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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too bad for the precedent this sets though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yey
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
Oh wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Appears more difficult to write though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Same as phone #s
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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BS
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 thread ]