Twitter Can't Reveal Number of US Surveillance Requests, Judge Rules (cnet.com) 53
An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
Six years ago, Twitter sued the U.S. government in an attempt to detail surveillance requests the company had received, but a federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of the government's case that detailing the requests would jeopardize the country's safety. If Twitter revealed the number of surveillance requests it received each calendar quarter, it "would be likely to lead to grave or imminent harm to the national security," U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded after reviewing classified information from the government...
"We think the government's restriction on our speech not only unfairly impacts our users' privacy, but also violates our First Amendment right to free expression and open discussion of government affairs," Twitter argued at the time. Six years later, Twitter says transparency is still important to show how it interacts with governments... "We believe it is vital that the public see the demands we receive, and how we work to strike a balance between respecting local law, supporting people's ability to Tweet, and protecting people from harm."
"We think the government's restriction on our speech not only unfairly impacts our users' privacy, but also violates our First Amendment right to free expression and open discussion of government affairs," Twitter argued at the time. Six years later, Twitter says transparency is still important to show how it interacts with governments... "We believe it is vital that the public see the demands we receive, and how we work to strike a balance between respecting local law, supporting people's ability to Tweet, and protecting people from harm."
Makes perfect sense! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Makes perfect sense! (Score:2)
Nice try, agent Coward's parrot's pet parrot's parrot. :)
Poisoning the well, by throwing "Wuflu" bullshit in there with Snowden.
Too bad everyone knows that tactic nowadays.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Makes perfect sense! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm... The virus is claimed to be from the rufous horseshoe bat that doesn not live [wikipedia.org] in Wuhan.
Additionally, bats are not found for sale in the wet seafood market [washingtonpost.com].
There is a history of lax processes [the-scientist.com] at Chinese virology labs.
There are cables expressing concern of poor processes [washingtonpost.com] in the Wuhan lab just a year before the release.
There is more evidence that it was leaked from the Wuhan lab than President Trump colluded with Russians or Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted someone.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I may summarise, then, you contend that:
* Wuhan in Eastern China is too far from the bat native habitat in Eastern China and that the bats couldn't or wouldn't ever fly close enough even with climate changes, and while they're a natural reservoir of similar viruses, that couldn't be relevant.
* You've ignored the (at least theorised, but I don't have references) hops via the Pangolin or other animals that are sold in the wet markets
* You've seemingly ignored any evidence that it did, in fact, originate
Re: (Score:1)
Wuhan - in central China - is too far West and North for the Rufous bat. There are no official claims of pangolins being the carrier, nor are they claimed to be in the SEAFOOD wet market. And we have a history of leaks of bat viruses from Chinese labs.
Was it intentional? I would say no. Does it happen? It did before, there were concerns about it happening again., and it's too coincidental.
Re: (Score:1)
You think bats can't fly to "central China"
But you have no worries about seafood spontaneouly appearing in "central China".
Just how far do you think fish can fly?
Re: (Score:3)
It would also be interesting to find out whether anything they've learned has actually led to a conviction, or whether they are just scooping up lots of information on the theory that it might be useful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Make 'merka Free Again (Score:2)
Yes, it appears that they do. (Looking at the moderation there.)
One of things is not like the other (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between saying how many requests have been received in a quarter and detailing those requests. I agree with the latter being potentially deleterious to an ongoing investigation. I don't agree that merely stating "we received 250 requests this last quarter" does the same.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Probably because the number is so big it boggles the mind
Or so small that it reveals who is being targeted.
I suggest that Twitter instead tell people how many requests they did not get. "Did not get between 1 and 10", "Did not get between 10 and 100", and so on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest that Twitter instead tell people how many requests they did not get. "Did not get between 1 and 10", "Did not get between 10 and 100", and so on.
Was going to write just about the same thing. - The old 'reverse canary' headline. Maybe go even farther and have a heading on each person's 'home' page saying "you have not been the subject of a surveillance order" until they do.
Re:One of things is not like the other (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Maybe they, unlike you, aren't ignorant shitheads.
The 1st amendment curtails the government, not private corporations. It is perfectly rational to support both a prohibition on the government and permission for private corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although your civil rights are spelled out in the Constitution it doesn't mean that all Constitutional rights are civil rights.
