Twitter Loses 'Occupy Wall Street' Case, Forced To Hand Over User Info
idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com
idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com
I see a few other problems.
The first is wasting so much money on prosecuting someone who was walking on the street instead of sidewalk. Yes, they blocked the Brooklyn Bridge. But there is the Manhattan Bridge, Queensboro Bridge, Midtown Tunnel, and many other alternate routes from Manhattan to Long Island. The net impact was probably nothing. The sidewalk on the Brooklyn Bridge is woefully inadequate for everything anyway so I don't really blame them for using the road. Better to block cars that can divert at 60mph than bikes that have to divert at 3mph :)
The second issue I see is with the prosecution proving that a chain of custody was maintained for the messages that Twitter produced. If any Twitter employee has write access to the data store, the messages and timestamps could easily have been altered. How can the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this did not happen?
Finally, how can one prove a tweet conveyed actual intent rather than mere interest? I often tweet about things like, "I should go get 5000 of my closest friends to block the Brooklyn Bridge." If I did that on the day of the protest, that would look bad for me. But I might have been posturing rather than organizing, which is my right to do without interference from the government.
Anyway, this is all a huge waste. It seems like New York City is being pressured to keep working on this bullshit case when they should have just cleared the bridge, issued fines, and moved on. Or maybe, you know, provide adequate pedestrian capacity so people can peaceably assemble without having to block traffic!
(Incidentally, the exact lane that the protesters blocked is closed every night for construction...)
Chain of custody - fair point, but realize that's the case with every piece of evidence. It only becomes very important, as I understand it, once it is in the hands of the prosecution/law enforcement. Before that, it is what it is. Evidence tampering is illegal of course, and we like to think it's hard to prove digital stuff, without crypto sigs and all that, were not altered - but it's nothing new. The defence would have to have some kind of evidence, even he-said-she-said (defendant says that's not what he wrote) in order to open that door - it's not a freebie. And perjury is a crime.
As to how one can prove what a tweet conveyed - that's what the trial and jury are for.
It is your right to speak. The actions of your words, however, can have consequences - if you started and organized a riot (like, you really did) then society has a vested interest in investigating that. If you did that, you need to be dealt with - it's wrong (no inference implied to the current case, just an example).
And the constitution doesn't say "freedom of speech" - it says something like "Congress shall make no law..(snip) or abridging the freedom of speech.... (and more)
It doesn't say they can't investigate your role in things, which may include your speech.
Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law.
It is disappointing that the Government will go to great length to arrest and prosecute hundreds of citizens exercising their constitutional rights. But, it does not have balls to go after any of the greedy wall street bankers who robbed the country.
Which part of the Constitution says you are allowed to block the street?
(The crime the people committed is not particularly serious, but it's not a Constitutionally-protected right to block the Brooklyn Bridge.)
As for the Wall Street bankers, who do you want to prosecute for what?
As for the Wall Street bankers, who do you want to prosecute for what?
Executives of banks and mortgage companies engaged in fraudulent practices that led to the financial crisis. Instead of pressing criminal charges, they were rewarded by the Government.
I think it would be more appropriate to direct your anger toward the government in equal or greater measure, instead.
At least some of these practices were "encouraged" if not mandated by govt regulators. Are you planning to punish them? If not, what's the justification for punishing the folks following their orders?
As for the Wall Street bankers, who do you want to prosecute for what?
Those that committed it, for fraud. It's an open-and-shut case if the power existed to prosecute it.
if that were true, why are their customers not suing them for fraud? seems like they'd win a lot of money pretty easily if it were an open and shut case.
In addition, the court ruled (yet again) that the defendant had zero standing to challenge (or even know about) the subpoena since it was directed at Twitter not him. Which is kind of terrifying given the push to cloud storage for everything.
The subpoena is for all public and private information Twitter has for a period of three months and a half. The charge is for disorderly conduct at one point during this period. The EFF and Twitter are pointing out that the prosecutor is going on a fishing expedition. The “shouting from a window” analogy the judge made is irrelevant.
They do have their own database http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acq...
I'm also confused as to what's even being demanded. If the tweets are public, doesn't the Manhattan DA already have them? And if they know who this person is (since they said his name, Malcom Harris), what identifying user information do they actually need?
What was in dispute here wasn't that some information was subpoenaed following proper procedure, but that the judge held that the "proper procedure" in this case was the procedure for public information in which there isn't a "reasonable expectation of privacy", while Twitter was arguing that the subpoena was requiring them to disclose things that were not in fact public information.
From a PR point of view, Twitter did the right thing. They executed their right to challenge the subpoena. Now they have to begrudgingly hand over the data. It makes it look like they'll fight for their users, even though there's clearly nothing they can do.
What about the rest of the information associated with a Twitter account?
You really find it odd that the government can force company X to turn over your ip address, name, email and other such information?
