Communications Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.

DreamHost, DOJ Face Off in Court Friday Over Data Sought on Inauguration Day Protesters

DreamHost and DOJ will square off Friday in District of Columbia Superior Court over the web hosting company's refusal to comply with a July 12 search warrant that seeks more than 1.3 million visitor IP addresses plus contact information, email…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!

and photos connected to a website that organized Inauguration Day protests. The company blogged Monday that the government is seeking data about the owner of disruptj20.org and the visitor IP addresses to identify individuals who used the site to express protected political speech. It's "a strong example of investigatory overreach and a clear abuse of government authority," said DreamHost. More than 300 people were arrested Jan. 20 for rioting and other disruptive activities, said media reports. In a July 28 motion to force DreamHost to produce the information, DOJ said the search warrant was properly issued. The government said the company's contention that some information is protected under the Privacy Protection Act "lacks merit," but even if the law does protect some data, the PPA doesn't preclude DOJ from searching and seizing electronic information via a warrant. Justice discounted the company's concern the warrant is "overbroad" and might result in more information being taken than necessary. DreamHost, working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said last week that handing over the IP addresses would allow the government to identify specific computers that visited the website and what they viewed, endangering "innocent" people's First Amendment rights. It said the warrant "requires scrutiny of 'particular exactitude,'" which shows it "lacks the specificity required by the Fourth Amendment and is unreasonable as a whole."