Twitter Hands Over Messages At Heart of Occupy Case 73
another random user sends this excerpt from a BBC report:
"Legal pressure has forced Twitter to hand over messages sent by an Occupy Wall Street protester. Twitter spent months resisting the call to release the messages, saying to do so would undermine privacy laws. The Manhattan district attorney's office wanted the tweets to help its case against protester Malcolm Harris. It believes the messages undermine Mr. Harris' claim that New York police led protesters on to the Brooklyn Bridge to make it easier to arrest them. It claims the messages will show Mr. Harris was aware of police orders that he then disregarded."
Um, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't like the way Yahoo responded to the Chinese government -- Twitter didn't hand over the documents immediately. They tried to defend their case and ultimately lost.
If you want to chastize American companies for selling out their users to the authorities, you've picked the wrong target.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't everything on Twitter archived at the Library of Congress?
Re:Um, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
What case? This never went to court. Twitter decided that now that the Occupy movement has blown over, it's cheaper to comply and frankly not very damaging to their public image because most people wont even notice. Twitter doesn't care about your rights.
Read TFA next time before you comment or you will look ignorant... again. It went to court, the court ordered the documents handed over or they would be held in contempt and fined. Twitter handed them over, but appealed the decision (the messages are sealed pending the results of that appeal).
Re: (Score:1)
They had no option, at this point, but to comply. However, the court decision was completely fucked up.
My understanding is the argument went something like "you have to hand the information over, because he has no right to expectation of privacy when posting on the internet -- it's exactly as if he had opened up his window and shouted out to the world".
However, that is BULLSHIT. If he posted something and then deleted it before anyone could access or use it, it's just like he had shouted out a confession of
Re: (Score:1)
Except the neighbors surveillance system picked him up on a recording and he erased it not knowing there was a backup of the tape.
The entire he deleted before anyone could archive it is nonsense. Twitter archived it which is how they were able to comply with the order and produce the messages that were deleted. Obviously someone read the message too which is why the cops/prosecutor seems to think the contents specifically strengthen their case about how the guy knew what was happening.
Re:Um, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? If they didn't comply by end of today, they would be held in contempt of court.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19597437 [bbc.co.uk]
Twitter spent months resisting the call to release the messages, saying to do so would undermine privacy laws.
If the messages were not handed over on 14 September, Twitter would have been in contempt of court and faced substantial fines.
Learn to read the news sometimes before you start having your informed opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't comply by end of today, they would be held in contempt of court.
Mmmm, I wonder where is that contempt of court when TSA ignores the ruling [reason.com] they lost? Took court a year to reiterate that their ruling should be followed
And Twitter has until the end of day??
Re: (Score:2)
It's called sovereign immunity.
For all practical purposes, the government can do whatever the fuck it wants to precisely BECAUSE it is the government.
I'm well aware of the constitution btw, before anyone decides to mod me down. But I have to ask...is the government actually reading it these days or just using it for toilet paper while it shits on our liberties in the post 9/11 era?
Re: (Score:3)
It's also messages they handed over...which were MEANT to be public in the first place. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that something will be held in confidence when you put it on Twitter, for christ's sake. I applaud Twitter fighting back, and at least setting some precedent, but this isn't at all like what Yahoo! did when they handed of the identities behind the accounts. That's a wholly different thing. (And it's also worth noting that unlike this case, Yahoo! could pretty much be assured t
Re: (Score:2)
It's also messages they handed over...which were MEANT to be public in the first place. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that something will be held in confidence when you put it on Twitter, for christ's sake.
Lots of things are meant to be public, but I wouldn't expect them to be easily acquirable (post-factum). I think maybe it is reasonable for Twitter NOT TO STORE IT, which would then match MY privacy expectation. If someone monitored/stored it, they got it, but the data is not perpetually available to anyone who goes fishing at a later date.
Re: (Score:2)
you've picked the wrong target.
This is slashdot, no good deed should be left unpunished. Twitter stood it's ground until it ran out of legal options, good for them, they should be applauded for their efforts to protect his privacy. At the end of the day the cops do appear to have "reasonable cause" in that they claim it "will show Mr. Harris was aware of police orders that he then disregarded". The right to privacy does not give you the right to conceal evidence, however if everyone who was innocent also had the balls to hold out until t
Re:durr (Score:4, Insightful)
A something happened that to a group that I believed in. There must be some dark reasoning behind it. But if the same thing happened to a group I hated they deserved it.
for example...
"Legal pressure has forced Twitter to handed over messages sent by an Tea Party protester. Twitter spent months resisting the call to release the messages, saying to do so would undermine privacy laws. The DC district attorney's office wanted the tweets to help its case against protester Joe Redeck. It believes the messages undermine Mr. Redeck' claim that DC police led protesters on to the Washington Monument to make it easier to arrest them. It claims the messages will show Mr. Redeck was aware of police orders that he then disregarded."
How dare tweeter hold onto an avoid hinder the investigation against Joe Redeck!!!
Silly them .. (Score:2)
If they haven't taken steps to anonymize the msgs, then silly them
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
"Legal pressure has forced Twitter to handed over messages sent by an Occupy Wall Street protester."
