subtle deception to anyone reading your comment. The totality of their involvement is tweets discussing the case.
You go even further by following up claiming it "doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory" and in the next sentence you mention the alleged crime that they were talking about, not that they were involved in.
To me, it feels like your comment is either missing the point that these 5 were simply talking about the case; or you are being willfully deceptive.
[+] [-] stedaniels|8 years ago|reply
> Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory.
Though your summary was sensationalised by the addition of the term doxxing (usually negative connotations there), whether you meant it to be or not. It is all about how the spin is put on it. An innocuous situation can be played up, or down, by either side.
P.S. @Spivak, it's your 1024 days anniversary on HN! :-)
[+] [-] slackingoff2017|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|8 years ago|reply
I guess that fits with throwing legal charges at people that laugh at you.
[+] [-] heartbreak|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|8 years ago|reply
As the article makes plain: "Then, to subpoena a ton of info on 5 totally unrelated Twitter users... just because Shafer tweeted a smiley face emoticon at them?"