Twitter Sues Homeland Security Over Attempt To Unmask 'Alt' Immigration Twitter Account
from the the-times-we-live-in dept
As you probably know by now, there are a whole bunch of "alt" or "rogue" government Twitter accounts, initially inspired by what appeared to be tweets from a former National Parks Service employee containing "rogue" information against the Trump administration. Many of those rogue accounts are questionable in nature and likely fake, rather than being actually run by employees of the parts of the government they claim to represent. Still, it appears that many in the government are concerned. Just yesterday, via a FOIA request, it was revealed that Donald Trump himself got "directly involved" in the hunt for the National Park Service's rogue tweeter:
If you can't read that, it's an excerpt from an email saying that "this has become a very sensitive issue, especially since the President has gotten directly involved and contacted Acting Director Mike Reynolds concerned about one of the images..."
It appears that other parts of the government are also deeply concerned with unmasking who's involved in these things. Today, Twitter sued the US government because the Department of Homeland Security and its Customs & Border Protection division have apparently been trying to unmask the operator of the @ALT_uscis account, which claims to be run by people working for US Citizenship and Immigration Service presenting the "rogue" view on immigration issues.
From the lawsuit:
This is an action to prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and the individual Defendants from unlawfully abusing a limited-purpose investigatory tool to try to unmask the real identity of one or more persons who have been using Twitter’s social media platform, and specifically a Twitter account named @ALT_USCIS, to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration. The rights of free speech afforded Twitter’s users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech. In these circumstances, Defendants may not compel Twitter to disclose information regarding the real identities of these users without first demonstrating that some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users’ identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important First Amendment rights of Twitter and its users. But Defendants have not come close to making any of those showings. And even if Defendants could otherwise demonstrate an appropriate basis for impairing the First Amendment interests of Twitter and its users, they certainly may not do so using the particular investigatory tool employed here—which Congress authorized solely to ensure compliance with federal laws concerning imported merchandise—because it is apparent that whatever investigation Defendants are conducting here does not pertain to imported merchandise.
Specifically, Twitter argues that DHS is abusing particular laws that CBP/DHS has access to, but for a specific purpse -- and it's not to identify rogue employees:
First, the sole statutory authority CBP invoked in issuing the summons—19 U.S.C. § 1509—authorizes the agency to compel production of only a narrow class of records relating to the importation of merchandise. But CBP’s investigation of the @ALT_USCIS account plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the importation of merchandise into the United States. Section 1509 thus provides CBP no power to compel Twitter to reveal information pertaining to the identity of the individual(s) behind the @ALT_USCIS account.
Further down in the complaint, Twitter notes that it appears that DHS/CBP directly misrepresented what was happening here:
The CBP Summons states generically that “production of the indicated records is required in connection with an investigation or inquiry to ascertain the correctness of entries, to determine the liability for duties, taxes, fines, penalties, or forfeitures, and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by CBP and ICE.” Beyond that boilerplate language, the CBP Summons provides no justification for issuance of a summons targeting the @ALT_USCIS account.
Amusingly, the lawsuit also notes that CBP demanded Twitter hand over this info the day before the summons was sent.
And then it points to the clear free speech chilling effects this kind of unmasking could cause:
Second, permitting CBP to pierce the pseudonym of the @ALT_USCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other “alternative agency” accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies. The Supreme Court has long recognized the extraordinary value of the kind of speech emanating from these accounts—pure political speech criticizing government policies and highlighting government waste and mismanagement. And the Court has likewise recognized that anonymity is often essential to fostering such political speech where, as here, the speaker could face retaliation or retribution if his or her real identity were linked to the speech. In this context, the CBP Summons must be declared unlawful and enjoined absent an evidentiary showing by Defendants that some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users’ identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important free speech rights of Twitter and its users. Defendants have not even attempted to meet that burden.
As for the actual account, since the lawsuit was announced it retweeted the ACLU saying that it will go to court to defend the anonymous person or people behind the account, and then it pinned the following tweet:
— ALT🛂 Immigration (@ALT_uscis) April 6, 2017
I have no idea if the people behind the account really work for US CIS, but there's no way that the government should be able to abuse other laws or chill free speech to try to track down people saying things they don't like.
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: cbp, dhs, free speech, privacy, uscis
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We are making America great again by reminding everyone what the constitution says.
We were 'testing' the courts to make sure they weren't to liberal in ingoring citizens rights.
There is no way that POTUS had a screaming fit & sleepless nights because he was unable to stop all of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the most protected speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the most protected speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What do you mean they actually read the law?!"
Sounds like CBP/DHS was in such a rush that they just grabbed the first law they ran across and figured they could bluff Twitter into complying, assuming that Twitter wouldn't check to see if the law actually applied.
Hopefully the judge slaps them down, hard, for their attempt to unmask people via lying about the law and what's going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power corrupts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Power corrupts
I don't think anyone's surprised at this point(at least I certainly hope not), but there's a difference between surprise and disgust.
One can fully expect something to happen, and still be disgusted that it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Power corrupts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, then the power of Christ compels you? Or something?
(Yo Eddie, where is that bigger First Amendment backdoor? _Yeah_, the one that replaces the entire wall; which one did you think i was talking about?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
This isn't exactly a private individual criticizing the government. So the usual naieve notion of "but free speech" isn't quite appropriate here. These are people claiming to speak for government organizations. The idea that any liberal would want rogue members of government agencies to be given free reign seems a little puzzling really.
ANY organization should be able to ferret out rogues that speak for it. They own their own identity and they shouldn't have to worry about it being hijacked by an insubordinate employee or even and outside saboteur.
This is also quite unlike someone with a <company>sucks domain. That is also a situation where it is quite clear it's 3rd party criticism and there's no trademark dilution or identity theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
Did you even bother to look at the twitter account, which explicitly states "Not the views of DHS or USCIS"?
You don't get to use the power of the courts to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
Where have you been the last eight years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
What your team does is evil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
Do you think that's true of us at Techdirt? If so you'd be wrong. We'd criticize this kind of thing no matter who was doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
That's why I am here every day to read the latest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
Umm, that's literally exactly what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Donald Trump, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, the man does seem to think that Twitter and his hideaway in Florida are more important than security briefings and answering actual questions in press conferences, so no surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]