1984 - is it finally happening?

[ggmopa]

ICE Moves to Unmask Anonymous Reddit Critics With Grand Jury—Are YOUR Posts Still Safe?​

The Trump administration's move to involve a grand jury in the Reddit probe raises alarms about digital free speech.​

Social media platforms such as Reddit have long been home to millions of anonymous users sharing opinions freely. But that anonymity is now under fresh scrutiny after the platform was ordered to appear before a federal grand jury.

According to a subpoena obtained by The Intercept, Reddit has been given until 14 April to hand over personal data linked to one of its users. The request follows weeks of failed attempts by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to identify the individual, who had been posting content critical of the agency's immigration crackdown.

While the case centres on a single Reddit user, experts warn it could signal a broader shift in how authorities pursue anonymous critics online. Civil liberties groups have called the move alarming, particularly given the escalation to a grand jury, a legal mechanism that allows prosecutors to seek charges behind closed doors.

Grand Jury Raises Stakes for Anonymous Speech
Legal experts say the use of a grand jury marks a significant turning point. Unlike previous attempts that were challenged and dismissed in court, grand jury proceedings are secretive and give prosecutors more power to compel evidence.

'We should be very, very, very concerned that they've now taken one of these to a grand jury,' David Greene, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said. 'It's something to be taken very seriously.'

According to the user's legal team, the posts in question included criticism of ICE and general commentary, with no clear evidence of criminal activity. That has raised concerns that the investigation could be targeting protected political speech rather than unlawful conduct.

If prosecutors succeed, the case could set a precedent allowing authorities to request identifying data on anonymous users more easily, particularly in cases tied to national security or law enforcement. However, anonymity online remains protected in many cases under the First Amendment, especially when users are expressing opinions rather than engaging in criminal activity.

Reddit's Role Under Scrutiny​

Reddit, which has more than 100 million daily users, said it reviews all government requests carefully and only provides the minimum data required by law. The company also notifies users whenever possible, giving them the opportunity to challenge requests.

'Privacy is central to how Reddit operates,' the company said in a statement, adding that it does not voluntarily share information, particularly when users are exercising their right to criticise the government.

The case also highlights growing tensions between tech platforms and political speech. In 2019, Reddit restricted a major pro-Trump forum after repeated rule violations, underscoring ongoing debates around moderation, free speech and political bias.

A Warning for Anonymous Users?​

Civil liberties advocates warn that the government's latest move could represent a shift in strategy. After repeated failures to obtain user data through traditional subpoenas, authorities may now be turning to grand juries to bypass legal challenges.

Lauren Regan, director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center (CLDC), said the move suggests officials are 'tired of losing' in court and are seeking new ways to obtain information.

'They are able to strong-arm information that they were denied through the courts legally,' she said.

For now, most anonymous users are unlikely to be directly affected. But the use of a grand jury marks a shift in how authorities pursue online identities, raising new questions about how secure anonymity really is in an era of expanding digital surveillance.

Source - https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/reddit-grand-jury-subpoena-ice-probe-1791216

 

[RiskyStuff]

 

[ggmopa]

What about free speech?

 

[roydan]

If you hide behind the "anonymity" to be a regular jerk - fine. You're just a coward, and we have many of these already.

If you hide behind that anonymity to commit crimes than you're an idiot for 2 reasons:

1.Free speech has limits, you can't say whatever you want or break the law and hide behind free speech.
Also, free speech has very little to do with anonymity.
2. There's no such thing as anonymity online, and the fact that your username is u/hesitantemployment676 rather than you real name changes very little.

 

[RiskyStuff]

If you hide behind the "anonymity" to be a regular jerk - fine. You're just a coward, and we have many of these already.

If you hide behind that anonymity to commit crimes than you're an idiot for 2 reasons:

1.Free speech has limits, you can't say whatever you want or break the law and hide behind free speech.
Also, free speech has very little to do with anonymity.
2. There's no such thing as anonymity online, and the fact that your username is u/hesitantemployment676 rather than you real name changes very little.

