

Twitter Loses 'Occupy Wall Street' Case, Forced To Hand Over User Info - blatherard
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/twitter-loses-occupy-wall-street-case-forced-to-hand-over-user-info.php

======
jrockway
This seems fine to me. It's a public tweet so the government could have easily
captured a copy initially. Asking Twitter to produce the message with a court
order seems better than the government having their own database of public
tweets.

I see a few other problems.

The first is wasting so much money on prosecuting someone who was walking on
the street instead of sidewalk. Yes, they blocked the Brooklyn Bridge. But
there is the Manhattan Bridge, Queensboro Bridge, Midtown Tunnel, and many
other alternate routes from Manhattan to Long Island. The net impact was
probably nothing. The sidewalk on the Brooklyn Bridge is woefully inadequate
for everything anyway so I don't really blame them for using the road. Better
to block cars that can divert at 60mph than bikes that have to divert at 3mph
:)

The second issue I see is with the prosecution proving that a chain of custody
was maintained for the messages that Twitter produced. If any Twitter employee
has write access to the data store, the messages and timestamps could easily
have been altered. How can the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that this did not happen?

Finally, how can one prove a tweet conveyed actual intent rather than mere
interest? I often tweet about things like, "I should go get 5000 of my closest
friends to block the Brooklyn Bridge." If I did that on the day of the
protest, that would look bad for me. But I might have been posturing rather
than organizing, which is my right to do without interference from the
government.

Anyway, this is all a huge waste. It seems like New York City is being
pressured to keep working on this bullshit case when they should have just
cleared the bridge, issued fines, and moved on. Or maybe, you know, provide
adequate pedestrian capacity so people can peaceably assemble without having
to block traffic!

(Incidentally, the exact lane that the protesters blocked is closed every
night for construction...)

~~~
brigade
The subpoena wasn't just for the public contents of tweets; it was also for
_any and all_ user information for the account, including email address and an
anything else twitter might have collected, including IP addresses, physical
location, browser type, etc.

In addition, the court ruled (yet again) that the defendant had zero standing
to challenge (or even know about) the subpoena since it was directed at
Twitter not him. Which is kind of terrifying given the push to cloud storage
for everything.

~~~
obtu
Most of this fruitless discussion seems to be between people who have just
read the TPM article (or scanned to the pull-quote from the judge), and those
who are more familiar with the case. Here's an ArsTechnica article that
communicates the issues quite clearly: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2012/07/ny-judge-compels-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2012/07/ny-judge-compels-twitter-to-reveal-user-data/)

The subpoena is for all public _and private_ information Twitter has for a
period of three months and a half. The charge is for disorderly conduct at one
point during this period. The EFF and Twitter are pointing out that the
prosecutor is going on a fishing expedition. The “shouting from a window”
analogy the judge made is irrelevant.

------
eridius
I don't understand the ruling. Sure, my tweet is public, but why does that
mean that the government can demand my email address and other identifying
user information?

I'm also confused as to what's even being demanded. If the tweets are public,
doesn't the Manhattan DA already have them? And if they know who this person
is (since they said his name, Malcom Harris), what identifying user
information do they actually need?

~~~
themgt
Yeah, it sounds like an absolutely ridiculous ruling. The judge compares a
tweet to shouting something out a window. Which is a perfectly good analogy.
But then in his analogy, since you shouted it out the window of the Twitter
Bar, now months later that establishment is required to turn over all its CCTV
recordings and information on you to the DA

~~~
latch
How is this "absolutely ridiculous"? The government is investigating someone
they suspect committed a crime and issued a subpoena to get more information.
It's how the system is supposed to work.

~~~
_delirium
As the judge noted, there are different standards for the subpoena depending
on whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the information
being subpoenaed, because the Stored Communications Act of 1986 adds certain
extra requirements on when an ISP may release materials that fall under the
latter category.

What was in dispute here wasn't that some information was subpoenaed following
proper procedure, but that the judge held that the "proper procedure" in this
case was the procedure for public information in which there _isn't_ a
"reasonable expectation of privacy", while Twitter was arguing that the
subpoena was requiring them to disclose things that were not in fact public
information.

~~~
latch
Sure, but the idea that tweets have an expectation of privacy, reasonable or
not, is absurd.

