DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Popehat, Dissent Doe And Others Over A Smiley Emoji Tweet

from the our-tax-dollars-at-work dept

Tue, Oct 24th 2017 9:27am — Mike Masnick

So, here's a fun one. Back in May, the Justice Department -- apparently lacking anything better to do with its time -- sent a subpoena to Twitter, demanding a whole bunch of information on a five Twitter users, including a few names that regular Techdirt readers may be familiar with:

If you can't see that, it's a subpoena asking for information on the following five Twitter users: @dawg8u ("Mike Honcho"), @abtnatural ("Virgil"), @Popehat (Ken White), @associatesmind (Keith Lee) and @PogoWasRight (Dissent Doe). I'm pretty sure we've talked about three of those five in previous Techdirt posts. Either way, they're folks who are quite active in legal/privacy issues on Twitter.

And what info does the DOJ want on them? Well, basically everything:

Names (including subscriber names, user names, and screen names);
Addresses (including mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, and e-mail addresses);
Records of session times and durations, and the temporarily assigned network addresses (such as Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses) associated with those sessions;
Length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
Telephone or instrument numbers (including MAC addresses, Electronic Serial Numbers ("ESN"), Mobile Electronic Identity Numbers ("MEIN"), Mobile Equipment Identifier ("MEID"), Mobile Identification Numbers ("MIN"), Subscriber Identity Modules ("SIM"), Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network Numbers ("MSISDND"), International Mobile Subscriber Identifier ("IMSI"), or International Mobile Equipment Identities ("IMEI"));
Other subscriber numbers or identities, or associated accounts (including the registration Internet Protocol ("IP") address);
Means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.

That's a fair bit of information. Why the hell would the DOJ want all that? Would you believe it appears to be over a single tweet from someone to each of those five individuals that consists entirely of a smiley face? I wish I was kidding. Here's the tweet and then I'll get into the somewhat convoluted back story. The tweet is up as I write this, but here's a screenshot in case it disappears:

And, just to make it clear, here are all the users "in the conversation" on that tweet (since Twitter now buries at least some of that information):

You'll note that all of the names are the same names as listed in the subpoena above (as a point of clarification, the four users listed below were already in the conversation, so their metadata gets swept along, and then the tweeter, Justin Shafer, is also adding in @PogoWasRight to the conversation).

So, who is Justin Shafer, and what the hell is all of this about? Buckle up, because it'll take a bit of background to get around to this tweet (and, yes, it will still feel very, very, stupid that this subpoena was ever issued). First up: Justin Shafer is a security researcher, who has some history spotting bad encryption. Go back to 2013 and he had spotted a weak not really "encryption" standard put out by Faircom. Once it was called out as weak, vulnerable and not really encryption, Faircom rebranded it from the "Faircom Standard Encryption" to "Data Camouflage" since the reporting by Shafer showed that it wasn't really encryption at all -- but just a weak attempt at obfuscation.

Fast forward to late 2013, when a dentist named Rob Meaglia alerted some of his patients that a computer was stolen from his offices with "medical records and dental insurance information." But, Dr. Meaglia told his patients that the records system they were using, Dentrix, made by a company called Henry Schein, Inc., had all of that data encrypted. Except it appeared that Dentrix was actually using Faircom's "Data Camouflage" and not actual encryption. And, as that link notes, Henry Schein, Inc. had been informed of this problem months earlier, around the time Faircom admitted it wasn't actual encryption.

In May of 2016, the FTC announced a settlement with Henry Schein, Inc. over the claim that it "falsely advertised the level of encryption it provided to protect patient data." Kudos to Justin Shafer.

But, literally days later, the FBI was raiding Justin Shafer's home and taking all of his computers. This was not specifically about the Harry Schein case, but since Shafer had continued to investigate poor data security practices involving dentists, he'd come across an FTP server operated by another dental software company, Patterson Dental, which makes "Eaglesoft," a dental practice management software product. Shafer had discovered an openly available anonymous FTP server with patient data. Shafer did the right thing as a security researcher, and alerted Patterson. However, rather than thanking Shafer for discovering the server they had left with patient data exposed, Patterson Dental argued that Shafer had violated the CFAA in accessing the open anonymous FTP server. Hence the FBI raid.

