Delaware Attorney General Throws Subpoeana At Reddit Over Comment On Photo Of Two People Having Sex Behind A Dumpster
from the your-tax-dollars:-workin'-it dept
Not necessarily a sign of widespread social media surveillance, but you still have to wonder how the state of Delaware's Attorney General's office managed to come across a comment referring to some St. Patrick's Day-related NSFWing, much less pursue one unlucky commenter who made a joke about one of the participants being his "sister."
Here's a link to the photo which kicked off the unlikely chain of events. It depicts two green-clad people, presumably of consenting age, expressing their love in a physical manner. Needless to say, probably, very definitely NSFW.
Redditor un1cornbl00d received notice from Reddit that the Delaware DOJ had served a subpoena demanding the platform turn over his personal information, along with "all posts, responses and their content" related to the original submission. (Found here, with comments now deleted).
The good news is that Reddit's privacy policy (which states that it will inform users that their information has been requested unless prohibited by a court order) trumps the ridiculous phrase the state DOJ deploys in all caps mid-subpoena.
*DO NOT NOTIFY CUSTOMER*Well, if you seriously believe an investigation might be "impeded" or "obstructed," you might want to put with more legal weight than a caps lock key behind it. Most court orders don't say "please," and most court orders point out the legal reasons for the demand. This subpoena tries to demand compliance with shouty typing.
PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE OR NOTIFY THE USER OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS SUBPOENA.
DISCLOSURE TO THE USER COULD IMPEDE AN INVESTIGATION OR OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.
Apparently, this is the way things are done at Joe Biden Jr.'s office. Another subpoena sent late last year demanding that Facebook turn over information on the "owner" of a small (~300 likes at the time subpoena was issued) page with an anti-government slant contained similar all-caps demands for keeping everything a secret… which was also ignored.
*SUBSCRIBER IS NOT TO BE NOTIFIED OR MADE AWARE OF THIS INVESTIGATION*Seeing as the subpoena was posted by the page being investigated, Facebook also has little respect for slightly larger letters with no legal weight behind them.
So, why would a "special investigator" at the state DA's office be interested in a tossed-off comment on a photo of two people having sex out in the open? Well, as far as anyone can theorize, whoever's monitoring social media for the Delaware DOJ (or the entities that feed into it) must have thought unic0rnbl00d was the rarest of creatures on the internet: someone who only tells the truth, and if so, was hoping to bust his "sister" (and possibly Joe Random Stranger as well). Quotes from police "investigating" the sex that two (probably inebriated) people momentarily enjoyed confirm that the force was indeed looking to slap these two with some sort of charge. (Link contains photo -- NSFW)
[T]he police are investigating the pair on suspicion of lewd conduct. A Newark Police spokesman said the couple was "engaging in sexual intercourse in public in plain view of numerous passersby."Why the hell the state is so interested in punishing people for consensual acts performed in the past is beyond me, other than that pervasive belief that the word "justice" means no one getting away with anything ever. I would think whatever nearly-nonexistent tarnishing of state pride would pale in comparison to the state now being viewed as overreaching busybodies after sending subpoenas to track down an internet commenter and targeting people engaged in First Amendment activities. The latter subpoena is vastly more concerning, as it shows the state attempting to sniff out people with anti-government sentiments. Sure, the page may contain the word "riot," but the full title of the group is "Peaceful Rioters For Wilmington, Delaware."
Again, these may not be signs of active social media monitoring, but this sort of behavior certainly doesn't reflect well on those in the Delaware law enforcement community. I can only assume the state has run out of real crime or other pressing issues and is now just creating busywork for its special investigators.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comments, delaware, privacy, sex behind dumpster, subpoena
Companies: reddit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Reddit is full of assclowns...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking for the "sister"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good to see that Delaware has solved...
The message is clear: take your nature humping over the border to Pennsylvania or Maryland (or even New Jersey): The First State is having none of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good to see that Delaware has solved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good to see that Delaware has solved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good to see that Delaware has solved...
That is more than 1/500 women, even if one were to count the infants and elderly. Some kits have become decades old without being tested.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/untested-rape-kits-backlog-us-legislators
http:// www.forensicmag.com/news/2014/03/400000-rape-kit-backlog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it's personal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently they couldn't be assed to do their job until it was posted online? Did numerous passersby call them and they blew it off?
Or were they trying to save face that they ignored/missed people having sex in public?
These sound like subpoenas that were supposed to generate useful soundbites...
...arrested people doing lewd things in public...
...averted a group from rioting...
Instead they managed to screw up big and have become laughing stocks.
Trampling on peoples rights, making demands with no legal requirement behind them... seems like a complete failure to understand the law... one should expect more from the freaking AG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice Freudian typo. /irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
normally they do a half assed job, in this case they couldn't be assed at all to do anything until much later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
overkill
Something I just don't understand ... why do institutions such as nursing homes and psychiatric hospitals routinely call the police whenever a mentally-impaired patient firmly tells them "no thanks"? Like a 96-y.o. needing medical attention who refuses to get in an ambulance, police are called, and they respond with lethal force ... because a stubborn 96 y.o. holding a shoehorn and not following commands to drop it (whether from senility or deafness or whatever) presents such a danger to 5 cops in the room that their only recourse is to fire their weapons? Unbelievable.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/06/23/68943.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: overkill
Please install EFF's HTTPS Everywhere, if you can't be arsed to insert "s" yourself. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deleware AG is porn trolling...
