US Twitter Spying May Have Broken EU Privacy Law 342
Stoobalou writes "A group of European MPs will today push EU bosses to say if the US government breached European privacy laws by snooping on Twitter users with links to whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) will today pose an oral question to the European Commission, seeking clarification from the US on a subpoena demanding the micro-blogging site hand over users' account details."
Where? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where is Twitter based?
Where is the EU?
Just Askin.....
Re:Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They may not matter now but given how the rest of the world is waking up I would wager that eventually some change regarding this must come.
Nope, the US doesn't care and never will. They could collapse entirely [spikemagazine.com] and never lose an gram of nationalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is Twitter based? Where is the EU?
Just Askin.....
First thing I thought, but not as rhetorically ;)
Now, if there is a treaty involved between the USA and the EU, that is a whole different kettle of worms.
Re:Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I don't want to leave the impression I support the subpoena. I don't, and I believe it is correct for Twitter to fight it.
But be that as it may, if Twitter is a US company, based in the US, it is subject to US law. The EU can butt out.
If the US objected because of French subpoena served against a French company, operating in France, can you imagine the uproar?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't want to leave the impression I support the subpoena. I don't, and I believe it is correct for Twitter to fight it.
But be that as it may, if Twitter is a US company, based in the US, it is subject to US law. The EU can butt out.
If the US objected because of French subpoena served against a French company, operating in France, can you imagine the uproar?
Now that you put it that way, I can see the burning cars and places of worship all across France in my mind right now. ;)
Re:Where? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I don't want to leave the impression I support the subpoena. I don't, and I believe it is correct for Twitter to fight it.
But be that as it may, if Twitter is a US company, based in the US, it is subject to US law. The EU can butt out.
If the US objected because of French subpoena served against a French company, operating in France, can you imagine the uproar?
Twitter is not operating in the US only, and it is reasonable to expect a foreign company that operates in your country to follow your country's laws. For example, let's say there's a US company that provides dancing underage boys as sex slaves for wealthy customers. Now that might be legal in the US, but I'm not sure they could operate in any country they choose to where slavery is illegal... just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked into the terms of service of twitter where the user agrees to be governed by US laws?
http://twitter.com/tos [twitter.com]
Re:Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Countries generally don't give a flying shit about such clauses. The law always overrides individual agreements.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because the user agrees to be governed by US laws during the course of their normal usage of Twitter does not mean Twitter, Inc. is not subject to the laws of the country in which the user is accessing their service, especially so if they happen to have subsidiaries or other business operations in those countries, e.g. a sales office to handle advertising.
Re:Where? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if found guilty of something in an EU court, they could be levied with a fine. Said fine could be served on any subsidiaries or offices they may have in the EU. Should they not have any such offices (they do), any EU assets they may have could be seized, their directors and/or staff could be constrained from travelling to the EU. A "nuclear option" would be a court order requiring all EU ISPs to block Twitter. For global companies these days, they generally have to abide to some degree to all sorts of laws beyond those of their home country.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only be true if the EU counter part took part in the actions.
The problem is that you are still attempting to file charges and penalize someone not in the country, for action not done in the country, by people who are not citizens of that country.
Now if an EU subsidiary did something, then yea, it's under their jurisdiction. But when none of the offending act happens within the country or by people directly within the jurisdiction of the country, then it's a lot like charging you for speeding when
Re: (Score:2)
If literally every piece of of the infrastructure resides in the US, then sure, the EU has no jurisdiction. But if they are operating servers or networking infrastructure in the EU, they are still subject to EU laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then either they can't operate in both jurisdictions, or they have to find a way to structure the company so that all EU customer data only resides in the EU and is therefore not subject to US subponeas.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they been to the U.S.?
Are there laws in the country where they used twitter that protects their right to privacy?
Does a company have the legal right to disclose information they obtained from another country where the laws expressly forbid divulging said information?
