NYC Lawyers Subpoena Code

RonMcMahon writes "Lawyers for the city of New York have subpoenaed the text message records of thousands of people involved in demonstrations at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Tad Hirsch, creator of the TXTmob code that enabled convention demonstrators to transmit messages to thousands of telephones, has been instructed to release the content of messages exchanged on the service and to identify people who sent and received messages. Hirsch argues that release of such information would be a violation of users' First Amendment and privacy rights. 'I think I have a moral responsibility to the people who use my service to protect their privacy,' said Hirsch."

Subpoena?

[bckspc (172870)]

It's GPLed! Just download the code at http://sourceforge.net/projects/txtmob/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:Subpoena?

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

But that's not really what is being requested. As often happens, the slash headline doesn't represent the slash article. Neither appears to represent what's said in the real article. The code wasn't subponaed, the author was. What they are looking for are lists of texters and the text contents.

Why does he have the data?

[Ed Avis (5917)]

The data cannot be subpoena'd if it does not exist. Why does his system keep records of who said what to whom? And if it needs the records, why doesn't it delete them after a short period? And if the system does keep an archive, why didn't he delete it manually before now, if people's privacy is so important?

Re:Why does he have the data?

[GreatBunzinni (642500)]

I'm far from being an expert in TXTMob but it appears that it relies on user-defined mailing lists to send and receive text messages. That's probably what the NYC lawyers are looking for.

Re:

[themacks (1197889)]

A quote from the article:

Mr. Hirsch says that some of the subpoenaed material no longer exists and that he believes he has the right to keep other information secret.

2004 Republican National Convention in NYC

[myspace-cn (1094627)]

For those who have forgotten (or never heard about) the whole unconstitutional ordeal.
http://www.2600.com/rnc2004/index.html [2600.com]

Down with Amurkan fascists! And their plastic orange fences.
We have all gone to look for America.

LEARN

[by Anonymous Coward]

They cannot subpoena logs that you don't keep.

Re:

[westlake (615356)]

They cannot subpoena logs that you don't keep.

but they can haul your ass before a judge and ask you to disclose everything you know about your users and your system.

to say you can't remember, to say you can't recall, is likely land you in jail until your memory improves.

in this situation you are not the anonymous coward.

you are the guy up front, naked and exposed, when something goes wrong.

"the eighteen minute gap," the camera pointed in the wrong direction. nothing on record is likely to be quite so ba

Re:

[Kefaa (76147)]

"You" only get dragged in front of a judge if you are a fool. Anyone who believes they can go into a court without a lawyer truly has a fool for a client.

Having said that, you may still end up in court, and if you have setup a deletion policy (even if it is a policy that no logs are kept), and you follow the policy in all cases, little can be done. There is sufficient precedent to support the deletion of logs, emails, etc. as perfectly legal and within the realm of business propriety. Where trouble start

Re:

[meringuoid (568297)]

As I understood it, TorrentSpy were ordered to begin keeping logs. Not to hand over logs that didn't exist, but to begin logging and hand that over. NYC could do the same here, but that wouldn't get them the information from 2004.

Re:LEARN

[geminidomino (614729)]

If I remember correctly, before that, some technomoron judge actually ordered them to keep logs of everything in ram at all times..

Re:LEARN

[Richard_at_work (517087)]

That was just Slashdots spin on the ruling - the effect of the judgment was 'begin logging'.

Glad it's not Sony or Microsoft or some other corp

[electrictroy (912290)]

If this was a corporation (which has no soul or moral code), the content of the messages would already be in NYC's lawyers' hands.

Fortunately in this case, it's a man who believes in human rights.

Re:

[electrictroy (912290)]

P.S.

I don't understand why New York thinks it has a legitimate reason to read everybody's private text messages from 4 years ago. What possible relevance do those messages have to anything?

Reminds me of my grandmother (reading other people's mail just to be nosy).

Re:

[sumdumass (711423)]

People actively and purposely violated a law in new york. This cost the city money and created semi-unsafe situations. The organizers of this lawbreaking can be charged in much the same way organized crime is charged.

Currently, people are suing the city because they where arrested back in 2004 in connections to illegal protests surrounding the RNC convention. The city wants this information to be able to prove or disprove their connections to willfully violating the laws which would make the suits meaningle

Re:

[sumdumass (711423)]

Umm.. You obviously don't understand your right to protest. You have the right of free speech but you don't have a right to a platform or an audience. Some restrictions are completely legitimate and in compliance with the constitution. That being said, this has nothing to do with the situation at hand and is only clouding the issue.

