Government Drops Its Demand For Data On 6,000 Facebook Users
from the sunlight-disinfectant dept
It's amazing what effect a little public scrutiny has on government overreach. In the wake of inauguration day protests, the DOJ started fishing for information from internet service providers. First, it wanted info on all 1.2 million visitors of a protest website hosted by DreamHost. After a few months of bad publicity and legal wrangling, the DOJ was finally forced to severely restrict its demands for site visitor data.
Things went no better with the warrants served to Facebook. These demanded a long list of personal information and communications from three targeted accounts, along with the names of 6,000 Facebook users who had interacted with the protest site's Facebook page. Shortly before oral arguments were to be heard in the Washington DC court, the DOJ dropped its gag order.
The last minute removal of the gag order appears to have been done to avoid the establishment of unfavorable precedent. It looks like the government perhaps has further concerns about precedential limitations on warrants served to service providers. As Kate Conger reports for Engadget, the DOJ has decided to walk away from this particular warrant challenge.
In a court hearing today, the Department of Justice dropped its request for the names of an estimated 6,000 people who “liked” a Facebook page about an Inauguration Day protest, the American Civil Liberties Union said. The ACLU challenged several warrants related to protests against President Trump’s inauguration on Friday, one of which included the search, claiming they were over-broad.
The ACLU notes the judge seemed sympathetic to allegations of overreach. In response, the government has apparently reduced its demands to info from two arrested protestors' accounts and further limited the date range from which data is sought.
This isn't a good look for the government. Dropping demands before an order has been issued indicates the DOJ had some idea its demands were too broad. It also shows the government will make concessions, rather than risk adverse rulings.
Then there's the whole issue of seeking personal information on protesters. This sort of thing creates a very real chilling effect by threatening to turn over personal information to the same entity the protesters were protesting. Fortunately, the government has walked back most of its demands in both cases.
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: disruptj20, doj, inauguration, privacy, social media, warrant
Companies: aclu, facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They refuse to take cases that might be hard, because it might hurt their win ratio. The bankers, they had tons of evidence, but feared the bankers bringing in experts to confuse the jury... so they didn't pursue.
The entire system is more concerned with "wins" than justice, so bad people can keep doing bad things if they can put up a reasonable fight, and good people can get buried so they can have a slam dunk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Likes
> 6,000 people who “liked” a Facebook page about an
> Inauguration Day protest
Also, the government (and everyone else) needs to get past this idea that "liking" something on these social media platforms actually means you like or support it.
Just because Facebook or Twitter calls the feature "like" doesn't mean that's how people are using it. I use the Twitter feature like a bookmark. If it's something I anticipate I might want to find again, or if it links to article I don't have time to read now but want to come back to later, I hit the little "like" button, which tags it so that it's easily findable again. It doesn't mean I actually like or support whatever was in that posting.
But even if it did mean like or support, that's still no business of the government's since the 1st Amendment gives me the right to like whatever I want and the right to publicize it to the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Likes
There's also the question of what happens after you endorse something.
Consider all the architects & engineers who signed a petition calling for an independent investigation of 9/11. You sign based on wanting to know what warnings the White House ignored.... and only later the claim is made that the signatures endorse the "inside job" wingnuttery.
This could be done with any radical cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So they never were after any criminals, then
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Presumption of Innocence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Likes
I remember being amused to learn that the Internetz had coined the expression "hate likes" for "likes" such as those given to Amy's Baking Company as a result of Amy-and-Samy's Kitchen Nightmares fiasco. Merely drawing attention to something via "liking" does NOT demand true liking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Does anyone actually believe this excuse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]