Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by RangerScience | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

RangerScience

Okay, what seems to be going on is:

a) DHS / Customs & Border Protection want to unmask the person(s) behind the @ALT_USCIS account

b) They want to use an unnamed "investigatory tool" to do this

c) Twitter does not want them to do this, on (extensive) 1st amendment grounds

d) Twitter says the Supreme Court is on their side on this issue

The lawsuit is to stop DHS / CBP from using the tool.

The "tool" is a legal "tool" - an ability granted to the agencies to legally compel Twitter to do stuff.

The reasonable editorial is then that the Government wants to do this because they don't like being criticized or contradicted by these ALT_* accounts, and Twitter wants the accounts to stay anonymous because the criticism is good (both in terms of quality and effect), and taking away that anonymity is all kinds of bad.

(I'm totally on Twitter's side on this)

View on HN

> an unnamed "investigatory tool" to do this

Paragraph 7 of the complaint identifies 19 U.S.C. § 1509 as "the sole statutory authority CBP invoked in issuing the summons" [1]. It appears to be a customs authority related to the "examination of books and witnesses" [2]. Sufficient to say, it's a stupid overreach.

Side note: we need a fund that re-imburses private companies for challenging such orders. It could be managed by the ACLU, EFF, et cetera. What Twitter is doing, here, is public service.

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3538047-Twitter-Comp...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509

> Side note: we need a fund that re-imburses private companies for challenging such orders.

Oh that's good.

Hmm. People have wondered how to make a programmer's union different from existing unions. I wonder if doing dual duty - also running this - would help that, or simply make more kinds of things vulnerable to the failure modes of unions...?

Edit: Basically, an organization to protect programmer's ability to positively impact the world...? Rather than one protecting just the people, or protecting the corporations, since due to startup culture that line is pretty blurry?

This is a fascinating topic. But it would be important to keep it apolitical in nature. Perhaps defending / following the EU's human rights?

This definitely makes sense. Governments and corporations sometimes walk all over customers in the name of collecting more data.

A well funded Corp could keep them on their toes.

On c), not just 1st amendment grounds. That's their secondary complaint. Their primary complaint is that the summons invoked a nonsensical justification, related to merchandise imports, for its lawful authority to make such a summons. This one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509

I will host any "alt" accounts on my mastodon instance and give a "YUGE" middle finger to any DHS requests to unmask them. Let's not let freedom die on our watch.

The Verge has a reasonable summary: http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/6/15211092/twitter-trump-laws...

From the doc: "the particular investigatory tool employed here — which Congress authorized solely to ensure compliance with federal laws concerning imported merchandise"

And the reason for the unmasking request from the article:

>@ALT_uscis is one of a string of accounts claiming to be operated by rogue government employees, formed in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration. It’s unclear whether any of the accounts are authentic — including @ALT_uscis — although many purport to offer an insider perspective. The Trump administration has responded aggressively to leaks in the past, including on-the-spot phone checks of White House staffers suspected of sharing information with the press.

Imagine George W. Bush has his stooges trying to undermine and overthrow Obama if you don't see why this would be problematic for current administration.

Is "overthrow" your hyperbolic way of saying "using free speech to dissent"?

If someone is deliberately trying to undermine the government with twitter accounts then they would have a valid case. If there is even probable cause that this is happening then that would be enough for a warrant.

The fact that they resort to a custom's law suggests that they can't show either of these to be true.

> Imagine George W. Bush has his stooges trying to undermine and overthrow Obama if you don't see why this would be problematic for current administration.

I'm uncertain why you think government employees exercising their 1st amendment rights is a problem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com