[HN Gopher] The NYPD sent a warrantless subpoena for a copwatche...
___________________________________________________________________
The NYPD sent a warrantless subpoena for a copwatcher's Twitter
account
Author : praisewhitey
Score : 275 points
Date : 2024-03-12 17:00 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hellgatenyc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hellgatenyc.com)
| nfriedly wrote:
| > _The notification included a copy of the subpoena, which warned
| X not to tell Clancy of its existence. "You are not to disclose
| or notify any customer or third party of the existence of this
| subpoena or that records were provided pursuant to this
| subpoena," the document read._
|
| > _But X, following its own corporate policy, told Clancy anyway,
| and suggested he might want to get some legal representation to
| fight the subpoena, recommending the American Civil Liberties
| Union._
|
| That's actually the first decent thing I've heard about x since
| the rename. Good job!
|
| (I assume there won't be any penalties for this action given that
| it was warrantless in the first place.)
| kevingadd wrote:
| I can imagine some companies being afraid of pissing off the
| NYPD. If you have a presence in new york, a police department
| has lots of tools at their disposal to make your life miserable
| even if you haven't violated the law
| Scoundreller wrote:
| It only works if _all_ of the platforms you use do this.
|
| > As my lawyer put it: "Sounds like you could have a first
| amendment right to quash the subpoena". Cool, let's go.
|
| > Surprisingly, it worked! I think it cost around $7,000 but
| the subpoena was quashed
|
| > [While] Google was nice enough to let me know there was a
| subpoena for my account data but guess what? Nobody else even
| bothered to tell me. And by nobody else I mean: Paypal, eBay, 3
| domain registrars, merch makers, VPN providers, and every other
| online service I had used with that email in the last five
| years. They had all been subpoenaed and happily handed it over
| without even letting me know and it works that way even to this
| day.
|
| https://anons.ca/p/i-used-to-operate-a-dss-hacking-network/
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It only works if all of the platforms you use do this_
|
| Why?
|
| It obviously works _better_ if more people do this. But the
| single notice is still working to some degree.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Depends on your threat model & consequences. Avoiding
| doxxing means you need more bulletproofing.
|
| For OP, Twitter might have been the holy grail and they're
| now cool, but maybe not if there's $x others that have
| already rolled over.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Twitter might have been the holy grail and they're now
| cool, but maybe not if there's $x others that have
| already rolled over._
|
| This is totally different from "it only works if all of
| the platforms you use do this." That's a collective
| action problem. One which does not present itself in this
| case, where marginal actions produce marginal benefits.
|
| What you're now saying is the marginal actions (and thus
| benefits) may be bounded. Which, sure. But that _also_
| doesn 't change if all the platforms "do this," but
| boundedly.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| No, it doesn't take coordinated effort.
|
| If one company stands up and says "no" and then discloses to
| the subject, it both raises the risk of exposure on other
| government entities considering the same and increases the
| likelihood of another company opposing it next time.
|
| Both are wins to build upon.
| mc32 wrote:
| I'm very happy to hear X did the right thing by its users and
| by the law. One can only hope we have more Orgs like and Qwest
| (the latter one was taken down but the d gov in retribution).
|
| Congress needs to let the patriot act lapse. We're not in an
| emergency anymore, despite the rhetoric -it's been over 20
| years!
| autoexec wrote:
| I agree. I assume that twitter doesn't do that for every
| subpoena they get. For some situations notifying a user that
| they are under investigation by police would be disastrous.
| That means they're likely carefully evaluating the legal
| requests they get instead of leaving the process largely
| automated or rubber stamping everything that comes though. The
| willingness to accept possible repercussions by informing users
| in some cases is really admirable.
| pfdietz wrote:
| If he wanted, he could continue to press this in court, even
| after its was withdrawn. There is precedent in at least some
| jurisdictions for this: otherwise, bad actors could keep avoiding
| judicial scrutiny just like the NYPD is doing here.
| busterarm wrote:
| Lawyers don't do this though because the best thing to do for
| their client is get the NYPD to withdraw, not fight a lengthy
| and expensive legal battle over the NYPD's subpoena power.
|
| The NYPD would legally fight to retain this power to the bitter
| end.
| bena wrote:
| Not to mention lawyers have to work with the police fairly
| regularly. They see fostering an adversarial relationship as
| bad for them.
|
| So while the police may have broken the law, caused damages,
| etc, and whatever, other police aren't going to pursue it and
| neither will most district attorneys.
| acdha wrote:
| There's also a significant personal risk. The NYPD has been
| very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone
| fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the
| city if they didn't want 100% enforcement targeting them
| personally.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-
| blower-p...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers
| before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it
| necessary to leave the city_
|
| That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. It's
| obviously criminal. But the NYPD is sued all the time,
| and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting
| vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their
| attorneys.
| acdha wrote:
| I agree that it's unlikely but going after their subpoena
| ability seems like the kind of thing which would be taken
| personally.
| callalex wrote:
| > That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops.
|
| Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow
| justifies the gang behavior?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this
| somehow justifies the gang behavior?_
|
| Explaining, not justifying. Gang-like organisations react
| more forcefully to perceived betrayal (one up from
| competition) than bog-standard adversarialism.
