Icelandic MP To Challenge US Court Ruling On Twitter Privacy 132
JabrTheHut writes "The Guardian has a story of how Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, is challenging the U.S.'s acquisition of Twitter account information, IP addresses, mailing addresses and even bank information. The U.S. says it wanted these details to help with its investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Jonsdottir said, 'This is a huge blow for everybody that uses social media. We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline. Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers. There would be a hell of a fight. It's absolutely unacceptable.'"
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter is based in the US and has servers here. Ultimately they will have to comply with US law whether or not that's good for anybody.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. If she kept a US bank account, or owned a home in the US - they would be subject to US search and seizure laws.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, the rule of law doesn't seem to mean anything anymore if you mention Terrorism.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Informative)
Complete Nonsense. This material is covered under long standing US Law, the ECPA aka TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 121 PARAGRAPH 2703 part d, passed in 1986.
(d) Requirements for Court Order.â" A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act [wikipedia.org]
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
The Justice Department obtained the records under a federal statute that allows for the release of non-content Internet records without obtaining a search warrant, which requires prosecutors to demonstrate probable cause.
No search warrant was obtained. They couldn't even prove probable cause when they attempted to get a warrant, so they found a loophole. Anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so it's up to Congress to close that loophole... or not. Until they do, that's the law. Whenever that may happen, it will probably be too late for the Icelandic MP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the US Congress rarely gives a damn about what people in other countries think. And neither should they; that's not what they get elected for.
Re: (Score:2)
So you failed to read even to the second paragraph of the first link?
On Thursday a US judge ruled Twitter must release the details of her account and those of two other Twitter users linked to WikiLeaks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry dude, some of us here know what you're on about. I find it difficult as to why other commentators just don't get what you're saying.
Amerika! (Score:4, Insightful)
Number ONE enemy of Truth, Justice and the American Way!
At least they are first in SOMETHING again. That 17th highest standard of living, and 56th least corrupt, just have to sting.
If "Freedom isn't free", you guys are still being cheated.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm an American, and I love my country.
But if I were offered an opportunity to emigrate to Iceland tomorrow, I'd probably take it. (Who brought Eastern Europe into this?)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an American, and I love my country.
But if I were offered an opportunity to emigrate to Iceland tomorrow, I'd probably take it. (Who brought Eastern Europe into this?)
I'm American and emigrated years afoot a better place. Hopp Schweiz!
Re: (Score:1)
Can we move Iceland off the coast of California first? Say around Santa Barbara, or SLO? I like the sound of the culture/politics of Iceland, but not the weather.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Amerika! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm from America, and am posting this as I'm being driven to the airport to catch a flight to Reykjavík to sign work and residence permit applications with my new employer. ;) To anyone who's never been there: Iceland is just plain awesome. And to anyone who has the attitude of, "I wish I could move to X place..." -- don't be complacent. You *can* make a change in your life. It's not fantasy; people do it all the time. Right now: pull up a web browser, find an overseas job site, and start applying. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not CCP -- Isavia. But still, atvinnu hjá íslenskt fyrirtæki ;)
Posting this from my hotel room with a nice view of the Hallgrímskirkja. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did apply to a bunch of overseas jobs, actually. Was accepted to one in Germany, but the acceptance came in the day after I'd already accepted a postdoc in the States. Sad times.
Re: (Score:2)
i am ashamed to call myself a US Citizen anymore, this nation sucks totally, the government is a racket that would make the mafia jealous. oh and those conspiracies that you hear on alternative news sites? they are all about 99% true,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ashamed of my government. I love my country. They're different.
Re:Amerika! (Score:4, Informative)
I think you overestimate it by a tad. There's no flocking, just over a million immigrants a year. If you look at immigrants per year per head of population, the US comes in 31st. [nationmaster.com] Just above most Western European countries, but way below Australia or Canada. Europe as a whole has a lot more immigrants per year than America does [wikimedia.org], and that includes Eastern Europe.