The U.S. can force the company to hand over the information but doing so will more than likely mean the company has broken the laws of the country the person resides i
Re:Where? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you looked into the terms of service of twitter where the user agrees to be governed by US laws? ... except in the USA (and perhaps China and Iraq) ... an agreement like this is void?
And do you know that all over the world
In civilized countries you can not "give up" rights granted to you by law when you sign a contract. In other words the law is above contracts.
Again:
Have you looked into the terms of service of twitter where the user agrees to be governed by US laws?
Do you even know what this sentence means or is implying? It means that twitter is allowed to sue you in the US if you validate their terms of service. It also means you are allowed to sue twitter in the US if you feel mistreated by twitter. It does not mean that US law regarding privacy is applied to the contract relationship between twitter and its customers. In other words it does not mean that the US government is forced to obey US laws when spying on twitter users. And in contrary to what you implied to say: that is exactly what is happening here. In the US the US would need a warrant from a judge to "spy" on any US citizen. But for spying on a european they don't need a warrant? So Have you looked into the terms of service of twitter where the user agrees to be governed by US laws? is not to be honoured by the US themsleves?
angel'o'sphere
Re: (Score:2)
But the US court issued a subpoena in accordance with actual law.
Re:Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it up. It's little more then US bashing.
I mean hell, even the article doesn't say the US violated EU laws, it says some group looking for another 15 minutes of fame is going to asked someone in power to tell them if they violated the law. And according to the article summery, they call these people the bosses wording it as if the entire group is still getting their asses handed to them in dodge ball on the playground at recess from middle school. I mean it's worded as if the question is true and it's attempting to make people believe it without paying attention to the rest of the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone please mod parent insightful.
It amazes me the degree to which US bashers will argue against their own interests just to twist their pathetic knives that one last turn.
But somehow the rules change when the shoe is on the other foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At which time it becomes the EU's problem to block twitter, because the US is not going to change its laws for the EU.
The Chinese government can provide some expert assistance.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet they're expecting the EU to change their laws for the US.
Re:Where? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is a US company but it didn't stop the EU regulating them. Google is a US company but they had to comply when the EU asked for Street View WiFi data gathered in the EU. Any business that wants to operate in the EU has to abide by EU laws, and Twitter is a business that advertises here and does deals with EU companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are a US company.
Their servers are in the US.
They Operate in the US.
They got a subpoena from a US court.
So by your own pontifications above, they must comply.
Why are you arguing?
What are you saying?
Do you have an actual point?
Re:Where? (Score:4, Informative)
Once again, they don't operate in the US only. When a US based company operates (provides services) in another country, they must follow that country's laws. That's the actual point you fail to understand... repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the have offices in the EU?
Store fronts?
Bank Accounts?
The fact that someone from Europe can access a US website DOES NOT RENDER US LAW NULL AND VOID.
Why do you refuse to recognize that simple fact?
They simply CANNOT IGNORE A LEGALLY SERVED SUBPOENA!
Are you so dense that you can't see this?
Re: (Score:3)
The point remains that they also cannot ignore EU law either. As a result, they end up in crossfire of a legal conflict between two giants.
Re: (Score:3)
Two flaws: they operate world wide, not just in the U.S. and the investigation is directed towards the U.S. government, not Twitter.
I'm pretty sure that there is barely anyone that can argue that Twitter did the best they could to handle the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations. You have just destroyed the Internet.
No website can afford to exist beyond the borders of its home country, for fear that by doing so they may run afoul of some law somewhere.
Sorry. We won't play that silly game. Don't like our websites? Come get us. How many divisions can you muster?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually what I'm saying is that a website that is reachable from anywhere (and takes no money) can not fall under the laws of every country from which it can be reached.
It is totally unworkable.
If by simply putting up a web page, or offering services free service on my server in the middle of Kansas I become subject simultaneously to the laws of every country on earth, then the Internet can no longer exist.
