Forged Purported N.J. Attorney General Takedown Demand, in 3-D Printed Gun Case


Mike Masnick (Techdirt) reports:

[A] week or so ago … various 2nd Amendment groups, including the somewhat infamous Defense Distributed (makers of 3D printer files for firearm components) filed a lawsuit, seeking an injunction against New Jersey's Attorney General, Gurbir Grewal, arguing that he had sent an unconstitutional takedown letter to Cloudflare, which was the CDN service that Defense Distributed was using for its website

In theory, this was setting up an important potential 1st Amendment case. But, on Tuesday, something unexpected happened. The State of New Jersey showed up in court to say no one there actually sent the takedown—and that they believed it was forged, and sent via a proxy service in the Slovak Republic. Really.

Here's an excerpt from the letter:

The Attorney General's Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) has concluded that a key document supporting Plaintiff's TRO application—a "takedown notice" purportedly sent by DCJ to CloudFlare, Inc., which hosts one of the plaintiff's websites,—was not in fact issued by DCJ, and appears to have been issued by some entity impersonating the Attorney General's Office. We are including a certification that details our office's investigation so far. In addition, we have referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey….

In an effort to determine who, in fact, issued the notice, DCJ assigned two investigators to review the matter, who obtained the IP address of the device used to submit the notice to Cloudflare, and learned that the IP address is associated with a server located in the Slovak Republic. This IP address is not connected to DCJ, nor would DCJ use this type of proxy server for routine communications with third parties….

Mike Masnick adds, more generally:

There are, of course, some larger issues here. As we've noted for years and years and years—mainly with regard to the DMCA notice-and-takedown process—when you have a process that allows for notice and takedown it will get abused. Widely and continuously. Expanding notice and takedown to other arenas only means it will get abused more and more, and the abuse will become increasingly sophisticated.

We should be especially concerned about things like the EU's Terrorist Content Regulation, which will not only deputize random law enforcement officials to send such takedowns to various platforms, but also mandate that platforms takedown any such content within one hour of the notice being sent. If you don't believe that process won't be abused in a similar manner to what we see above, you have not been paying attention. Giving people tools for censorship will lead to censorship, and often it will be done in very surreptitious ways.

We should be extra careful about enabling more such activity under the false belief that only the "good guys" will use such powers, and that they will only use them for good.

Cloudflare has more.

NEXT: Calabresi & Lawson: "Why Robert Mueller's Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now that is interesting. Time to get me some popcorn.

  2. But sooner or later they’ll issue an actual takedown notice, that will be just as unconstitutional, for the exact same reasons, I expect.

  3. Too bad that we’re unlikely to ever find who sent it.

    They should be drawn and quartered.

  4. Obligatory statement that “I wouldn’t put it past NJ to have done it themselves and lie about it like all gun controllers lie”.

    Obligatory statement that “we don’t want to take your guns, don’t assume that NJ is acting in bad faith.”

    Surely, there is more than they can tell us than that it came from the Slovak Republic. Cui Bono?

    1. Ah, given the existence of proxies, and the limited amount of data involved, probably not anything decisive. Could have been NJ deciding to mess with them through cutouts in a way where they could shut down the case if things looked bad, could have been one of the gun control organizations. Could have been Defense Distributed impatient for a test case.

      I doubt it was anybody actually living in the Slovak Republic, just because, why would they care?

  5. Deer Gun nuts, pleez tak down ur gun site on the Internet or ill totally sue signed legal guy

  6. So, they didn’t do it, a Russian Bot did?

    Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

  7. This is interesting….. WHY did not the NJ AtG come forward long before this and declare the fraud? They’ve known DefDist had gotten their stuff taken down again, supposedly on orders from the NJ AtG. Seems such a high profile matter would have been top of mind in the AtG’s office.

    What, no, we did not issue such an order, what ARE you on about?

    This whole thing smells of dead fish left under the kitchen sink for a few weeks…..

Please to post comments