There are certain facts about this particular situation. Some people were planning to or did break the law. A law that has stood against challenges on the grounds of it's constit

Re:Glad it's not Sony or Microsoft or some other c

[purduephotog (218304)]

Riiiight. That's why it's taken how many years to get the code released on the breathalyzer? A corporation would stall, stutter, fight just as much as a private individual. In fact most private individuals would cave whereas a corporation would provide lawyer after lawyer while saying it's a trade secret, etc.

I'm surprised that you'd consider a corporation capable of just rolling over and playing dead. Yes the airlines did that for the TSA...

Being incorporated doesn't make you evil.

Re:Glad it's not Sony or Microsoft or some other c

[Lockejaw (955650)]

I think GP's point is that it's easier to be evil when you aren't signing your own name to the order.

Re:

[electrictroy (912290)]

There's a difference:

- You said the corporation is fighting to protect its breathalyzer code. It wants to maintain its own property & future profits. Makes perfect sense.

- But what if the State sued the corporation to obtain the *emails* sent across the machines? Does the corporation have a vested interest to protect them? Nope. The corporation will not fight. It will just hand them over to the government, as if they were best friends.

In this particular case, we have a man who has no vested intere

Re:Glad it's not Sony or Microsoft or some other c

[will_die (586523)]

If he was interested in human rights we would release the text since knowing the information would help free the people being charged in the lawsuits or it would prove that something wrong was done and make sure those people had no chance of doing the same thing in the future.
Instead he stored the messages for some personnal or business reason.

Re:

[0111 1110 (518466)]

*sigh*. information wants to be free is just a more pithy (and to some confusing) way of saying secrets are hard to keep or information is hard to control. Information tends to escape, to find a way out, and once it does you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, ever. It does not mean that there are no secrets that are worth keeping or at least trying to keep. There may also be something in there about the futility of even trying to control or hoard information. Something about it being a waste of time a

Messages are ephemeral

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

Like this one.

You don't know me.

You don't know whether it is really me writing this or someone pretending to be me.

You don't know how many "me"s there are behind this nickname.

You don't know how many other accounts I have that pretend to be someone besides me.

Which me is the real me?

Which you is the real you?

Which way to Kathmandu?

Would you, could you in a car?

Eat them, eat them! Here they are.

Re:Messages are ephemeral

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

You don't know me.

Sure I do. You're BadAnalogyGuy.

You don't know whether it is really me writing this or someone pretending to be me.

Mmmm...it's you. Just a guess though.

You don't know how many "me"s there are behind this nickname.

42?

You don't know how many other accounts I have that pretend to be someone besides me.

6

Which me is the real me?

You!

Which you is the real you?

Me!

Which way to Kathmandu?

That way! ===>

Would you, could you in a car?

From afar? Or with a jar?

Eat them, eat them! Here they are.

Mmmmmm...burgers from a bar?

Anonymous political speech

[dreamchaser (49529)]

Anonymous political speech has a long tradition in the US. Many of our founding fathers hid behind pseudonyms while writing many of what are termed 'The Federalist Papers' which laid much of the groundwork for the US Constitution.

If the messages were inciting people to break the law I could possibly understand, but on the face of what few facts I have on the subject right now my knee wants to jerk right into the Government's jaw a few times.

Re:Anonymous political speech

[timmarhy (659436)]

even telling people to break the law shouldn't be illegal though, because some laws are unjust and NEED to be challenged, and that kind of freedom to challenge authority needs to be encouraged.

frankly i grow tired of being snooped on

Re:Anonymous political speech

[squiggleslash (241428)]

Well, the whole point of breaking the law to overturn a bad law is that you're challenging it by standing up and saying "I'm prepared to be punished for this, because I don't believe it's just that others should be." So if your purpose in telling people to break the law is to encourage civil disobedience, but you yourself have no plans to be punished, then you're not doing it right.

A more important principle is that people shouldn't be denied their rights to participate in the democratic process because they've broken the law. That those convicted of crimes are permanently barred from voting in the majority of states is essentially a gateway to legalized vote-rigging (look at the lifestyles of your opponents and criminalize it), and a barrier to overturning unjust laws that affect large numbers of people.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Not everybody is a Ghandi, or a Martin Luther King. Some of us are not willing to go to jail, and breaking the law anonymously, and encouraging others to do so, is an important step that we can take to obtain freedom.