China understands that their laws apply within their borders. And they take all steps they feel nece
Re: (Score:3)
How is your position any different?
You seem to believe that just because you can reach a server in a foreign country that that country's laws no longer apply.
Re: (Score:3)
Totally agreed.
This is the exact problem the Internet is facing: it's worldwide, and doesn't care much about borders. On the other hand our legal systems worldwide assume the existence of borders. And that's where the two clash.
Twitter being a US company I would expect falls under US law. If all their servers are in the US only, it would be clear that they simply fall under US law, as it's a purely US based service. It's like the more traditional scenario of someone selling goods in a shop in the US. This
Re: (Score:2)
The EU can severely limit any "business" that Twitter conducts in the EU. That means, they will not be able to market their services, nor will they be able to derive income, in the EU until they sort out this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't seem to have any business in the EU:
Does Twitter do any business in the EU in the first place? I don't think just having Twitter accounts held by EU citizens count.
Do they advertise? I don't recall having ever seen a Twitter promotional.
Do they have any direct sales of advertisements to EU based companies, the sales of which is fully settled within the EU? It seems an EU company have to buy this advertising in the US instead, as I can't find any EU address on their web site.
From their web sit
Re: (Score:2)
I dont know why this is marked as a troll (well I do), the EU has no problem with this when the shoe is on the other foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Please next time, read the article... it says it there.
Its a US based company.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
Look up the word rhetorical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Twitter is based in San Francisco.
I spat on their door once, it made me feel much better about the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the point i've been trying to get across.
The bulk of their infrastructure, if not all, is in the US.
Why should they get tossed in a jail in the US, to please a European court?
How can any rational person suggest that each person must choose which set of foreign laws they must follow, or that they can ignore their own country's laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you can reach my server does not mean I operate in the EU.
And if they "breached" the law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then what?
Re:And if they "breached" the law... (Score:5, Funny)
Then Europe will send over its vast and powerful army to the US, conquer it, and finally bring democracy to its... er... colonies.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't obey our privacy laws, you American silly persons, we shall taunt you!
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you.
OK, the last part is just wishful thinking but admit it yanks, you want it too.
Re: (Score:3)
It might be hard for the Americans to understand but conflicts can be solved without armies. It's very uncommon over there as it seems but even you will one day learn that marching into someone else's country is the very last option and not something you choose whenever a conflict arises (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan).
Re: (Score:3)
Afghans do not like, and have never liked, the Taliban
Except for the ones that ARE the Taliban. It's like saying that Americans do not like the GOP. That's only true if you consider the majority of America the "one true America". It's not that simple here or in Afghanistan.
the people of Iraq were dealt a losing hand long ago, and it wasn't by the US.
Uh, you hate to break it to you, but the USA helped install Saddam's party as the ruler of Iraq. You know, because they hated Iran and we wanted them to fight our war by proxy. Because Iran overthrew the puppet party we installed there. So, uh, if you don't think it was rainbows and sunshine
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if you would include Russia in europe obviously =P (Moscow is on europes side.)
Damn commies, all of them!
Re: (Score:2)
the US spends more almost as much on defense as the rest of the world *combined* (43% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces [wikipedia.org]). So no, the combined european army would still not match the US army.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the budget of opposing forces in Afghanistan or Iraq? (nvm why the mighty Empire have chosen such absolute military midgets)
BTW, always nice piece of newspeak - "defense" ;p
Re: (Score:3)
...unless said enemy has plenty enough of what is the currently preferred method to "annihilate back"
Re:And if they "breached" the law... (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering that a typical US carrier can perhaps operate a month, max two until he needs new steel ropes to "catch" landing planes, and that the US lack the ability to produce such a simple thing themselves ...
Considering that the typical US air strike force needs AWACS support to operate somewhere on the planet and 75% of all AWACS systems are operated by europeans ....
