DOJ's Facebook Warrants Target Thousands Of Users For Protesting Inauguration
from the round-up-the-usual-social-media-accounts dept
The ACLU is going to court to fight government warrants seeking info on thousands of Facebook users who interacted with a Facebook page related to Inauguration Day protests. The resulting arrests have generated several extremely broad search warrants seeking communications and other personal information from Facebook and the protest site's hosting provider.
For awhile, the targets of these warrants could only be guessed at, thanks to the gag order attached to the Facebook warrants. The gag order was finally lifted by the DOJ less than a day before it was due in court for oral arguments. It wasn't Facebook securing a win so much as it was the government avoiding a loss -- a possibly-precedential ruling on gag orders in Washington, DC courts.
The fight goes on, with the charged protesters -- and Facebook itself -- fighting the overbroad warrants.Thanks to the last-minute lifting of the gag order, the targeted protesters are fully aware of the government's efforts. More importantly, they're able to participate in challenging the warrants before the government takes possession of their personal data.
Paul Levy of Public Citizen points to the latest filing by the ACLU, and makes it clear there's a lot of personal info at stake.
Lacy MacAuley and Legba Carrefour… were identified on the DisruptJ20.org web site as media contacts for that web site. The demand for a search of the DisruptJ20 Facebook page is troublesome for the same reason that the demand for the search of the DisruptJ20.org web site threatens First Amendment values — even if we assume that some member of the grouping that called itself DisruptJ20 organizers was at the same time secretly plotting a riot, that not should be a basis for subjecting everybody who was in touch with the DisruptJ20 Facebook page to investigation by Trump Administration prosecutors.
The demand to search the Facebook accounts of MacAuley and Carrefour is even more troubling. Individual Facebook accounts often contain highly personal matters, and if political opponents of the Trump Administration know that they can too easily have their entire Facebook accounts searched just because it turns out that some coalition of which they were a part included somebody who was secretly planning a riot, the chilling effect on future participation in anti-Trump political activity could be substantial.
The chilling effect -- and the demands for data -- go much further than these two individuals. A third warrant seeks access to info on the DisruptJ20 Facebook page. With this warrant, the government can obtain data on thousands of Facebook users.
Although the page is public, the warrant would require the disclosure of non-public lists of people who planned to attend political organizing events and even the names of people who simply liked, followed, reacted to, commented on, or otherwise engaged with the content on the Facebook page. During the three-month span the search warrant covers, approximately 6,000 Facebook users liked the page.
This echoes the tactics used by the DOJ against Dreamhost. The warrant served to the service provider originally asked for info on all visitors to the DisruptJ20 site -- 1.3 million users in total. These expansive demands create a massive chilling effect. Any activists and event organizers could easily have their digital lives turned upside down simply by visiting pages and websites the government chooses to target post-demonstration. The warrant for visitors to the Facebook page may only seek a list of visitors, but it's likely the first step in seeking additional warrants to gather a wealth of personal info on people who did nothing more than "like" a Facebook page.
What the government wants on the two charged demonstrators is... everything. The warrants [PDF] not only ask for everything they've posted to Facebook, but the contents of private messages, any Facebook searches they've performed, deleted posts/comments, and any pending or rejected Friend requests.
The ACLU is trying to quash these warrants on behalf of the targets, but it first has to get the DC criminal court's official invitation. Its motion to quash/intervene [PDF] is currently awaiting the court's examination.
It's unusual basic rioting charges have resulted in a Fourth Amendment battle, but that's how much social media has shifted the way we communicate. As we spend more and more time online, the government is going to be showing less and less interest in our physical houses and papers. And even as the government avails itself of vastly-increased amounts of personal information, it's keeping its own houses/file cabinets locked up tight: Post-demonstration rioting charges are standard operating procedure for law enforcement agencies, which makes you wonder what they're trying to hide behind gag orders and sealed dockets.
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: doj, free speech, gag order, inauguration, protests, warrants
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The hiding is not to hide their activities, but rather to scare people away from participating in politics. The message being sent is that if you protest the government, the first you will know of any investigation is the arrival of the SWAT squad to arrest you, so stay out of politics other than voting for those people on the ballots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violence as "free speech".