I totally agree with you about taking away citizen's voting rights.

Re:Anonymous political speech

[dreamchaser (49529)]

You're correct to a point. I should have clarified as 'inciting to violence' rather than inciting to break the law. Civil disobedience is a good thing. For that matter, there sometimes comes a point where violent revolution is a good thing as well (prior art: The American Revolution).

I am basically of the mind that you just have to follow the course of the three boxes. Soap Box, then Ballot Box, then Ammo Box. I also hope and pray that the latter option is never really required. I would far prefer a political revolution to an armed one.

Re:Anonymous political speech

[Ironsides (739422)]

Here's the actual quote.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

but on the face of what few facts I have on the subject right now my knee wants to jerk right into the Government's jaw a few times.

Interesting, but I suggest leaving off mentioning the jaw. It's better when you leave it up to their imagination:

"Mr. Government, don't make me jerk my knee. You may not like where my knee ends up."

Re:

[sumdumass (711423)]

This isn't about anonymity and expression. It is about the city demonstrating that the people suing them where arrested for being in a specific location with a specific intent that justified their arrest even though they weren't officially charged with a crime.

They are suing over being falsely arrested during the RNC convention in 2004. The city claims they had a legitimate reasons ofr their arrest and detention even though they didn't charge the people.

Re:

[Omestes (471991)]

I think there is an expectation of privacy because people view SMS in the same light as they view a person-to-person telephone conversation. I don't think they're wrong in this, either, since this is more akin to an internal organizational memo than a soap box. When I CC an email to 10 of my friends about something going on, I have the same expectation of privacy as sending it to any single one of them. It is that group's business, not anyone else's.

In my analogy the only legitimate circumvention would b

T'was ever thus

[hyades1 (1149581)]

Every time you surrender your rights to the state in return for assurances that a) people who might be breaking some minor law like jaywalking have nothing to worry about and b) the new powers will be used only against the really, really bad people, should sit up and take notice. This is exactly the kind of thing you can expect.

How many people who want to exercise their legal right to protest will sit home next time because their career ambitions include jobs where even being on the same street as a protest could knock them off the hiring list?

It's always best to assume governments and police forces are led by lying, treacherous fascists. You will occasionally be pleasantly surprised to find that it's not the case. More often, you'll find out that power-tripping assholes are attracted to those jobs the same way child molesters are attracted to schoolgrounds and bank robbers are attracted to banks.

Re:

[hyades1 (1149581)]

I disagree with your opinion on public protest. It has been and remains an effective tool to change public policy. Why do you think governments are so anxious to suppress it?

And while you may be right about air travel, I think you have to acknowledge that other alternatives remain, though they may impose a burden on the traveler. I would expect that sooner, rather than later, American professionals who need to fly frequently will be forced to submit to thorough vetting in return for some kind of enhanc

Re:T'was ever thus

[Omestes (471991)]

I think the parent is correct about much of modern protest, but not all. But even if it is abused, or done for no real reason, it still is a handy tool that we may need someday (or, arguably now).

I remember in college I had a bunch of friends telling me about the "die in" (basically laying down, acting dead-ish in the student union) they were holding. This was fine an noble, but they were completely unable to actually tell anyone what it was over, but they still got around 70-100 people to participate. I think, in the end, it was over the food supplier for the university or something, but I'm not sure since the organizers still won't tell me.

Yearly PRISM (the gay activist club) would organize demostations and protests for equal rights and gay marriage, one year it was then doing some stupid musical/play thing in the middle of campus. All it served was to make it impossible to study there, and to set them further apart from the rest of us (making it easier to single them out). Though the year previous they organized my favorite demonstration ever, "Gay people being gay", and it consisted of them sitting around the commons, studying, and socializing normally, while surrounded by yellow police tape, showing people that they were just people. I actually signed their petition that year.

Most protesters act outragious, and thus can pointed out at deviants and oddballs, which weakens to position that people are protesting. It makes it easier for someone to point at them and discredit them. By acting like morons they discredit their own cause. Ideally protesters should wear business attire, have professional signs, and offer and eloquent message, this way they have the image of at least treating their issue seriously, and don't come off as a bunch of mentally unstable ex-hippies wearing hemp pants who actually believe that the GOP eats babies.

