

All 637,000 followers of Wikileaks Subject to US Government Subpoena - liuhenry
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/

======
qbproger
Am I missing something? It seems like they're asking for specific users'
accounts. I don't see where they are requesting 637,000 users' information.

~~~
chrismiller
I think they are talking about section B of attachment A
([http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf))
:

"B. All records and other information relating to the account(s) and time
period in Part A, including:

1\. Records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account,
including the date,time,length and method of connections, data transfer
volume, user name, and source and destination Internet Protocol address(es);"

I guess it depends on how they are defining connection. Connection could mean
a user following that account, replying or direct messaging. On the other hand
they might just want details on each time the user named in the subpoena
logged into their account.

I am guessing that this isn't a request for 637,000 users information because
Twitter has notified those accounts where information has been requested and
they certainly have not notified 637,000 people.

------
brudgers
Direct link to subpoena:

[http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf)

------
underdown
Aren't all websites subject to government subpoena?

~~~
iwwr
It has to be a real subpoena, signed by a judge, not just a 'request'. This
information must then be used as part of an official criminal investigation.
So far, there are no criminal indictments, only backroom spycraft and
intimidation.

------
olefoo
grrr. This headline is misleading and sensationalist; nothing in the linked
article supports the assertion that the order is for all of the followers of
@wikileaks. It's bad enough that the Government is subpoenaing the information
of people who actually did things in cooperation with wikileaks (including a
legislator from a foreign government), we don't need misleading and downright
false headlines muddying the debate.

 __removed __

EDIT:

OK, I had not seen the tweet from @wikileaks when I wrote the above. I still
think the headline is misleading. But that's up to you to decide.

~~~
there
according to [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/us-subpoenas-
wikileaks...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/us-subpoenas-wikileaks-
tweets-and-why-this-could-affect-you/7610):

 _Update (12:20am GMT): Mark Stephens on the BBC News also makes clear that
the court order will also cover the “600,000 odd followers that Wikileaks has
on Twitter“._

~~~
olefoo
If it really does, that's an overreach by the prosecutor and the judge should
not grant the order.

But my reading of the order linked by Glenn Greenwald is that it is asking for
information on the named twitter accounts, not the recipients of messages from
those accounts.

