It's interesting, the article discusses that the request is for a relatively short period of time (35 minutes) - however for a popular website that could still be thousands of viewers.
It suggests that there's something they're specifically looking to match against - but if that was the case, I would think that specific IP addresses could be provided in the request - e.g. Did any one of these 10 IP addresses view the article in the time period. Much more specific and likely easier to justify.
I'd rampantly speculate that perhaps that time matches to the link being posted in a pedophilia related forum (with the forum behind TOR) - and the FBI would like to get a list of who might have followed it there.
I agree with your speculation, this looks like a timing attack regarding a Tor or VPN server.
That said, while catching pedos is a good thing, their methods are still concerning for regular law abiding citizens. The road to hell is paved with good intentions…
Talk about a chilling effect, i.e., do not read the news because law enforcement can subpoena the list of what you read. Lawyers recommend never sharing anything with law enforcement because it can be used against you. So the news articles you read can now be used against you? The FBI seems to think so. This is exactly the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read. Someone at the FBI is way out of bounds.
> Talk about a chilling effect, i.e., do not read the news because law enforcement can subpoena the list of what you read. Lawyers recommend never sharing anything with law enforcement because it can be used against you. So the news articles you read can now be used against you? The FBI seems to think so. This is exactly the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read.
I don't understand. What's the reason there are laws prohibiting law enforcement from ask libraries for lists of what patrons read ?
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction."
> “The FBI’s subpoena asks for private information about the readers of our journalism. We have asked the court to quash the subpoena to protect the important relationship and trust between USA TODAY’s readers and our journalists.”
Yet it looks like usatoday.com article pages continuously leak this same information, and more, to at least a dozen commercial third parties.
Is the difference that the government was trying to get the information for free?
As the parent post noted, the USA Today home page makes requests to dozens of third-parties--including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and something called "summerhamster". I'm sure one of the dozens will take the FBI's call.
Hilariously, the USA Today homepage also hits OneTrust, who has the slogan "Privacy, Security and Data Governance" right in the <title>. What is there to govern if nearly all the major tech players have your access logs?
USA Today is shouting its readers' reading behavior from the mountain top.
This seems like a crafted case to set some kind of precedent. The request involves cop killing and child abuse, though it's really hard to see how the requested information is useful as the "suspect" killed himself. My guess would be they're trying to prove a related person saw the incident and wiped their drives or something, but that's some weak evidence. Additionally, the FBI likely could just buy this data.
Also, why is this challenge which featured a gag order not be dealt with in a secret court? Doesn't our knowledge of events already make the USA Today guilty of a crime even if this subpoena doesn't stand?
I’m also wondering how this got public so easily if there was a gag order, but it sounds like the court made it public initially and USA Today just responded to that news.
That would be quite a wide net and quite the "fishing expedition" and why the FBI has earned itself a bad rep (in addition to things like getting people on unrelated charges like "lying" while they are free to make things up.
I guess it's a best practice to not disclose real personal details for library cards, store discount programs, and such where it's not absolutely required and where it can be avoided.
It suggests that there's something they're specifically looking to match against - but if that was the case, I would think that specific IP addresses could be provided in the request - e.g. Did any one of these 10 IP addresses view the article in the time period. Much more specific and likely easier to justify.
I'd rampantly speculate that perhaps that time matches to the link being posted in a pedophilia related forum (with the forum behind TOR) - and the FBI would like to get a list of who might have followed it there.
reply