Not surprisingly, Shafer was none too pleased with the FBI's decision to raid his home and take all of his electronics. In particular, it appears he was especially annoyed with FBI Special Agent Nathan Hopp (who he initially believed was actually Nathan "Hawk.")

Fast forward to March of this year, to an entirely different story: the FBI arresting John Rivello for "assaulting" journalist Kurt Eichenwald with a tweet. If you follow Techdirt related stuff, you probably remember that whole story. Lots of people, including us, posted the criminal complaint that was put together by one Nathan Hopp, a special agent at the FBI.

It appears that the Rivello arrest and subsequent news coverage suddenly alerted Shafer to the fact that "Nathan Hawk" was actually "Nathan Hopp" and Shafer began a bit of an open source "investigation" on Twitter. I wouldn't necessarily call the following tweets "smart," but Shafer, finally aware of the FBI agent who lead the raid on his house, started trying to find any public info on Hopp -- and his family. Now, searching out his family isn't great. But it does appear that he was just looking up publicly available information:

At this point, the FBI decided to start protecting its own. Seeing as the guy whose home the FBI had ridiculously raided a year earlier was now tweeting some info about one of its special agents, the FBI started putting together a new criminal complaint arguing that all of the tweets above amounted to "Cyber Stalking" under 18 USC 2216A. This seems like a huge stretch, because that law requires "intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance...."

Either way, about the time all of this was happening, Ken "Popehat" White had started another Twitter thread about the Rivello arrest, leading Virgil and Keith Lee to respond about the criminal complaint, eventually leading Mike Honcho to note "Nathan Hopp is the least busy FBI agent of all time." It is to that tweet that Shafer replies with his smiley emoji and adds or cc's, Dissent Doe to the conversation:

And that takes us to 10 days later, when a new criminal complaint against Shafer is issued*, arguing that those tweets were criminal Cyber Stalking. And because part of that included his smiley emoji in response to the Popehat thread/Honcho tweet, the DOJ felt it necessary to issue a subpoena demanding basically all info on those 5 Twitter users (including Popehat, a former Assistant US Attorney whose info is pretty easy to find on Google). Perhaps the FBI somehow thinks that Shafer was really behind those other accounts or something -- but anyone with even the slightest level of competence should realize that's unlikely -- and that's got nothing to do with anything here anyway.

* As an aside, look closely at that criminal complaint against Shafer. I have no idea why but it appears that the FBI/DOJ is so clueless that rather than submitting the final complaint, they actually submitted the copy showing the "comments" on the Word doc they were using to prepare the complaint -- which shows two comments that both suggest the FBI is well aware that this complaint is weak sauce and probably doesn't meet the standard under the law... but this story is crazy enough without spending too much time on that.

Twitter is apparently fighting back against this subpoena. And even though it was issued back in May, a few days ago, the company alerted the individuals that the DOJ was demanding info on. Dissent Doe has already stated publicly a plan to move to quash the subpoena as well, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the others named take similar steps.

But, really, take a step back and everything about this situation is crazy. Going after Shafer the first time was crazy. Going after him again for supposed "Cyber Stalking" over a few harmless tweets was clearly just the FBI trying to protect its own from being embarrassed online. Then, to subpoena a ton of info on 5 totally unrelated Twitter users... just because Shafer tweeted a smiley face emoticon at them? What the fuck is the DOJ up to? Doesn't Assistant US Attorney Douglas Gardner, who signed the subpoena, have better things to do with his time, like going after actual criminals, rather than harassing people for tweeting?