Where are the editors...
You must be new here.
The editors, I mean...
Re:Grammer Poliec (Score:5, Funny)
Editors are the 1%, living off the revenue from the traffic generated by our typing, while doing no useful labor on their own.
DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM!
Re:Grammer Poliec (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They've only been handed over to the court... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The court's opinion was that Mr. Harris could fight the subpoena if he wanted to.
Twitter has to obey a court order, it's not their place to fight a subpoena from a Harris' trial.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no empirical reason to believe that the current system hasn't ever been corrupt in this regard or ever could be. I know, I know, the government taught us otherwise in its education centers.
Re: (Score:1)
It's actually rather interesting: the Government is pretty used to Corporations lining up to give them all the data they ask for. These same companies steal millions from the public, and get a slap on the wrist. Then when somebody doesn't play ball, suddenly this corporation is obviously deserving of crippling fines!
You just found out the sky is blue, eh? I guess the interesting part is that we've been standing back and watching it happen and doing our own part by seeking out the safest spot in the herd for
Re:They've only been handed over to the court... (Score:4, Funny)
Then when somebody doesn't play ball, suddenly this corporation is obviously deserving of crippling fines!
They didn't pay enough in protection mon--,er, campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is anything "sudden" about this at all. If you choose to go up against the legal system you better be on pretty solid ground. Protecting or even seeming to protect a defendant against prosecution is almost always going to get you nowhere, quickly.
Further, anything that can be considered to be withholding evidence is just going to get you slapped by the judge. The US legal system is pretty much dependent on a free exchange of information and anyone that has information is assumed to ha
Re: (Score:1)
> the Government is pretty used to Corporations lining up
> to give them all the data they ask for. These same companies
> steal millions from the public, and get a slap on the wrist.
Methinks you have your order of operations backwards. Politicians seek power so they can lord over people, and corporations, and use laws to get in the way, in exchange for donations legal or otherwise, to get back out of the way.
A corporation who, golly, stands up to government can look to less help and more harm in th
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Except...
"Harris had argued that seeking the accompanying user information violated his privacy and free association rights. The data could give prosecutors a picture of his followers, their interactions and his location at various points, Stolar said."
Luckily...
"The judge sided with the company on one point: It didn’t have to turn over some of the tweets prosecutors’ sought, because a federal law requires a court-approved search warrant, not just a subpoena, for stored electronic communications
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the old "if you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy" defense. I guess that's a popular idea, which explains why we don't have due process in cases like this anymore.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm as much a fan of privacy as anyone else on Slashdot, but this is different.
There's no expectation of privacy on a twitter message nor should there be. Further, this is evidence of a crime. No, it's not a serious crime (murder etc), but if the claim made by the prosecution is shown to be valid then it is a crime. The tweets will probably do that. If they exonerated him he would present them himself I'd wager, so in all likelihood they do not.
You're missing the point of what people mean when they say "if you have nothing to hide...". They're not saying we need to stop legitimate, specific, limited, manually approved warrants from being executed with the aim of finding the truth of a legal matter. Instead, we need to stop illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not (as this guy is) under genuine suspicion of committing crimes.
A very important difference.
If you have a problem with the crimes, that's different. Totally different. Immoral crimes exist and one of the ways to change them is to break them. This guy obviously has principles and, you know what, good on him. The problem is, you should be prepared to be punished for civil disobediance no matter how legitimate (nobody who goes into this kind of thing should expect a trouble free ride) and you certainly shouldn't co-op the cause of legitimate privacy concerns to protect yourself when you do.
Re: (Score:2)
But this isn't just the tweets.
It's all the data Twitter holds on the user. Location data. Friends who follow, association or links with others etc.
To portray this as only revealing the public tweets is wrong. I'm not sure if that's deliberate or intentional, but it's a misstatement of fact.
The WP article as light as it is on details makes clear that Harris was most concerned about user information, not the public tweets.
Re: (Score:1)
To expand.
I can't see any rational reason for a fishing expedition that reveals association data [among other things] in his criminal case. And uncovering who he "associates" with is a direct affront to the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution and amendments.
IMO it's not relevant to the case at all and grabbing for it is simply harassment, or worse, by law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
But this isn't just the tweets. It's all the data Twitter holds on the user. Location data. Friends who follow, association or links with others etc.
How does that change anything? Even if he'd written it in his personal diary, on paper, the prosecution could still use it as evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're completely good if you're charged with say, a criminal trespass violation, for the court to order a search of your home - even where there's no reasonable expectation that the search would reveal anything of use to the prosecution?
Who follows a twitter user, and location data simply are not relevant, IMO, to the criminal prosecution.
And you can't get a warrant to grab and search for information that isn't directly relevant to the crime. [And since specifically protected constitutional issues are a
Re: (Score:2)
: Immoral crimes exist and one of the ways to change them is to break them.
As they say, if this is a legitimate crime, your body will resist and stop you from committing it.
It's different than you think (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's different but in a completely different way than you suggest. What actually happened was the government demanded this guy's personal info, Twitter informed the guy the government was trying to get it, and the guy then moved to quash.
