New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data(readwriteweb.com)
readwriteweb.com
New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/new-york-subpoena-twitter-occupy-wallstreet.php#.T1485HYsXw4.hackernews
8 comments
I kind of assumed most folks from overseas who were doing this were using Tor + Anonymous Twitter account.
Maybe US Agitators just aren't as savvy as their counterparts in the more oppressive parts of the world.
Maybe US Agitators just aren't as savvy as their counterparts in the more oppressive parts of the world.
Not always Tor, which is safe as far as I know IF you can get a Tor connection.
Plenty have been caught and killed or tortured thanks to US tech sold to their governments (and not using Tor level security) so I'm not sure about them being more savvy. The consequences are certainly higher, so they probably are more careful.
It's the domestic people who confuse me, no encryption, from a cell phone account in their name and then thinking "Twitter will break the law to protect me!"
Plenty have been caught and killed or tortured thanks to US tech sold to their governments (and not using Tor level security) so I'm not sure about them being more savvy. The consequences are certainly higher, so they probably are more careful.
It's the domestic people who confuse me, no encryption, from a cell phone account in their name and then thinking "Twitter will break the law to protect me!"
Or maybe their governments aren't the giant, half-the-world's-military, country whose laws Twitter has to respect...
Wait, I thought Twitter was going to change the world by allowing open communications channels to circumvent tyranny? Kind of a useless tool in that regard if it documents all your information and the company is willing to hand it all over at a moment's notice.
Does Twitter have an official stance on this anywhere?
Does Twitter have an official stance on this anywhere?
It's not a matter of whether they're willing or not. They're compelled to by US federal law.
The best part is, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, cops don't even need a judge or a warrant to get it anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
From 2003 to 2006, the FBI averaged about 65,000 NSLs sent - PER YEAR.
Twitter has the username to ip+timestamp mapping, your ISP has the ip+timestamp to name+physical address mapping.
The best part is, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, cops don't even need a judge or a warrant to get it anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
From 2003 to 2006, the FBI averaged about 65,000 NSLs sent - PER YEAR.
Twitter has the username to ip+timestamp mapping, your ISP has the ip+timestamp to name+physical address mapping.
This was a subpoena, not an NSL.
I don't blame Twitter, per se. But you've got to admit that the service loses a bit of social utility if it acts more like a documentation resource for the government than an anonymous communication service.
I mean, if you're going to make a stand, you'd figure doing it against a subpoena for what are essentially traffic violations would be a nice place to start.
I mean, if you're going to make a stand, you'd figure doing it against a subpoena for what are essentially traffic violations would be a nice place to start.
There's marketing hype and there's the reality of operating a business under US law.
And really, if that was the actual goal then twitter could use plenty of existing encryption technologies to make twitter actually useful for tyranny circumventing communications. That wouldn't be a twitter-sized business though, not even close.
And really, if that was the actual goal then twitter could use plenty of existing encryption technologies to make twitter actually useful for tyranny circumventing communications. That wouldn't be a twitter-sized business though, not even close.
Private Information Requires a Subpoena or Court Order
In accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, non-public information about Twitter users is not released except as lawfully required by appropriate legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process.
Some information we store is automatically collected, while other information is provided at the user’s discretion. Though we do store this information, it may not be accurate if the user has created a fake or anonymous profile. Twitter doesn’t require email verification or identity authentication.
So, we release this information, but there is little that proves you are actually you. However, if they also store IP addresses or you have released private information you might have far less plausible dependability.
In accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, non-public information about Twitter users is not released except as lawfully required by appropriate legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process.
Some information we store is automatically collected, while other information is provided at the user’s discretion. Though we do store this information, it may not be accurate if the user has created a fake or anonymous profile. Twitter doesn’t require email verification or identity authentication.
So, we release this information, but there is little that proves you are actually you. However, if they also store IP addresses or you have released private information you might have far less plausible dependability.
They were only referring to officially disliked tyrannies, not ours.
Let me inform you that it's pretty much officially disliked in some places.
IANAL, but can someone explain what information might be gained via this subpoena to build a case?
To me, it seems like the information from twitter would be useful in building a conspiracy case, but since this guy was only charged with Failure to Obey, Blocking Traffic, and Prohibited Use of Roadway, I don't see how information from his twitter account will help prove those charges. (Unless of course, he tweeted: "I'm blocking the roadway and disobeying police!")
To me, it seems like the information from twitter would be useful in building a conspiracy case, but since this guy was only charged with Failure to Obey, Blocking Traffic, and Prohibited Use of Roadway, I don't see how information from his twitter account will help prove those charges. (Unless of course, he tweeted: "I'm blocking the roadway and disobeying police!")
