Twitter fined $350k over slow response to Trump account search warrant
semafor.com
semafor.com
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/64C651B4...
____
Initial start:
> On January 17, 2023, the government applied for, and obtained, a search warrant that directed Twitter to produce data and records related to the "@realDonaldTrump" Twitter account. At the same time, the government applied for, and obtained, a nondisclosure order, which prohibited Twitter from disclosing the existence or contents of the search warrant to any person.
> Based on ex parte affidavits, the district court found probable cause to search the Twitter account for evidence of criminal offenses. Moreover, the district court found that there were "reasonable grounds to believe" that disclosing the warrant to former President Trump "would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation" by giving him "an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates."
____
Twitter refuses:
> The warrant required Twitter to tum over all requested information by January 27, 2023. The nondisclosure order was to remain in effect for 180 days after its issuance.
> On February 1, 2023 - four days after the compliance deadline - Twitter objected to producing any of the account information. Although the company did not question the validity of the search warrant, it asserted that the nondisclosure order was facially invalid under the First Amendment. Twitter informed the government that it would not comply with the warrant until the district court assessed the legality of the nondisclosure order.
> [...] The company asserted that compliance with the warrant before resolution of the motion to vacate or modify the nondisclosure order would preclude the former President from asserting executive privilege to shield communications made using his Twitter account.
_______
Twitter (pretends?) to accede and then, still misses the new deadline and gets the fine they knew was coming:
> [On Feb 7] When the court asked Twitter' s counsel whether the company could produce the required materials by [5:00 p.m. that evening, counsel answered: "I believe we are prepared to do that. Yes, Your Honor."
> The court also asked the government what sanctions it would request if Twitter failed to comply. [...] $50,000 per day, to double every day [...] Twitter did not object to the sanctions formula.
> Twitter missed the 5:00 p.m. deadline. Although Twitter timely produced some records, its production was incomplete. [...] Twitter completed its production at 8:06 p.m. on February 9, 2023.
* Search warrant issued Jan 17, Twitter missed Jan 27 deadline, agreed to a new Feb 7 deadline with escalating fines, then missed that deadline, causing the $350k. This is the second court (on appeal) agreeing that Twitter messed up.
* Warrant came with a non-disclosure order, blocking Twitter for 180 days from warning Trump that Twitter's private records about him were being investigated. Twitter complained that it "violated the company’s First Amendment right to communicate with its subscriber, former President Trump."
* At the same time, Twitter refused to respond to the search-warrant, claiming (unsuccessfully) that the non-disclosure order needed to be litigated first, on the grounds that it had to allow the former President a chance to assert that his tweets were somehow official government business covered by Executive Privilege. (Which is nonsense for many reasons.)
Just imagine if Twitter felt such a strong sense of duty to helping all of its subscribers like that, in a fair and impartial manner...
With respect to media-releases, I think this excerpt sums it up:
> In fact, what the “Twitter Files” reveal is what we already knew [...] Social media corporations spend a large amount of time and resources discussing how to bend the rules so that politicians and celebrity influencers don’t get suspended. To pretend that the “Twitter Files” illustrates internal political bias on behalf of the old regime is to ignore the reality that Musk’s new regime is much more politically motivated.
(Source: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/15/twitter-fi...)