| 6510 wrote:
| Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far
| proving it doesn't?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Explaining why something happens doesn 't go very far
| proving it doesn't?_
|
| Not sure what you're getting at. I'm asking for evidence
| of someone suing the NYPD in the manner this journalist
| might be harassed in the manner a cop collecting evidence
| on other cops was.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _neither will most district attorneys_
|
| Why would a DA pursue it? Is there an allegation of a crime
| by the NYPD?
|
| This looks like a civil matter. The NYPD is sued for--and
| pays out on--civil damages all the time.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Lawyers don 't do this though because the best thing to do
| for their client is get the NYPD to withdraw_
|
| This is where groups like the ACLU come in.
| busterarm wrote:
| The ACLU on their own doesn't have standing. They still
| have to best represent their client.
|
| Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute
| wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be
| disbarred.
|
| The ACLU would only have the opportunity if this kind of
| subpoena was used on the ACLU itself.
| NewJazz wrote:
| _Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute
| wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should
| be disbarred._
|
| Even if the client asks for that?
| busterarm wrote:
| Are you even thinking about the risks if he loses the
| case?
|
| He'd be giving up his sources and even opening himself up
| to the risk of them investigating him and charging him
| with other crimes.
|
| Any intelligent attorney would advise their client
| against it.
|
| Once you go to court anything can happen and either way
| it's prohibitively expensive.
|
| People in my own family have done nothing wrong and lost
| everything they owned fighting in civil court over
| smaller stakes than this. Going to civil court is the
| absolute last resort. Nobody wins but the attorneys.
|
| Going to court is only worth it in criminal cases and
| insurance/liability cases.
|
| /s used to work at one of the largest lawfirms in the US.
| fwip wrote:
| What a lawyer would "advise against" and what they
| "should be disbarred for doing" is not nearly the same
| thing.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Doing this on behalf of the client would be the
| absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that
| should be disbarred_
|
| This is a novel take. Were this me, I'd require my lawyer
| pursue the NYPD for the cost of the original legal fees.
| They would not refuse.
| busterarm wrote:
| See my response to NewJazz.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _See my response to NewJazz_
|
| Sure, and I'd expect them to explain that to me. But to
| outright refuse--I would have a serious issue with that.
|
| EDIT: Just asked. Friend, my counsel and partner at a Big
| Law firm. He'd absolutely do it.
| busterarm wrote:
| Refusing is easy. As about two dozen attorneys have told
| my family members in their case after taking tens to
| hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money:
|
| "I can no longer represent you in this case."
|
| As for your friend, I'm not even sure I care unless this
| lands squarely in his practice area. Once it gets to
| court NYPD's lawyers could just say some handwavey
| "homeland security" shit and your judge might just piss
| their robes and rule against you.
|
| In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement
| outside of court.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Refusing is easy_
|
| Nobody claimed otherwise.
|
| > _not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his
| practice area_
|
| He asked a litigation partner who represented me the one
| time Nassau County police got cute with me. In that case,
| we weighed being aggressive after the department pulled
| its accusations and I decided not to pursue given my
| financial condition. Were that to happen today, I'd
| decide differently.
|
| > _your judge might just piss their robes and rule
| against you_
|
| Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money and possibly
| more.
|
| > _In civil matters it 's always better to seek agreement
| outside of court_
|
| Constrained to the case or controversy, sure. But that
| isn't always the entire picture. Seeing that context is
| what separates the great lawyers from the commodity ones.
| busterarm wrote:
| > Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money.
|
| No, you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up
| against the wall because you leaked their information by
| losing your subpoena fight.
|
| THAT is why this wouldn't be pursued in court.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you 'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up
| against the wall because you leaked their information by
| losing your subpoena fight_
|
| Why is that my problem?
| everforward wrote:
| > Doing this on behalf of the client would be the
| absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that
| should be disbarred.
|
| This is not true. Check out the American Bar Association
| Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (https://www.americanba
| r.org/groups/professional_responsibili...).
|
| Broadly speaking, lawyers are bound to the client's
| wishes, and are expected to represent their client the
| best they can under those circumstances.
|
| If a lawyer's client wants to sue the NYPD, even if the
| chances of winning are slim, they can represent that
| client (barring some niche scenarios).
|
| This is how the ACLU typically works. They find someone
| with standing who cares enough to bother with following
| the lawsuit through and they represent that person.
| busterarm wrote:
| I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that they
| shouldn't.
|
| The client isn't the only person with things to lose
| here, it's their sources who are at risk if he loses the
| case.
|
| The client wouldn't pursue it for journalistic ethics
| reasons.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not saying that they wouldn 't. I'm saying that they
| shouldn't._
|
| You said it would be grounds for disbarment.
| busterarm wrote:
| Yes if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney
| that is my opinion of what should happen.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney
| that is my opinion of what should happen_
|
| This isn't how disbarment works. Given we're in an
| adversarial system, I'm glad it doesn't. (Could you
| imagine a lawyer refusing to advance litigation against a
| city because it would harm the city's taxpayers?!)
| busterarm wrote:
| > (Could you imagine a lawyer refusing to advance
| litigation against a city because it would harm the
| city's taxpayers?!)
|
| Your client doesn't have a responsibility to protect the
| city's taxpayers.