And when you want to scam someone, always use crypto. Bank accounts are really bad for it.

 

[ggmopa]

If you hide behind the "anonymity" to be a regular jerk - fine. You're just a coward, and we have many of these already.

If you hide behind that anonymity to commit crimes than you're an idiot for 2 reasons:

1.Free speech has limits, you can't say whatever you want or break the law and hide behind free speech.
Also, free speech has very little to do with anonymity.
2. There's no such thing as anonymity online, and the fact that your username is u/hesitantemployment676 rather than you real name changes very little.

That seems like a very one-sided take!

'...the posts in question included criticism of ICE and general commentary, with no clear evidence of criminal activity. That has raised concerns that the investigation could be targeting protected political speech rather than unlawful conduct.'

Nothing to indicate anything criminal was even implicated - at all. So why did you automatically assume there was?

Also, you're right: hundred percent annonymity is nigh impossible, but it can be damn difficult to unmask people and can be too expensieve and time consuming to pursue in many cases. Hence now there's mandatory ID requirements accros the world. For 'Age Verification' . Can't even use Linux properly in some country's without it now. Things are heading toward digital dictatorship, you absolutely do get your accounts wiped from reddit and other sm if you criticise certain entities and organisations as it is. Now they are instead going after people who do rather than just block them.

Also, people that have been negatively effected by governmental corruption, or whistleblow because they believe it's the right thing to do (think Epstein Files and such things) might beg to differ regarding your stance on being anonymous.

Sure you can call someone a coward if you can't or refuse to relate to their strife and struggles but I imagine most would sooner say sure call me a 'coward' for trying to do the right thing as anonymohsly as possible, than end up like Khashoggi even though they didn't break any laws. They even tried to kill Snowden. Is he a 'coward' gor fleeing or does one have to take a bullet to the head to prove their 'bravery' here?

Not everyone that seeks anonymity is a troll or criminal. Legitmate and law abiding reasons for anonymity cam differ. For example, you don't post your name and address online on marketing forums so you don't become a target of spam and abuse. Doesn't make you a coward does it?

 

[RiskyStuff]

The whole thing is logically flawed at many levels.

Person's attributes on the internet aren't their nickname.

It's a lot more. It's not how people are identified.

It all sounds so smart, but in reality it's written in a way to stir up controversy and trigger people. BS. Rage bait.

 

[roydan]

That seems like a very one-sided take!

Yeah, well. I'm only one person..

'...the posts in question included criticism of ICE and general commentary, with no clear evidence of criminal activity. That has raised concerns that the investigation could be targeting protected political speech rather than unlawful conduct.'

Nothing to indicate anything criminal was even implicated. So why did you automatically assume he was?

Taken straight from the article you cited:

"The administration claims the accounts are engaged in doxing and endanger officer safety."

This is not political, this is criminal.


I'm not American, I care very little about the US' immigration policy. I think Trump is a nut job, and yet, I think you can't expect Reddit to protect your privacy if you break the law under the anonymity this platform provides.

Personally, I think that Reddit is one of the worst places over the internet, but that's a discussion for another day.

 

[RiskyStuff]

That seems like a very one-sided take!

'...the posts in question included criticism of ICE and general commentary, with no clear evidence of criminal activity. That has raised concerns that the investigation could be targeting protected political speech rather than unlawful conduct.'

Nothing to indicate anything criminal was even implicated - at all. So why did you automatically assume there was?

Also, you're right: hundred percent annonymity is nigh impossible, but it can be damn difficult to unmask people and can be too expensieve and time consuming to pursue in many cases. Hence now there's mandatory ID requirements accros the world. For 'Age Verification' . Can't even use Linux properly in some country's without it now. Things are heading toward digital dictatorship, you absolutely do get your accounts wiped from reddit and other sm if you criticise certain entities and organisations as it is. Now they are instead going after people who do rather than just block them.

