Sheriff Joe (house, rent, illegal)

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by kdog

That's not what they're doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they want the web logs to see how many people viewed Arpaio's home address which was illegally published. The IP address, timestamp, previous link (aka, referring link), domain and browser are the standard fields every web server log entry. The fact they were called out like this is most likely a product of sensationalist journalism. The notion that they are going after people who viewed the web pages in question is laughable.

If you're so concerned about people's rights, why aren't you concerned about Arpaio's privacy being violated by the NY Times? Oh that's right. You can't stand the guy.

Absolutely kdog. His life has been threatened more than once from what I have heard. If I was a public official and my address was published along with negative articles inciting hatred, and then I started receiving death threats, you can bet I would do everything I could legally do to try and protect my family. I don't believe he is doing any more than that. The incidental information is just part of what is normally recorded.

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by irwin

absolutely ridicules

Whats that? Hercules' long lost ridiculous brother?

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by joninaz

For example, news outlets that write a negative story about his dept. get their access cut off. That's an insult to anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment.

I agree with you on this one joninaz. I think Sheriff Joe would be absolutely wrong cutting off access to public information to reputable media when he feels personally slighted, if that is indeed the reason. I don't personally know the full story so all I can go on is what I read in the newspaper that was cut off, and I don't know how biased it is. The West Valley View has been fighting with the sheriff about this very issue. They have been kept out of the loop on illegal activities reported to other media, reportedly because they wrote a not so flattering article at some point in time. Maybe the West Valley View fight is what you are referring to. If not and this has happened with other media, then it would suggest it is likely true.

[Artliquide]

Originally Posted by irwin

And the County Attorney out there is no better. Going after people who VIEW THE WEBSITE?!?!

That is EXACTLY what happens in Iran or maybe China.

I don't think you can be arrested for looking at a website. They probably just want to keep an eye on people who look at it, to nail them on some other charge if things get nasty with that user...I think I've looked at some of those pages, but we have a dynamic IP, so they could only pinpoint what general area I live in.

Yeah, I admit I voted for Arpaio last time because I like the idea of being tough on crime. I also admit I didn't know at the time all of the corruption he's involved with. It's definitely difficult to know all the facts when it comes to voting.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by irwin

NONSENSE!

They don't just want the number of views on that one story but they want ALL PEOPLE who have viewed the website in the past years AND the other websites those people have viewed. That is absolutely ridicules. PERIOD,

Right back at you. First of all, quit talking like you know what's in the subpoena unless you've actually seen it.

Secondly, the NY Times does not have access to the information you're claiming is being requested. So it's ludicrous to think that Arpaio's lawyers are requesting it from them.

Finally, I'm not defending Sheriff Joe. I know nothing about him beyond what's been presented here and reading the links that have been posted. However, I do have a pretty good handle on how the internet works and logical thinking, and can state unequivocally that what you are suggesting makes absolutely no sense.

[irwin]

Originally Posted by kdog

Right back at you. First of all, quit talking like you know what's in the subpoena unless you've actually seen it.

Secondly, the NY Times does not have access to the information you're claiming is being requested. So it's ludicrous to think that Arpaio's lawyers are requesting it from them.

Finally, I'm not defending Sheriff Joe. I know nothing about him beyond what's been presented here and reading the links that have been posted. However, I do have a pretty good handle on how the internet works and logical thinking, and can state unequivocally that what you are suggesting makes absolutely no sense.

I have read what was requested in the subpoena. It was posted on the New Times article and is now linked on the Arizona Republic and other news sites picking up this story. They were arrested for publishing information from this subpoena so I can only assume that what they provided to the public was true. See, that is called logic. Unless you are claiming that the sheriff lied about why they arrested them.

And the New Times (not NY Times) may or may not have the information requested. They claim they do have the electronic information on their servers. But, regardless, that is besides the point. They requested such information which was clearly overly broad and probably a 4th Amendment violation on the thousands of people who viewed the New Times website. And let me remind you that they are seeking information not just on people who viewed the "alleged crime" of printing the sheriff's address (an address widely known and reported in other sources) but they want information on ANYONE who viewed the website over the years. That is frightening.

And you are defending sheriff joe so drop the nonsense.

[irwin]

Originally Posted by Artliquide

They probably just want to keep an eye on people who look at it, to nail them on some other charge if things get nasty with that user...

That is spying. That is unconstitutional. That is illegal.

The government collecting private information on individuals just "in case" they can dig something up on the person...uhh...no, that is not how our criminal justice system works thank you very much. Or at least that is not how it used to work. The fact that some are so blase' about this is probably the most frightening thing of all.

[Joshhhhh]

Its not illegal anymore, thanks to good ol' bush. Spying on you is completly legal now.

[ibarrio]

Secondly, the NY Times does not have access to the information you're claiming is being requested. So it's ludicrous to think that Arpaio's lawyers are requesting it from them.

First. Who said anything about the NY Times. It is the Phoenix News Times.

Second. As an owner and operator/designer of a website I will tell that I do have access this this info on my website. My website logs the IP, the referring website, the website you went to after you left, how long you were on my website, which pages you visited while you were on my website, which browser you used, which country you come from, and so on...

If you do not believe me google it. Maybe the Mod can chime in...as he can see/find your IP very easily...

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Joshhhhh

Its not illegal anymore, thanks to good ol' bush. Spying on you is completly legal now.

Got something to hide?