[ArchReaper]

I hope this is an opportunity for you to learn and not just me wasting my time addressing a troll.

>what alternative is there to find out who they are?

That's not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking yourself is "why am I OK with violating the 4th amendment rights of millions of citizens"

[khazhoux]

That was very patronizing. Everyone's time is valuable, and personally I choose to believe that Hacker News is NOT a troll destination, but made up of smart people with (on occasion) diverse opinions.

More to the point: the question he SHOULD he asking is "Does the government actually have a legitimate and constitutionally-sound need for this information?" If "yes", then his question follows ("What alternatives exist for getting this info?")

Your question, on the other hand, presupposes that it's indeed a violation of 4th amendment. Which it may well and likely is (sure seems like it!)... but the first question that has to be answered is whether this is a violation or not.

[ArchReaper]

You're right, I was quick to judge and patronize the previous comment, which isn't helpful. My b.

I think what irked me, specifically, is the way the question was phrased, as though guilt was the default assumption, which is absurd to me.

I interpreted "What alternatives exist for getting this info?" as "What other way would big brother be able to violate your rights, except through this?" which I now realize is not what he was trying to say.

Has there been any evidence linking the users of this site directly to this riot? My core issue is that this seems to me to be a case of attacking political opponents through the legal system.

What evidence do they have that there is relevant information in those records directly tied to someone who committed a crime? I fail to see anything in this article that actually mentions a valid reason for this search.

Their original request covered over a million users. How could that possibly be reasonable?

[koolba]

> You're right, I was quick to judge and patronize the previous comment, which isn't helpful. My b.

No offense taken!

> I think what irked me, specifically, is the way the question was phrased, as though guilt was the default assumption, which is absurd to me.

I tend to ask a lot of open ended questions on HN as I like to read and gauge the variety of responses. While usually driven by my own opinions of right and wrong, I don't uniformly stick to asking it from my particular angle either. In fact, I'm generally more interested in the responses on the other side.

> Has there been any evidence linking the users of this site directly to this riot? My core issue is that this seems to me to be a case of attacking political opponents through the legal system.

In this situation my understand is that there were rioters who were using the website in question as a means of congregating. I don't see this as going after political opponents. I see it as going after violent anarchists. I don't care whether they're far left or far right, I don't want anyone like that operating with impunity.

> What evidence do they have that there is relevant information in those records directly tied to someone who committed a crime? I fail to see anything in this article that actually mentions a valid reason for this search.

I'm not sure but if the site was used by rioters to conspire to riot, I'd imagine it could be useful in tracking down how they communicated, who they are, and where else they were plotting or targeting.

> Their original request covered over a million users. How could that possibly be reasonable?

The website in question lists out[1] organizations that are listed by government agencies as domestic terrorists[2]. Does the number having six zeros in the number of people involved make it unreasonable? If a website pledges to commit anarchist destruction, a million people create accounts, and then some large number of people show up to commit said destructive acts, why wouldn't the full list be fair game?

[1]: http://www.disruptj20.org/event/disruptj20-protest-the-inaug...

[2]: https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extrem...

[ArchReaper]

Thank you for responding, these are some really good points that really made me rethink my opinion of this topic.

I definitely agree that I do not want extremist groups to grow and become even more of a 'thing' in the US. However, I do not know if I am OK with stripping people of their 4th amendment rights just because they have been 'associated' with a terrorist group (or visited a terrorist group's website...) That's a dangerous path.

I also still fail to see how the information taken from Dreamhost would help them track somebody who committed a crime. What, are they going to subpoena everyone's ISPs to find out who every single person is, then arrest them and see if they happen to be someone who committed a crime? That's wrong. What am I missing here? How could this be used in any way except to build a list of 'potential terrorists' in some 3 letter org's database?

[koolba]

> I definitely agree that I do not want extremist groups to grow and become even more of a 'thing' in the US. However, I do not know if I am OK with stripping people of their 4th amendment rights just because they have been 'associated' with a terrorist group (or visited a terrorist group's website...) That's a dangerous path.

Me neither. I'm about as gung-ho about personal privacy as it gets.

I'm also practically minded and understand the difference between things that are and are not in your control. The log of whether I visit a particular website on my computer is under my control. You need a warrant for that. But that same website has it's own logs and I know that I have no privacy or 4th amendment protections[1]. Now they can demand a warrant from the government for their records, but they can also give it willingly. Either way it's up to them, not me.

> I also still fail to see how the information taken from Dreamhost would help them track somebody who committed a crime. What, are they going to subpoena everyone's ISPs to find out who every single person is, then arrest them and see if they happen to be someone who committed a crime? That's wrong. What am I missing here?

I can imagine intersecting whatever lists they get from here with other similar data. Maybe mixing in the geolocation of the anonymous user's IP addresses. Combine in email address to name lookups. Without knowing what else they have it's all conjecture, but I'd imagine they've got something to tie it against.

> How could this be used in any way except to build a list of 'potential terrorists' in some 3 letter org's database?

I wouldn't be surprised if they're doing that and bet most three letter agencies have multiple lists of potential undesirables on which they want to keep tabs. I mean that is their job right? You don't just want the FBI to arrest people after they commit the crime, it'd be nice if some of the crimes were stopped before they happened right? It doesn't have to be a full on Minority Report style world but proactive measures are necessary to stop crime before it happens.

The other approach would be confirming the involvement of known offenders. They arrested a number of people. If they can tie those specific people to known usage of a site, say by linking their IP address to a known location or a known email address, then that would further build a case against them.

[1]: NOTE: I'm purposely ignore medical and legal related content here as they'd be covered by separate confidentiality provisions.