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: cfaa, cyberstalking, dissent doe, doj, douglas gardner, emoji, encryption, fbi, fbi raid, justin shafer, keith lee, ken white, nathan hopp, pogowasright, popehat, subpoena, tweets
Companies: henry schein, patterson dental, twitter

62 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Trails (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:32am

Mistake in article
"And what info does Twitter want on them? Well, basically everything:"

I think it's DOJ who wants the info, not twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AnonJr (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 1:45pm
  
  Re: Mistake in article
  DOJ wants it too, and was probably what was intended for the article.
  
  Having said that... It's a fair statement to say that Twitter probably wants everything too. :)
  
  *Not sure if the smiley was a step too far - look out for the article about our info being subpoenaed too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:44am

Once it was called out as weak, vulnerable and not really encryption, Faircom rebranded it from the "Faircom Standard Encryption" to "Data Camouflage"...

Denuvo should rebrand its DRM as "Data Speedbump."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ThaumaTechnician (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  More like "yellow rectangle painted on the asphalt so that they look like speed bumps".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:45am

subpoena tale
"DOJ Subpoenas Twitter"

uhhh... who actually issued this subpoena? Was it some judge... or do DOJ employees pretend to have subpoena-authority under the Constitution (which is solely a judicial power) ?

Quite tale though, our protectors in D.C. see evil-doers everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2019 @ 8:01pm
  
  Re: subpoena tale
  Looks like a magistrate judge signed off on everything, can't really read his signature though (and it doesn't have his name typed).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:48am

Doesn't Assistant US Attorney Douglas Gardner, who signed the subpoena, have better things to do with his time, like going after actual criminals, rather than harassing people for tweeting?

Clearly not. Taking a hint from Honcho:

Assistant US Attorney Douglas Gardner is the least busy A-US-A of all time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:50am

"So, here's a fun one."???
Your idea of "fun" varies from mine. This is just dull.

However, since apparently real criminal investigation with possible penalty here, I doubly don't see it as "fun". So it's likely that you're just gleeful at having a "safe" topic, meaning one in which you've no stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- riking, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:58am
  
  Re: "So, here's a fun one."???
  It's "fun" in the sense of "I'm laughing, because otherwise I would be crying".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:58am
  
  Re: "So, here's a fun one."???
  I'm eager to read your articles about what you deem fun. I bet they'll be a hoot. "Adventures in useless bitching about free content I'm not forced to read or comment on."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: "So, here's a fun one."???
  How is it dull to report that, not only is FBI Special Agent Nathan Hopp unable to differentiate between a Good Samaritan reporting a vulnerability and a massively incompetent Black Hat hacker, but that Assistant US Attorney Douglas Gardner has nothing better to do than harass Twitter and its users for one of those users repeating public information, for several of those users being seemingly innocent bystanders to the innocent reposting of that public information, and that at least some of those innocent bystanders are more easily found by looking up their voluntarily published contact information than by sending a subpoena to Twitter? The "Your-tax-dollars-at-work" department seems extremely apt here. If these are the people the public is paying to uphold the law, we're clearly paying too much and it's amazing we don't have more unpunished lawlessness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re: "So, here's a fun one."???
  Wow blue_balls not even you can defend this Cleveland Steamer of a subpoena. That’s impressive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re: "So, here's a fun one."???
  Wow, you really suck at irony. That's gotta make you pretty dull.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:54am

Not surprisingly, Shafer was none too pleased with the FBI's decision to raid his home and take all of his electronics. In, particular, it appears he was especially annoyed with FBI Special Agent Nathan Hopp[.]

Shafer began a bit of an open source "investigation" on Twitter. I wouldn't necessarily call the following tweets "smart," but Shafer, finally aware of the FBI agent who lead the raid on his house, started trying to find any public info on Hopp -- and his family.