From a PR point of view, Twitter did the right thing. They executed their
right to challenge the subpoena. Now they have to begrudgingly hand over the
data. It makes it look like they'll fight for their users, even though there's
clearly nothing they can do.

~~~
kd0amg
_Sure, but the idea that tweets have an expectation of privacy, reasonable or
not, is absurd._

What about the rest of the information associated with a Twitter account?

~~~
latch
The top comment, by Tangaroa, points to 18 USC 2703 which covers this. A
company can be compelled to give that information.

You really find it odd that the government can force company X to turn over
your ip address, name, email and other such information?

The concern over growing fascism comes from warrantless government behavior.
This, on the other hand, seems completely within the realm of government
acting properly.

~~~
kd0amg
_You really find it odd that the government can force company X to turn over
your ip address, name, email and other such information?_

People keep on pointing out to you that the judge applied a standard meant for
public information to a request for non-public information.

------
danenania
Legal merits aside, that the judge would invoke the founding fathers as he
assists in the corporate-governmental squashing of civil disobedience and
dissent is pretty damn hypocritical/ignorant. 90% of the founding fathers
would likely be strong supporters of, if not there on the front lines of
Occupy Wall Street and similar protests if they were alive today. The US
government in its present state stands directly (and proudly) against their
most strongly held and stated values.

------
Karunamon
As crappy as this is - it seems to be legal and logical. You don't get to
claim privacy on something you're broadcasting to the world, and neither does
the company, considering they asked LoC to permanently archive a chunk.

~~~
why-el
I think the issue here is whether they should hand in the email address as
well, at least as I see it.

~~~
latch
Why? They had a subpoena asking for it.

~~~
eli
Did you read the article? Twitter was arguing that the subpoena was
incorrectly issued in the first place, not they are somehow above the law.

The subpoena was based on rules that assume that the twitter user's email
address and direct messages (like public tweets) are already public. This is
surprising since I think most Twitter users would agree that those things
_aren't_ expected to be public.

~~~
latch
No. I'm pretty sure the subpoena was for _public_ tweets and personal
identifiable information (ip address, email, ...).

I think you are confusing personal identifiable information with direct
messages. The direct messages _do_ have an expectation of privacy around them,
but that information was never requested.

~~~
eli
It was for "all user information" whatever that means.

[https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/destructuremal%20Sub...](https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/destructuremal%20Subpoena.pdf)

------
46Bit
Twitter won. They've stood up for their users in court and got a lot of public
support for doing so. The verdict is disappointing but doesn't really affect
that.

The users involved, and others down the line, are the ones who effectively
lost this case.

------
readme
>The judge also turned Twitter’s own policies and businesses decisions against
the company as rationale for upholding the subpoena, pointing out that Twitter
in 2010 signed an agreement to allow the Library of Congress to keep an
archive of all public tweets ever made on the service, using the information
sharing as an example that Twitter itself didn’t consider the content private.

Does this mean the government sued twitter to get information they could have
simply looked up at the library?

The judge is missing that no one is entitled to put an administrative burden
on twitter, especially for information they can get off the internet anyway...
Archive.org much?

~~~
dedward
Got a citation for that last sentence? While I agree it's a valid counter to a
subpoena, if you have evidence and a judge issues a subpoena ordering you to
hand it over.. it's pretty clear cut if everything is done by the book.

Why not go to the LoC? Because the judge can just order twitter to produce it,
which one would expect is probably easier. LoC may be far from having a way to
do this easily.

------
joelthelion
This makes a great case for an anonymous, P2P-based clone of twitter.

Plus, having the intelligence in the client would allow a nice variety of
client tailored to different people's needs.

------
dmvaldman
So what if I post a message on Facebook and share it only with my immediate
friends. Does that also classify as public? What if I share it with only one
person?

~~~
smokeyj
We're talking about law. Quit trying to use reason.

~~~
smokeyj
Why does the hive disagree? If law was objective, we could replace judges and
juries with software. In the end, the law is not drafted, or applied by any
objective or empirical framework.

~~~
hythloday
Are you claiming that every question with an objective answer can be encoded
in an algorithm guaranteed to terminate? If so, would you care to provide the
algorithm used to determine if a particular question has an answer that can be
arrived at using such an algorithm? :-D

~~~
smokeyj
if (measurable) {

}

~~~
hythloday
You're conflating two separate concepts. Concepts like damages decided by a
judge reflect an objective fact (eg loss of business) that is in no way
measurable, and concepts like "beyond reasonable doubt" reflect facts that are
measurable but subjective. Where measurable techniques have become available
to law - DNA profiling, for example - they're taken up very quickly.

I'm completely ignoring the other functions of courts, like legislative
oversight, that obviously can't be performed by an algorithm.

~~~
smokeyj
> Concepts like damages decided by a judge reflect an objective fact (eg loss
> of business) that is in no way measurable

Right, but we could right a formula to get close enough.

Compensation = (official estimate or bid to repair damages) * ( 1.3 for
hardship)

These variables could be punched into a program and a consistent result would
come out.

> and concepts like "beyond reasonable doubt" reflect facts that are
> measurable but subjective

That doesn't make any sense to me. Facts are not supposed to be subjective.
Especially considering the use of "reasonable doubt" is subjective, for
example, officers claiming PC based on drug odors.

> I'm completely ignoring the other functions of courts, like legislative
> oversight, that obviously can't be performed by an algorithm.

Why can't an algorithm do "legislative oversight"?

Update ---

> Where measurable techniques have become available to law - DNA profiling,
> for example - they're taken up very quickly.

DNA has been used to set people free that were locked away based on opinions.
Why should ANYONE have the "discretion" to lock away a human being? I think
that kind of trust comes from years of brainwashing and episodes of CSI (or
the million other variants).

------
Kelliot
If you post on social networks or micro blogs your posting information into
the public domain. You are therefore responsible for what you say and this can
be used for/against you. I see no difference between a twitter, a spoken
recording or a written statement.

Either way it is nice to see twitter did fight this to some extent

~~~
alttab
A big win for the Internet is not having to cough up who you are. This proves
that e government will hunt you down if you say something they don't like and
will violate privacy policies along the way to get it. This could mean
anonymous Internet is over.

~~~
dedward
Pretend it's a real riot-starter you don't like and think about it. The
internet changes nothing. It's not a free ticket to anonymity, any more than
putting up posters in the middle of the night was. You run the risk of getting
caught. Privacy policies are between you and a company, not law.

The danger is in widespread digital fishing expeditions by prosecutors - we
can't have "turn over everything so-and-so said ever on your service". We need
specifics, like everything else... thats' the danger.

The internet is not a thing - it's a bunch of cooperating entities running
networks all over the world, and a bunch more people running services on top
of that.

The courts have ALWAYS been able to subpoena information during
investigations. Why should digital information be different?

------
tomjen3
That makes no sense. It takes years for a court case to reach the supreme
court, so how can this already have been decided?

------
onedev
What if the data got "accidentally" delete?

How could anyone say anything about that? You know, since it was an accident
and all...

------
Tangaroa
Franzen (the linked article) discusses the justification for surrendering the
user's public tweets but not the user's private information. Judge Sciarrino's
decision distinguishes between these tweets and the user's "non-content"
private information, finding that "The law governing compelled disclosure also
covers the above mentioned non-content records." This law is 18 USC
2730[c][1][B], which is fairly straightforward.

<http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/2703.html>

In short, this is no big deal. The information was legally subpoenaed in
connection with a criminal investigation. I think this is only on the front
page because it has the words "Twitter", "Occupy", and "Forced" in the title.

~~~
emilnewton
The ruling may be correct under the law, but that doesn't make it a good
thing.

The Judge is a douchebag for referencing Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in his ruling. Franklin, Hamilton and
Adams wrote pamphlets anonymously with the precise expectation that the
content be public while the writer stay anonymous. Obviously I concede that an
ink on paper pamphlet is not the same as a tweet.

Rulings like this will only push reputable critical speech of the US
government further into less civil minded groups like Anonymous.

Must TOR, I2P and IRC be the domain of our modern day pamphleteers? The sad
truth is, probably. The First Amendment hasn't truly protected free speech
since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_speech)

I guess those who prefer critical thought and freedom over security had better
brush up on loathsome l33t speak.

------
benatkin
Talking Points Memo? Seriously?

