Department of Justice orders DreamHost to surrender records of an anti-trump website

[ali-techie-not-terrorist]

After a dispute over the scope of a warrant, a judge today ordered hosting service DreamHost to turn over records related to an anti-Trump website.

 

The legal fight started last week, when DreamHost said it had received a warrant from the Justice Department for records on the website “disruptj20.org,” which organized protests related to Trump’s inauguration. The warrant was so vaguely worded, and seemingly so broad, DreamHost argued, that it was effectively demanding information like IP addresses, which could identify visitors to the website.

After controversy, the government backed down somewhat, clarifying that it would not ask for IP addresses. The Justice Department said it was only looking for records on how the website was allegedly used

Quote

“to organize, to plan, and to effect a criminal act — that is, a riot.”

 

In today’s ruling, a DC Superior Court judge ordered DreamHost to comply with the amended warrant, although the court will oversee how the data is searched, DreamHost said in a blog post.

DreamHost said it would comply with the warrant but cast the court’s decision as, ultimately, a win

Quote

. “The de-scoping of the original warrant, combined with the court’s additional restrictions on the use of, and access to, that data, is a clear victory for user privacy,”

the company said.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/24/16199474/judge-order-dreamhost-trump-warrant

 

[knightslugger]

Considering some of these groups are borderline terrorist organizations, I think in the best interest of the united states and her people that theses organizations that espouse and later commit criminal activity under the guise of 1st amendment protection be investigated and prosecuted.

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Considering some of these groups are borderline terrorist organizations, I think in the best interest of the united states and her people that theses organizations that espouse and later commit criminal activity under the guise of 1st amendment protection be investigated and prosecuted.

Ok calling a riot the same as a terrorist attack is kinda extreme. I mean I guess it would depend on how violent the riot gets but in general they don't come close to a terroristic attack.

[Ryujin2003]

8 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Ok calling a riot the same as a terrorist attack is kinda extreme. I mean I guess it would depend on how violent the riot gets but in general they don't come close to a terroristic attack.

A terrorist doesn't have to be as described in mainstream media or movies. Simply, anyone who uses fear, intimidation, and threats of physical harm to get their end goal is a terrorist. It doesn't have to use bombs, airplanes, and pressure plates.

[knightslugger]

12 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Ok calling a riot the same as a terrorist attack is kinda extreme. I mean I guess it would depend on how violent the riot gets but in general they don't come close to a terroristic attack.

When you start hurling objects at people, it's not a peaceful demonstration anymore. You are attempting to injure people, often times successfully.

 

As the saying goes, "Your right to flail your arms about wildly ends where my nose begins."

[TidaLWaveZ]

17 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Ok calling a riot the same as a terrorist attack is kinda extreme. I mean I guess it would depend on how violent the riot gets but in general they don't come close to a terroristic attack.

Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but I don't think you actually have to actually carry out physical attacks to be a terrorist. Really all you need to do is intimidate people into following political views out of fear.

 

Honestly there are a ton of groups that aren't considered terrorists by the masses even though they clearly fit the description.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, Ryujin2003 said:

A terrorist doesn't have to be as described in mainstream media or movies. Simply, anyone who uses fear, intimidation, and threats of physical harm to get their end goal is a terrorist. It doesn't have to use bombs, airplanes, and pressure plates.

The problem is when you call someone a terrorist based on that weak definition you are grouping then with people that are committing much worse offenses. I mean you could argue a lot of people are terrorist based on that definition. A bouncer at a club could be considered a terrorist based on that definition.

[knightslugger]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

The problem is when you call someone a terrorist based on that weak definition you are grouping then with people that are committing much worse offenses. I mean you could argue a lot of people are terrorist based on that definition. A bouncer at a club could be considered a terrorist based on that definition.

not even close. A bouncer is enforcing the establishment's (the business) rules for entry. He is not there to forcibly change political theater.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, knightslugger said:

not even close. A bouncer is enforcing the establishment's (the business) rules for entry. He is not there to forcibly change political theater.

Their definition is using intimidation and threats of physical harm to achieve their goal. A bouncer would fit that description. Also the fact that you think terrorist have to be political in nature is kinda strange to me.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Protesting to a certain extend is okay , but then there is the unusual borderline psychopathic attack on anyone who follows another political view is immediately put under a all out free attack without any consequences . That's pretty much domestic terrorism . Either you're with us or you're asking to be beaten up , These people have no accountability nor logical reasoning.  but when the same happens to them suddenly they're mathematical geniuses on this form of logic.

 

Organizing an event just to do target attack & physically harm another person as the sole intention is obviously not what they explain it as sugar coated as they make it appear to be .

[knightslugger]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

Their definition is using intimidation and threats of physical harm to achieve their goal. A bouncer would fit that description. Also the fact that you think terrorist have to be political in nature is kinda strange to me.

well neither you nor Ryu understand the term.

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

well neither you nor Ryu understand the term.

Terrorist threats don't have to be political in nature so why would a terrorist? I mean you say we don't understand the term but who is to say that it isn't you who doesn't understand the term?

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Terrorist threats don't have to be political in nature so why would a terrorist? I mean you say we don't understand the term but who is to say that it isn't you who doesn't understand the term?

When have they ever not been?

[Dylanc1500]

20 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

well neither you nor Ryu understand the term.

Hopefully this helps somewhat.

 

Posting this so people understand from a legal standpoint as it applies to U.S. and may not apply to your country.

 

U.S. Legal Definition of terrorism

 

1:  the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically  motivated means of attack or coercion 

2:  violent and intimidating gang activity

 

As was already stated, there is also Domestic and Foreign terrorism.

 

Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f

[Ryujin2003]

14 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Their definition is using intimidation and threats of physical harm to achieve their goal. A bouncer would fit that description. Also the fact that you think terrorist have to be political in nature is kinda strange to me.

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Within this definition, there are three key elements - violence, fear, and intimidation - and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this definition: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

http://www.terrorism-research.com/

13 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

well neither you nor Ryu understand the term.

You do not know me, what I've done in my life, and what I've experienced, so you cannot state whether I understand the term or not.

[knightslugger]

4 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

You do not know me, what I've done in my life, and what I've experienced, so you cannot state whether I understand the term or not.

likewise sir. Good of you to update what you meant rather than what you stated. "End Goal" could be preservation of life. It doesn't make me a terrorist to shoot and kill someone who's "end goal" was to murder me (an unlawful act), nor does it make them a terrorist in the same right.

[Ryujin2003]

Just now, knightslugger said:

likewise sir. Good of you to update what you meant rather than what you stated. "End Goal" could be preservation of life. It doesn't make me a terrorist to shoot and kill someone who's "end goal" was to murder me (an unlawful act), nor does it make them a terrorist by the same right.

Agreed. I'm on mobile, trying to multitask, so I couldn't spend 10 minutes on my first post. Agreed with your statement though.