Perhaps if Mr. Shafer hadn't been robbed at badgepoint on baseless grounds, he would have spent this time on more productive matters, hunting subtle vulnerabilities that threaten people's security instead of digging up easily discovered public information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:56am

Oink, Oink
Doesn't Assistant US Attorney Douglas Gardner, who signed the subpoena, have better things to do with his time, like going after actual criminals, rather than harassing people for tweeting?

going after actual criminals is hard work.

harassing people for tweeting while feeding at the public trough is fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re: Oink, Oink
  The using of public money is an interesting angle. Wasn't Ronald Regan's wife sued over such an issue because of something Ronnie did?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 9:56am

So basically, if a hacker or hacker group contacts a security researcher in order to communicate the legitimacy of the threat their extortion demands present, the security researcher is automatically suspected by the FBI of being a co-conspirator, albeit an inept one who freely alerts the FBI to the nature of the threat...

By that logic, the newspapers who received letters from the Zodiac killers were accomplices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 10:04am

The obvious explanation for issuing that Twitter user data subpoena is that someone at the DOJ thinks that tweeting a smiley emoji at others indicates conspiracy or collaboration. I expect they'll invoke RICO.

That one of those users is Ken White is required by narrative convention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 10:21am

Mr. Shafer should do the responsible thing next time - since "greed is good" he should sell to the highest bidder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 10:38am

WWKD
I'm wondering how Ken White will respond to this. On one hand, I'm sure he could write a truly epic motion to have the subpoena squashed. On the other hand, almost all the information they asked for as it relates him, can be found on Google within a few minutes. So can you quash a subpoena for information that is already public?

Could Twitter just bill the government an amount similar to what the FBI would charge for an equivalent FOIA request? If so, Twitter could make bank on these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: WWKD
  I'm wondering how Ken White will respond to this
  
  I'm not sure, but I'm going to be disappointed if the response does not involve ponies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: Re: WWKD
    Ponies are insufficient. An escalation is required. Must have Bro Pony Taint.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: WWKD
      To top ponies, one needs to go to unicorns, which are merely ponies with that really cool single horn sticking out of their foreheads. To go further, one needs to think pink.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - orbitalinsertion (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: WWKD
        Might as well pull out the stops and bring in the invisible pink unicorn from the garage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Re: WWKD
    I'll be sad if he can't work in an animated rainbow pony into the PDF of the brief.
    
    (Still waiting for MY chance to try a GIF animation in a document. The words 'not a magical unicorn' is what I wanna tie it to)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:22pm
    
    Re: Re: WWKD
    I'll be happy to see a response at all. The site hasn't had an update in over 2 months now. I wonder if the lack of updates could be related to these shenanigans?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: WWKD
      Then you should be ecstatic.
      
      https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-sought-by-federal-grand-jury-sub poena/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - orbitalinsertion (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: WWKD
        Sub ponea?
        Sub epona.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 25 Oct 2017 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WWKD
        Sub pony?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rsteinmetz, 24 Oct 2017 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re: WWKD
    IANAL but one option is to file a Federal Civil Rights Law Suit alleging the FBI and USA are acting "under color of authority" to deprive several people of their civil rights under various amendments of the U S Constitution, the First and Fourth come to mind, but I'm sure there are others.
    
    While Mr. Shafer might be portrayed to a naive Grand Jury as some nefarious "hacker", they would have a hard time pulling that with Ken "PopeHat" White and his all star team of dancing ponies, considering his work as an AUSA, his criminal defense practice, first amendment advocacy and his authorship of numerous articles in the MSM.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2017 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re: WWKD
  "Could Twitter just bill the government an amount similar to what the FBI would charge for an equivalent FOIA request?"
  
  I don't know about federal law, but in my state, I've served subpoenas that come with a check for a few dollars, maybe like $5. You're not exactly going to "make bank" on them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 10:57am

It's a good thing it was only a smiling emoji, a winking face may have had him killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:03am

They work for the government. Assume they are incompetent and lairs and you are probably right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:08am

Third Party Doctrine
How weird! Whenever us underlings are concerned, the DOJ insists that anything accessible to any third party whatsoever is in the public domain and up for grabs to whoever wants it.