|
| This client does have a responsibility to protect their
| sources.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _This client does have a responsibility to protect
| their sources_
|
| An ethical responsibility. Not a legal one. Not the
| lawyer's job, and certainly not the legal bar's. That's
| not only presumptuous, it's unprofessional and
| potentially dangerous.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Is that the only way the ACLU works? Can't they offer to
| cover the expense of the person with standing by either
| using their attorneys or footing the bill for the team
| already in place?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Can 't they offer to cover the expense of the person
| with standing by either using their attorneys or footing
| the bill for the team already in place?_
|
| This is how they actually work.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Provided you're fighting for the liberties they care
| about.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Provided you 're fighting for the liberties they care
| about_
|
| Sure. The point is the ACLU doesn't wait to get sued
| itself. That would be stupid. It finds test cases and
| supports them with external resources.
| pfdietz wrote:
| This is a judgment call. The courts could respect the idea
| that this is a sword hanging over the plaintiff, even if this
| specific case becomes moot. This has happened elsewhere in
| first amendment cases. In no way is this something that would
| merit disbarment.
| xbar wrote:
| I am baffled by the fact that NYPD can avoid the determination of
| legality by withdrawing subpoenas.
|
| It seems like it would be in X/Meta/Alphabet's interest to get
| the question in front of a judge in order to require warranted
| subpoenas.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| If I were to send an illegal demand to someone (like say a
| threat of blackmail / extortion), can I simply "withdraw" the
| demand once it reaches court? Absolutely ridiculous.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _can I simply "withdraw" the demand once it reaches court?_
|
| For the _per se_ dispute, absolutely. That 's what you went
| to court to get.
|
| If your demand caused damages, that's a separate controversy
| that isn't cured by withdrawal.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Judge: How do you plead?
|
| Defendant: J/K!!!! lulz!!!!!
|
| Judge: case dismissed! <bang>
|
| It probably depends on how wealthy the defendant is (if an
| individual), or the size of the the org defendant represents.
| If you're a LEO type of org, then I'm honestly shocked the
| judge didn't just dismiss with prejudice from the off
| throwanem wrote:
| Why in their interest?
| bediger4000 wrote:
| To determine once and for all how to act when receiving this
| kind of subpoena, or to get police departments to stop
| sending them, whichever is cheapest.
| cosmojg wrote:
| Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money. Given
| that we're talking about fairly rational megacorporations,
| though, it's likely they've already decided that the legal
| battle would cost more.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money.
|
| Takes me two seconds to throw out the junk mail in my
| mailbox. Sometimes I save it as firestarter.
|
| How is a "warrantless subpoena" any different? (Maybe it
| is, actually asking here).
| cosmojg wrote:
| How would you know it's warrantless without further time
| investment? It's likely cheaper and safer to blindly
| process any subpoena originating from an authoritative
| source than to request and validate proof of warrant. Of
| course, it would be even cheaper to never receive such a
| subpoena in the first place. Securing a ruling against
| their legality would help with that, but as I said, it's
| unlikely the ends justify the means for a rational
| megacorporation.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I'm _guessing_ there's some obvious telltale that there's
| a warrant (signed /stamped by judge, possibly on court
| letterhead instead of police letterhead).
|
| Also possible to separate the streams of input. Maybe
| can't force it, but having a "warrants" stream that gets
| priority triage and another for "other" that works a lot
| slower because it's mostly garbage. Can create a shit
| list for those that abuse the "warrants" stream.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Doesn't sound very safe to shitlist NYPD.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Which seems to be what NYPD are attempting to leverage.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| If you received an illegal subpoena from the government
| you wouldn't have any costs associated with it at all?
| Just throw it in the trash, move on with your day, and
| surely you will never have to think about it again?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| At least where I work, if a random user bypasses the
| helpdesk with an informal request, my manager will back
| me up if they complain about no-response because there's
| a formal method to follow for a reason.
|
| It's not an "illegal" subpoena, police can try and ask
| whatever they want, but I'm assuming there's no penalties
| for ignoring.
|
| But I asked a question, maybe there are exceptions and
| you must respond anyway despite lack of warrant.
|
| While there could be reasons considered valid to respond
| to an informal request (some urgent life/safety matter),
| the police can and do lie, but are less likely to do so
| to a judge.
|
| Lived in a building once where management agreed to
| police installed warrantless spycams in some hallways and
| told management it was to investigate a car theft ring,
| but it was some guy (edit:) storing drugs and keeping to
| themself.
|
| Sadly, I don't think there's any kind of post-review of
| urgent informal requests to assess validity/accuracy of
| the request with consequences.
| fwip wrote:
| When the subpoena comes from the government, it seems
| potentially short-sighted to assume that the same
| government is going to be as kind as your manager
| regarding a random user's complaint.
|
| Also, like the article explains, it is possibly illegal
| for them to send this warrantless subpoenas. Further,
| they are not simply "asking," as you describe - the text
| of the subpoena starts off "We command you," and ends
| with the explicit threat of legal action if twitter fails
| to comply.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Its not illegal to ask for voluntary cooperation. Its
| illegal to issue a subpoena under color of authority you
| don't actually have. It clearly stated this happened.
