
US Department of Justice Subpoena to Twitter for Account Data [pdf] - hornokplease
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf
======
DanielBMarkham
This is an interesting and important next step in the WL story.

From a political standpoint, somebody is going to have to pay somewhere. It
will be interesting to see if they apply current law, create new laws, or work
extra-judicially. My guess, and the way this article indicates the story is
heading, is that they find some existing law to apply. After all, with a legal
system as complex as the United States has, if they want you they'll find
something you're guilty of. Remember that they got the gangster Al Capone not
for breaking prohibition, gambling, or murder: they got him for tax evasion.

If they keep heading this way we all need to pay careful attention to what WL
gets charged with, mainly because it will set a precedent for the rest of us.

------
sage_joch
_1\. subscriber names, user names, screen names, or other identities;_

Wait, does this mean they are requesting information of people who follow
WikiLeaks on Twitter?

~~~
zacstewart
That's the first thing I said when I looked at it. Are all the people who've
merely subscribed to them on Twitter considered part of the investigation?
That's quite scary to me.

~~~
pyre
I think that 'subscriber' refers to the account owner as they are
'subscribing' to Twitter's service (in the same way that your ISP considers
you a subscriber).

    
    
      > The following customer or subscriber account information
      > for each account registered to...
    

That sounds to me like customer and subscriber are being used as synonyms.
Maybe someone else more legal-headed can clarify.

~~~
sage_joch
Having re-read it a few more times, I think you're right. That's at least a
_little_ less concerning than I had originally thought.

------
vaksel
i wouldn't be surprised if Twitter wasn't the only one who got that letter.
I'd bet Facebook and Google(Gmail) got it too.

~~~
notahacker
What is interesting is that according to the Salon article, Twitter responded
by requesting permission to disclose the existence of the subpoena to their
customers, leading to the unsealing order that allowed for this document to be
published.

I think they should be applauded for that.

------
lewkster
more info is in Greenwalds blog from which the pdf links:

<http://salon.com/a/s3yIfAA>

Also (German) <http://goo.gl/Wnuup>

see chat with @WLLegal on Twitter for more updates

------
handelaar
There's something inherently hinky about lifting private communication from a
member of the national parliament of a NATO member democratic state, then not
telling anyone until a month later.

