[KZeillmann]

When you request the records of 1.3 million people in an effort to find the identities of about 200, that feels ridiculously broad. I'm not sure what they're hoping to find, but it seems like security camera footage would be much more useful than this action, which seems to look more like cracking down on political dissent.

[belovedeagle]

But when you request the records of 1.3 million conspirators to riot and commit other terrorist acts, in order to find the 200 who actually did, that's quite reasonable. The stated goal of the website was terrorism (shutting down bridges, checkpoints, etc.). Every single account is quite likely to be evidence of conspiracy.

[shakna]

That seems the perfect use-case for pre-trial injunction so that assets (data) can be seized, under RICO.

As they haven't touched RICO, it seems likely they cannot consider all 1.3 million people to be conspirators, nor even a large number to be conspirators.

[belovedeagle]

You're right; they're not all conspirators. However, as a non-expert I feel there is a good argument that there's probable cause that each account has evidence of the conspiracy.

[shakna]

> probable cause that each account has evidence of the conspiracy.

That's all a warrant under RICO would require.

Again, they haven't touched it, so they cannot consider that a large number of accounts have partaken of any conspiracy.

RICO is the first stop on dealing with conspiracies.

PATRIOT is the first stop on dealing with terrorists.

The fact they have gone another route, which is legally more difficult to accomplish, suggests they consider the majority of accounts to be innocent, of both terrorism and conspiracy.

The fact the judge has ordered any accounts viewed, and found to have no evidence, to be sealed, suggests the judge views the majority of accounts as innocent as well.

Its a broad-reaching warrant, searching for a needle in a haystack.

> ...that each account has evidence...

Nobody on either legal teams is suggesting that everyone might have information in this case. But, the prosecution is suggesting that anyone might.

There's a distinction there.

I'm not suggesting its right, but I am suggesting that nobody in the courtroom would suggest all/majority these people, knowingly or unknowingly, are terrorists or conspirators. They're looking for the few among the many, so then they can investigate if those few are indeed criminals.