| yaur wrote:
| They cover the costs of complying although likely wouldn't
| cover the costs of determining that a request was
| warrantless and rejecting it, so the incentives align with
| just blindly complying with everything.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money.
|
| You can actually bill police departments for that. It's not
| as common when it comes to basic records, but it's not
| uncommon when it comes to wiretaps/trap and trace.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| It's possible for a document to be submitted in error, in
| actual good faith. Not to say it was in this case, nor that we
| don't need more accountability for abuse, but there could be
| legitimate reason to skip this judgement if it's withdrawn
| appropriately. Especially when it's done by an organization
| without this history of abuse.
| avs733 wrote:
| Because courts use mootness to allow law enforcement to escape
| criticism all the time.
| throw0101d wrote:
| The NYPD actually has 'international offices':
|
| * https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nypd-stationed-oversea...
|
| * https://archive.is/ZOYiw /
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/terrorism-nypd-i...
| eli wrote:
| NYPD has more resources than most countries' militaries
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _NYPD has more resources than most countries ' militaries_
|
| It has a more complicated remit than most countries'
| militaries. (For example, the NYPD functions as the UN's
| ersatz security force.)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Get rid of the UN and the statement would likely still be
| true.
|
| Their budget is roughly equivalent to 2020 Ukraine's.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Get rid of the UN and the statement would likely still
| be true_
|
| Get rid of the UN and the NYPD can be smaller.
|
| And it's not just the UN. New York is a second diplomatic
| capital. So you're also replicating D.C.'s consular
| security force. This is before we get to it being a
| financial and cultural centre, to say nothing of the
| largest city in America and a precedented target of
| international terrorism.
|
| > _budget is roughly equivalent to 2020 Ukraine 's_
|
| New York City's economy is double the size of Ukraine's
| pre-war economy [1][2]. Were it a country, it would sit
| between Turkey and Indonesia, eclipsing even the economy
| of Saudi Arabia [3].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_Cit
| y#Gross...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine#Main
| _econom...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GD
| P_(nomi...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The fact remains that single cities in the US - NY is
| hardly the only example - have budgets, manpower, and
| weaponry that exceed much of the world's nation states.
|
| Chicago and LA are roughly #60 on the list of the world's
| militaries.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _fact remains that single cities in the US - NY is
| hardly the only example - have budgets, manpower, and
| weaponry that exceed much of the world 's nation states_
|
| And I'm contextualising it. Given its population and
| economy, the NYPD _should_ have the resources of
| similarly-sized nation-states.
|
| > _we 're the third highest in percent of GDP spent on
| cops_
|
| America is definitely over-policed. I'm not sure New York
| is.
| ska wrote:
| > I'm not sure New York is.
|
| By $ it seems almost certainly; by capability perhaps
| not.
| Arrath wrote:
| > Given its population and economy, the NYPD _should_
| have the resources of similarly-sized nation-states.
|
| I just can't say I agree with this statement. NYC itself
| being part of an even bigger nation-state should mean
| that a number of the responsibilities that fall under the
| purview of your example similarly sized nation-states
| militaries/establishments are likewise handled by NYC's
| parent state, allowing for efficiencies that free up
| resources better spent on other programs. On its face the
| duplication of effort on several levels seems wasteful.
|
| E: So my thesis is that I agree that _NYC_ should have
| the resources of similarly-sized nation-states, however
| they could be better apportioned.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I agree. I also can't see a New York politician
| dismantling that infrastructure, given the downsides that
| would result were a plot to get through. (Irrespective of
| whether the NYPD's international offices would have
| helped.)
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| why are you comparing NYC police force to Ukraine
| military rather than Ukraine police force? The fact that
| anyone sees the roles as comparable is a lot of the
| problem.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _why are you comparing NYC police force to Ukraine
| military rather than Ukraine police force?_
|
| I never cited either figure? I'm comparing the sizes of
| GDPs.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| I'm not disagreeing with how ridiculous it is, but when
| you have their commissioners making statements confirming
| that they can shoot down aircraft, we've moved past the
| normal definition of a police force:
| https://nationalpost.com/news/nypd-able-to-shoot-down-
| planes...
| pas wrote:
| Cops over-bully people but the actual policing is
| severely lacking. There's a problem with funding and
| allocation of said funds. So that apparent over-
| policedness is a result of under-policying. :/
| Terr_ wrote:
| Assuming that's true for the sake of argument, it shouldn't
| be _that_ surprising given that NYC is more-populous than the
| long tail of "most" countries as well. Having 8.5 million
| people puts it near Austria, Switzerland, Hong Kong [0], or
| Serbia.
|
| [0] Yeah yeah, "one country two systems", whatever, it's
| still a relevant comparison.
| humansareok1 wrote:
| NYC has a higher GDP than most countries. So what?
| mikrl wrote:
| I'm not sure how I feel about the logistics of this.
|
| On the one hand, municipality to municipality (Antwerp to NYC)
| makes sense since both will have similar challenges in law
| enforcement activities.
|
| On the other hand, this seems to be a channel that bypasses the
| Feds, who are ultimately the ones with the National Security
| purview, and most/all foreign threats to NYC will pass through
| the Feds jurisdiction (border control, customs, coast guard
| etc)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _most /all foreign threats to NYC will pass through the
| Feds jurisdiction (border control, customs, coast guard etc)_
|
| After 9/11, it seems fair for New York to want to take anti-
| terrorism into its own hands, even if that duplicates certain
| federal functions. (I'm not arguing it's effective. Just that
| it makes sense for the city to not entirely trust the Feds.)
