>The government, in order to enforce its subpoena, would have had to demonstrate that whoever is behind the Twitter account was likely violating some law. There also were serious questions about whether the type of subpoena used, which is typically for investigating violations of export rules, was appropriate for the type of case DHS was probing, experts said.
Based on how fast the government dropped their request, it seems very clear that this was nothing more than an attempt at stifling dissent. How disturbing.
Yea. It's a shame but that was exactly that I thought. The withdrew the _public_ request... because they don't need the request at all or they have another request they can make that isn't public.
One of the more interesting lines of thought on Ars was that the request was so badly implemented (without a judge's signature; could have a been a National Security Letter instead; other similar reasons), that it was almost as if the person implementing it was doing it because he was pressured to by higher-ups, not because of true desire to see the request succeed.
Either way, I'm glad to see the negative attention the request received and even more glad to see the request withdrawn.
Or from a more paranoid standpoint, they got exactly the public response they wanted.
Dissenters, or at least supposed dissenting federal employees now know they're considered suspect. This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to risk being next?
> This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to risk being next?
yes, actually. this is encouraging exactly that. the government withdrawing its request in less than 24 hours because it didn't have a leg to stand on means that even in Trumpistan the constitution still means something. that said, encryption and anonymity seem more important now than ever.
According to Twitter's filing [1], the summons was signed by a CBP SAIC in Miramar, Florida and delivered by a CBP special agent. The communications mentioned in the filing were between Twitter and this CBP agent.
Is there any evidence the White House was involved?
I don't know enough about this case to comment on the specifics.
As a general rule, I am not in favor of terminating someone's employment because they made a bad call. You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things when their failure means unemployment. People need to be able to learn from their mistakes.
> You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things
This is a branch of the government and law enforcements, whose responsibilities, powers and limitations are codified in writing. This is not a scrappy little startup - there are edicts in place about how to do things, not to "be bold" when you have such power behind you.
Being bold can include doing what you think is right, knowing that taking a stand will be extremely hard.
Say an Islamaphobic Congress passes a law that bans wearing turbans, and that becomes extremely popular. A bold for someone in the executive branch could be actively defying that law, challenging it in the court system. Someone has to fight the good fight, and I hope government has people like this.
Right，but it cuts both ways. If you can't fire people for illegal behavior then the situation could just as easily be the opposite with an isalmaphobic government employee violating the the first amendment or civil rights act.
At the end of the day, it's hard to imagine how governments or for that matter businesses could operate if employees were immune to being fired for their job performance. There would be little motivation for actual work and little penalty for taking outsized risks. Seems hopelessly naive.
Of course this might make fighting the good fight harder sometimes, but that's how it is. If doing the right thing were always easy, everyone would do it.
That was seriously what the subpoena was made about, a "critic"? No wonder moderates feel totally detached from this kind of alt-left (or in other cases alt-right) echo chambers.
The request was to identify a "government official impersonator" not a "critic".
Either that was really the real motive of the officials that made the subpoena or not (my guess is actually not btw), is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide.
Journalism should be about illuminating a topic, including providing context.
I have my gripes with journalism that misuses facts and statistics to spin an alternate reality, but I don't think this was the case.
The twitter account never pretended to be a US official, it's always been clear that they are an "alt" account.
So for you to claim (someone who, if I'm not mistaken, has zero first hand knowledge about the situation) that your interpretation is more accurate than a "lousy" journalist who actually researched the issue is to my mind a little weird.
BTW, I'm sure you're aware that editors write headlines, not journalists right?
No, like a scientific paper. Have you ever tried to read one and understand this alien concept on how you can actually present facts without giving leeway to your personal politic views and fantasies?
No it isn't. A journalist does research and reporting and what the reader sees is a filtered view of all the facts (and non-facts) gathered, analyzed, and cross-referenced in that process.
Government employees are actually more free in this case- the first amendment means they can't be fired for their non-official speech where it would be fine for a company to fire them.
Funny how someone get's also downvoted just by saying he agrees with an unpopular opinion here.
Give way to the thought police... but only in their online echo chambers, cause in the real world the majority really doesn't care about their imaginary safe spaces.
"Impersonator" would imply that the operator of that account was attempting to pass themselves off as an official representative of USCIS, which, quite simply, is not the case at all.
It backfired tremendously. That Twitter account wasn't very well known, and the controversial government actions helped it become a trending topic in social networks.
That twitter account and others form what they call the "alt gov", and they invite followers to follow other alt gov accounts.