Which is it?

[Shoten (260439)]

An April Fool's post, or sh!thead attorneys?

Re:

[IBBoard (1128019)]

Okay, so maybe it is a day to be a bit more dubious than most, but this is lawyers we're talking about. So what if there's some "constitution" thing that might get in their way, they'll do what they're paid to do - interpret everything in their own way to get at the info they want. Such is the way of lawyers.

Keeping records

[naich (781425)]

Why keep records at all? If I was organising something that could be used for civil disobedience then I'd make sure it was all anonymous with no records kept for precisely this reason.

Re:

[Saint Fnordius (456567)]

If you had read the article, he states that he doesn't have any logfiles, that he won't hand over anything due to privacy concerns and the overreaching aspect of the subpoena.

Note also that he hasn't been ordered by the court yet, only that the lawyers representing the city demanded the info through a scary-looking nastygram.

Re:

[Firethorn (177587)]

Yes, I know that the threat isn't the same as actually taking legal action, that's why I called it a scare tactic.

And for many of the letters I've seen evidence for, if it took them 20 minutes I'd be surprised. Many look almost like the form letters of old with open spaces to type in the relevant information via typewriter.

As for the $50k defense fund, I'd hit the RNC up, personally. They'd probably be willing to throw that much at it just to keep anything embarrasing out of the public eye, even if it'd o

Re:

[CodeBuster (516420)]

Why keep records at all?

Be careful what you say, don't step out of line, big brother is watching...is this really how we want to live? Constantly looking over our shoulders, conducting business in secret, suspicious of our neighbors, and tight-lipped about what we say in public?

Don't be confused...

[sapphire wyvern (1153271)]

I feel obliged to point out that this article concerns New York City Lawyers, not NewYorkCountryLawyer [slashdot.org]. ;)

Why Did He Keep Them?

[Mikkeles (698461)]

Why did he keep identified copies of all the messages if there was never an intent to release or use them?

Retention policy?

[redelm (54142)]

I do not understand. It is impossible to reveal or be forced to disclose that which you never retained or had distroyed in the normal course of business. Otherwise, your records are entirely at the mercy of a judge who almost certainly wants more evidence, not less, the better to judge. The assumption of an impartial or at least privacy-respecting judiciary does not hold.

Do phone companies record phone calls? Of course not? So why should text companies record content? Even recording traffic should on

speaking of subpoenas...

[Reader X (906979)]

...have the missing White House e-mails been located yet?

I don't understand why...

[JoeD (12073)]

I don't understand why he kept the information, but if he really wants to take a stand on this, he should delete it immediately, before they come in with a warrant.

Poor articles all around

[Foolicious (895952)]

The NY Times article isn't particularly informative. It has some information, but not the specifics I was looking for. Here's some semi-useful info:

The subpoena is connected to a group of 62 lawsuits against the city that stem from arrests during the convention and have been consolidated in Federal District Court in Manhattan. About 1,800 people were arrested and charged, but 90 percent of them ultimately walked away from court without pleading guilty or being convicted.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I use the accompanying initialism, but can the "city" issue a subpoena? I guess a lawyer could as an agent of the court or whatever, and a lawyer could work for the city, but I thought they were issued by some clerk who had to get sign off by some judge? In which case (unless I am wrong, of course), I'd be more concerned about the

Re:

[cfulmer (3166)]

IIRC, the subpoena is generally signed by a clerk of court. The party being subpoenaed can file a motion to quash the subpoena, in which case the judge looks at it. If the subpoena is vastly overbroad, there may be sanctions against the party trying to enforce it.

I don't really see any problems with this. The city is trying to defend itself in a series of lawsuits about its arrests of a bunch of protesters. One of the elements of its defense is probably that the people who were arrested were not just in

Phoenix AZ New Times subpoena similarity

[lanner (107308)]

Similar to this;

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/breathtaking-abuse-of-the-constitution/ [phoenixnewtimes.com]

The local prosecutors office ordered and conducted the arrest of the newspaper editors for disclosing the fact that they had been requested, through the act of a horrifically crooked grand jury subpoena (which neither the judge nor jury had approved or even seen), to turn over a list of their entire readership and website visitors over a period of years.

I hope for a similar, if not stronger, reaction.

Re:Yahoo

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

Don't click this link, it is malicious.