Kristi Noem's DHS secretly demands tech giants fork over names of ICE critics: report
www.rawstory.com
The Department of Homeland Security has expanded efforts to identify Americans who criticize or track Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sending hundreds of legal requests to major tech companies seeking information behind social media accounts, according to a report in The New York Times.In recen...

Hey all -

Just curious if anyone has seen a notice related to the news below. Reporting says hundreds sent out and that in most cases the tech companies have to notify the person and give time to contest it. So it would be good to get a clear example of these admin subpoena notices so we can all be on the lookout:

https://www.rawstory.com/ice-2675268854/

Or maybe this is some huge bullshit scare tactic.

Thank you!

  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    11·
    7 hours ago

    Which is why I don’t give anyone my phone number.

    Happy for you, chief. I’m sure that makes it real useful to have, then, since no one knows it to call you.

    Once again, that never happened, you just made it up, and I don’t appreciate it.

    Cool, how am I supposed to read this, then?

    I mean it’s a legit concern but, maybe don’t give them your data in the first place?

    Does that not read “if they have your data, you’re the one who gave it to them”? Explain it to me, because I’m clearly not understanding

    • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      7 hours ago

      I’m sure that makes it real useful to have, then, since no one knows it to call you.

      I meant I don’t give it to companies, because I know that’s why they want it.

      how am I supposed to read this, then?

      How about exactly how it’s fucking written? Without making shit up? Do you think you can do that? Telling you how to prevent something is not the same thing as blaming you for it.

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 hours ago

        Dude, I told you I don’t understand how what you’ve written is different from what I’ve said, so maybe start there? I can see the literal words you wrote, thanks. I’m trying to get to the meaning you’re attempting to convey, dude.

        Like are you saying “people shouldn’t have given their data to these companies”, then my entire argument until now applies. It’s not really an opt-out situation, unless you refuse to play ball with these companies.

        Are you saying “companies shouldn’t have this data”? Like, fair, but I’m not certain how what you’re saying conveys this point.

        What are attempting to say because I clearly don’t understand it with those words in that order. Give more context to what you mean, please. I genuinely want to understand but I can’t parse what you’re trying to say beyond what I parroted back at you. And it’s not some failure on your part, I am a certifiable idiot sometimes when it comes to this shit.