Twitter Hands Over Info After Judge Makes It Almost Impossible For It Not To

from the sad dept

Fri, Sep 14th 2012 5:32pm — Mike Masnick

Earlier this week, we talked about a ridiculous situation in NY, where Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. put Twitter in a nearly impossible position if it wanted to keep fighting for the rights of its users to keep private info private. As you may recall, the government used a non-warrant process to seek private info from Occupy Wall Street protestor Malcolm Harris' Twitter account. Earlier decisions had more or less said that Harris had no standing to block the transfer of info, and that Twitter had to hand it over. Twitter sought to appeal the ruling, but the judge announced that if Twitter didn't just hand over the info, he would charge them with contempt. Even worse, he told Twitter to disclose its earning statements from the past two quarters (which is otherwise private info) so he could figure out how much to fine them for contempt. As the EFF notes, by ordering Twitter to hand over the info, it would almost certainly kill off the appeal, since the DA would immediately argue that the appeal was moot since it already had the info.

Put in such a tough position, Twitter did what it had to do and handed over the info the government is seeking on Harris. The only concession the judge gave is that the information is filed under seal for one more week. Hopefully, Twitter can convince another court to stop this in this one short week and to allow a full appeal to be heard.

The EFF has a really good explanation for why both the DA's and the judge's actions in this case are potentially so dangerous:

If Judge Sciarrino is worried that Twitter is making a mountain out of a molehill by continuing to press its challenge to the subpoena, the same has to be asked of the prosecutors who are using a misdemeanor disorderly conduct arrest that occurred more than a year ago as a pretense to obtain a wealth of information. The attempt to obtain this information from Twitter is to prove a point not even really contested: whether Harris was on the bridge during the protest.

This case was shaping up to be a constitutional showdown on a contested and unclear area of the law. Judges much higher up the judicial chain have been wrestling with the complicated issues brought about by the explosion of information turned over to third parties. In her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones, Justice Sotomayor of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that she "would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection." If a Supreme Court justice is thinking about the issues here, why would a state trial court force Twitter into a position where it has to abandon its court case seeking clarity or risk a massive fine in deciding to pursue its appeal? Some have already questioned whether Judge Sciarrino is the right judge to pass on this landmark case.

There are a lot of important issues brought up by everything that's led up to this situation, and it's unfortunate that the judge seems to have decided to toss all of those concerns overboard with his contempt claims against Twitter. Hopefully a higher court puts a stop to this in the next week.

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: 4th amendment, doj, malcolm harris, matthew sciarrino
Companies: twitter

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

abc gum, 14 Sep 2012 @ 5:45pm

I hear the fishing is good this time of year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2012 @ 5:48pm

"Judicial independence" is counterproductive to democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2012 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  Well, it is when it's wrongly applied.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2012 @ 6:20pm

Hard drives can crash and data can be lost. Hackers can hack in and destroy data. Somebody could hit the wrong button, and oops, there goes the data.
Not so impossible after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz, 14 Sep 2012 @ 9:13pm
  
  Re:
  Even before digital it was possible to lose 17 & 1/2 minutes in the middle of a reel to reel tape.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RonKaminsky (profile), 14 Sep 2012 @ 6:23pm

EFF with a judicial choice of words?
EFF: "Some have already questioned whether Judge Sciarrino is the right judge to pass on this landmark case"
Perhaps I am just not familiar with legal jargon, but methinks that, possibly, this choice of wording may have been intentional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 14 Sep 2012 @ 6:31pm

A word that seems fitting here:
Ex�tor�tion
noun
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2012 @ 7:33pm

EFF is missing the boat here. Nothing stops Twitter from continuing the legal battle. If all they want is a guideline for future circumstances, then the release of this particular information right now isn't very relevant to the longer term goal, not any more than any single legal loss might be in the appeals process.

The courts won't stop them from launching appeals and working it through, but in the mean time the wheels of justice can move forward in other places.

Seems fitting that once again the EFF is missing the boat or yelling "the sky is falling" for no other reason than headlines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2012 @ 8:43pm
  
  Re: Standing up for the little guy
  You might think it a bit less trivial if Twitter was trying to protect your information.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 14 Sep 2012 @ 9:54pm
  
  Re:
  You seem to miss the point that was pointed out in this article. If the information is turned over, the appeal is DOA. What's the point of appealing an order to turn info over if the info is already turned over. Just because Twitter wants to keep fighting on principle doesn't mean the courts will tolerate that.
  
