zlacker

I certainly concur with this.

On the one hand, a narrow warrant that reveals a lot of people (classic example are warrants on motels to provide the names of everyone who checked in on a certain date, or was registered on a certain date) are certainly constitutional and have been upheld many times.

The first seems, odd.

>>ChuckM+(OP)
The first is a somewhat clever attempt to unmask someone ann undercover investigator was already talking to. Police should have narrowed scope of the warrant by only asking for data on viewers within a narrow window after they sent the link.

Even better might have been to directly link to some service that they already control on a honeypot URL, and then gone after the ISP for customer details.

>>ChuckM+(OP)

  In a just-unsealed case from Kentucky reviewed by Forbes, undercover cops sought to identify the individual behind the online moniker “elonmuskwhm,” who they suspect of selling bitcoin for cash, potentially running afoul of money laundering laws and rules around unlicensed money transmitting.

  In conversations with the user in early January, undercover agents sent links of YouTube tutorials for mapping via drones and augmented reality software, then asked Google for information on who had viewed the videos, which collectively have been watched over 30,000 times.

This is the first case. This doesn't seem that narrow to me.

>>initpl+12
Nah actually pretty dumb overall. And sending an open link when a private one looks the same is even more dumb.

>>godels+R4
> who they suspect of selling bitcoin for cash, potentially running afoul of money laundering laws and rules around unlicensed money transmitting.

Wait, what? So is Bitcoin illegal to use as a currency now? Special casing exchanges for cash seems completely pointless if you could just buy some of <any commodity> for cash and then turn around and sell it back to the same person for the same amount in Bitcoin, but if every customer has to do KYC of the merchant when they're paying with Bitcoin, how is that ever going to be feasible?

>>Anthon+g6
I think a charitable interpretation is that they were suspicious of the money being used illegally. But I'm not sure there's enough information here to make this clear. Because clearly there's misinformation being spread. Claiming bitcoin is anonymous...

>>godels+xb
More likely they wanted to seize the bitcoin under civil asset forfeiture and buy some high-end cars for their D.A.R.E. program.

Charitably speaking that is.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2055556/venom-law-police-put-...