How come they suddenly change their view when one of their own is concerned? Even if the allegations are correct, Shafer has done nothing but make publicly available information, well, a bit more public. How can anyone believing in the Third Party Doctrince take issue with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Third Party Doctrine
  
  How can anyone believing in the Third Party Doctrince take issue with that?
  
  Because they know the power of collecting infomation, and are willing to use it against the people, but don't want it used against them by the people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:12am

The transitive property of internet discussion:
1) Speech is violence
2) Emoji are speech
3) Therefore, emoji are violence

QED SUCKAS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zem, 24 Oct 2017 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  This then leads to an even bigger injustice. The emoji movie should have been R rated. won't someone think of the children?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree, the Emoji Movie is a crime against humanity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 11:48am

This isn't about the law, this is about fucking with someone who questioned them.

They see someone collecting information on an agent (which is fucking with them) and they fuck with them back. Of course, when the government fucks with you, it usually isn't very proportional to how much you can fuck with the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  yea, the best any of US can do is ask for the documentation to be machine readable for low-vision people under the ADA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  I agree, yadda-yadda rap; yadda-yadda ride.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:06pm

Bar grievances//Judicial conduct/prosecutorial misconduct
Consider lining up each of the actors in this drama who misspent your tax dollars and filing complaints.

If a lawyer remember the duty of oversight by others in the firm and ask yourself: Were functioning adults overseeing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trent Wolodko, 24 Oct 2017 @ 12:19pm

You missed a raid there...
There were actually THREE raids/seizures. You missed the one in January, 2017.

Y'all need to go check out the latest post over at databreaches.net on this subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wshuff (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 2:02pm

Whatever you do, don’t alert the DOL to the edits in the complaint. You’ll be on the wrong side of a CFAA complaint as soon as Agent “Hawk” recovers from being intimidated by a smiley face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 2:46pm

'Merika where if you call out stupid actions by your betters we'll rain down a wave of law like you've never seen.

So the story as I see it so far...
Skippy the wonder agent decided he had this awesome slam-dunk case to earn him a gold star.
People then noticed that Skippy was out of his fscking mind.
Skippy then decided that gifs were actually WMD's.
People comment on case 2 & Skippy get the bright idea that an emoji WMD is just as dangerous & decides to go on the attack.

Skippy isn't very bright, is he.
Perhaps pissing off a former AUSA with a large platform wasn't very smart.
I do wonder how this will look on Assistant US Attorney Douglas Gardner record, signing off on the thinnest complaint ever & taking a swing at lawyers.

Yeah our protectors aren't inept keystone cops, the keystone cops actually had detailed plans for their stunts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re:
  I made a thing for Ken.
  
  https://twitter.com/That_AC/status/922949349646196736
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

John Smith, 24 Oct 2017 @ 3:22pm

Where's the smirk, Ken?
This is going to be VERY interesting.

I'm glad the USA is doing this.

Very, very glad.

Anyone here ever play dominoes? Fun game.

The internet version is even more fun!

Grab a seat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re: Where's the smirk, Ken?
  I don't think you have much grasp of the situation here and who's going to come out of it looking poorly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad, 24 Oct 2017 @ 4:20pm
  
  Re: Where's the smirk, Ken?
  Quiet, Mr. Carreon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Cline (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re: Where's the smirk, Ken?
  What exactly is your beef with Ken White?
  
  Anyone here ever play dominoes? Fun game.
  
  The internet version is even more fun!
  