Also, people that have been negatively effected by governmental corruption, or whistleblow because they believe it's the right thing to do (think Epstein Files and such things) might beg to differ regarding your stance on being anonymous.

Sure you can call someone a coward if you can't or refuse to relate to their strife and struggles but I imagine most would sooner say sure call me a 'coward' for trying to do the right thing as anonymohsly as possible, than end up like Khashoggi even though they didn't break any laws. They even tried to kill Snowden. Is he a 'coward' gor fleeing or does one have to take a bullet to the head to prove their 'bravery' here?

Not everyone that seeks anonymity is a troll or criminal. Legitmate and law abiding reasons for anonymity cam differ. For example, you don't post your name and address online on marketing forums so you don't become a target of spam and abuse. Doesn't make you a coward does it?

Red herring examples in just one post:

- Khashoggi (murdered journalist),
- Snowden,
- Epstein Files,
- digital dictatorship,
- mandatory age verification,
- inability to use Linux.

At this point it's entertainment. Maybe something about Hitler?

Personally, I think that Reddit is one of the worst places over the internet, but that's a discussion for another day.

Yes, it's very toxic and only few subreddits make sense. And they're probably NSFW.

If you say there you failed something, they'll tell you it's the end and now only failure awaits...

 

[roydan]

Also, people that have been negatively effected by governmental corruption, or whistleblow because they believe it's the right thing to do might beg to differ regarding your stance on being anonymous.

If some people 'think' they did the right thing, it doesn't mean they did.

Look at the riots after Trump lost the 2020 elections. The people thought they protected the democracy and the truth was that all they did was to endanger it. Was it justifies just because they think they did the right thing?

 

[ggmopa]

Yeah, well. I'm only one person..



Taken straight from the article you cited:

"The administration claims the accounts are engaged in doxing and endanger officer safety."

This is not political, this is criminal.


I'm not American, I care very little about the US' immigration policy. I think Trump is a nut job, and yet, I think you can't expect Reddit to protect your privacy if you break the law under the anonymity this platform provides.

Personally, I think that Reddit is one of the worst places over the internet, but that's a discussion for another day.

Fair enough. It's only an allegation at this point amd might be a bad example to represent the rest of the post but surely the general points made in the rest of the post still stand, right?

Post automatically merged: Today at 2:57 AM

Red herring examples in just one post:

- Khashoggi (murdered journalist),
- Snowden,
- Epstein Files,
- digital dictatorship,
- mandatory age verification,
- inability to use Linux.

At this point it's entertainment. Maybe something about Hitler?

Yes, it's very toxic and only few subreddits make sense. And they're probably NSFW.

If you say there you failed something, they'll tell you it's the end and now only failure awaits...

Red herring? It's all a big distraction from what, pal? Enlighten us.

 

[roydan]

Fair enough. It's only an allegation at this point amd might be a bad example to represent the rest of the post but surely the general points made in the rest of the post still stand, right?

Yeah, it's only allegations. You need to question the person and interrogate them to make a conclusion. You can't interrogate u/grandadtoacucumber2003 in the same way you can't solve a murder case without a search warrant.

Honestly I think people are panicking about losing online privacy as if they ever had it. They felt too comfortable hiding behind silly username and getting more and more radical (like a race to the bottom actually) as time went by. This is real dangerous without real life consequences.

 

[SilverClouds]

your username is u/hesitantemployment676

Eheheheh, nice

Post automatically merged: 53 minutes ago

u/grandadtoacucumber2003

Wtf

 

[roydan]

Eheheheh, nice

Used a generator for this

Wtf

Yeah, I take responsibility for that one

 

[ggmopa]

Yeah, it's only allegations. You need to question the person and interrogate them to make a conclusion. You can't interrogate u/grandadtoacucumber2003 in the same way you can't solve a murder case without a search warrant.

Honestly I think people are panicking about losing online privacy as if they ever had it. They felt too comfortable hiding behind silly username and getting more and more radical (like a race to the bottom actually) as time went by. This is real dangerous without real life consequences.

