Gov't Able To Keep Details Entirely Private In 'Public' Hearing Over Twitter Subpoena
from the what-case? dept
We've been hearing more and more stories about the government being extra secretive in so many things, avoiding scrutiny at every turn, and here's yet another example. You may have heard that, last month, the Boston police, along with a Massachusetts ADA, sent a vague and broad subpoena to Twitter, demanding "all available subscriber info... including address logs for account creations," for any activity between December 8th and December 13th, 2011 for the following list:- Guido Fawkes
- @p0isAn0N
- @OccupyBoston
- #BostonPD
- #d0xcak3
Either way, the subpoena asks Twitter to keep the subpoena itself secret:
In order to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation, this office asks that you not disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber as disclosure could impede the ongoing criminal investigation.However, it appears that Twitter did, in fact, forward the subpoena on to the user @p0isAn0N, who posted it publicly. That resulted in the ACLU jumping on board to represent the anonymous user of that account and to protect the subpoena... leading to a bizarre and Kafkaesque hearing in which the case itself was never even named and the government representatives conferred privately (without the other side's lawyers) for an extended period of time, and then everything was put under a gag order for the parties who did hear what was going on. I'll let Kade Crockford from the ACLU explain the situation. He had gone to the court to hear what happened and basically heard a lot of nothing:
We entered the courtroom. I sat in the front row, behind the bar. Presiding Judge Carol Ball called our cooperating attorney Peter Krupp�s name, and the Assistant District Attorney�s name. She did not call out the name of the case to begin the proceedings, as is custom.After this, the lawyers for the ACLU were only able to say that they couldn't say anything. They couldn't say what the judge said or decided. They couldn't say if the judge granted the ACLU's motion to quash the subpoenas. Basically, the public knows nothing. The government, I'm sure, insisted that this was all a matter of great importance and a criminal investigation for which it must be kept secret -- but it's getting more and more difficult to believe the government when it keeps trying to brush pretty much everything it can under the rug. Furthermore, if this were truly a key criminal investigation, shouldn't the subpoena have actually been narrowly focused on the key issue, rather than seeking subscriber info on everyone who used the hashtag #BostonPD?
The ADA approached the sidebar, the area adjacent to the judge�s perch, far enough away from us, the general public, that we couldn�t hear the content of the hushed conversation spoken there. Krupp objected immediately, before even approaching the bench; he wanted the case heard in open court. (The judge had already sealed the proceedings the day before, pending a hearing this morning.) Krupp�s objection was not granted. Our legal team therefore approached the sidebar, joining the judge and the prosecution.
Then we among the general public, including journalists from all the major media outfits in Boston, listened and heard nothing, as the prosecutors, our lawyers and the judge conversed secretly, in plain sight. I have no idea what they said. I still don�t know, because my colleagues, lawyers at the ACLU of Massachusetts, are prohibited by court order from telling me.
So all I know is what I saw. As Donald Rumsfeld said, there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. After the proceedings this morning, I�m left with little of the former, and a whole lot of the latter two.
The known knowns: the scrum of lawyers, defense and prosecution, addressed the judge. I saw the judge speak to the lawyers. Then I saw our attorneys return to their bench, closer to where I was sitting, out of earshot of the sidebar. But the ADA stayed with the judge. He spoke to her, with his back to the courtroom, for about ten minutes. Our attorneys didn�t get to hear what he said to her, didn�t have a chance to respond to whatever the government was saying about our client, about the case. It was frankly shocking.
After those ten minutes of secret government-judge conversation, our attorneys were invited back to the sidebar, whereupon the scrum of lawyers spoke with the judge for another ten or fifteen minutes. Then they dispersed. The judge uttered not one word to the open court. And that was it.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: occupy boston, subpoena
Companies: aclu, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Correct Response
;-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not
and everyone in the public gallery too............
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not
and everyone in the public gallery too............
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My guess...
Silence the dissenters and toss them in Guantanamo.
I don't personally care if they have the legal ability to do this, it's NOT right. The government hides things from the public left and right and then expects the people to just trust it without question? Yea...no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
although
Well done on signing away the constitution with 1847 Obama..well done, I'm sure your name is going down in history....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why not
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ...when was it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ...when was it
due process is for other people. besides, he wasn't actually IN america, now was he?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ...when was it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1) Arrest anyone who dared use the #BostonPD hashtag twitter to criticize the Boston Police Department.
2) When backlash to above arrests happen, start a PR campaign to defend arrests of people criticizing the Boston PD by arguing that only lawbreakers or unpatriotic people who hate America would criticize the Boston PD.
3) Start arresting anyone who criticizes the police or military on twitter, argue only lawbreakers, terrorists, or unpatriotic people who hate America would oppose such action.
4) When inevitable public backlash on the assault of free speech occurs, declare martial law and the constitution suspended in the name of security & dealing with pesky free speech protesters, who clearly must be terrorists who hate America.
5) When the Supreme Court rules against you declaring martial law and suspending the constitution indefinitely, as no such emergency clause exists in the US constitution, throw the justices in jail in the name of national security. Replace Supreme Court justices with some of your biggest political contributors in past elections.
