For months, Facebook has waged a legal battle against the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. to alert its users that the government wants the social media company to give up their private communications and information.
Based on the timing of the legal filings, observers widely believed that those search warrants were about rioting prosecutions stemming from destruction in downtown D.C. on Inauguration Day. Now, they have proof.
After government prosecutors gave up their fight over the gag order earlier this month, Facebook was able to notify three users involved with planning Inauguration Day activities that the government sought their data.
In motions filed in D.C. Superior Court this Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. is trying to quash, or at least narrow, those warrants, which it describes as "overly broad" and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Prosecutors are demanding all of the information from the Facebook accounts of Legba Carrefour and Lacey MacAuley from November 1, 2016 through February 9, 2017, as well as that of the “DisruptJ20” Facebook group page (now called "Resist This") moderated by Emmelia Talarico, who called the warrants "a direct attack on D.C.’s grassroots organizing community."
Facebook activity over a three-month period can include a wide swath of data. "The government under these warrants would be able to see intimate messages exchanged with romantic partners, prescription drug and psychiatric information, credit card and banking information, accounts of users and third parties who suffered domestic violence," says Scott Michelman, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of D.C. "This is deeply personal stuff. Opening up a person's Facebook account can open up a person's entire life."
Michelman also expressed concern that the search warrants could have a chilling effect on political activity.
"These specific warrants, if enforced, would reveal a trove of info about their political and association activities, including what rallies and demonstrations they organized and attended, who else was there, their pictures, political commentary both by our clients and by third parties, including discussions of how to vote in the 2016 elections, and the thousands of people who have done nothing more than 'like' a Facebook page," he says. "It's hard to imagine a greater chilling effect on free speech and association than by having political activities of anti-administration dissidents investigated by the administration itself."
Neither Carrefour, MacAuley, or Talarico are among the 234 people arrested by D.C. policeduring or in the aftermath of Inauguration Day. However, Carrefour and MacAuley both served as press contacts for organizing efforts. The ACLU of D.C. is also suing the city and the Metropolitan Police Department over what it deems excessive force and unlawful arrests that day. (MPD, for its part, stands by its actions on January 20th.)
Of those arrested, 19 have pleaded guilty (18 of them pleaded down to misdemeanors, and one so far has been sentenced to jail after pleading guilty to felony charges) and 20 have seen their charges dismissed. A total of 195 still face decades in prison for their alleged role in what the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. has called a "violent riot" that caused more than $100,000 in damages to buildings, property, and vehicles, and minor injuries to six police officers.
"What we've seen in response to the mostly peaceful political dissident activity on January 20 is a massive overreaction from various coordinated government departments," says Michelman, including MPD, and "hyperaggressive and unwarranted prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's Office of people we fear they have no reason to suspect of any crime, giving rise to these overly broad search warrants that would invade many people's privacy."
The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment. Trials are slated to begin in November for the first slate of defendants after a D.C. Superior Court judge denied a series of motions to dismissthe felony rioting charges, and are scheduled to continue through 2018.
While Inauguration Day protests have now become synonymous with images of smashed windows and a burning limo, the group Disrupt J20 also organized a series of blockades at security checkpoints and a "festival of resistance" in McPherson Square that did not involve arrests. "All organizers and attendees of those other events will have their communications exposed to the government," says Michelman.
He applauds Facebook for "having fought for its users right to defend themselves by fighting the gag order and notifying the users promptly, allowed them to obtain counsel and stand up for their rights."
It's not the only tech company that has challenged the legal system over prosecutors' demand for information about users related to this case.
Online service provider Dreamhost balked at a warrant calling for called for the IP addresses for more than 1.3 million visitors to the DisruptJ20.org website, along with addresses, phone numbers, bank accounts, and other personal information for thousands of subscribers. A judge granted a more scaled-back warrant, under the condition that the court would be overseeing the search.
The court has also been establishing a process for an online portal with evidence gleaned from the phones confiscated by police during arrests and mined for data, including those of legal observers and journalists.

6134567
While I can support the people who wanted to protest, I have to also side with the government's request to seek out the rioters. As the protests should have remained peaceful. Now this does not put blame on those who planed and or started the protest, it puts blame on those who took it a step too far. And it is those individuals who need to face the consequences of their actions.