Just fire the fucker and be done with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deleware AG is porn trolling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deleware AG is porn trolling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, I believe you're on to something here. But more than running out of real crime I believe they're just too lazy to actually do the work of investigating them which would require them to actually get out of their publicly funded Herman Miller chairs and, you know work. It's much easier to troll the internet and issue subpoenas right from your computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, I believe you're on to something here. But more than running out of real crime I believe they're just too lazy to actually do the work of investigating them which would require them to actually get out of their publicly funded Herman Miller chairs and, you know work. It's much easier to troll the internet and issue subpoenas right from your computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That wasn't his sister it was mine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSFWing
But that's a European point of view; the US one might include any accidental behaviour someone else at a workplace might consider objectionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
Such as... browsing the web while on the clock? Or working at an "adult book store," where I'm allowed to look at anything that's legal to possess?
I believe "NSFW" is a subjective/context-sensitive (and therefore useless, if not insulting) designation.
What's "unsafe" about the pic in this story, anyway? I can see neither cunt nor cock (never mind their alleged joining together) � it's "safe" for broadcast television per FCC regulations (SFBTVPFR); why not "work?" If the pic is in fact "NSFW," I wonder how many Reddit/Techdirt/AG office/Newark PD employees were fired or otherwise endangered by this pic.
-cf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
Those rules tend to pretty clear and fairly consistent.
"Such as... browsing the web while on the clock? Or working at an "adult book store," where I'm allowed to look at anything that's legal to possess?"
Obviously, if you aren't allowed to browse the web while on the clock, then the warning is inapplicable to you. Likewise, if your employer has no restrictions at all, the warning doesn't apply to you.
"What's "unsafe" about the pic in this story, anyway"
That if I were to view it in the office and another person were to see it, they could conceivably report me for being in violation of the sexual harassment rules, and I could conceivably be fired for doing it.
I'm not sure why you object so much to the NSFW designation. It's informative and useful, not disparaging. I appreciate such warnings so that I don't accidentally violate my employer's internet use policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSFWing
First, you have to parse the phrase. NSFWing is not NSF-Wing, it's not even really "not safe for working", it's "{not safe for work}-ing"; i.e., the -ing is to turn the entire phrase, not just "work", into a present tense verb. (Are there other examples of this? It seems very strange.) Then you must figure out that "for work" means basically "at a workplace", not "as a laborious task" or "as a form of employment" (i.e., having sex for money�not generally safe as a form of employment). You need to know that "safe" in NSFW really has nothing to do with safety (as was pointed out, workplace safety usually refers to hard hats, etc.); understanding the cultural context is vital: it's related to a very American/puritan view that it's "dangerous" to have a picture of a naked person near a workplace (which isn't universally true in the USA, and probably less true outside the USA).
Somehow Tim made up this word, and it seemed to be mostly understood. I think I need to watch "Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?" again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
We don't have to, but I think we should. It's a dumb, useless designation that's subjective, and context/workplace-sensitive. (Please see my other comment above.)
I'm glad that you palmed/smacked your face when you finished your above comment &mmdash; I think you deserved it for questioning the merit of debating the merit of "NSFW." Speaking of which... Depiction of workplace violence/self-harm � your comment is "NSFW." Stupid. Now you see?
-cf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
It's not so hard to understand this. "NSFW" has been in common use on the internet for a lot of years. Almost everyone understands what it means (and a quick google search will inform those for whom it's unfamiliar). Adding "-ing" to it is wordplay on Tim's part, the meaning of it being clear because it implements another common kind of wordplay: verbifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
Or, more succinctly, "verbing". As in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSFWing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSFWing
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/the-fbi-knows-stranger-twitter-acronyms-than- we-do/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Served by fax?
- Ridiculous arguments?
That must be a joke. May be someone at the Delaware's Attorney General's office was drunk.
If wasn't the own Joseph R. Biden III who signed that thing then he should prosecute who supplanted him using his signature. If was himself, well, then he looks like a complete moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice
Justice: If you're not rich or a personal friend, you've done something wrong and we will find out what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
> for consensual acts performed in the past is beyond me
Because it much easier than investigating real crimes. And serious criminals have lots of money to make investigation and prosecution more difficult. So just stick to the infractions done by the little people. Plus, it's more fun because they are easier to bully and intimidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polite Subpeona and more
Also, has anyone else noticed that "subpoena" is a word with a phallic sound? I had to look twice to see if the DOJ individual was named, "Dick." And sure enough, he was (that is we all know that Joe Biden is a dick).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are obviously drunk and are raping eachother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a crying shame that the DA is totally wasting tax dollars on this BUT the dumbass writer who make the above comment has shit for brains. Fact: having consensual sex in public is AGAINTS THE LAW in EVEY STATE. And the police don't get to pick and choose if a crime is unworthy of prosecution and neither is the stupid ass writer of this article. Too bad you don't like the law get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]