  My question is; why do you seem so keen on getting personal information not relevant to the case into the case? Why do you support this fishing expedition?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2012 @ 10:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Duh, fishing expeditions were the bread and butter of all MAFIAA operations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Sep 2012 @ 1:09am
  
  Re:
  The courts won't stop them from launching appeals and working it through, but in the mean time the wheels of justice can move forward in other places.
  
  As stated in the article (you really ought to read before your usual slamming of that which you know nothing about), once the info is in the DA's hands, the appeal gets thrown out as moot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2012 @ 2:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, I read your comment exactly as:
    
    " it would almost certainly kill off the appeal, since the DA would immediately argue that the appeal was moot since it already had the info. "
    
    That is a whole lot of supposin', if you ask me. Twitter could easily note that the appeal is in part to determine it's future course of action in similar cases. Further, if the appear is successful, the DA would have to destroy the records, and any movement is the case based only on this information would be blocked at trial.
    
    Handing over the information does not end the legal argument, far from it. I just think you are drawing a conclusion that isn't foregone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2012 @ 8:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think yoiu're missing the point: that is, that once the DA has the relevant information, the presiding judge can not only rule that the inrformation is no longer private, but that Twitter can be fined for "vexatious litigation" in their appeal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2012 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Umm, the judge cannot rule that something is public because of a previous ruling, therefore they cannot reconsider the previous ruling. That is bootstrapped logic at it's best.
        
        Twitter cannot stop the information from being given to the DA, but they can still appeal and if the court changes it's mind, the DA would not be able to use that information as the basis of any criminal case.
        
        Twitter's real interest here is for the NEXT time this happens, because without appeal, they are left with little recourse the next time around.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you doing it on purpose? Twitter can do that yes but the judge enveloped Twitter in a legal net that makes it virtually impossible to 1- get an appeal decision in time and 2- actually get the appeal heard since the info is already given.
        
        Twitter's real interest here is for the NEXT time this happens, because without appeal, they are left with little recourse the next time around.
        
        Read it again. And then again. Till you actually get the point and notice that the judge blocked the appeal path.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2012 @ 4:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Further Mike, consider this from BBC, posted today:
    
    "Twitter has now surrendered the messages to the court where the trial is taking place, but they will remain uninspected while an appeal lodged by Mr Harris' lawyer is heard. A hearing on the appeal is due to be heard within seven days."
    
    So it's not a 100% thing, is it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PCCare247 (profile), 14 Sep 2012 @ 10:36pm

Law Above all
This incident shows that there is an entity which is noticing every step of Social Networking majors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 15 Sep 2012 @ 12:34am

"Some have already questioned whether Judge Sciarrino is the right judge to pass on this landmark case."

No question. Judge Sciarrino is not the right judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2012 @ 1:24am

Ever get this feeling that some people just have too much power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2012 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  No, but I get the felling that, should aliens actually make contact, they will shoot us all to "put us out of our misery."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 5:44am
  
  Re:
  you need people with power, but they need to handle it with great care, responsability and scrupules. For example a cop who gets annoyed to the point of confistating video/photo from innocent bystanders should have the common decency to hand in his badge, because losing your cool is unfit for those who hold more power than the average joe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2012 @ 3:42am

I doubt that seal will stop a government that's already proven it thinks itself above the law. They're probably already going over the data with a fine-toothed comb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2012 @ 7:27am

Child abuser
Matthew Sciarrino is a child abuser.

He is a perverse pig unworthy of judicial office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 15 Sep 2012 @ 10:17am

Just shows..
how much the government is trying to squash and punish legal protests. Next thing you know they will go back to letting police dogs loose on the crowds to get rid of protesters. If that doesn't work, start shooting.

The government/cops absolutely hate protesters of all kinds and will do anything to stop them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2012 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Just shows..
  Except actually listen to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gregg, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:04am

The long run
The Government is so short sited. Not respecting the privacy of peoples communication via web based services will just mean that the people they really need to find out about, just won't use the internet for communicating at all. And this is already happening.

Very short sighted and ignorant. This judge is just throwing a power trip and just adds "another brick to the wall".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]