FBI sought info on who read USA Today news article for case | Hacker News Reader

FBI sought info on who read USA Today news article for case

bbc.co.uk

47 pointsColinWright25 comments

Already being discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27401862

Straight out of the US/Soviet/Chinese/European surveillance state playbook. They should just ask the NSA for those details. The NSA and their colleagues at Israel and 5 eyes already scoop up information on American citizens.

https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/11/4719064/the-nsa-shares-ra...

The perp died:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55908105

According to the Miami Herald, the suspect was barricaded inside a home for several hours before shooting and killing himself.

Suspect, not perp.

If its only for a 35min window, I'd assume the FBI have good reason to want the data. It's right that a judge should rule on that, but this isn't warrant less or mass surveillance.

Agreed. This seems like a reasonable request to me, providing there is a warrant.

of course, all egregious erosions of freedom start, always, by presenting a reasonable case. That does not make them right.

So we shouldn't catch criminals then. By that logic, investigations, and evidence gathering for said investigations is not right either.

There are very good reasons for evidence obtained by unlawful means to be ignored, even if it would help to catch a criminal.

I never understood why that's the case. Is it not to encourage unlawful activity?

Stealing an example from mr robot, if I break into someone's computer and find evidence that proves they are trafficking underage photos, I don't see why that proof should be ignored , in any circumstances.

Sure, charge me as well with breaking into someone's computer, if you can catch me, but don't dismiss my evidence.

It is to discourage unlawful activity on the part of law enforcement.

Sure, and that's probably best. In my original comment, I specifically mentioned that what the FBI is asking for is reasonable providing there is a warrant, which would imply that they're gathering evidence lawfully.

I prefer to have clearly identified and clearly limited exceptions to my rights, rather than a large scale violation of our rights, hidden with lies.

That is true, but it does not follow that all reasonable cases will develop into egregious ones...

I think the main problem is that we allow the justice system to step on private companies.

I think the company owning the data should be able to decide whether to give the data and aid the investigation or not (which is something that affect their reputation and that they can tell their customers, either as an advantage or a disadvantage)

But it’s the thin end of the wedge. No doubt we will evolve towards blanket tracing of anyone who accesses news stories on a particular topic, creating grounds to investigate or detain people on grounds of “domestic terrorism” or whatever.

I mean, we already do all that.

But I don't personally think it is the thin end of a wedge. There is a big difference between asking for everyone accessing the story and a limited 35min window. As big as asking to search one house vs a whole street. It gers messy where exactly the line is, but that's why we have judges...

Judges have not prevented our relentless slide into a panopticonal hellscape up til now, I don’t have high hopes for their future guardianship of privacy and freedom.

I'm disappointed judges have refused to touch the NSA etc stuff. But historically they have taken privacy seriously.

The more cynical part of me also thinks that we're getting all the downsides of the panopticon, so why not at least get the upsides too (in this case better law enforcement)...

What I don't understand is why is reading a news article relevant to a case?

maybe they seized property with browsing history

I'd reason, there's a chance that child molesters might share with each other and might connect the readers that way. If they have some data on a suspect but aren't sure yet?

Imagine there is a misprint in the version online for those 35min. And your suspect quoted the misprint...

Who are they asking for the data? ISPs, USA today, NSA?

> The agency demanded the newspaper USA Today hand over records on who had read an article about the killing of two FBI agents.

Seems as though they are at least asking USA Today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com