The Judge then ruled that the guy has no interest in his own data, since it's on Twitter's servers and he gave them a license, and therefore he has no standing to file a motion to protect his own information.
The judge then said Twitter had to hand over the information, since they had no reason to protect him. Twitter and this guy appealed the decision, since it's obviously kind of boneheaded that a judge would say "You don't have a right to prevent us from asking for your information if someone else has it." That appeal is pending.
The judge then sent Twitter a letter, asking why he shouldn't find them in contempt for not turning over the information. Twitter pointed to the pending appeal, and he essentially said "I don't care about your appeal, I'm the judge here, which means I'm right, you're wrong. Turn it over or face sanctions."
So while I agree with you that people performing civil disobedience should be prepared to face the consequences for it, this case isn't even at that point yet. This is all over the government completely abusing due process and trying to prevent the guy from even having a say in the investigation!
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, then why couldn't the police just get a warrant?
Also, as others have said there's more to this than public data. Not every piece of dat
Re: (Score:2)
A subpoena is the appropriate legal step here. Unless you really think it's necessary for police to kick in Twitter's server room doors, unhook all of the servers that might be relevant to the investigation, and cart them off for indexing and analysis by some third party IT agency?
It's much easier for Twitter and the police to say, "Dear Twitter, provide us with this information, or be found in contempt of court. Sincerely, The Judge." Since Twitter has the expertise to provide the information without ma
Re: (Score:2)
A rare bit of reality here. The web is public. Twitter is public, Slashdot is public. What we post on the web is public. The only reason we're talking about Twitter turning over anything is because Twitter only keeps content online for about 5 minutes, then it rolls over.
Tweeting is as public as shouting at the top of your lungs on a busy street.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point of what people mean when they say "if you have nothing to hide...". They're not saying we need to stop legitimate, specific, limited, manually approved warrants from being executed with the aim of finding the truth of a legal matter. Instead, we need to stop illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not (as this guy is) under genuine suspicion of committing crimes.
If nobody ever resists government requests for data (which is exactly what Twitter has done), then you DO have "illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not under genuine suspicion of committing crimes." If nobody says 'wait a minute, I'm not sure that's legal' and leaves it up to the government to decide on their own what is and is not legitimate surveillance, you end up with secret rooms at AT&T....
You do not know this guy is guilty. Nor d
Re: (Score:1)
The guy is getting due process. If you cry wolf over things like this, no one will take you seriously when rights are actually trampled.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you have nothing to hide" only applies in a perfect world where the government NEVER makes mistakes, NEVER arrests, prosecutes, or convicts people by mistake, and above all NEVER abuses civil liberties.
Additionally, it also assumes that government evidence rooms are PERFECTLY secure and that government networks are UNHACKABLE and no malicious third party could possibly break in and steal anything, either as a burglar or a hacker or both.
If even ONE of those assumptions isn't true, then the "if you have
Re: (Score:1)
There is a little more to it then just what he said at a specific point in time. The prosecutor wanted all the information like pics of followers tweeted to him and so on that may have been removed or deleted before any criminal accusation was made. The judge is limiting the information to what he tweeted as a concern for the prosecution and will filter the "private" information.
Imagine this being more like the cops stopping you for speeding and demanding to look through your Rolodex and the picture inserts
Re: (Score:2)
You send messages using a public social network, you take your privacy in your own hands.
Unfortunately, most people are so poorly educated when it comes to basic computer use that they do not even understand the privacy implications of using a system like Twitter, let alone how to protect their own privacy. It is not as though a basic understanding of computers is included in K-12 education -- if it were, we might draw an analogy between a failure to use Tor and a failure to correctly compute 2+3 (although even that may be hard for some people, given the inadequacies of American education).
Re: (Score:3)
Are you arguing that ignorance of the law... errr... technology is an excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
So now two wrongs make a right? Riiiiiight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
However, the argument they are using is that it's basically the same as if you shout your confession into a public street. However, if he deleted it, then it is HIS GOOD LUCK. The same way shouting a confession into a public street that just happens to be empty at the moment isn't incriminating. The "evidence" is lost to the ether.
Yes, it was stupid of him to begin with, but that doesn't mean we should just steamroll over important concepts like this.
Land of the free... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech isn't at issue. Nobody is claiming Harris said something bad and should be prosecuted for saying it.
Someone is claiming that Harris publicly said something that is evidence that other claims he is making are false. Harris has a right to privacy. The prosecution has a right to search for evidence. These are the kinds of conflicts the courts are supposed to be deciding. Generally if the prosecution can show specific enough cause for their belief that the evidence exists they will be given pe
Re: (Score:1)
When will people learn... (Score:1)
Social networks are NOT social and just allow governments to spy on you with more ease... STOP THE STUPIDITY!!!
Because the tweets are his own (Score:1)
Are they forcing him to give up his right to silence or did he wave that posting in a public space like Twitter?
That's about the only thing I can think up in terms of a defense here.
But going all the way to SCOTUS for a $500 fine or 15 days in jail seems like an awful lot of work though.
Better just to set up a "Help Harris Pay His Fine" fund through Paypal.
Only one answer (Score:2)
Encryption that will hold out longer than the statute of limitations.