Twitter Challenges Court Ruling That Twitter Users Have No Standing To Protect Their Own Account Info
from the good-for-them dept
We've seen that Twitter has taken a legal stance in the past to try to protect the rights of its users against the government, and it appears to be doing so again. The State of New York has filed a lawsuit against Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall St. protestor who was charged with disorderly conduct. Harris has a Twitter account at @destructuremal, and the government issued an infamous 2703(d) order to compel Twitter to hand over information about Harris' Twitter account. Twitter, as it should, informed Harris of the request, and Harris sought to quash the order. Amazingly, the court refused, not because it disagreed with the stance, but because it claimed that Harris had no standing to challenge the disclosure of his own information, by literally claiming that Harris had no interest in his own tweets.This was based on a total misreading of Twitter's terms of service, which have been clear from very early on that poster's retain control over the content in their tweets. All they do is grant Twitter a license to display them. The NY court, bizarrely, interpreted this to mean the user gave up control over the tweets, even though Twitter's own terms of service say exactly the opposite.
In response, Twitter has now stood up for its user and filed its own motion in support of Harris, that the April 20th order stating that Harris had no standing should be rejected. It points to the above, as well as to US law that says users can challenge 2703(d) orders. On top of that, it points out that complying clearly seems to violate the 4th Amendment. In an interesting argument, it relies on the recently decided Jones case that said that even if certain information is "public" (e.g., location or tweets), it may still require a warrant to collect.
As Twitter notes, saying that its users can't move to quash such requests sets a problematic precedent:
If the Order stands, Twitter will be put in the untenable position of either providing user communications and account information in response to all subpoenas or attempting to vindicate its users’ rights by moving to quash these subpoenas itself--even though Twitter will often know little or nothing about the underlying facts necessary to support their users’ argument that the subpoenas may be improper.It's nice to see a company like Twitter standing up for its users. It's unfortunately rare these days, when many companies simply roll over the second the government comes calling.
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: malcolm harris, occupy wall st, terms of service
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's official:
Previously I was undecided, but this seals the deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's official:
So far
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is just another way the courts are finding new fun ways to make sure that "bad people" get what they deserve. The problem is that most of these "bad people" are merely people the Government does not like and might infact not have broken any laws. Once upon at time you could trust that if a Government lawyer brought you something it was truthful and legit, this is no longer the case.
Judge Howell deciding Does have no interest in a 3rd party getting their information until they are named in a lawsuit.
The Judge in the dajaz1 case who blindly kept signing orders, ignoring deadlines, and keeping the defense lawyers locked out of the case.
The Hutari (sp) Militia case.
And I am willing to bet there are tons more of these cases where Judges make rulings based on "but the Government guys wear white hats".
The entire point of laws is to make sure that it is balance not just signed off on because the Government wants it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting
When nobody takes personal responsibility for ensuring everybody's personal rights, bad things are apparently just bound to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's official:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Every monkey needs greasing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's official:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-2009 3364.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/troll
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rockin' Robin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's official:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
smart judges..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An absolute disgrace!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]