Considering that the US have no decent fighter aircrafts (in comparison to modern russian and european air planes) ... considering that the US tanks are just a joke in relation to a Leopard or a modern russian tank ... considering that most "hardware" of the US is only expensive and overengineered electronic wise but otherwise not very impressive ...
I simply fail to understand why the rest of the world united should not be able to fight a war against USA.
One very very simple thing you seem not to know at all: all countries of the world have 90% of the armed forces at home and only a VERY VERY small force for political reasons outside of the country, like in Afghanistan. The USA have 90% of theri forces spread all over the world ... and NOTHING at home to defend themselves (9/11 e.g. shows that .... how many air wings where ready to intercept the planes? 3? And 2 training wings?)
Sure ... if we talk about nukes, you have plenty ... we have none.
angel'o'sphere
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And if they "breached" the law... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the F-22 and F-35 are quite excellent aircraft. I don't believe the modern Russian aircraft suck or anything (the Su-35 etc) but the F-22 and F-35 likely do have air superiority in the studies I've seen. This is a silly point anyway, as Britain helped us develop the F-35.
I also am not sure why you think the Abrams is a "joke" compared to the panther. The firepower and electronics of the tanks are quite comparable, as is their speed/weight, but the Abrams has an edge in armor due to the use of depleted uranium, a capability which German manufacturing lacks due to political reasons. Compare the RHA equivalents for both tanks if you don't believe me.
Yes, you're quite correct in asserting most of our military is deployed overseas. Further, recent military cuts have reduced our capability of fighting multiple wars simultaneously. The US however still maintains the deterrence of a large nuclear arsenal, and if attacked and pressed by hostile nation states, I have little doubt we'd use them if we were pushed far enough and it was a matter of survival. Nuclear weapons as an ultimate deterrence make conventional forces seem weak, though it's hard to perform police actions or fight proxy wars with nukes. No, Germany does not have nuclear weapons, but it is not from a lack of trying.
I have great respect for Germany's armed forces throughout history, and Germany's industrial and technological superiority to the US for most of our existence. Today's battlefields and tactics are still defined by German technology.
At the battle of Kasserine Pass where Erwin Rommel defeated a much larger US force, do you think he would've won by being contemptuous and undervaluing the US forces?
Re:And if they "breached" the law... (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering that the US Navy keeps three years worth of all essential consumables on hand "just in case", not much problem.
Considering that every carrier carries a couple of its own airborne control aircraft (basically, a mini-awacs), not so much of a problem as you might think.
You've got something better than F-22 over there? I'm impressed.
Oddly enough, the US tanks use the same gun as the Leopard, and have better armour. And better engines. Not sure what the Leopard has to make it better. Much less Russian tanks, which M1's have been shooting up in overwhelming ratios since the first Gulf War.
You really want to know? Okay, it reduces to this - no other country in the world (even counting the EU as a country) has any real ability to move troops thousands of miles to attack a hostile shore. So when the vast fleet of transports required to move the EU (or other) army puts to sea, they'll have several weeks of sailing during which submarines will be sinking them, airstrikes will be sinking them (yah, the EU fighters don't have the range to cross the Atlantic to provide a CAP), and then when they get here, they'll have to figure out this whole "land on a hostile shore" experience. While being shot at by pretty much everyone and everything.
Note, for the record, that the last major amphibious attack took place in WW2. The last one big enough to even have a hope of taking on a serious power on its homeland took three years to prepare for (and was that quick because there was a base less than 100 miles from the hostile shore), even with absolute control of the sea and air around the battlefield.
Good luck with achieving such on our Atlantic seaboard with what the EU can bring to bear.
Re: (Score:3)
Well,
this part of the discussion leads off topic, I only jumped into it while I thought my parent poster was a bit of a dreamer regarding the US military superiority.
Oddly enough, the US tanks use the same gun as the Leopard, and have better armor. And better engines. Not sure what the Leopard has to make it better. Much less Russian tanks, which M1's have been shooting up in overwhelming ratios since the first Gulf War.