| r00fus wrote:
| Does it? Why does the NYPD have an office in Tel Aviv for
| example?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why does the NYPD have an office in Tel Aviv for
| example?_
|
| Presumably to coordinate intelligence? (I'm guesing.)
|
| If you don't trust the Feds, your options are to partner
| or duplicate that capability in house. Partnering seems
| the cheaper option.
| text0404 wrote:
| foreign intelligence is outside the purview of a domestic
| municipal police department. the US does not allow
| foreign municipalities to install police departments on
| US soil.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _foreign intelligence is outside the purview of a
| domestic municipal police department_
|
| Demonstrably, not the NYPD's.
|
| > _US does not allow foreign municipalities to install
| police departments on US soil_
|
| Sure. But those foreign countries allowed them. And
| again, nobody is granting the NYPD extraterritorial
| policing powers. They're there to collaborate on
| intelligence.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| >> foreign intelligence is outside the purview of a
| domestic municipal police department
|
| > Demonstrably, not the NYPD's.
|
| Is it demonstrable? Allow me to skeptical until New
| York's Finest crack a case that the NSA, CIA, and FBI
| can't handle.
|
| This looks like a cushy assignment for some people with
| union pull.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Is it demonstrable? Allow me to skeptical until New
| York 's Finest crack a case that the NSA, CIA, and FBI
| can't handle._
|
| It's demonstrable that foreign intelligence is within the
| NYPD's purview given they're doing it. No claims were
| made about efficacy.
|
| Also, I don't think the NYPD aims to crack cases the Feds
| _can 't_. It's more about directing resources towards
| areas they believe the Fed's aren't monitoring
| effectively or won't commit the resources they believe it
| deserves. If something were picked up, the NYPD would
| loop in the Feds.
| r00fus wrote:
| Exactly what coordination of intelligence is required? To
| me this would be like my local utility needing to have an
| anti-nuclear proliferation Taskforce with another utility
| from a different country...
| thejazzman wrote:
| They don't?!
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They can freely engage in 4A breaches outside US soil.
| The Israeli panopticon is for sale to interested parties.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I guess the real question that is not openly posed is
| whether NYPD has mandate do that before we even get to
| the part as to whether it is cost-effective, warranted or
| even desirable. Sheriff of my podunk lil town doesn't run
| work with Italy's podunk town mayor for example.
| xrd wrote:
| They have a subway system in Tel Aviv. I'm sure they will
| be happy to have NYPD patrolling it, keeping it safe. /s
|
| You see things like this and wonder how that money
| escapes scrutiny when everything else is debated
| endlessly.
| zwirbl wrote:
| That doesn't really make sense, will the NYPD start
| patrolling airports in Europe and flights to the US?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _will the NYPD start patrolling airports in Europe and
| flights to the US?_
|
| To my knowledge, the NYPD doesn't patrol outside its
| borders. The international offices are for coordinating
| intelligence.
| mikrl wrote:
| I was surprised to see US border control at Toronto
| Pearson but I suppose it makes sense to screen passengers
| on this side given the proximity of Toronto to a US
| workforce, and it would alleviate US airports to receive
| Canadian traffic as a pseudo-domestic arrival (I assume
| this is what happened when I flew YYZ->DFW)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They do this in a number of other places that have lots
| of flights to the US.
|
| https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance
|
| > Today, CBP has more than 600 officers and agriculture
| specialists stationed at 15 Preclearance locations in 6
| countries: Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Bermuda;
| Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates; Nassau in the
| Bahamas; and Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax,
| Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Victoria, and Winnipeg in
| Canada.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Not just the US. UK passport control going from France to
| England by ferry is on the French side of the channel.
| andylynch wrote:
| And vice versa.
|
| The French Border Police are quite different in attitude
| to the UK Border Force.
| ska wrote:
| It's not just Canada, there are several countries in this
| program: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance
| bobthepanda wrote:
| the other reason is that if canadian traffic can come
| into the US as domestic pre-cleared, then travelers are
| free to transfer within the US much more easily. this
| makes things much easier for places that do not have
| direct connections to Canadian airports.
|
| (in the US, even if transiting to another country you are
| required to clear US customs.)
| bombcar wrote:
| It allows Canadian flights to go to (US) domestic
| airports, including those without active customs.
| ben_w wrote:
| I keep hearing (from abroad) about the "militarisation of
| the police" in the US. Unless the NYPD took this as far as
| SAM batteries, what could they _do_ against another 9 /11,
| given the original four planes didn't take off from NY
| state let alone city?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _unless the NYPD took this as far as SAM batteries,
| what could they do against another 9 /11_
|
| Notify the Feds.
|
| (Though I guess we _can_ shoot down planes now? [1])
|
| [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/nypd-able-to-shoot-
| down-planes...
| vkou wrote:
| The only thing anyone can do against another 9/11 is what
| we've already done. Reinforced cockpit doors.
|
| All the rest is just bullshit and security theater (Which
| NYC is exceedingly good at.)
