451
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The special counsel investigation into Donald Trump secured a search warrant of the former president’s Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, according to a newly unsealed court filing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 106 points 1 year ago

The search was so secret that Twitter was barred from telling Trump the search warrant had been obtained for his account, and Twitter was fined $350,000 because it delayed producing the records sought under the search warrant.

[-] DougHolland@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Yeah, THAT'S what CNN should've said in the headline. Investigations into Trump are so ordinary now they're barely news, but Twitter ignoring the law and the search warrant — that ought to be big news.

There are still serious news sites and government agencies using Twitter, something that's been feeling more and more problematic to me. It would be nice if today's news started a groundswell, or at least a conversation about that. Twitter has made itself into a forum for nutters, and now this? To anyone who's still on Twitter, I would ask — Why?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Are we going to see more bullshit "Twitter Files" about how the evil government dared to exercise a legal search warrant?

[-] open_world@lemmy.ml 46 points 1 year ago

Actually, it's just "The X-Files" now.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

The Truth Social is out there.

[-] Hubi@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago
[-] athos77@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

sought the warrant in January 2023.

So after Musk took over. I have no doubt Musk tried to obstruct as much as possible.

[-] rastilin@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

Yes, that's generally how electronic record searches go. I don't get why "secret" is bolded, since any of us would be getting the exact same treatment if there was a warrant for our own accounts. This at least is equitable in that it's equally unfair under the laws that these very same people had no problem with when they were in power.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 5 points 1 year ago

@MicroWave

bwahahahaha!!! That's hilarious!!!

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

That’s $44,000,350,000 in total after taxes. Would that be cash or credit card?

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I wish we saw more stuff like this with corps being slapped around even a little bit where it hurts (their bank account) when they drag their feet or don't comply.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Still not a fan of secret subpoenas/warrants/whatever, but fuck that's funny

[-] Falmarri@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

This is different from a FISA warrant I think. It's not that it was "secret", in that it won't ever be public. Just that they didn't tell trump first, which as far as I know is pretty standard

[-] Alto@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I'm aware. I'm not a fan of them not being able to tell their users when this stuff happens.

Gotta wait til after they hand it over? Sure. But they should be legally required to inform the user after the fact.

[-] Falmarri@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Definitely agree with that

[-] RangerAndTheCat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If you’re not a fan look into services that have a “canary in the coal mine” or “warranty canary”, the best example of this being at work I can remember would be lavabit or true crypt (RIP). Take what I say with more than a grain of salt… just an old privacy advocate that may dive to deep sometimes haha adjusts tinfoil hat

[-] Alto@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately a lot of the FISA warrants completely gut organization's ability to actually fail to renew a warrant canary

[-] RangerAndTheCat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

TIL… is there any real alternative option that a end user can look for from a service? (or ask that they add if they’re not aware of the option)

[-] Alto@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Not really. The FISA warrants usually come with a provision that gives strict penalties for giving any sort of notice that they've been served

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A statute requires notice of the existence and scope of the warrant. Here, it sounds like the court issued a discretionary protective order, further limiting the contents of Twitters notice letter to trump.

this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
451 points (98.3% liked)

News

23265 readers
3127 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS