Current Events > FBI wants USA Today to turn over ID of those who read child porn case article

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://deadline.com/2021/06/fbi-usa-today-identificaton-people-who-read-child-porn-article-1234769937/

USA Today is fighting a Federal Bureau of Investigation request for identifying information about readers who accessed the media giants story on a suspect in a child porn case. The story concerned a man who killed two FBI agents and wounded three others in a February raid in Florida. It has not been disclosed why the FBI wants the information. The bureau sent a subpoena in April indicating it wants the IP addresses and phone numbers of people who accessed a news article about the incident between 8:03 a.m. and 8:38 a.m. on Feb. 2. The information sought by the FBI investigation was disclosed in the subpoena.

USA Todays publisher, Gannett, contested the FBI demand in federal court on May 27, calling it unconstitutional and a violation of the Department of Justices policy for subpoenaing information from the press. A government demand for records that would identify specific individuals who read specific expressive materials, like the Subpoena at issue here, invades the First Amendment rights of both publisher and reader, and must be quashed accordingly, Garnett lawyers wrote. The incident that sparked the legal battle occurre when David Lee Huber, age 55, fired on FBI agents who were serving a search warrant. He later turned the gun on himself. We intend to fight the subpoenas demand for identifying information about individuals who viewed the USA Today news report, said Maribel Perez Wadsworth, the publisher of USA Today and president of the USA Today Network in a statement. Being forced to tell the government who reads what on our websites is a clear violation of the First Amendment.



---

...what the fuck lol

Only the readers of the website's article for 35 minutes too.
---

Slayer_22 posted...

...what the fuck lol

Only the readers of the website's article for 35 minutes too.

It means they know exactly who they're looking for, and just need more proof.

---

Wait, it is illegal to read news articles now?

---

Cheater87 posted...

Wait, it is illegal to read news articles now?

No. It sounds like they think someone involved accessed the article at a specific time

---

Sounds like a 1A violation. Hope they win in court.

---

Middle hope posted...

No. It sounds like they think someone involved accessed the article at a specific time

Which is deeply unlikely to prove Jack shit.

In a 35 minute span likely many thousands read the article. In addition what exactly can you draw from that? It's absolutely absurd.

---

But what about the readers of the news story about FBI's subpoenas of the readers of a news story on slain agents?

[hears knocking on front door]

Ahhhhh, fuck.

---

Note to self: don't read news articles about child porn
---

BlueTigerLion posted...

[hears knocking on front door]

Ah.... Agent Cooper! Please come inside.

I am very curious about what in the world they could need that information to prove.

pikachupwnage posted...

Which is deeply unlikely to prove Jack shit.

In a 35 minute span likely many thousands read the article. In addition what exactly can you draw from that? It's absolutely absurd.

You sound nervous...
---

If they wanna know so bad, they should run their own news site

---

those people gonna get turned into

---

BlueTigerLion posted...

But what about the readers of the news story about FBI's subpoenas of the readers of a news story on slain agents?

[hears knocking on front door]

Ahhhhh, fuck.

FigureOfSpeech posted...

Note to self: don't read news articles about child porn

So, reading articles about a crime means you are suspect of those crimes too?

I read an article about someone getting caught with bomb-making materials. Are they going to think I'm going to become a bomber too?
Et cetera

---

Laserion posted...

So, reading articles about a crime means you are suspect of those crimes too?

I read an article about someone getting caught with bomb-making materials. Are they going to think I'm going to become a bomber too?
Et cetera

I dunno. Not my fuckin problem
---

They'll do this but not do shit about the 80 calls about a kid saying he's going to shoot up a school.

Laserion posted...

So, reading articles about a crime means you are suspect of those crimes too?

I read an article about someone getting caught with bomb-making materials. Are they going to think I'm going to become a bomber too?
Et cetera

My post was meant to be a joke about the situation. I think it is unconstitutional. And think every newspaper should be standing beside USA Today. Since people should be allowed to read any news article they want without fear the government will come after them for it.

---

I think that a lot of you are going way out there with the implications that the government is looking to somehow go after random people for reading the article.

pikachupwnage posted...

Which is deeply unlikely to prove Jack shit.

In a 35 minute span likely many thousands read the article. In addition what exactly can you draw from that? It's absolutely absurd.

They're obviously looking for someone specific so they're going to disregard everyone who's IP doesn't geolocate to the specific area they're looking in.

---

This kind of feels like overreach to me

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

This kind of feels like overreach to me

You sure?

---

The_True_King posted...

They'll do this but not do shit about the 80 calls about a kid saying he's going to shoot up a school.

They want to expand surveillance power to harass minorities, go on power trips or harass political enemies not actually protect us.


---

PepsiWithCoke posted...

It means they know exactly who they're looking for, and just need more proof.

Regardless its unconstitutional as fuck

Tyranthraxus posted...

Sounds like a 1A violation. Hope they win in court.

and a whole bunch of 4As

---

Maybe the FBI is tracking this topic.

Right now.

---

Tenlaar posted...

I think that a lot of you are going way out there with the implications that the government is looking to somehow go after random people for reading the article.

It's unlikely but that doesn't mean giving then such sweeping digital search and seizure abilities doesn't have capability for abuse.

Even relatively benign presidents law enforcement agencies have a spotty record. Imagine if Trump or Densantis was elected in 2024 the kind of abuses they would pull with any extra powers granted to federal agencies.

---

pikachupwnage posted...

It's unlikely but that doesn't mean giving then such sweeping digital search and seizure abilities doesn't have capability for abuse.

No, it doesn't, but outlandish "what ifs" are not an argument.

Looks like they know exactly who they are looking for, I say go for it.

---

VTBM posted...

Looks like they know exactly who they are looking for, I say go for it.

The subpoena should be solely for the info of the individual they are looking for then.

Even if it has an actual target its too broadly applied. It's like raiding every house on a street even though you know the address of the target.

---

Tenlaar posted...

I am very curious about what in the world they could need that information to prove.

If they have some communication from a sender with a throwaway email saying, "I just saw this story. Looks like our friend Huber got busted," that would certainly give them a reason to want this information.

---

pikachupwnage posted...

The subpoena should be solely for the info of the individual they are looking for then.

Even if it has an actual target its too broadly applied. It's like raiding every house on a street even though you know the address of the target.

Not exactly

This is more like searching everyones locker at school to root out the psycho endangering everyone else.

Lebronwon posted...

The bureau sent a subpoena in April indicating it wants the IP addresses and phone numbers of people who accessed a news article about the incident between 8:03 a.m. and 8:38 a.m. on Feb. 2.

This is specific enough to not necessitate a tinfoil hat. A plain wax paper hat will suffice.

A lot of the board seem shook

Lebronwon posted...

It has not been disclosed why the FBI wants the information.

Because people who have committed crimes typically read articles about the crime. It's part of how they got the dude behind a couple of murders in Norway in the early 2000s. Get your location data, and if it matches a suspect, you have more probable cause to execute warrants.

---

Alteres posted...

You sure?

Possibly. Maybe. Ill have to converse with my sources

---

Alucard188 posted...

Get your location data, and if it matches a suspect, you have more probable cause to execute warrants.

This.
It's the part of any given "crime procedural" show where the perky nerd girl is bouncing cellphone towers, except with actual investigation techniques and due process that doesn't suddenly get the exact result right before the commercial break.