When the US army was about to decide whether to buy Abrahams or Leopards, roughly 10 yea
Re: (Score:2)
No point in military hardware dick-waving. We're looking at nuclear powers on both ends of the fence, so any potential full out war would imply MAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me because I forget which bit of Europe levied the taxes: was it Denmark? Sweden? Portugal? Italy? Ireland?
Or perhaps it wasn't 'Europe' at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Then what?
Thats what I was wondering. Its a foreign country requesting information from a foreign company (to the EU its a foreign company. Its a US based company). While it does involve some of their citizens, it has nothing to do with anything legally in the EU. The way I see it, legally it was like all the tweets they did were considered out of their country. Don't like that? Then use a system in your own country then it can be protected by your countries laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then perhaps Germany will stop selling arms to the US. You will have to figure out how to build your own main battle tank guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US has a complete lack of people who enjoy building and playing with various armaments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The European subsidiaries of twitter will be fined?
Re:And if they "breached" the law... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then Twitter can be fined, and if it doesn't pay up, banned from doing business in the EU, and any European assets seized.
Not doing business in the EU would mean no advertising revenue from the EU, which, as an economy bigger than China and the US would massively devalue Twitter. Whilst none of this would stop European users using Twitter, it'd become near impossible to monetize those users.
The US government may find itself no longer privileged enough in European eyes to enjoy access to banking data and so forth for "counter terrorism" purposes and other such privileged data access it enjoys too.
It probably wouldn't ever reach this stage, but it's naive to think that simply because they're a US company, they have no interests in Europe that can't be squeezed if they breach European law. It's also likely if the EU did levy a fine, that Twitter would just pay it anyway, simply because the fine is still going to be less than the long term profits to be obtained from a continued European prescence.
Besides, it's possible that the MEPs in question have no intention of seeing Twitter penalised anyway, more likely they're simply doing this to add pressure to the US government to drop it's request because like many people across the globe, including some in America, they simply believe that subpoena for communication records of a foreign MP just because that MP used an American firm is a step too far. I believe they're probably just sending a message that it's not acceptable, that's all- the US government undoubtedly knows how far the EU could take this if they so decided to.
Re: (Score:2)
I have also bookmarked you for checking out new posts.
You've bookmarked me? Wow, how nice of you.
Wait... (Score:2)
So following someone on twitter is a violation of privacy law?
Re: (Score:2)
ie a tweet and follower helps a designated group’s PR image, and thereby helps “legitimize” it.
How's that? (Score:3)
Since when is an American government dealing with an American company bound by European rules? Nobody forced us Europeans to sign up for Twitter. I think we're all aware it's an American entity and that American law applies above all others in this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
If tweets originate in Europe then I would surmise that twitter must comply with European privacy laws, similar to email.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as Twitter wants to do business in the EU (selling ads to EU entities?) then it better follow EU law for its EU users. If they don't want that revenue, only providing a service from a US based website, ignoring it is fine.
If I cross border shop I have to follow laws from both countries. Just shop for Marijuana in Holland as a german citizen. Yes, it's legally bought but the german police don't care about that at all.
self-contradictory (Score:4, Insightful)
Somebody doesn't understand how the US legal system works:
Subpoenas get issues by courts, so there is a "judicial enquiry" and judicial oversight. And there is a potentially illegal act, namely the release of classified information; the prosecutor had to convince the judge of that. The order was by a US court to a US company. Furthermore, the individuals targeted were informed and given an opportunity to object.
In Europe, police would be able to get this information without any judicial oversight, without anybody being informed, and without anybody being able to object.
The complaints by these MEP are unfounded and apparently just being made to score political points; beating up on America is a politically successful strategy in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
The individuals targeted were informed and given an opportunity to object only after Twitter complained.
