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."

LEARN

[Anonymous Coward]

They cannot subpoena logs that you don't keep.

Re:Subpoena?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Re:Yahoo

[Yvanhoe]

Don't click this link, it is malicious.

Don't be confused...

[sapphire wyvern]

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

Re:Anonymous political speech

[timmarhy]

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:Keeping records

[Saint Fnordius]

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:LEARN

[meringuoid]

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:Why does he have the data?

[GreatBunzinni]

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:LEARN

[Richard_at_work]

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

Re:Anonymous political speech

[Ironsides]

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:Republicans you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that it's not the RNC asking for this info, right? It's the lawyers for the City of New York because the city is being sued. And while the city is ostensibly run by a republican mayor, it is for republicans like him for which the term RINO was invented.

Re:Why does he have the data?

[themacks]

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.

Re:Anonymous political speech

[sumdumass]

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

[sumdumass]

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 constitutionality. The city arrested people it though was in connection with this but didn't charge all of the people detained. That part is a fact.

There is a lawsuit filed by people who weren't charged for whatever reason but were arrested at some point in connection to the situation. The city needs the records to show an intent which means the arrest wasn't without cause which would negate the claims against them. Illegal things happened or where in the process of happening and going to watch them or participate in them make you an accomplice even if you didn't get charged. This is different from you being somewhere when illegal activity starts happening around you. It isn't that complicated and doesn't need to be.

If this was about an illegal or unconstitutional law, it would have been filed that way. All it is as of now, is people claiming wrongful imprisonment because charges weren't filed against them. The evidence chain is pretty shaky, the city thinks these records will show their intent which would validate their detention and pretty much ruin the cases against them for the people who did intend to break the law.