I don't see how information from his twitter account will help prove those charges.
You don't have to. In the US's legal system, the standard for what is discoverable extremely loose. It doesn't just have to be data that you know is relevant, it is any data that might have a chance (even a small one) of containing data that might be relevant.
For example, there's some possibility that the user could have tweeted information about their actions and movements during that time period, and there's some possibility that information might help the attorneys build their theory of the case. So the prosecutors (or plaintiffs, or whoever) are allowed to ask for that information.
It's actually one of the reasons why legal costs in the US and UK are so famously high. The wide net brings in a lot more information that needs to be looked at, and paying attorneys $100s per hour to look at it gets expensive very quickly.
You don't have to. In the US's legal system, the standard for what is discoverable extremely loose. It doesn't just have to be data that you know is relevant, it is any data that might have a chance (even a small one) of containing data that might be relevant.
For example, there's some possibility that the user could have tweeted information about their actions and movements during that time period, and there's some possibility that information might help the attorneys build their theory of the case. So the prosecutors (or plaintiffs, or whoever) are allowed to ask for that information.
It's actually one of the reasons why legal costs in the US and UK are so famously high. The wide net brings in a lot more information that needs to be looked at, and paying attorneys $100s per hour to look at it gets expensive very quickly.
So they can keep him in jail for an extra couple hours by charging him with "Conspiracy to fail to obey, Conspiracy to block traffic, and Conspiracy to ... uh ... prohibited use of roadway."
Free markets can be a loophole around civil liberties, that's why the US Presidential administrations like to go this route.
It's troubling that this type of data gathering doesn't require a warrant. The American Government can't expect oppressive countries to clean up their act when the example they set is to bypass civil liberties whenever possible.
If what you mean to argue is that this data gathering needed to be done under court supervision, well, it was. A subpoena is the type of court supervision process that is applicable in this case. What the subpoena means is that an attorney got a court order compelling a party to provide evidence.
Warrants are also issued by the courts, but they do something different: They permit law enforcement officials (not attorneys) to perform acts that would normally be illegal in order to gather evidence.
Warrants are also issued by the courts, but they do something different: They permit law enforcement officials (not attorneys) to perform acts that would normally be illegal in order to gather evidence.
I haven't bothered to verify the claim but the article states:
"a law called the Stored Communications Act allows authorities to seek data like this without a search warrant"
"a law called the Stored Communications Act allows authorities to seek data like this without a search warrant"
Did some more looking into it.
Turns out that before the Stored Communications Act, the existing law gave people essentially zero right to privacy with respect to electronic communications that were stored by a third party. The pre-existing law was basically just the 4th amendment, and traditionally you relinquish your 4th amendment protections for any documents that you give away.
What the SCA did was to create some hurdles that had to be jumped over to acquire this data. They're not quite as strong as the requirements one needs to get to obtain a search warrant or anything like that, but they're a heck of a lot stronger than what existed beforehand.
So the SCA did not, in fact, allow authorities to "seek data like this without a search warrant." Much the opposite, really.
Turns out that before the Stored Communications Act, the existing law gave people essentially zero right to privacy with respect to electronic communications that were stored by a third party. The pre-existing law was basically just the 4th amendment, and traditionally you relinquish your 4th amendment protections for any documents that you give away.
What the SCA did was to create some hurdles that had to be jumped over to acquire this data. They're not quite as strong as the requirements one needs to get to obtain a search warrant or anything like that, but they're a heck of a lot stronger than what existed beforehand.
So the SCA did not, in fact, allow authorities to "seek data like this without a search warrant." Much the opposite, really.
Yes, the "third party doctrine." Really stupid stuff, especially in an age where we do almost everything over networks provided by third parties with services provided by other third parties, but our expectation is that the data we are transmitting should be as private as if we were storing documents in our home.
There is hope that some of this will be reversed, much like the supreme court ruled that phone conversations were private even though they were over third party connections, and how the SCA provides protections for things like email and (some) sever logs.
In the meantime, the government will continue to try to stretch what it is allowed under the third party doctrine without significant check.
Ars Technica had some good coverage last week of the Obama administration successfully arguing that law enforcement can request cell tower connections (giving a rough tracking of a phone's location) without a warrant:
The Obama administration laid out its position in a legal brief last month, arguing that customers have "no privacy interest" in [cell-site location records] held by a network provider. Under a legal principle known as the "third-party doctrine," information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. The government contends that this rule applies to cell phone location data collected by a network provider.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-...
There is hope that some of this will be reversed, much like the supreme court ruled that phone conversations were private even though they were over third party connections, and how the SCA provides protections for things like email and (some) sever logs.
