Some Concerns About Feds' Ability To Get Twitter Info
from the any-right-to-protect? dept
We already wrote about the judge allowing the feds to get info from certain Twitter users. I didn't find it all that surprising, but in a blog post with thoughts from lawyers Venkat Balasubramani and Eric Goldman, some big questions are raised. Venkat points out that the judge seemed to rely on the terms of Twitter's privacy policy as "evidence" of what users are willing to give up as information. However, that seems pretty questionable, since there's little evidence that the vast majority of people actually read privacy policies, leading to serious questions about how binding they are, or how instructive they are about what people have "willingly" given up. Goldman builds off of this, by noting that people should realize that privacy policies really aren't just between users and sites, but that governments will "trawl through a site's privacy policy to cite terms against the site's users as part of the government's rapacious desire to know everything about its citizens."Separately, Goldman raises a number of serious questions about the judge's ruling and what it means. He points out that, similar to file sharing cases where there's "file sharing law" and "real law," there may be "Wikileaks law" and "real law," where judges bend over backwards to make rulings against Wikileaks:
The government's request for Wikileaks-related information from Twitter very well may be lawless, but this judge--like so many others confronted with Wikileaks-related issues--is willing to roll with it using highly formalist reasoning. In this respect, Wikileaks may be the new Napster--whenever its name is invoked, the rule of law gets suspended in an overall effort to kick the unwanted enterprise out of the ecosystem; and everyone who touches Wikileaks gets tarred with the taint-by-association brush.Definitely questions worth pondering.
The court's ruling on 2704 standing to challenge a 2703(c) request is a fine example of the problem. The court says that, based on the statutory wording, the affected subscribers lack standing to challenge the records request. OK, but when do the affected subscribers have standing to challenge a 2703(c) request? According to this ruling, the answer may be never. That can't be right. Surely we as citizens have some way to fight back against overreaching government requests for non-public information about us...don't we?
We encounter the same problem with the court's discussion regarding IP addresses. The court makes a troubling categorical statement: "petitioners have no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in their IP addresses." As with the 2703(c) records request, is there any circumstance where a subscriber could prevent his/her IP address from being disclosed to the government? According to this court, the answer may be no.
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: government, privacy
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ty Ty your a terrific audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Disclosure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Disclosure
wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Disclosure
In fact, they actually have LESS right to data I have shared with a company like Twitter, as there tend to be laws in place restricting how companies can share the data of their customers, while there generally aren't any laws restricting how individual citizens can share information on other citizens. I.e. it's illegal for the video store to share what movies I rent, but if I tell you "Hey, I rented Avatar last night" it isn't illegal for you to share that information with anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slaves Too?
Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder, could I own slaves as long as I somehow got them to accept an "agreement" to give up their freedom? Once upon a time I was told that that would still be illegal, but I guess the law has changed since then. I wonder how much slaves go for these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slaves Too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my point was..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: facts
Nowhere. The government didn't accuse 84,000 websites of having child porn on them, they seized one domain. If that had 84,000 pages, 84,000 images, or 84,000 pdf files doesn't change what content was out there.
What hasn't been talked about here is how much stuff the moooo.com people removed. Any ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
splitting hairs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: splitting hairs
Is that a smoke machine I see near those mirrors?
First off, anyone who basis their business off of something they don't control doesn't earn much respect. For a very few dollars ($1.99 if you want a dot info domain) you can have your own domain and do what you like. These people instead decided to join a group of people on a single domain, something they don't control, and without the ability to choose who else they would be sharing that address with.
Some child porn or other illegal activity got onto the address, and it was seized (for a short period of time).
If they closed their doors to their businesses for the domain being down for a few hours, perhaps they didn't have a very good business to start with.
Your arguments are very weak. Would you like to take another swing at it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so..
impressive, most impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saw it coming..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: saw it coming..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
agreed
Hiding my activities is not an ipso facto guarantee I am doing anything nefarious. In my situation, I am, yet that does not diminish the validity of keeping one's privacy, well, private. Keeping one's rights upheld, and my constitutional privileges intact these are the very tenets of democracy, whether I am 'up to no good' or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy Policies and EULA's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]