America hasn't been the promised land for a long time, and not that many people pick it out as the ideal place to live. It's just because American media doesn't cover any international news or events that Americans themselves don't realize this.
Re: (Score:3)
It's much, much easier for Turks, Africans, Iraqis, Libyans and Afghans to travel to Europe. And stay.
Re:Amerika! (Score:4, Informative)
This is a prime case of lying with incorrectly quoted statistics.
The United States has BY FAR the largest net migration rate in the world. Over 5 millions per year. The 31 nations that have higher per capita rates are tiny countries in comparison to the US, and have a small European component. Europe may have more immigrants, but NOT CLOSE on a per capita basis.
Not only that, but in the same article you linked to it was stated that a 2009 survey found the US is BY FAR considered the most desirable destination in the world, with 165 million adults world wide giving it as it's first choice. Europe only got about 1/8 the number the US did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because of the American Dream (TM) - the idea that anyone can make it there if they work hard. Of course it's a lie because the people who already made it are making damn sure no-one else can get a cut of their pie, and even if they weren't the chances of an individual starting a successful and highly profitable business are pretty slim.
Don't feel too bad, many British people swallowed that particular turd in the 80s too. Talk about your own worst enemy.
Re:Amerika! (Score:4, Informative)
You're conflating two things - desirability as an immigration destination, and ease of immigration - and attributing both their effects to desirability as an immigration destination.
I'm only familiar with Canada so I'll use it as an example. It's a helluva lot easier to immigrate to Canada than to the U.S. When Hong Kong reverted to Chinese control, a lot of its residents tried to immigrate to the U.S., were declined, and immigrated to Canada instead which gladly accepted them. An immigration visa to Canada can be had in 1-3 years [cic.gc.ca], and you can apply for Canadian citizenship after residing there just 3 years. Wait times for a green card in the U.S. are 4-5 years for favored countries, even longer for other countries [wikipedia.org]. And you have to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years before you can apply for citizenship. The U.S. just makes it a lot harder to immigrate than other countries. Heck, it's a helluva lot easier just to get a tourist visa to Canada than to the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So your explanation is that it is stupid to do otherwise. Nice ad hom, but did you have an actual point?
Comparing per capita numbers makes no sense when you're talking about the absolute desirability of a country as a new home for immigrants as chosen by those immigrants. You have to use the actual numbers.
Per capita numbers might make sense when you're talking about the make-up of a country or a country's ability to handle immigration. In this conversation they just don't apply.
I know it's hip in some circ
Re: (Score:1)
Millions buy Justine Bieber music too.What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy!"
Re: (Score:3)
Just keep drinking the corn syrup. It'll all be OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers. "
Your not exactly posting the private papers on social media sites, are you?
Re: (Score:1)
Buuut, the US Government coerced him into putting his personal data on those US servers.
She said it best herself (Score:4, Insightful)
That' right everyone, remember when you store your information on a computer in the US, be fully aware that information is now subject to US laws.
Someone better warn her that her Facebook, Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo are also at risk. Even her eBay and Google searches, maybe even some info sent through her iPhone or Android device if it passed through Apple or Google servers.
Re: (Score:3)
And likewise if I post something to a site in Germany the information would be available to the German authorities. Or in China to the Chinese authorities. Ultimately, any time you do business with a company or organization online the data is retained or not based upon the laws in their jurisdiction.
The US is hardly the only nation to feel that way and make use of it.
Why not... (Score:4, Insightful)
And likewise if I post something to a site in Germany the information would be available to the German authorities.....
.... The US is hardly the only nation to feel that way and make use of it.
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc... are all doing business in Europe, whether they're selling services or ads... Granted sometimes the servers are located in the US, (sometimes it's the EU, or both, who knows?), nevertheless I doubt user agreements have any significant legal standing in most of Europe, the common man cannot be expected to understand 5 pages for legal nonsense, especially not when written in a foreign language.
