Twitter Fights US Court For WikiLeaks Details 268
An anonymous reader writes "Micro-blogging site Twitter is opposing an order from a US court to reveal the account details of supporters of WikiLeaks. Twitter has called on Facebook and Google to reveal whether they also received similar court orders. As part of the US government's investigation into WikiLeaks, a court ordered Twitter, in mid-December, to give details of accounts owned by supporters of the whistle-blower site. Twitter has protested against the subpoena and informed the individuals whose account information has been requested, while raising the possibility that other social networking players have received similar orders."
Another salvo in the war (Score:4, Interesting)
Most don't realize it, but this whole Wikileaks thing is the beginning of World War III. It is just very weird, very slow, and very online.
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Facebook (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd agree were it not for the following http://twitter.com/wikileaks [twitter.com] post yesterday: "WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA [is.gd]" [redirect to PDF of the subpoena hosted on salon.com].
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:2, Interesting)
In and of itself, that post is misleading, at least as far as I can tell. I've read through the subpoena several times, and I see NOTHING about a request for information on supporters or followers of WikiLeaks, except for the few individuals mentioned explicitly. I think the idea is coming from Attachment A Item 1, "subscriber names", but that seems to be referring to the names on the accounts listed in the subpoena, not WL followers/supporters.
Am I missing something, or is this being overblown a bit?
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:2, Interesting)
It's called soft power. Quoth an article from the October 24th issue of The Economist, which emphasizes the relationship between America and China, and happens to be the best of my bathroom reading material:
Culture Wars
On the soft-power side, China is slowly learning...Culture, said [Chinese leader] Mr. Hu, was of growing significance in the "competition of overall national strength." A cursory glance at the streets and shops of China suggests what Mr. Hu may have had in mind: the all=pervasiveness of American brands and cultural products, from Coca-Cola to (pirated) boxed sets of a comedy series, "Friends", from Kentucky Fried Chicken to Starbucks. America's intellectual drawing power is evident in the queues of students waiting for visas at the American embassy: in the 2007-2008 academic year more than 81,000 Chinese were studying in American colleges...
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:3, Interesting)
Russian Federation suffers worst information harvest in 55 years... Internet access and wireless riots in Poland. Blackwater invades... Cuba and Nicaragua reach registered ISP customer goals of 500,000. El Salvador and Honduras datacenters fall... Greens Party gains control of German Communication Infrastructure. Demands withdrawal of German references from Wikileaks... Mexico plunged into digital revolution... NATO dissolves. United States stands alone.
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you putting 'grand jury' in quotes because you don't think there is such a thing, or because you think it actually has a different name? A grand jury is actually called a grand jury, and there actually is such a thing. And the deliberations are secret because many times the grand jury actually decides NOT to indict someone, and this way the initial evidence or prosecutorial arguments put forth while trying to get an indictment aren't spread all over the place. Which is nice, if it turns out the grand jury doesn't find it even worth indicting you, right?
why should we be confident that there's a due process behind deciding whose IP addresses are being fished out of Twitter?
Because the validity of the evidence (and the means by which it was collected) will be evaluated during a trial and argued over by everyone involved
the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side
The implication, by the "hacker" that Manning was chatting with, is that Wikileaks may have worked directly with Manning to set up a place for him to dump the stolen documents. Essentially, helping him to steal them. The communcations surrounding the act of moving those quarter million stolen documents off of government systems and onto Assange's systems are what are in question here. If it turns out that there was coordination between them, that does indeed make a big difference.
witch hunt (Score:3, Interesting)
Feels like a witch hunt to me. /just saying.
Plus, there's overkill — dont' they have all they need to convict manning?
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a US citizen who's been arrested and tortured in Kuwait, and has been put in a no-fly-list by the boogie-man-fearing DHS, and for what reason? He's of Somalian origin, moved to Virginia as a baby, US citizen, but traveled to study to Somalia, it was too dangerous, so he moved to Kuwait. And the sharp-as-nails FBI/CIA/fucking morons thinks: he's Muslim, lived in Virginia (so did al-Awlaki), he traveled to Somalia (al-Awlaki's there!), he must know something!
So they got him, tortured him, he's not said anything because he knows nothing, and now they're (the US) stuck having committed crime against him.. and they still put him in a no-fly-list... well done, fucking morons.
Google "Gulet Mohamed" if you didn't know about this.
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
The part YOU apparently did NOT read. Sections B1-B3, which ask for information on those who have connected to or from the WL people's accounts (ie: tweeted them or received a tweet from them? Subscribed to them? Or hit the "Follow" button? Those ARE common uses of "connected"/"connection"/etc in the Internet world). In addition, Section B3 pretty much invalidates the anonymity seemingly being granted in Section B2 (or at least a large portion thereof).
And from there, a further fishing expedition can take place to request even more information on whatever of the 637K people the govt has further interest in.
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:4, Interesting)
1- it is okay for Asange et.al. to maintain secrecy about their operations, but is not okay for the USA to maintain official secrecy to protect ourselves and supporters.
Yes and no. Yes, in that Assange's organization is not in the US and thus not part of US laws. They may maintain any level of secrecy allowed in the country that hosts them, or in which they are registered as a business (which I don't think they are). And Yes, some level of government secrecy is needed to maintain the legitimate operations of the government. No, in that Assange put himself in the open now, and thus some level of openness is probably the "high road". And No, the US government is an elected body, and should be held accountable to its citizens, as much information as humanly possible should be available to me and you, so we can make informed decisions about retain our current politicians and condone their actions, or the opposite.
2- It is Okay for the leakers cabal to steal and use (for their own financial gain, and to the likely physical danger of others)) US information/property,
but is not okay for the US to pursue how this was facilitated in a court of law.
Yes and no. First, "cabal" really? Physical danger, really? I have seen no proof of physical danger, nor have a read any articles pointing to direct human damage caused by any leak Wikileaks published. Your first clause is fallacious and highly suspect. Your bias is showing. The "cabal" did not steal any information, it was given to them by an individual or individuals (who may or may not be Manning). I have seen no information leading me to believe that Wikileaks "stole" anything themselves, thus they are, and should be, pretty much immune to prosecution on that front, at least. If publishing, or making the leaks available, is indeed illegal, then yes, the government should pursue them. In my opinion this would be a case where you support the law, even if its breakage was, arguably, ethical.
If the government, on the other hand, does its usual liberal reading of the law (and by liberal I mean twisting the interpretation towards its wanted goals, and not the fair spirit of the law), then the government has no real "right" to push it. They will, and it will have some level of popular support, but it still won't be right. Wikileaks, at the moment, is guilty of doing no more than smearing egg on our faces. I have a hard time feeling bad, it is bad to be embarrassed, but the best way of avoiding this is to refrain from doing things you know would be embarrassing, and not just prosecuting everyone bold enough to tell the truth. Perhaps if our government didn't act like an asshat, none of this would have happened.