| simpletone wrote:
| > The NYPD actually has 'international offices':
|
| I wonder whether the media is going to write hysterical
| propaganda pieces about this, like they did with chinese
| 'international offices'.
|
| With the media, it's always accuse others of what you are
| doing.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Not sure what you consider "hysterical propaganda", but this
| is a thing that has been widely, and critically, covered in
| the media for decades.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Isn't a Chinese international office called a consulate? Why
| would it come across as strange that they would have them?
| michaelmrose wrote:
| They are accused and indeed 2 charged with running
| essentially outposts for the ccp gestapo to spy on citizens
| and former citizens living abroad and critics.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-are-chinas-
| allege...
|
| Its not hysteria at all.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _like they did with chinese 'international offices'_
|
| The NYPD's international offices do not have policing powers.
| They can't arrest people. They can't search or seize
| suspects. They're there with the full knowledge and
| cooperation of their hosts.
|
| The Chinese police departments were exercising police powers
| on foreign soil without the host countries' permission. Night
| and day.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Why do you write 'cooperation' with an umlaut?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| In English words it's a diaeresis.
| iamawacko wrote:
| Probably a diaeresis, a diacritic which indicates that
| two vowels aren't to be read as a digraph or diphthong.
| It's fancy and pretentious, and frequently seen in New
| Yorker articles.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| I went through a phase of this because it made sense and
| I didn't realize that it wasn't standard English.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why do you write 'cooperation' with an umlaut?_
|
| I grew up speaking French, English and a variant of
| German and have trouble not reading the double-o as a
| long vowel. After that autocorrect picked up on it and it
| doesn't bother me enough to change it.
| simpletone wrote:
| > The Chinese police departments were exercising police
| powers on foreign soil without the host countries'
| permission.
|
| I highly doubt that. I'm told that the 'ccp' controls
| biden, democrats, etc. So why would they need their police
| to do anything here?
|
| Also, as a foreigner, why do you post so much propaganda
| here? Even more than that, why do you comment as if you are
| an expert on american, chinese, nyc, etc affairs? You've
| written more than a dozen comments just on this thread.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Of course they do. They're the military for the country of New
| York City. There's also an intelligence bureau with overseas
| offices too. They regularly conduct undercover buys at gun
| shops in foreign nations like Ohio and Virginia. Personally I
| hope that they'll sign peace treaties with these other places
| someday. Too much hate in the world.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > They're the military for the country of New York City.
|
| no, there is a lot of law and history to make those laws..
| that specifically and in great detail, separate the roles,
| responsibilities, oversight, legal powers and funding, for
| obvious reasons.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| The NYPD's budget in FY 2024 is 5.3 *BILLION* dollars[0]
|
| This is more than total military expenditure of Romania.[1]
|
| A $115 million of this 5.3 billion was used to settle lawsuits
| last year.[2]
|
| [0] https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/54/2...
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/nyregion/nypd-police-
| misc...
| woodruffw wrote:
| The NYPD's budget is also a significant underestimate, since
| the NYPD typically blows through hundreds of millions of
| dollars of additional overtime funding each year[1]. It would
| be accurate to say that the NYPD's budget is _both_ gigantic
| _and_ under-accounted.
|
| [1]: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nypd-overspending-
| on-ov...
| none_to_remain wrote:
| Why would a subpoena have a warrant?
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| It doesn't need a warrant, but a subpoena is just to compel
| Twitter/X to release the information, while a warrant would
| legally require Twitter/X to release the information.
|
| The issue is that the subpoena told Twitter/X not to inform the
| accountholder that their information was going to be given to
| the NYPD, nor inform the accountholder of the subpoena's
| existence. While that's enforceable with a warrant, it is not
| enforceable with a subpoena.
|
| This shows how NYPD is attempting to compel companies to
| provide them with personal information of users, and keep it
| secret from the users, all without needing a judge's approval
| or warrant. That is not the proper channel to do this, and they
| know they have no legal leg to stand on which is why they
| aren't going to try to fight it's legitimacy in court.
| none_to_remain wrote:
| My understanding as a non-practitioner is that subpoenas are
| addressed to a person (individual or corporate) compelling
| them to produce evidence or testimony, while a warrant is
| addressed to police, giving them the power to effect a
| specific search, seizure, or arrest.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| Per Federal Law (Stored Communications Act), authorities
| that want to access electronic records need a court-issued
| warrant. This failed to meet that requirement.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| Yes, but if presented with a warrant for your property (ex.
| subscriber information) you must comply or be charged with
| obstructing justice or impeding an investigation.
|
| When presented with an administrative subpoena not backed
| by a warrant you may be able to deny the subpoena without
| being guilty of such crimes.
| WhiskeyChicken wrote:
| Subpoenas are never "backed by a warrant." Probably what
| you mean is a subpoena signed by a judge, rather than the
| self-issued "administrative" subpoena being discussed
| here.
| grey413 wrote:
| The fourth amendment requires them for search and seizures.
| none_to_remain wrote:
| Can you provide any example of a "warranted subpoena"?