:)
:)
So why shouldn't Twitter, Facebook , Google etc. be fined for violating European privacy laws?
I realize it would put these companies between a rock and a hard place, as the US would force them to deliver the information... But if we in Europe put these companies in this position, they'll probably buy, sorry lobby, some US politician to come up with better privacy laws, that respects users in foreign countries...
Obviously, this would be a somewhat extreme action to take
But when you do business in EU your subject to our laws... I don't hope the EU starts fining companies for complying with court orders, search warrents, or requests under an obscure "stored communications act" in the US right away, but starting a discussion about what's okay and how to handle violations would be a good thing...
By the way, isn't it kind of arrogant (and stupid) to go to court for information about an MP in a foreign country? What can they possibly learn from her twitter account anyway
Re: (Score:2)
Host your own network in your own part of the world and set up quality "non commercial" encryption.
If you need to us US web media, use it only as a passive updated news link to your real site.
The NSA,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably more accurate to say that "Storing information on a computer in a foreign country can have many legal implications." Not that it is always obvious where a computer actually is. Especially with "cloud computing", where physical location can vary with time.
Someone better warn her that her Facebook, Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo are also at risk.
With a
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope she is only fighting this on a point of principal and that she didn't keep any sensitive data on these services. You would think that basic privacy and legal protection would be required knowledge for anyone involved in Wikileaks.
On the bright side at least we now have another argument against the "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" brigade. Everyone has stuff they want to hide, especially since online you are subject to the laws of other countries.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the recurring problems, or at minimal worries, about so much of the 'net being based in the US is it results in US laws and judicial system being applied to non-US citizens who often have no way to defend or represent themselves. It is a situation the US would generally not find acceptable if it were reversed, and there is not e
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if those other countries had bothered to invent the internet that wouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's good for the US to have so much control, but it's hardly something that just happened. Our government invested a ton of money inventing the thing and to this day a significant amount of development is done by American firms that offer up services world wide. It didn't exactly take me a long time to dig up the information that Twitter was based in San Francisco.
As bad as the US is in some areas
US citizen spying even if you aint a citizen. (Score:1)
Now you know the police state we are don't use US based Businesses if you know whats good for you.
Not worth it.
Tweets are not private papers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tweets are not private papers (Score:5, Insightful)
And our "addresses, mailing addresses and even bank information" are not the same thing as our tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
Some thinking persons still are running operating systems installed by their parents which have strict and deterministic rules about truthfulness and deference to authority.
Re: (Score:2)
The more interesting question is why would Twitter even have such information? Do you need to enter a credit card number to post more than 20 tweets a month or something?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have this information. It's a slippery-slope argument, albeit one turned around the wrong way.
Re:Tweets are not private papers (Score:5, Informative)
"the same civil rights online as we have offline' (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline."
I think she'll get no argument there from the Dept of Homeland Security.
Unfortunately, the DHS (literally translated to Russian, the acronym would be "KGB") seems to think there are none in either place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think she'll get no argument there from the Dept of Homeland Security. DHS (literally translated to Russian, the acronym would be "KGB")
(KGB) (Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti or Committee for State Security)
Re: (Score:3)
You've got ten minutes and then I want you back at your desk.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you apparently missed this, that "attempt at wit" was exactly as meaningful as the post it responded to. That was the point of the response, but apparently it was too subtle, so I'll try to be clear.
Injecting emotion without information does not further dialog.
And when your own contribution to a dialog is devoid of information, calling somebody else out for non-meaningful statements is hypocriitcal, don't you think?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"the same civil rights online as we have offlin (Score:5, Informative)
"Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti", or "Committee for State Security". That's not all that far off from "Department of Homeland Security".
