Curious
They want information on people that accessed the article 8-8:30 am on the same day the agents were killed at 6 am.
I’ve been known to click on breaking news reports. I wonder what I was doing on that fateful day between 8am and 8:30am 
A brave new world of dystopian cyber tracking where reading an article or driving by a certain home on your way to work every day can turn you into an instant crime suspect.
???
WTH!!!
Can someone say “POWER HUNGRY”.
Who the hell do these government agencies think they are? This is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. Protect ourselves from those overreaching bas____ds.
Thought Crimes: The next frontier…
I can guarantee that I wasn’t reading USA Today
I’m going to withhold any “abuse” charge until we find out why they what the information. They may have a legitimate reason.
I do not trust the government at all. The FBI’s been on my list since 2017. ATF as well and other law enforcement agencies. Trump pulled the curtains from a lot that I’ve been missing. I was complacent way to long. Now I’m vigilant but trying to keep a level head. I’m a Christian first, family man second and a patriot third. I don’t trust people.
Such as?
It could be as simple as someone made a comment that suggested they witnessed the raid, or had prior knowledge etc.
Then they have a specific target of investigation, and should locate the person who made the comment, not cast a wide net to discover everyone who read the story.
You didn’t read the story.
They only asked for 8:03 am to 8:38 am. Very narrow
I beg your pardon? And how did you come to that conclusion, because it’s a pretty big (and incorrect) assumption.
In the past 6 months, the USA Today website routinely received between 114M - 165M visits per month. That’s between 3.8M and 5.5M per day, or more than 2.6K - 3.8K per minute on average. Not even adjusting for prime morning reading time, which is surely higher, that’s about 91K - 133K visitors during that period. Take any reasonable subset of that you want – even if only 1% read the article, we’re looking at a dragnet of 1000+ innocent people based upon what? How is that remotely “very narrow?”
But the point isn’t how broad or narrow. Demanding (not “asking,” by the way, as you said) a list of readers of a publication is an extraordinary violation of rights.
Sigh…
A subpoena is a legal demand.
Good night Gracie
So what is the issue here? The company’s lawyer is stating it will not do so according to 1st amendment rights. Don’t know how the FBI even got a subpoena to do so. Seem’s a violation to me from the get go. Have to wait to see what shakes loose.
Condescending tone noted. A subpoena may be a legal demand, but that doesn’t mean all subpoenas are legal, or there would be no fighting them in court. Bringing this closer to home, 2A rights, for example, what are you going to do if they pass laws that say you can’t own a gun? Just say, yes please, thank you Mr. Big Government, and turn in all your firearms? I mean, it’s a law, right? It was passed by the legislature, right? Must be legal, right?
It would be super if you’d actually defend your position, addressing at least some of the points I offered. Might make for a better conversation overall. But I understand how difficult that might be.
I’ve heard other stories like this. Along the lines of they have a suspect in mind & are looking for collaboration. Unless the government is willing to share what evidence they have & hope it will convince a judge, they don’t ask to subpoena a specific individual. Instead they find a reason to look through the whole list.
One more reason that this forum is as close as I come to social media. Everything we do is tracked, collated, & stored in a server. No need to microchip us cattle when most ppl are more than happy to post everything they do for the world to see.