Big Brother in Trump's America

[TactiKill J.]

No, I'm not apparently. Twitter withdrew its lawsuit in this case... And, those logos are part of the account in question as indicated within that very post (@ALT_USCIS That's the account).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/twi...cid=spartandhp

It sounds to me like DHS knows who's behind that account already and simply doesn't need Twitter to do anything.
The ACLU is involved too and apparently already defending the person or persons behind this account which would indicate that Twitter's information is no longer at issue. If, as indicated, the person or persons behind this account is / are government employees, boy are they hit.

No those logos are not part of his account, he was retweeting that message from someone else.

Did you read the article or just the headline? The lawsuit was dropped because the government also withdrew their request. Most likely knowing that they wouldn't have won in court, they had 0 legal authority to unmask whoever this person is. Sorry to disappoint you, but freedom of speech won this battle.

Back to the drawing board for the thought police.

[T. A. Gardner]

No, I'm not apparently. Twitter withdrew its lawsuit in this case... And, those logos are part of the account in question as indicated within that very post (@ALT_USCIS That's the account).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/twi...cid=spartandhp

It sounds to me like DHS knows who's behind that account already and simply doesn't need Twitter to do anything.
The ACLU is involved too and apparently already defending the person or persons behind this account which would indicate that Twitter's information is no longer at issue. If, as indicated, the person or persons behind this account is / are government employees, boy are they hit.

[TactiKill J.]

It might actually be. If you scroll down the page of twits shown, you find this one:



That could be construed as anything from trademark and copyright infringement to potentially fraudulent schemes. Adding the word "Alt" to an existing government trademark / agency logo doesn't alter it enough to get around "fair use" laws.

So, it is possible that this group is being investigated for legitimate reasons.

You sure are reaching for something you supposedly weren't defending. Those logos are from a different account and the government wanted his identity before that tweet.

[T. A. Gardner]

Obviously, but that's not the case here.

https://twitter.com/alt_uscis?lang=en

It might actually be. If you scroll down the page of twits shown, you find this one:



That could be construed as anything from trademark and copyright infringement to potentially fraudulent schemes. Adding the word "Alt" to an existing government trademark / agency logo doesn't alter it enough to get around "fair use" laws.

So, it is possible that this group is being investigated for legitimate reasons.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

You can if it includes threats or other potentially criminal activity. In the case of criticizing a sitting President, anything construed as a threat will get you a visit from the secret service.

And 'potential criminal activity' covers just about anything.

Subpoenas require even less PC.

It is easier to get a subject's posts from Facebook, Twitter, and the like than it is to get a search warrant to hack a phone, and the latter is a very common warrant. My agency pulled more than 200 Net-based communication accounts in 2016, and we're not large. Not a single request for a warrant or subpoena was turned down.

A search warrant is not a high bar to get over.

[TactiKill J.]

You can if it includes threats or other potentially criminal activity. In the case of criticizing a sitting President, anything construed as a threat will get you a visit from the secret service.

Obviously, but that's not the case here.

https://twitter.com/alt_uscis?lang=en

[TactiKill J.]

How is your "whine and complain" standing against it?

The alternative is me not being upset and saying nothing about it. So if caring about freedom makes me a whiner, then I guess that's what I am.

But you do pose a valid question. At the end of the day there's nothing that can be done to change any of this. Both democrats and republicans are set in their partisan ways and there's no amount of complaining, voting or anything else I can do to change that.

[T. A. Gardner]

They don't. You can't obtain a warrant on the account of someone being critical of your policies.

You can if it includes threats or other potentially criminal activity. In the case of criticizing a sitting President, anything construed as a threat will get you a visit from the secret service.

[Nichols]

The only thing that will ever stop the government from overstepping is the people collectively standing against it. Whether it be D or R. If you feel differently, then so be it.

How is your "whine and complain" standing against it?

[slick_miester]

They don't. You can't obtain a warrant on the account of someone being critical of your policies.

Then they'll just have to sit and simmer. Anything else will be too reminiscent of Stasi to be tolerated.

[TactiKill J.]

You love freedom but you are unwilling to defend it........

"Always whine and complain" wont get you very far in this world. Maybe take some proactive steps.

The only thing that will ever stop the government from overstepping is the people collectively standing against it. Whether it be D or R. If you feel differently, then so be it.

[TactiKill J.]

Does DHS have a warrant? If not, then their request for records is a no-go. If they push it, then they're in clear violation of the Constitution. That's how I see it: plain and simple.

They don't. You can't obtain a warrant on the account of someone being critical of your policies.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

You love freedom but you are unwilling to defend it........

"Always whine and complain" wont get you very far in this world. Maybe take some proactive steps.

There it is. Defending freedom is always someone else's job.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Does DHS have a warrant? If not, then their request for records is a no-go. If they push it, then they're in clear violation of the Constitution. That's how I see it: plain and simple.

A subpoena will do IME. Since the information open to a third party, the expectation of privacy is much reduced.

[slick_miester]

Does DHS have a warrant? If not, then their request for records is a no-go. If they push it, then they're in clear violation of the Constitution. That's how I see it: plain and simple.