Free speech advocates warn the subpoenas threaten long-standing protections for anonymous speech.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/60430626

The Department of Homeland Security is pushing Silicon Valley to strip anonymity from Americans who track or criticize Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency has fired off hundreds of subpoenas demanding names, email addresses, and phone numbers tied to anti-ICE social media accounts, the New York Times reported Friday.

Unlike traditional warrants, administrative subpoenas do not require approval from a judge before they are issued. Instead of seeking court authorization first, DHS can sign and send the demands directly to tech companies—a power civil liberties advocates say is now being deployed far more aggressively.

Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord received subpoenas targeting anonymous accounts that posted about ICE activity, the Times reported.

Archive report: https://archive.is/QW78b#selection-723.0-731.17

  • MynameisAllen@lemmy.zip
    32·
    6 hours ago

    Thank fuck for decentralized tech amiright? I’ve spent the past 5 years decoupling myself entirely from the top 5 tech companies, as of last month none of my devices communicate with them. My only regret is a didn’t do it sooner

    • WesternInfidels@feddit.onlineEnglish
      63·
      6 hours ago

      Is the owner of lemmy.zip going to be more likely or less likely than a billion-dollar company to go to court to challenge a bullshit administrative warrant?

        • WesternInfidels@feddit.onlineEnglish
          5·
          4 hours ago

          And your IP, which ISPs can match to some sort of access point.

          My point here is not to say that big companies are better; my point is, relying on the implementation details of software to keep fascism away from you is a losing strategy. The fascists are thinking bigger.

          • Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            4·
            4 hours ago

            You raise a good point. I keep a foreign based VPN on for that exact reason, but that’s not necessarily the standard. Ultimately, it seems like the best strategy is to put as many layers of legal abstraction between yourself and your online presence as reasonably possible.

          • MynameisAllen@lemmy.zip
            3·
            4 hours ago

            Very fair point, I do use an always on VPN. Mullvad. And I recognize that more can always be done, but one does need to start somewhere, perfect is the enemy of good and all that

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          7·
          5 hours ago

          Better yet, use an off-shore instance outside of US control with third-country VPN. The DHS could only get the IP of the foreign instance. If somehow the foreign instance cooperates and gives them your IP, that would be the VPN IP. Then the foreign VPN provider would have to cooperate for DHS to get your IP. Your ISP would probly give you up.

  • wizblizz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    6 hours ago

    Freedumbers too stupid to know this is what the first amendment is supposed to protect against.