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| All court orders are warrants. That is the most basic
| definition of a warrant. So a subpoena issued by the court
| is warranted. A subpoena not issued by a court but
| accompanied by a separate warrant for the same information
| constitutes a warranted search or seizure where failure to
| comply with said search/seizure by the warranted party (ie.
| law enforcement) could constitute multiple crimes depending
| on the circumstances.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _fourth amendment requires them for search and seizures_
|
| The third-party doctrine muddies this under current law.
| gowld wrote:
| This is what confuses me. NYPD subpoenaed Twitter. Twitter
| said "no".
|
| I don't understand why Rabbi Copwatch would be involved in
| fighting the subpoena.
|
| Rabbi Copwatch should sue NYPD for infringing his civil
| rights by spying on him.
|
| He has nothing to defend against. Under current law, if he
| doesn't want NYPD siezing papers and effects _about_ him
| from Twitter, that is not _his_ papers and effects, he
| needs to stop giving copies of data about himself to
| Twitter. I don 't like that law, but I think that's where
| the law sits today.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| My understanding is that the customer of a service (like
| Twitter or an ISP) can sometimes file a motion to quash a
| subpoena given to their service provider. It depends on
| the jurisdiction and the nature of the case, however.
| advisedwang wrote:
| The article does a bad job explaining why this subpoena is
| different from a regular subpoena. The "warrentless subpoena"
| bit is really misleading.
|
| However it does look like this is different from the normal
| subpoena process. This doesn't seem to be part of discovery -
| there is no action. The referenced "Section 14-137 of the New
| York City Administrative Code" seems to basically grant the
| NYPD commissioner powers a judge usually has. So there is
| something to worry about.
| qingcharles wrote:
| There are two types of subpoenas in use: 1) police-issued
| ("administrative"); 2) court-issued ("warranted").
|
| Having been the victim of these on many occasions, I can also
| see the original article seems to have things slightly twisted.
| The SCA gives the power to any governmental body to subpoena
| _metadata_ from providers under an administrative subpoena
| without notice to the user. 18 U.S. Code SS 2703(c)(2) I think.
|
| It's the _content_ of records that starts to get into
| constitutional areas such as 4th Amend. requirements.
| bananapub wrote:
| it really is funny how much abuse by the government people in the
| US will tolerate if it's by cops and not the tax office or trying
| to make the health insurance market slightly less insane.
|
| why is that? is it like australia, where everyone is just deep
| down a narc?
| chasd00 wrote:
| for most people the day to day interaction with police is
| positive. For example, i know the names of the police that
| patrol my neighborhood and we wave/chit chat whenever i'm out
| walking my dogs and they drive by. The only interaction i have
| with the tax office is a form I have to fill out and a check I
| have to write. Further, it seems no matter how much money i
| hand over the quality of social service remains the same. My
| local public schools are funded in a large part by my property
| tax, it has skyrocketed but the schools are the same disaster
| they've always been.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Lobbying and marketing.
|
| Police make money and provide services for profitable
| corporations.
|
| Taxes cost profitable corporations money, except when they're
| really annoying to deal with, in which case they give money to
| a small group of corporations.
|
| So taxes are designed to be as irritating and painful as
| possible, and are continually attacked, whereas police are
| defended.
| vkou wrote:
| > why is that?
|
| Because the same group of people that hate the tax office and a
| working healthcare system also have a deep pathological fear of
| the underclasses rising up. And the only thing that will
| protect them from this is a gang of uniformed thugs.
|
| That group also holds ~half the political power in the country.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _a deep pathological fear of the underclasses rising up_
|
| At least in New York, support for the police _diminishes_
| with income. Manhattan is the anti-police borough. The
| richest neighbourhoods within it elect the most anti-police
| politicians (with few exceptions).
| sitkack wrote:
| > Mallory McGee, an attorney with the NYPD Legal Bureau, using
| another email attached to the drug task force.
|
| This action puts Mallory at risk of getting disbarred. Submitting
| illegal subpoena's under the color of authority is fraudulent and
| a disbarrable offense.
|
| Multiple people at the NYPD broke the law and should face
| criminal action.
| 93po wrote:
| NYPD is famously full of criminals who abuse their position and
| it seems unlikely to change any time soon
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _NYPD is famously full of criminals_
|
| There are ways to hold lawyers accountable that sadly don't
| exist for cops.
| seanw444 wrote:
| The people that exert force over us to enforce
| restrictions, often to the extent that it infringes on
| civil rights (and sometimes to the extent that it ruins the
| subject's life), qualify for immunity from responsibility
| for their actions! And their friends refuse to step in when
| doing so is clearly the moral choice.
|
| Hey, wait... this sounds a lot like a gang. How did the
| rebel nation get so "cucked"?
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| At this point the only option to hold police accountable is
| at the ballot box. The voters need to vote for politicians
| who will change the system. Or not, if we're getting what
| we want.
|
| This is similar to a shareholder action for a public
| company that is being run poorly (however you define that),
| but where the board is also complicit. No choice except to
| vote for new board members. If you want, and care enough,
| and can get enough others to care enough also.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| But voters have to stick with said politician while they
| rebuild the security force.
|
| If a politician, who is technically the boss, starts to
| clean house of the unified and armed tribe supposedly
| meant to work for the people of the city, the tribe will
| usually make quality of life for everyone go down, if not
| just from the myriad legal challenges, but also from work
| slowdowns and stoppage.
|
| So then the question is will voters stand by the
| politician while crime goes up and unsolved for the 10+
| years it takes to rebuild a more accountable police force
| (which isn't a guarantee either).