The original subpoena was to be kept secret to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Including Twitter?!
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Logs from ISP and company are also subject to the equivalent of subponea. Where the heck did you get this idea that the police could get whatever they want without judicial oversight ?
Re: (Score:2)
It was a court order, not a subpoena..... according to Rob Gongrijp (one of the EU citizens targeted) :
On December 14 of 2010, the US Department of Justice has had a court order issued to force Twitter to send them various bits of information regarding my Twitter account as well as of the twitter accounts of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Birgitta Jónsdóttir and Jacob Appelbaum. In my previous blog post, I have erroneously referred to this order as a subpoena, which...
Original: http: [gonggri.jp]
Re:self-contradictory (Score:4, Informative)
Thats complete bullshit:
In Europe, police would be able to get this information without any judicial oversight, without anybody being informed, and without anybody being able to object.
It is more or less the same like in the US. You have to convince a judge to give a search warrant. If he does not do so you can not search or "request to hand over" informations. And frankly ... judges here give warrants like this very very very rarely.
Every case where a judge gives such a warrant and then nothing is found is a very server obstacle in his future carrier.
angel'o'sphere
Re: (Score:3)
In Europe, police would be able to get this information without any judicial oversight, without anybody being informed, and without anybody being able to object.
Bollocks.
Europe is not a nation state, European Law is a collection of treaties at best and despite claims in Luxemburg, not all member states recognise its supremacy. National judicial systems vary greatly too. There is no single "police" either (Europol is an intelligence agency), so there would be no need for oversight.
As for "beating up on America", thats going to get an MP here nowhere, given the current climate of massive tax increases and political corruption [reuters.com] scandal people are too busy with their ow
Spying??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe my dictionary is out of date, but I never have thought that a court ordered subpoena is a "spying" activity. If they broke in to twitter and trolled through data that would be spying.
Looking at the website it's coming from... maybe I understand now why they think a subpoena is "spying". They say the Bradley Manning is currently being tortured by US jailers, and insinuate the subpoena is a front to cover the trail of supposedly confirmed NSA wiretaps 2x blocks from Twitter HQ. Sure sounds like level headed, unbiased facts abound there.
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/1/8/us-wants-read-wikileakers-twitter-accounts/ [thinq.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually pretty easy to spy via a "court subpoena". Setup a kangaroo court that will make whatever subpoena you want, and have it subpoena. Voila.
To understand this one must understand EU politics (Score:5, Informative)
Members of European Parliament (MEPs) are democratically elected. Their primary problem is that nobody in Europe cares what they do or what they say. The EU decisions are in practice always complex compromises. The UK may vote for privacy laws the Netherlands wants in exchange for increased fishing quotas and the Netherlands wants it because the Dutch government can use it as a political tool for some other purpose. In short political ideology does not exist in the EU. This is a big problem for MEPs as they can't get reelected unless they get enough publicity and look as if they are doing something the voters care about. The system works against them and so on occasion they make loud noises about any issue they think will be of interest to the voters. Given the complex nature of compromises in the EU they seldom have the opportunity to do this. In this case the opportunity they saw was in the word "twitter". They know that voters recognize it and have scrambled to make themselves look like they are doing something decisive in the public interest. It's not real, it's just collecting brownie points from the public and getting their name in the papers. So you can forget about it. It has nothing to do with EU privacy laws or the US or twitter - it's strictly a PR thing.
The other branch of the EU executive and legislative power is the Commission. It has two functions. One is to act in the interest of the entity that controls it - the EU's civil service and the other is to provide a mechanism for national level politicians to get unpopular decisions through. The EU is run and controlled by the EU bureaucracy - it's civil servants. The Commissioners represent primarily the interest of their departments. The interest of the civil service is entirely self serving. They are for sending SWIFT data to the US as it will mean many fact finding trips to the US and other countries for the people in the departments. They are strongly for the introduction of checks and balances for sending the data as it creates more work for the civil service and ultimately increases their budget. The politicians on the national level have no problem with this as their use of the Commission is to get through unpopular legislation. When something popular is introduced it's always handled at the national level and the local politicians take credit for it. When it's something unpopular they simply say "we hate it too, but it's EU legislation, we can't do anything about it".