The concern over growing fascism comes from warrantless government behavior. This, on the other hand, seems completely within the realm of government acting properly.
People keep on pointing out to you that the judge applied a standard meant for public information to a request for non-public information.
This sets a dangerous precedent that if you post on the Internet you are giving up your anominity.
The subpoena was based on rules that assume that the twitter user's email address and direct messages (like public tweets) are already public. This is surprising since I think most Twitter users would agree that those things aren't expected to be public.
I think you are confusing personal identifiable information with direct messages. The direct messages _do_ have an expectation of privacy around them, but that information was never requested.
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/destructuremal%20Sub...
The tweeters in Tahrir square however would have got killed had they screamed out of a window. Twitter gave them a public forum and anonimity. A completely novel concept, and one that deserves a more careful ruling than this brash analogy.
It's the same simpleton internet to real world translation the MPA/RIAA use to equate "file sharing" to physical theft. It's an easy analogy to pull the wool over the eyes of less technically inclined individuals.
It is not surprising that something which is broadcast publicly is public.
It is very, very surprising that the public nature of anonymously-published material is in any way relevant to whether the private identity of the author should be disclosed.
The users involved, and others down the line, are the ones who effectively lost this case.
Does this mean the government sued twitter to get information they could have simply looked up at the library?
The judge is missing that no one is entitled to put an administrative burden on twitter, especially for information they can get off the internet anyway... Archive.org much?
Why not go to the LoC? Because the judge can just order twitter to produce it, which one would expect is probably easier. LoC may be far from having a way to do this easily.
Plus, having the intelligence in the client would allow a nice variety of client tailored to different people's needs.
}
I'm completely ignoring the other functions of courts, like legislative oversight, that obviously can't be performed by an algorithm.
Right, but we could right a formula to get close enough.
Compensation = (official estimate or bid to repair damages) * ( 1.3 for hardship)
These variables could be punched into a program and a consistent result would come out.
> and concepts like "beyond reasonable doubt" reflect facts that are measurable but subjective
That doesn't make any sense to me. Facts are not supposed to be subjective. Especially considering the use of "reasonable doubt" is subjective, for example, officers claiming PC based on drug odors.
> I'm completely ignoring the other functions of courts, like legislative oversight, that obviously can't be performed by an algorithm.
Why can't an algorithm do "legislative oversight"?
Update ---
> Where measurable techniques have become available to law - DNA profiling, for example - they're taken up very quickly.
DNA has been used to set people free that were locked away based on opinions. Why should ANYONE have the "discretion" to lock away a human being? I think that kind of trust comes from years of brainwashing and episodes of CSI (or the million other variants).
Either way it is nice to see twitter did fight this to some extent
The danger is in widespread digital fishing expeditions by prosecutors - we can't have "turn over everything so-and-so said ever on your service". We need specifics, like everything else... thats' the danger.
The internet is not a thing - it's a bunch of cooperating entities running networks all over the world, and a bunch more people running services on top of that.
The courts have ALWAYS been able to subpoena information during investigations. Why should digital information be different?
How could anyone say anything about that? You know, since it was an accident and all...
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/2703.html
In short, this is no big deal. The information was legally subpoenaed in connection with a criminal investigation. I think this is only on the front page because it has the words "Twitter", "Occupy", and "Forced" in the title.
I agree. No doubt there are hundreds of similar subpoena's for the same set of information from Twitter users; in this case it happened to be a user connected to a movement that is garnering media attention.
PS: Note that I am not condoning the actual case itself; whilst I can't say their actions are ideal (likely to just annoy the public they need the support of), this case is an extreme overreaction.
But I think you are missing why this is of interest to many people: What criminal charges are being investigated here? The article makes it sound like "disorderly conduct" but surely that can't be right. I guess it's unfair to make assumptions since we obviously don't have all the facts, but based on the public information about this case there is certainly at least the appearance that it is based on trumped up, retaliatory charges.
They need to convince someone, say a judge, to issue the subpoena/warrant.
They may not have the duty to disclose, however, the warrant/subpoena has to be specific, and what IS scary is the idea that those served can be put under a gag order not to talk about it. For big RICO cases it made sense, but for smaller ones that's an abuse.
The Judge is a douchebag for referencing Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in his ruling. Franklin, Hamilton and Adams wrote pamphlets anonymously with the precise expectation that the content be public while the writer stay anonymous. Obviously I concede that an ink on paper pamphlet is not the same as a tweet.
Rulings like this will only push reputable critical speech of the US government further into less civil minded groups like Anonymous.
Must TOR, I2P and IRC be the domain of our modern day pamphleteers? The sad truth is, probably. The First Amendment hasn't truly protected free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
I guess those who prefer critical thought and freedom over security had better brush up on loathsome l33t speak.