The first amendment clearly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As far as I have been able to find Twitter isn't a branch of congress. If you could point me to a citation to the contrary I would gladly accept that Twitter is also bound to the wording of the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: First Amendment? Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The funny thing about censorship is when you do it right, there isn't any evidence. In fact, censorship is to erase evidence. Funny that.
It's not feelings, but I get the idea that someone hurt your feelings. Who was it? What did they say?
We are mostly invisible. When you lose, we have to hear all about your hurt feelings, but when we lose, we are ignored. When you lose, Twitter makes allowances for your hurt feelings, but can you think of any social media platform that would have done the same for us
How about inserting a delay ? (Score:5, Interesting)
If (big if) we accept their argument that revealing these numbers would "jeopardize the country's safety" - then let them publish the numbers when knowing them would no longer jeopardize safety. Next question: how long should this time be ? 5 years, 10 years, ... - the longer that the government seeks to keep this secret the more that you should realise that the government is not acting in the interests of the public.
I keep saying this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not possible in this case.
Since the judge in question meets all the requirements (female, Hispanic name, Dem), and was appointed by Obama, it's pretty much impossible that she could be wrong in any way, form or fashion....
Yeah, I don't care about any of that (Score:2)
I'll say it again: No more Tough on Crime politicians.
Re: I keep saying this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While people talk (Score:5, Insightful)
While people talk about losing second amendment rights as the end of our freedom, it is probably the erosion of fourth and fifth amendments that will do the job.
Yes, is is possible, but not probable, that a tyrant might come up, and people needs armed rebellion. But that is very unlikely, compared to what is actually happening in terms of privacy, civil liberties, and proper representation in courts right now.
For example, you need to be an elected congressman to be removed from a list: https://nationalinterest.org/b... [nationalinterest.org] . They put Rep. Tom McClintock on "do not fly" list, and he was able to fix this mistake. Many others were not so lucky. They will not tell you why you are on the list, how to clear your name, and before arriving at the airport, even you are in the list in the first place.
I understand countries need to have secrets, and occasionally have to conduct "operations". But: these needs to be the exception, not the norm, and they need to have a clear declassification schedule.
Re: While people talk (Score:3)
would jeopardize ... current practice (Score:2)
The agencies could fear revealing the numbers would jeopardize ... not national security, but current national security operating practices.
By getting the (quite possibly over-broad) data gathering scrutinized, and possibly even political action taken to curtail it.
Ya, but ... (Score:2)
Twitter Can't Reveal Number of US Surveillance Requests, Judge Rules
The ruling doesn't say Twitter can't reveal how many they *didn't* get or how many would have annoyed them ...
For example:
Twitter: We didn't get fewer than 9,000 and we didn't get more than 9,002.
Twitter: It would have really annoyed us to get, say, more than 9,002 requests.
If the judge complains, reply he/she should have been more specific -- words matter.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not remove... (Score:1)
Why not remove all identifying information from the requests, then publish the anonymous number? After all, it's perfectly fine for the government to collect data on its citizens for the purpose of this or that as long as the data is randomized and all chance of identifying individuals has been removed. Or so they say.
[\tica]
How? (Score:2)
How does revealing that threaten national security? That sounds ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
obvious number - ALL OF THEM (Score:2)
The govt does "surveillance requests" for EVERY Twitter account. That is the only way they can keep up with the terrotists/pedophiles/mobsters/evil people. And giving that number away would alert all those bad people that they are being watched. They are logging all the traffic and cross linking who read and responds to who.
That's the only thing that makes sense. I suspect some legitimately bad people use Twitter as a tool to communicate and use disposable accounts. You could have a pre-planned account name
More info (Score:1)
Encryption or make US servers user privacy toxic?? (Score:1)
I don't know much about this stuff so please forgive my lack of this knowledge.
Could not twitter cut off these nasty requests completely with some form of encryption in the name of user security and privacy?
The large database that store tweets and user details could be made into a form of a black box. An automatic system that monitors and handles everything behind the scene. So only of rules are broken or abuse of twitter will make the system reveal that users private data and logs.
Google use a system to mo