That's how the system works and it's not easy for the MEPs as they are not civil servants, they are politicians and need publicity and votes while they are not really meant to have any significant political power. That's why there was such an outrage at the EP rejecting a gay bashing candidate for the post of the Commissioner for Justice a few years back. Things like that are not supposed to happen and as a rule they don't. So when you hear that the EP is making an inquiry or that MEPs are making noises about something, you can safely ignore it. It doesn't have to make sense as nothing will ever come of it - they are just trying to get themselves noticed in order to get reelected.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. EU law applies to US companies conducting business in the EU. I can't see Twitter foregoing business in the 27 country EU as it is a market of over 500 million people.
Data protection law in the EU (Score:3, Interesting)
It actually applies to foreign companies for the storage of data pertaining to EU users.
I actually worked on something relating a month ago and the rules are there and the law exists for any service based in any country to take extra care when storing EU citizen data.
The result of this relating to the subpoena? The US simply cannot subpoena data relating to EU residents, only to US residents.
And that is it gentlemen; of course if the US wants to further degrade their reputation with Europe they can always walk all over European regulations they agreed to respect when handling EU data.
That won't be the first time the US just does what it wants and shits on everyone else, but it may be the last... Patience towards the US tantrums is running out in the EU...
--
www.twilightcampaign.net
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The story isn't about tweets.
Its about a US Subpoena for the account details about the owners of accounts used to support Wikileaks.
The subpoena is being fought, and may well be stricken down as overreaching.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's also about expectations of privacy. Clearly Europeans are under the impression that their privacy laws are in operation when they are using web sites owned by USA based companies, and just as clearly the US Federal government does not think that European privacy laws apply when those people are accessing services offered from the USA.
If this story isn't about tweets, then what, pray tell is it about? It's about twitter, the Federal Government, and privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has sovereignty over twitter, but not foreign users.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but what details could be there? Maybe they can guess location at a given time by checking IP addresses, or maybe they can get real names. But don't they know that already? Don't most people volunteer that sort of information? And why would that be important? Yes, I get that it shouldn't be looked into anyway, privacy is about not having to disclose exactly whatever you don't wish to disclose, not solely what's deemed important, but I think the most important thing is to realize that if they were look
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't tweets public anyway? And what does it matter if they found links to the latest video/picture of some fat/old person/animal singing?
The Tweets are, but I don't think the IP, phone number or other information of interest associated with the sender/follower is public.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
They subpoenad twitter not for the tweets but for IP logs and private account information pertaining to certain accounts. They basically want to know from which computers and where the users logged in from (ie. the IP), at what times (ie. IP log), and what they did while there. They'll also know the e-mails, passwords, and other information from those accounts.
THAT, my friend, is definitely not public and I think that's a huge breach of privacy even for these reasons because the US not only subpoenad for the WikiLeaks accounts but many others that were associated with the scandal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not about reading tweets.
And your post shows you are not about reading TFA.
So run off and read TFA before you make a fool out of yourself. mmmmkay?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not about spying on twitters and facebooks and gmails.
Go read the TFA before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is. What Europeans should realize is that their data protection and privacy laws don't matter when they are communicating over web sites based in the USA.
What did you take away from the article?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't like our privacy laws, then don't user our services. I don't think that it's that unreasonable to recognize that a service that's headquartered and provided
Jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Your mistake is assuming that American law applies. There's no question that it's legal within the US, however services offered in Europe to European citizens is subject to European law. The information sought is clearly protected under European laws.
Why do I even bother? It's Slashdot, mostly Americans and people reading this don't know the details of any legal system.