At the end of this exchange, the alt gov people won many followers. The government actually unintentionally helped them with free publicity.
Take the opportunity to list malcontents in case it's needed later? Narrow the search space in case something come up on down the line? Starting at these nodes who knows what kind of interesting trees might unfold?
I image after all they most likely could identify the person if they _really_ wanted to. Twitter's well publicized "stand" aside.
Declaratory judgement are only for cases where the mere possibility of an adverse decision is materially impacting you. For example investors being nervous. Its not intended to be a way to make a point.
39 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 93.4 ms ] threadBased on how fast the government dropped their request, it seems very clear that this was nothing more than an attempt at stifling dissent. How disturbing.
Either way, I'm glad to see the negative attention the request received and even more glad to see the request withdrawn.
Dissenters, or at least supposed dissenting federal employees now know they're considered suspect. This attempt died, but in light of this do you, anonymous federal employee considering speaking out against the direction of your department, want to risk being next?
yes, actually. this is encouraging exactly that. the government withdrawing its request in less than 24 hours because it didn't have a leg to stand on means that even in Trumpistan the constitution still means something. that said, encryption and anonymity seem more important now than ever.
Is there any evidence the White House was involved?
1: https://www.scribd.com/document/344292934/Twitter-Filing paragraph 42
And better training (or retraining) for CBP agents on the proper scope of the law?
As a general rule, I am not in favor of terminating someone's employment because they made a bad call. You can't expect people to take risks & try bold things when their failure means unemployment. People need to be able to learn from their mistakes.
This is a branch of the government and law enforcements, whose responsibilities, powers and limitations are codified in writing. This is not a scrappy little startup - there are edicts in place about how to do things, not to "be bold" when you have such power behind you.
Say an Islamaphobic Congress passes a law that bans wearing turbans, and that becomes extremely popular. A bold for someone in the executive branch could be actively defying that law, challenging it in the court system. Someone has to fight the good fight, and I hope government has people like this.
At the end of the day, it's hard to imagine how governments or for that matter businesses could operate if employees were immune to being fired for their job performance. There would be little motivation for actual work and little penalty for taking outsized risks. Seems hopelessly naive.
Of course this might make fighting the good fight harder sometimes, but that's how it is. If doing the right thing were always easy, everyone would do it.
That was seriously what the subpoena was made about, a "critic"? No wonder moderates feel totally detached from this kind of alt-left (or in other cases alt-right) echo chambers.
Journalism these days...
Either that was really the real motive of the officials that made the subpoena or not (my guess is actually not btw), is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide.
Journalists are allowed to interpret. In fact, that's a core part of journalism.
The core part of journalism is to present facts and let the interpretation up to the reader.
Journalism should be about illuminating a topic, including providing context.
I have my gripes with journalism that misuses facts and statistics to spin an alternate reality, but I don't think this was the case.
The twitter account never pretended to be a US official, it's always been clear that they are an "alt" account.
So for you to claim (someone who, if I'm not mistaken, has zero first hand knowledge about the situation) that your interpretation is more accurate than a "lousy" journalist who actually researched the issue is to my mind a little weird.
BTW, I'm sure you're aware that editors write headlines, not journalists right?
No, like a scientific paper. Have you ever tried to read one and understand this alien concept on how you can actually present facts without giving leeway to your personal politic views and fantasies?
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
The journalist's job is:
..to report a factual event that happened and give the reader enough factual context and analysis for that report to be useful.
Not:
..to convince the reader of one position or another
..to expound on their own political beliefs or opinions
I find that many self-described journalists are able to avoid the second problem but hold up the first as if it were a virtue.
And does the 1st amendment not grant both government officials and civilians the right to anonymous free speech?
Headlines designed to promote an agenda rather than inform should be called out for exactly what they are.
This is true no matter how much you might agree with the agenda being promoted.
Give way to the thought police... but only in their online echo chambers, cause in the real world the majority really doesn't care about their imaginary safe spaces.
That twitter account and others form what they call the "alt gov", and they invite followers to follow other alt gov accounts.
At the end of this exchange, the alt gov people won many followers. The government actually unintentionally helped them with free publicity.
Take the opportunity to list malcontents in case it's needed later? Narrow the search space in case something come up on down the line? Starting at these nodes who knows what kind of interesting trees might unfold?
I image after all they most likely could identify the person if they _really_ wanted to. Twitter's well publicized "stand" aside.