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
Stasi - The Ministry for State Security
Different countries, different policies (Score:2)
Due process has been afforded (Score:2)
The right to free speech is not infinite. Especially when your speech infringes on the rights of others (try right to life of soldiers and CIA),
This woman would be subject to having her home searched and private papers viewed if she were physically in the US. Physical papers could be searched if they were in a US bank vault. The same rul
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think people are misconstruing some of the issues here - in this case, has due process really been afforded, because the Twitter ruling was based around a lower requirement of demonstration of need for obtaining the search warrant - basically, the Judge ruled that the requester didn't need to demonstrate any "probable cause" because of the type of information being requested, and thus the warrant would be issued on a lower burden of requirement.
So in this case, even if this lady had papers and possessions
Re: (Score:3)
1) The revalations stemming from decoding the wikileaks cache are directly responsible for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/ [salon.com]
2) 4483 US Military Deaths in Iraq in the last 9 years (498/yr): http://icasualties.org/ [icasualties.org]
3) Documented civilian deaths (probably very conservative): 1
a hell of a fight? (Score:2)
Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers. There would be a hell of a fight. It's absolutely unacceptable.'"
If you lived here, where the actual data resides in the twitter case, no there wouldn't be a 'hell of a fight'. They would come with a warrant from a judge, tear down your door, search your house and you get to sit there politely and watch. If you protest, you get hauled away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, i understood it. Its why i said if they came to your house they *would* have a warrant, and you couldn't say boo about it..
I would imagine that if the 'data' was stored at your house instead of some 3rd party, then a warrant would be needed for that too. Being off site on what is essentially a 'public service provider' is the key to me. I also bet that if you had a paid storage service off site the same warrant need would apply.
Re: (Score:2)
As if. (Score:2)
That would be nice, but I don't think it is very likely. Access to the court system is a matter of how much you are willing to spend, particularly in criminal defense matters.
So Make Your Own Damn Twitter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you just love the irony? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Quoting Icelanders (Score:5, Interesting)
Notes to the Guardian (and to Slashdot for just copy-pasting it):
1) The name is "Jónsdóttir", not "Jonsdottir". I assume you know how to use accented characters; this isn't the 1980s. Jonsdottir is not only incorrect, but it would have a different pronunciation.
2) "Jónsdóttir" isn't a last name. It's a föðurnafn, or "patronymic". Think of it as an adjective, not a name -- in terms of actual usage, "Birgitta Jónsdóttir" should be thought of as "Birgitta, whose father is Jón." Saying "Jónsdóttir said" is like saying "Whose father is Jón said". You don't refer to people by their patronymics alone; they're only there for when you need clarity. Even phone books in Iceland are sorted by first name.
Anyway, I was going to make some joke about how, given the typical ignorance of most people about Iceland, and of Americans about the outside world in general, I wouldn't be surprised if the US tried to subpoena her kennitala (Icelandic "Social Security Number" equivalent)... but then I realized that I'd have to take the time to explain what's funny about that and it'd ruin it. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's well know over here that you can just plain make up stuff about the country when talking to people who've never been to Iceland, and they'll probably believe it. One guy I know likes to tell people that he has a pet polar bear, and that such pets are very common up here. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flest enskumælandi löndum mun ekki fjarlægja kommur egar kommurnar eru í frönsk nöfn. T.d., "Renée [guardian.co.uk]".
Ég get skilið að ýða japansku eða kínversku nöfn, en íslenska stafrófið er ekki svona óvenjulegt. Mér finnst.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot andskotans... ég get ekki skrifað "thorn". :P
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you know how to use accented characters; this isn't the 1980s.
Yet Slashdot doesn't know. You see, Unicode is pure black magic, switching to it would require rocket surgery.
so what are they going to do about it? (Score:2)
So if they rule that the data must be kept private, how exactly are they planning on enforcing that ruling? I suppose the Council of Europe could use rude language, but... wait, they are doing that already.
Create the data, you probably loose control. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, who wants to receive a rat's ass about Iceland? And who writes about countries on the asses of rats and then gives them out to people? Let me tell you, someone like *that* is who the US government should be investigating!
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the people who care are the ones that live there. I do not live in Iceland but I do understand America pissing over people.
Re: (Score:2)