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Also don't forget at least 40% of the board, employees,
| and other shareholders are ADAMANT that the internal
| armed tribe which is actively harming everyone in
| retribution are actually the good things, call them a
| tiny cyan boundary, keeping the world from anarchy.
|
| Speaking of crimes, I've murdered this analogy
| araes wrote:
| NYPD? All the way up. Last I heard, Adams appointed an NYPD
| Chief being investigated by the FBI for $300,000 of
| unexplained cash in his bank account as the public safety
| officer. [1]
|
| And there's only been a straw donor scheme with multiple
| guilty pleas, a fundraiser with $150,000 in unexplained
| gifts, and illegally accepted donations from Turkish citizens
| resulting in FBI seizure of electronic devices. [2] This all
| feels like it's gonna get a Clarence Thomas response.
|
| [1] https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/mayor-eric-adams-hires-ex-
| nypd...
|
| [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/13/investigations-
| eric...
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| He's making sure the public is safe from misspent funds by
| keeping the funds in his personal bank account. Nothing to
| see here.
| abvdasker wrote:
| Anecdotally most vice in New York City is now more or less
| run through the police or involves some form of NYPD
| protection racket. Every couple years a large prostitution or
| drug ring gets broken up and it's always current and former
| officers running them. Barely makes the headlines. I know
| people here who have bought drugs from police officers.
| hamoodhabibi wrote:
| There was an NYPD officer who was an active tong member in
| NY....
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'll take the other side of the bet if any will offer. This guy
| won't be disbarred. Will play on manifold markets or with real
| money here in SF. Up to maybe $1k. They are not at any risk.
| skrebbel wrote:
| Cynical nihilism may be a good prediction market bet but it
| doesn't make a very interesting HN comment.
| panarky wrote:
| Interestingness may be in the eye of the beholder, but it's
| neither cynical nor nihilist to observe what usually
| happens in situations like this and to make predictions
| about the future based on observations of the past.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Accurate is more important than interesting
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's not cynical nihilism. There's a lot of things I
| believe in. Just not this.
|
| Many people get this kind of dopamine hit from saying that
| something is going to happen (similar to the one from
| telling people you're going to do something). "Twitter is
| going to fail in 2 weeks" / "Trump will be impeached next
| month" / "Hunter Biden is going to be jailed". It's
| traumschadenfreude.
|
| Wishcasting is a kind of interesting, yes, but I think
| truth seeking is more interesting.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Mallory McGee is a woman.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Thank you. Correction appreciated. Updated.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Unaddressed is why nothing is done, by the target of the
| subpeona, the NYCLU, the court, the city, or someone else, about
| this practice and about the apparent investigation into critics.
|
| They all seem to treat it as a one-off event, when it doesn't
| seem to be. I can guess at the difficulties involved, but the
| question isn't raised and the issues aren't examined.
| praisewhitey wrote:
| Also unaddressed is what the NYPD intended to do with all that
| information.
| exogeny wrote:
| I've lived in NYC for almost 15 years. I've never seen a more
| corrupt and shiftless organization than the NYPD. It's almost
| comical. I grew up in a small, Midwestern town and was never
| anti-cop until moving here, and it got immeasurably and
| irreparably worse during the George Floyd protests. Every single
| time anything ever got accelerated or instigated, it was by the
| police and not by a single protestor. Between the kettling, the
| instigation, and disrespect it became clear that they're a
| glorified gang that has operates with almost complete impunity
| and it shocks me that anyone in the city respects them or
| considers them a friend to the common good.
|
| The most common run-in I have with them is standing at a
| crosswalk or sitting in an Uber and watching them put on the
| sirens and move everyone out of the way just so they don't have
| to sit in traffic. I'd estimate seeing this happen, oh, I don't
| know, about a thousand times while simultaneously I have never
| once seen them pull anyone over for any kind of traffic or moving
| violation.
| whiddershins wrote:
| I've lived in NYC much longer than that and the NYPD during the
| past 15 years has, whenever I've observed them, which is many
| times, been very professional.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I am pleased how X/Twitter responded to this request.
|
| X/Twitter notified the person, sent a copy of the the subpoena,
| suggested legal representation, provided recommendations, and
| defied the NYPD order of silence.
| jjjjj55555 wrote:
| They also could have done the complete opposite. Imagine your
| life being in the hands of Twitter.
| fuzztester wrote:
| Not only that, they already have.
|
| They reinstated some well-known people high-profile who had
| been banned for good reasons ...
|
| No need to imagine reality.
| woodruffw wrote:
| The NYPD is well known for taking attempts at oversight
| personally[1][2], overstepping both regulatory and legal limits
| in the process.
|
| [1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/29/cop-left-creepy-
| voice...
|
| [2]: https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-officer-poses-
| as-311-operato...
| l3mure wrote:
| They hate citizens, they hate internal reformers [1]/[2], they
| hate their own families [3], and it's true of every single
| police department in the country.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Serpico
|
| [3] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/07/what-if-
| your-a...
| jeffbee wrote:
| "warrantless subpoena" is a nonsense phrase.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-12 23:00 UTC)