[colechristensen]

Everyone?

Having not read the court filing that granted the search warrant I know nothing about the information supporting the seizure.

I know that she tried to make an emotional appeal on social media, I know that she has been accused of really sketchy behavior with a coworker, and I know that people who read her messaging are going to jump to conclusions about her being wronged with no information besides her being fired by republicans.

What evidence was presented which got the warrant granted? Why was it nonsense, and what led the judge to grant it anyway?

Why did she delay officers executing a legally granted search warrant for twenty minutes, hanging up on them and refusing to answer the door?

It very much strikes me as a “more than meets the eye” kind of situation that jumping to conclusions based on political affiliation does not do justice.

[nobody9999]

>Why did she delay officers executing a legally granted search warrant for twenty minutes, hanging up on them and refusing to answer the door?

I can think of several reasonable reasons why she might do so:

1. To contact the court WRT the validity of such a search warrant;

2. To contact an attorney to obtain legal advice WRT how to respond to an attempt to enter and search her home;

3. To remove her small children (who obviously have no involvement) and protect them from the police;

4. To put on appropriate clothing so as to be fully dressed when police enter her home.

I'm sure there are a myriad of other reasonable reasons she might have delayed answering her door.

I don't know if any or all of the above (or any other) reasons are relevant, but it seems to me that such a delay doesn't imply wrongdoing on her part.

[zaroth]

23 minutes. The police showed overwhelming restraint in not breaking the door down. Whatever she was doing, she could have been trying to destroy evidence the entire time. The police serving a warrant aren’t supposed to wait outside for half an hour for you to answer the door.

[nobody9999]

>23 minutes. The police showed overwhelming restraint in not breaking the door down. Whatever she was doing, she could have been trying to destroy evidence the entire time. The police serving a warrant aren’t supposed to wait outside for half an hour for you to answer the door.

You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Arizona Republican Party[0], would you? I shouldn't be surprised if you were.

[0] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/529195-arizona-gop-asks-if...

[zaroth]

What are you talking about? I’d say the same thing if she was a Republican hacking the Democrats.

[nobody9999]

Hacking? Really? You're gonna go with that?

Allegedly sending messages[0] to former colleagues is now hacking? The credentials for accessing the system to send such messages was shared by hundreds, if not thousands of people and posted on intranet sites.

So sending messages (albeit unauthorized ones) using a widely-known set of shared credentials is worthy of a whole bunch of cops descending, guns drawn, on a couple with young children?

I'd also point out that the biggest ISP in that area is Comcast, which routinely sets up free wifi for anyone in range[1] by sharing their customers' links.

As such, any one who had access to the credentials (hundreds to thousands of people) could have just driven over to her house and used her Wifi.

And the cops come with guns drawn? With small children in the house?

From the linked article:

"The search was part of a criminal investigation into unauthorized messages sent last month to a group of health department employees using an internal emergency alert system.

[...]

According to the affidavit, the users on the emergency alert group account shared the same username and password, which cybersecurity experts said left the system vulnerable to a breach that could be difficult to trace."

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/florida-coronavirus-da...

[1] https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/open-xfinity-wifi-h...

[zaroth]

You’re right, I should have said allegedly hacking. Unless you’re claiming there is some doubt that she should have had access to that system to send that message, then yes it is hacking. Plain and simple.

I run a SaaS business. As part of logging into that company my users send their username and password to my servers which my servers see in clear text.

Just because it would be absolutely trivial to save all those passwords in clear text and use the 50% of them that are re-used credentials to login to my customers’ accounts doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be illegal to do so.

The complexity of the hack is irrelevant. Whether you have the correct password is irrelevant. Whether it was authorized access or not, and whether the perpetrator believed it was authorized access or not, is what matters.

And as part of the process to determine that, serving a warrant on the home of the IP address of the person who performed the action is appropriate.

And waiting at the door for 23 minutes while making multiple phone calls with the homeowner to try to serve the warrant is more than reasonable. It’s frankly how I would hope they would treat me in the same situation if for some reason I refused to come to the door. (Plenty of time to destroy evidence, that’s for sure)

They haven’t even charged her at this point. It was serving a warrant as part of the investigation! What, you want them to not investigate? This is bizarre-land politics and disinformation campaign territory.

[nobody9999]

Like I said -- With guns drawn[0]. Pablo Escobar this was not.

[0] https://twitter.com/georebekah/status/1336065787900145665?s=...

[x86_64Ubuntu]

Judges rubber stamp warrant requests, and nothing that she is alleged of doing requires cops to show up with body armor and assault rifles.

[colechristensen]

I mean wearing a bullet proof vest for a search warrant seems a reasonable enough precaution.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/florida/2020/12/10/video-s...

There's the video, they're all wearing khakis, the officer talking to the woman has a not-so-stylish short sleeved plaid shirt, and one of them has some kind of stick? Not exactly a SWAT raid.

[zaroth]

The misinformation campaign around this is intense. Assault rifles, really?

[gwittel]

Having read the warrant request they:

Claim an IP was found by examining logs (no logs shown)

Claim they used “investigative procedures” to identify the IP as belonging to Ms Jones.

Both seem weak but I don’t know usual practice.

Seems odd no actual logs (easily forged) are included. Also odd they don’t just say “Comcast said at time X the IP belonged to her” so unclear what strength of evidence they really had.

[colechristensen]

That seems reasonable enough. Look at your logs, find an IP that did the unauthorized thing, do a WHOIS, then call the ISP and ask who had that IP at the time.

Is it possible to fabricate all of this evidence? Sure, but finding the lady's IP in order to have it confirmed by Comcast seems pretty sophisticated without a pretty advanced conspiracy. One would assume a lot of that would come out at trial, if the defense could convince a jury of those doubts.

But this is a search warrant, that's all some pretty convoluted fraud of the justice system to smear this woman. Criminals are pretty stupid usually, intimidation would take a lazier form. Keeping with the "criminals are stupid" line, a person with an axe to grind posting on a work network after being fired from their home? That seems about right.

Lots of downvotes are going on around here that make it evident that people only really care about their political alignment and their ideas of justice depend on whether or not a person is on their side. I thought people were generally above that here.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

>... I thought people were generally above that here.

This place has never, not once, been "above that". What you are astonished at is that the discourse is anti-right wing. Other times when it is pro-right-wing/an-cap/libertarian/anti-POC you don't notice it because that's the baseline for normalcy for the userbase.

[colechristensen]

There's a difference between having a political slant and straight up denying reasonable action because it is against someone of your political alignment.