People love to talk about Nazis as if they were just people that said evil things. They were much more than that. From the very beginning they were thugs that wandered around beating up political rivals.
All speech should be tolerated. As soon as it goes beyond that, the boom needs to come down before society is overwhelmed and unable to deal with it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence as "free speech".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How soon until they start the hearings to purge those who are seen as committing Un-American Activities?
Would protesting be a "belligerent act"?
Flag burning?
Telling Trump he's a waste of human flesh?
http://www.cair.com/images/Graham_side-by-side_Amdt_1047_to_Lee_Detention_Amdt_1.pdf
They seriously are moving to the idea of head of Homeland Security being able to yank peoples citizenship. Considering Trump said he wanted to do that to flag burners...
Can you say tinpot dictatorship? I knew you could.
Murica! Home of the free*
*- so long as your exercise of those freedoms don't annoy your betters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
"easily have their entire Facebook accounts searched"! Man, it's like those are PUBLIC!
"just because it turns out that some coalition of which they were a part included somebody who was secretly planning a riot" -- First, wasn't secret if planning done on Facebook. 2nd, everyone innocent should be at least neutral that the gov't is NOW looking for evidence of crimes. This is not a witch hunt without basis, or gov't suppressing ahead of events: it's POST FACTO investigation of actual planned and organized crimes.
"post-demonstration" is the euphemism by which you evade "post-criminal".
As with any crime anywhere at any time, the innocent must suffer being investigated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
Use Facebook to get lots of people to turn up to the protest, while meeting in private with a small group to riot while the crowd is slowing down the police. So the riot could be planned in secret, while at the same time acting in public to get a large crowd to attend thinking that they are only protesting.
Not when they are going fishing in every bodies data by using tenuous connections. Are you absolutely certain that you have not visited a page that has got you onto list of people to be investigated in secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
You mean a site like Techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
To what depth, and for how long, must the innocent suffer being investigated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dislike being
yeah, they are going to "investigate" all those accounts. lmfao. they just want all the data they can get their hands on to intimidate and screw with innocent people. then they will never purge the results of the fishing expedition so they can use it later. they can get all this from NSA anyway,
just they still don't want to be seen doing it. there is still a little exposure when they go to court. but court isn't the aim anyway. it is intimidation like communist hunting.
sure, innocent people get investigated in the course of a crime. but they are investigated one at a time with proper warrants (well they are supposed to be) for proper searches in each individual case where they can provide probable cause. there is no probable cause to look at everything on thousands or millions of people at once, and have copies of all that information forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
Move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
Bull. If everything the DOJ wants is all so "public" they wouldn't need warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
Take Stephen Paddock for example: I don't know if he's a member of the NRA, but law enforcement needs to get a warrant to search the communications of everyone who's an NRA member, and everyone who visited the NRA website. After all there might be another member somewhere who participated in planning this crime.
Gotta to stop that crime. What's wrong with intimidating a few million innocents, when you're trying to stop crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only controversy about the inauguration I recall was it's very low turnout, and how Trump lied for over a month about the 'huge' turnout breaking Obama's turnout records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, no one saw those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sellout lawyers
Also what if they get the names? Then what? They can't charge them with a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sellout lawyers
But that aside, don't you think that having a couple of FBI agents drop by to ask you (and your neighbors, and your boss) about your visit to, say, the Breitbart website, might make you feel a bit politically intimidated?
Oh I suppose you might counter that Breitbart didn't do anything illegal, but I'm sure we can find someone associated with it that did. And then we'll need to make sure that no one who visited the site participated in the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If it's "free", you're the "product"", not the "customer".
Any "free" social media platform is using your data for money and giving you services in return. Until this is outlawed, it will always be so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Again I cite IPFS. Not sure if this will bring the "democratizing" force you desire, but the project looks pretty promising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ issues arrest warrants for all those not "liking" Trump's Face Book posts this morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]