Judge Says Gov't Can Get Access To Twitter Account Data Of Wikileaks' Associates

from the data-vs-speech dept

Earlier this year, it came out that the government was seeking data from Twitter on various users who had some form of connection with Wikileaks. It's actually quite likely that other social media companies received similar orders for data and just handed it over, but Twitter actually fought to unseal the order demanding the data, so that it could inform those whose data was being sought. Once that came out, the EFF and ACLU teamed up to protest the government's data seeking. However, the judge has denied their attempts to block such data collection, saying that since the government is seeking data about the account, rather than information in the account, the individuals don't really have any case at all. The EFF and the ACLU plan to appeal. At this point, it seems unlikely that they'll prevail. It seems like the government tends to be given pretty wide latitude in these kinds of cases to get all sorts of info.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: data, privacy
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:10am

    If the judge doesn't allow it, he censors the government. Can't have that. Ever.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Atkray (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:22am

    Well I guess it is a good thing that Twitter has decided to make itself irrelevant then.

    Too bad for the precedent this sets though.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GSMPedia, 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:37am

    yey

    +1 for the internet!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:40am

    EFF and ACLU can huff and puff and wave their arms around, but there isn't much to argue about here. The warrant only has to rise up to "probably cause" to be valid on it's face, and that only requires a tip, a suggestion, or even "leading information". That could be as little as the people in question exchanging posts on twitter, example.

    Probably cause isn't very hard to understand (even wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of the warrant process), I mean, even Mike could understand it (if he wanted to).

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:47am

      Re:

      You may want to check out the article on "probably cause" while you're on Wikipedia too.

      Oh wait.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      weneedhelp (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:52am

      Re:

      Probably cause isn't very hard to understand.

      Appears more difficult to write though.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:53am

      Re:

      Probably cause isn't very hard to understand (even wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of the warrant process), I mean, even Mike could understand it (if he wanted to).

      This is line is hilarious. You are chiding Mike for not understanding "probably cause" (twice in your comment no less) and I think the term you are really looking for is "probable cause". Just sayin.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2011 @ 7:45pm

        Re: Re:

        A freaking typo. Can you guys perhaps focus on the issue, rather than a single typo?

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 11:21am

      Re:

      I myself am more a fan of sorta-kinda-perhaps-actually-no-wait-almost-definitely cause.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The eejit (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 11:23am

      Re:

      Heh. The phrase you're looking for is 'Probable cause'. Moreover, how would you like it if you were one of these 'associates' whose info was being disclosed to governments without your consent? Just sayin'.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        coldbrew, 14 Mar 2011 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re:

        Would it be valid to assume that people that type "probably cause" do not speak English as their first language? This isn't the first time I've seen a comment from some AC speaking exactly like this. After the first few times I actually questioned my own understanding of the legal technicalities and specific language.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 1:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Would it be valid to assume that people that type "probably cause" do not speak English as their first language?

          Yes, in most cases. And I usually give benefit of doubt.

          However, this AC (and I am assuming it's the same one) repeatedly uses "probably cause" really has no other problems with English, even as far as using slang and commonplace terms correctly in his comments.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DCX2, 14 Mar 2011 @ 1:25pm

      Re:

      Methinks someone didn't bother reading about this debacle. The issue at hand is that they're trying to access this Twitter info without a warrant.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PW (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:53am

    Same as phone #s

    Actually, this ruling seemed consistent with gov't's access to LUDs, where they can find out the numbers dialed from a particular phone. However, the rationale given for this capability, whether w/phone #s or IP addresses, is worrisome to me. This idea that the fact that the phone company is a 3rd party in the transaction which then breaks the privacy expectation between the two parties communicating, creates all sorts of trust problems for cloud-based services.

    With analog phone calls, phone companies have not been recording phone calls (as far as we know ;). However, when you start to consider emails, or file hosting, or CRM systems, or... we begin to see the problem of having a 3rd party break the expectation of privacy. While the Stored Communications Act supposedly protects stored emails, this seems at conflict with the rationale given for providing LUDs or IP addresses. I guess this is yet another tension in our privacy laws.

    I'm hopeful that as encryption can be performed faster, we will see greater protection of content, not because of legislation, but because of technology. This won't solve the LUDs and IP address issue, but at least the content can be protected beyond the whims of politicians.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    CK (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 11:10am

    The government can't, but Sony can? Shows where true political power lies these days.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Overcast (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 1:38pm

    "The issue at hand is that they're trying to access this Twitter info without a warrant."

    Indeed, and to do otherwise is to start a process where 'innocent until proven guilty' is no longer relevant...

    Not that we haven't already been going down that road for years.

    What a cesspool of a nation these current politicians and 'justice/law enforcement' excuses are making of the US (and other nations).

    The only reason any of these clowns exist is to enforce and protect the rights of the country's citizens. But somehow they spin it to doing 'this and that' is protecting rights or someone else, blah, blah, blah.

    Doesn't matter when they no longer follow the rule of law.

    The 4th amendment is quite clear - and if there's a doubt, it should fall upon anyone in politics or law-enforcement to adhere to the principles of our constitution, rather than be a lazy slob and find ways around it.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mr. Anderson, 14 Mar 2011 @ 9:40pm

    BS

    "However, the judge has denied their attempts to block such data collection, saying that since the government is seeking data about the account, rather than information in the account, the individuals don't really have any case at all."

    I remember reading a while ago that the government also wanted the account holders direct messages over Twitter. I believe that's asking to see what's "in" the account, not what's "about" the account.

    So in closing, I call total BS on the government their corrupt puppet Judge's ruling.

    ZOMG, the internetz is here! Run!

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.