If anyone is misusing online privacy, it's unfortunate and they'll have to answer for their own bad karma but if they use that as an excuse to mitigate it's positive use cases, as briefly illustrated above, that's called 'card stacking' in politics and is what's happening right now.

I think with the release of the Epstein files and no answer to any scrutiny about how the most and powerful might be invovled in paedo and cannibal cults, people expect privacy more than ever.

And is forfeiting it when some of the same people and organisations involved or associated with the Epstein files help overlook massive tech and intelligence companies too amd dictate theor policies, would that be in the good thing? It's a tricky situation but works in the favour of a 'greater good' here when some of the top rungs of society have been accused not just of corruption, but crimes against humanity?

 

[RiskyStuff]

Red herring? It's all a big distraction from what, pal? Enlighten us.

Learn to write or stop. From your posts you can read almost anything. They're shining like crystal balls, depending on angle, you see whatever you want. Your personal achievements won't protect you in real world, only in your mind.

 

[ggmopa]

Learn to write or stop. From your posts you can read almost anything. They're shining like crystal balls, depending on angle, you see whatever you want. Your personal achievements won't protect you in real world, only in your mind.

?

 

[roydan]

If anyone is misusing online privacy, it's unfortunate and they'll have to answer for their own bad karma

Karma is not really a force governments can rely on to enforce the law..

I think with the release of the Epstein files and no answer to any scrutiny about how the most and powerful might be invovled in paedo and cannibal cults, people expect privacy more than ever.

I can't find the connection between these two cases. But I guess you wouldn't want to keep those who participated there private, right?

It's a tricky situation but works in the favour of a 'greater good'

Who defines greater good and what are the objective standards?

but crimes against humanity?

Deporting illegal immigrants is not a crime against humanity. What did I miss?

 

[ggmopa]

Karma is not really a force governments can rely on to enforce the law..
I can't find the connection between these two cases. But I guess you wouldn't want to keep those who participated there private, right?

Who defines greater good and what are the objective standards?

Deporting illegal immigrants is not a crime against humanity. What did I miss?

You're using the very specific example I already said might be a bad one but general point i'm making is this: law is not perfect, people with money and power are already accused of bending laws to work in their favour. Behind closed doors of course because they have their privacy 'rights'; the elites will retain their privacy, meanwhile the rights of the common are further receding as a consequence of a 'crack down' on posting 'anonymously'. Now people that might want to expose such things, even using aforementioned bribery, as an example will be silenced more easily due to fear of repercussions. Which is as good as plummeting us back to the darl ages as far as i'm concerned. So is this all a good thing? I don't think so. You think it is. What's the right answer? I guess only time will tell.

 

[roydan]

but general point i'm making is this: law is not perfect, people with money and power are already accused of bending laws to work in their favour.

With this I agree. 100%. Not a single asterisk. I agree with it 100%.

Behind closed doors of xourse because they have privacy 'rights' course; the elites will retain their privacy

You compare a meeting to online communities, not really fair.
I also use that same advantage rich people have when I discuss boring adult stuff with my wife and not telling my kids.
You can introduce yourself into every meeting you're not a part of.

I know I didn't make a very compelling point here, but I gave myself some slack because there's no real disagreement between us about the core thing which is the first one I replied to.

Now people that might want to expose such things will be silenced more easily. Is this all a good thing? I don't think so. You think it is? What's the right, I guess only time will tell.

I'll tell you what I really think and I hope it settles it:

The real problem is that right leaning people are getting farther right, left leaning people are getting farther left. These two groups are getting more and more extreme in attempt to balance each other toba point that no one really act based on what they think is true but based on how the other side preceive them, which is stupid.
Media outlets are taking advantage of that because thag way they can lock their audience more efficiently.
YT, Meta, and TikTok's algos are doubling down on that, showing people posts from other people they agree with rather than showing them other perspectives, and it gets weirder and weirder.