  So you think the info that the feds will get about/from Ken will point to other people, which will in turn point to other people, and so on? That Ken is involved with multiple people in some sort of conspiracy? If so, what is that conspiracy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thad, 24 Oct 2017 @ 5:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Where's the smirk, Ken?
    I think mainly he just has no idea how dominoes is actually played.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darrell Pruitt (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 3:36pm

Justin Shafer
As a friend of Justin, he shared with me his suspicion of FBI Special Agent Nathan Hopp's (or Hawk's) perceived vendetta as it was happening. I responded, "What an asshole." And that was enough to warrant an unannounced visit to my dental office by two agents, whose questions indicated to me that they really didn't have a clue about the case they were prosecuting. I think they were disappointed that I actually didn't assist Justin in identifying Hopp, that I have nothing to do with TheDarkOverlord, and that no money had been exchanged between Justin and me... Thus went an hour of my life which I'll never regain - Not to mention that my first patient waited in my dental chair for an hour while I was asked pointless questions. I was even warned by one of the agents that "'I don't know' will only go so far." But it is the damn truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 4:13pm
  
  Re: Justin Shafer
  I was even warned by one of the agents that "'I don't know' will only go so far." But it is the damn truth.
  
  Ah good old inquisition tactics, where a plea of innocence is merely a sign that you need a little 'persuasion' to admit your 'true' guilt.
  
  Nice of them to confirm your original stance like that though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2017 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re: Justin Shafer
  
  I was even warned by one of the agents that "'I don't know' will only go so far."
  
  Why did your attorney advise you to say one word to the FBI at all?
  
  I can maybe understand why you felt uncomfortable with “Please leave, you're trespassing.” But saying something like “It's x:xx o'clock in the morning” ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 24 Oct 2017 @ 4:21pm

"We listed WHO?!"
I imagine in true DOJ fashion once they realize they included a former Assistant US Attorney in the complaint, along with someone that's willing to fight back they'll 'correct' their mistake and run away as quickly as possible.

Bullying people who can fight back is just not the same after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doe, 25 Oct 2017 @ 1:00am

Hmmm
I find it very telling that not one single letter in your article even comes close to even mentioning your valiant white hat Mr Shafer contacting the wife on FB.

Now, the Supoena is ridiculous, the search behind the whole thing and the CFAA is crap, but what did the FBI dude's wife do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad, 25 Oct 2017 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: Hmmm
  I would say that acknowleding Shafer "searching out [Hopp's] family" and following it immediately with a screenshot of Shafer linking to Hopp's wife's Facebook page does indeed "come close to mentioning...contacting the wife on FB."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe (profile), 25 Oct 2017 @ 4:05am

Back on Eichenwald
Since I don't see it mentioned in this discussion why did you quote assaulting up in the Rivello/Eichenwald paragraph, Mike? The dude knew Eichenwald has epilepsy, intentionally constructed a tweet designed to cause a seizure, then sent it to Eichenwald. Rivello is guilty as hell of assault and I am certain he will be convicted. Here's why:

(copying highlights from the NYTimes here) Rivello wrote in that message “YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS”. He also sent direct messages to other Twitter users about Mr. Eichenwald, including one that read, “I hope this sends him into a seizure.” and “I know he has epilepsy.” Investigators also found a screenshot on Rivello’s digital accounts Mr. Eichenwald’s Wikipedia page that had been altered to show a fake date of death of Dec. 16, 2016, the day after the strobe light attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad, 25 Oct 2017 @ 11:14am
  
  Re: Back on Eichenwald
  All that's addressed in Mike's previous article on the subject, which he links in that same sentence.
  
  I can't speak for why he used quotation marks but I'm going to guess that it wasn't sarcasm but merely the acknowledgement that this is an unusual, if not unprecedented, application of the term "assault". Not that it's legally inaccurate, but that it's certainly not the first example anyone would think of on hearing that word.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2017 @ 8:00am

What a fucking clusterfuck. If there were any sense whatsoever in the world whoever rubberstamped the raid on Justin Shafer would get fired in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

reidh, 27 Oct 2017 @ 8:19am

FBI Like Hoover Butthurt Homo X Dressers
Still into the tranny mode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad, 27 Oct 2017 @ 4:50pm
  
  Yes, because THAT was what Hoover did that was so objectionable.
  Flagged and blocked. I have no time for bigots.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]