In the meantime, the government will continue to try to stretch what it is allowed under the third party doctrine without significant check.
Ars Technica had some good coverage last week of the Obama administration successfully arguing that law enforcement can request cell tower connections (giving a rough tracking of a phone's location) without a warrant:
The Obama administration laid out its position in a legal brief last month, arguing that customers have "no privacy interest" in [cell-site location records] held by a network provider. Under a legal principle known as the "third-party doctrine," information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. The government contends that this rule applies to cell phone location data collected by a network provider.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-...
That may be true, but since we're talking about attorneys requesting information (as opposed to police seizing data), what's needed is a subpoena rather than a warrant so I doubt that detail is as relevant as the article's author may have thought it is.
We provide social media analytics software for the intelligence community. During the height of the Occupy movements, various 3-letter agencies were very concerned about what people were saying on Twitter and how it could be used to organize and create trouble for authorities.
It's the double-edged sword of anything that's public & open - it can be used for good and it can be used against you.
It's the double-edged sword of anything that's public & open - it can be used for good and it can be used against you.
Is there, seriously, fucking nobody in that government with the brains or decency to step back and say, "Wait a minute. This is what Iran does. This is what Syria does. This is what the Libyan government tried to do. We cannot and must not go down the road of persecuting people for their speech or their beliefs."
The charges are not over his speech. He would not have been arrested for writing to the newspaper, yelling in the public square, or any number of other activities that would have gotten one arrested (and perhaps tortured) in those other countries. This is decidedly not what Iran does, or what Syria does.
In this country, you are entitled to speech, but you are not entitled to block other people's use of a major roadway. There's an enormous distinction.
That said, I don't really see why these guys want the Twitter information. The case seems to make itself pretty well ("Officer, did you see the defendant attempting to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge?" "Yes, I did. And here's the footage of the same." "The prosecution rests, your honor.").
In this country, you are entitled to speech, but you are not entitled to block other people's use of a major roadway. There's an enormous distinction.
That said, I don't really see why these guys want the Twitter information. The case seems to make itself pretty well ("Officer, did you see the defendant attempting to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge?" "Yes, I did. And here's the footage of the same." "The prosecution rests, your honor.").
Nope (at least not elected), and the reason's simple: nobody smart wants to go through that level of BS for their daily job.
It's a sad state of the world when those that comply with BS are considered smart.
> U.S. activists who thought Twitter was a secure way to communicate during demonstrations may have another thing coming.
People actually think this? I've never been a big fan of the occupy wall street crowd, and when I hear things like this, my opinion of them just keeps falling.
People actually think this? I've never been a big fan of the occupy wall street crowd, and when I hear things like this, my opinion of them just keeps falling.
So you're forming an opinion of a group based on what one source claims that group thinks without having neither evidence nor quotes? Sounds brilliant.
The backing evidence would be the tweets, wouldn't it? This seems to be on the same level as those YouTube videos where the guys show themselves driving down the highway at 120mph, and eventually get caught because of it.
My opinion of OWS was formed using information from a variety of sources. This case is adding to an already negative perception. Perhaps this one thing wouldn't be enough to form a negative opinion, but the collection of what I've read about OWS has lead to a negative opinion, and this article just continues to enforce it.
Seriously, who thinks a company in the United States isn't going to comply with a subpoena? It's especially silly because a key issue of the protests is excessive wealth, and Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, is worth over $650 million.
My opinion of OWS was formed using information from a variety of sources. This case is adding to an already negative perception. Perhaps this one thing wouldn't be enough to form a negative opinion, but the collection of what I've read about OWS has lead to a negative opinion, and this article just continues to enforce it.
Seriously, who thinks a company in the United States isn't going to comply with a subpoena? It's especially silly because a key issue of the protests is excessive wealth, and Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, is worth over $650 million.
I'm actually surprised they are doing this as when the OWS protesters left, the problem literally went away. I'm not defending or criticizing the OWS people, but the government's involvement at this point seems to be like someone who believes they have the duty to punish people who inconvenienced them in some way after the fact. From what I know of human nature, if the government keeps pursuing this, the only way I think the OWS camps will reappear in the spring when the weather warms up. It is a shame if it does because the unemployment was dropping and I believe it was the real cause of the OWS activities.
Twitter has to comply with US law, whatever it's possible for them to reconstruct and release about activists they can be compelled to release. They, so far, have done a decent job of being transparent, in the US, when they are allowed to be (things like national security letters with gag orders mean their, and everyone else's, claims to transparency have to be taken with a grain of salt).
How much Twitter is pushing back or not is besides the point. It's just stupid to expect more out of Twitter than it is legally possible for them to do.