6) Outlaw running against incumbents in elections, and repeal term limits, so you can insist that the people MUST love you if they keep on unanimously voting you back in! Use big victories to justify keeping 'emergency' security measures in place indefinitely.
7) Pass more legislation to help your biggest political donors make more money, take 5 to 10% of your donor's future profits and put it in your own wallet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My guess...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ...when was it
I don't think its that far off until we get start getting convicted in secret and get taken to the Ministry of Love for re-education.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deception and Secrets...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ...when was it
These days, after they convict you in secret, then they kill you with a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone.
See, for example, the case of a sixteen year-old citizen, born in Denver, Colorado: �An American Teenager in Yemen: Paying for the Sins of His Father?�
by Tom Finn and Noah Browning, Time, Oct. 27, 2011:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ...when was it
I really hope that's not the case, but if it is, then the government could start executing people at will and few would question it. Some secret investigation determined that someone was guilty of something and the attorney general agreed, so no judge or jury is needed. Sad indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...when was it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keep in mind that the Boston Police Department...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why not
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fourth box.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Knock, Knock.......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guido
I cant believe they would want a general name like 'Guido Fawkes'. Around November 5 that name for us British is as common as Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy.
The said criminal has been long dead after he was hanged, drawn & quartered, then his various parts were burned on a bonfire.
I think Mr Fawkes would have been rather shocked to hear his name used on a criminal court case hundreds of years later. My point here is wanting that name is like asking Twitter to supply all tweets on 'George Bush' when some who use that name could be criminals!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Guido
Probably not as shocked as he would be to see it used as part of a plot in a hit hollywood movie:
SPEECH>
"because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen the enunciation of truth, and the truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country"
"fairness, justice and fredom are more than word, they are perspectives"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Deception and Secrets...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problems with that...
1 - It predates the op being promoted.
2 - It is in the time frame when Occupy Boston was being dismantled.
3 - Guido Fawkes is the name used by a UK Blogger, and appeared as the "real name" of @p0isAn0N.
4 - Boston is requesting information on possibly THOUSANDS of people who might have tweeted or retweeted messages bearing these hashtags.
5 - There was a dox release from a "private" server of BPD names and such, and the tag #d0xcak3 was used.
This is a grandstanding play, executed in a completely stupid way. If they thought the ACLU was bothersome when they showed up to their secret meeting to protect 1 persons information, how will they feel with thousands of people who might have merely retweeted or tweeted a message of support of Occupy Boston trying to fight this poorly crafted information grab without any judicial oversight?
An analogy would be sending one of these requests to Google demanding the IP addresses of every person who used a set of search terms for a 1 week period and demanding (with no force of law) that it be kept secret from those people. See the only people I see getting away with that nowdays are private for profit extortion mills who have a former RIAA lobbyist as their Judge. She feels people do not have any right to privacy until they are actually named, while letting people request lots of information about them on questionable "evidence" that has never been demonstrated to be true and factual.
At some point someone needs to point out that subscriber information is not a cookie jar you can just raid whenever you want. We are supposed to have free speech in this country, as long as we are in a clearly marked free speech zone 15 miles from where anyone might hear us. The chilling effect here is because you supported people protesting the government, Boston now gets to build a file on you. It doesn't matter if your in California, Florida, or another country. They can get your information and then decide they want more for their "secret" hearing and profile everyone who was against their actions at Occupy Boston, or who enjoyed seeing them being taken down a peg.
I would like to point out that last time we saw grand standing like this was some AG's looking for reelection or new elected office taking on Craigslist. The result there was tools used to stop the trafficking in people, were lost. The AG's, in some cases, were acting well outside the definition of their office and authority. It would be horrible for someone running for office to not get the Police Union support, how many people need to be harassed to win their support and does that outweigh the right to privacy.
People will say they are Anons they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, I point out how well that has worked so far in history (protip: when they take away everyone else you disliked, then they come for you).
Why would someone need a Grand Jury to pursue someone who they are so sure they can prove "broke" into a system and released information?
Given their apparent lack of understanding of twitter, its possible they will need to subpoena someone to explain how computers work.
That or maybe they just want to build secret files like the FBI kept on 60's "radicals" who protested peacefully for peace... because I am sure that police showing up to question an employee would look cool to an employer. All because that person retweeted a request for blankets or something for Occupy Boston, we didn't make them get fired we aren't responsible for what an employer might do to people we show up and question.
Its 2012, can you smell the Tyranny?
First they came for the Muslims, and I said nothing because Fox told me to fear Muslims.
Then they came for the Brown people, and I said nothing because Fox told me Brown people stole my job.
Then they came for Anonymous, and I said nothing because Fox told me LolCat meme's lead to Erectile Dysfunction.
Now they are here for me, why isn't there anyone saying anything?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: although
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ...when was it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Consitution fail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Consitution fail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Consitution fail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My guess...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ...when was it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
twitter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
twitter
[ link to this | view in thread ]