New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data
readwriteweb.com
readwriteweb.com
Twitter has to comply with US law, whatever it's possible for them to reconstruct and release about activists they can be compelled to release. They, so far, have done a decent job of being transparent, in the US, when they are allowed to be (things like national security letters with gag orders mean their, and everyone else's, claims to transparency have to be taken with a grain of salt).
How much Twitter is pushing back or not is besides the point. It's just stupid to expect more out of Twitter than it is legally possible for them to do.
Maybe US Agitators just aren't as savvy as their counterparts in the more oppressive parts of the world.
Plenty have been caught and killed or tortured thanks to US tech sold to their governments (and not using Tor level security) so I'm not sure about them being more savvy. The consequences are certainly higher, so they probably are more careful.
It's the domestic people who confuse me, no encryption, from a cell phone account in their name and then thinking "Twitter will break the law to protect me!"
Does Twitter have an official stance on this anywhere?
In accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, non-public information about Twitter users is not released except as lawfully required by appropriate legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process.
Some information we store is automatically collected, while other information is provided at the user’s discretion. Though we do store this information, it may not be accurate if the user has created a fake or anonymous profile. Twitter doesn’t require email verification or identity authentication.
So, we release this information, but there is little that proves you are actually you. However, if they also store IP addresses or you have released private information you might have far less plausible dependability.
And really, if that was the actual goal then twitter could use plenty of existing encryption technologies to make twitter actually useful for tyranny circumventing communications. That wouldn't be a twitter-sized business though, not even close.
The best part is, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, cops don't even need a judge or a warrant to get it anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
From 2003 to 2006, the FBI averaged about 65,000 NSLs sent - PER YEAR.
Twitter has the username to ip+timestamp mapping, your ISP has the ip+timestamp to name+physical address mapping.
I mean, if you're going to make a stand, you'd figure doing it against a subpoena for what are essentially traffic violations would be a nice place to start.
To me, it seems like the information from twitter would be useful in building a conspiracy case, but since this guy was only charged with Failure to Obey, Blocking Traffic, and Prohibited Use of Roadway, I don't see how information from his twitter account will help prove those charges. (Unless of course, he tweeted: "I'm blocking the roadway and disobeying police!")
You don't have to. In the US's legal system, the standard for what is discoverable extremely loose. It doesn't just have to be data that you know is relevant, it is any data that might have a chance (even a small one) of containing data that might be relevant.
For example, there's some possibility that the user could have tweeted information about their actions and movements during that time period, and there's some possibility that information might help the attorneys build their theory of the case. So the prosecutors (or plaintiffs, or whoever) are allowed to ask for that information.
It's actually one of the reasons why legal costs in the US and UK are so famously high. The wide net brings in a lot more information that needs to be looked at, and paying attorneys $100s per hour to look at it gets expensive very quickly.
Warrants are also issued by the courts, but they do something different: They permit law enforcement officials (not attorneys) to perform acts that would normally be illegal in order to gather evidence.
"a law called the Stored Communications Act allows authorities to seek data like this without a search warrant"
Turns out that before the Stored Communications Act, the existing law gave people essentially zero right to privacy with respect to electronic communications that were stored by a third party. The pre-existing law was basically just the 4th amendment, and traditionally you relinquish your 4th amendment protections for any documents that you give away.
What the SCA did was to create some hurdles that had to be jumped over to acquire this data. They're not quite as strong as the requirements one needs to get to obtain a search warrant or anything like that, but they're a heck of a lot stronger than what existed beforehand.
So the SCA did not, in fact, allow authorities to "seek data like this without a search warrant." Much the opposite, really.
There is hope that some of this will be reversed, much like the supreme court ruled that phone conversations were private even though they were over third party connections, and how the SCA provides protections for things like email and (some) sever logs.
In the meantime, the government will continue to try to stretch what it is allowed under the third party doctrine without significant check.
Ars Technica had some good coverage last week of the Obama administration successfully arguing that law enforcement can request cell tower connections (giving a rough tracking of a phone's location) without a warrant:
The Obama administration laid out its position in a legal brief last month, arguing that customers have "no privacy interest" in [cell-site location records] held by a network provider. Under a legal principle known as the "third-party doctrine," information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. The government contends that this rule applies to cell phone location data collected by a network provider.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-...
It's the double-edged sword of anything that's public & open - it can be used for good and it can be used against you.
In this country, you are entitled to speech, but you are not entitled to block other people's use of a major roadway. There's an enormous distinction.
That said, I don't really see why these guys want the Twitter information. The case seems to make itself pretty well ("Officer, did you see the defendant attempting to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge?" "Yes, I did. And here's the footage of the same." "The prosecution rests, your honor.").
People actually think this? I've never been a big fan of the occupy wall street crowd, and when I hear things like this, my opinion of them just keeps falling.
My opinion of OWS was formed using information from a variety of sources. This case is adding to an already negative perception. Perhaps this one thing wouldn't be enough to form a negative opinion, but the collection of what I've read about OWS has lead to a negative opinion, and this article just continues to enforce it.
Seriously, who thinks a company in the United States isn't going to comply with a subpoena? It's especially silly because a key issue of the protests is excessive wealth, and Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, is worth over $650 million.