Dianne Feinstein Wants Twitter To Just Hand Her A Bunch Of Private Communications

from the wtf dept

Fri, Nov 3rd 2017 11:58am — Tim Cushing

I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is, but she's going after Twitter users' private communications. As part of the ongoing hearings into Russian interference in the election process (specifically marketing efforts by Russian troll armies), Feinstein has asked Twitter [PDF] to hand over a bunch of information.

Most of the demands target Twitter itself: documents related to ad campaigns, investigative work by Twitter to uncover bot accounts, communications between Twitter and Russian-connected entities, etc. Then there's this demand, which doesn't ask Twitter to turn over communications from Twitter, but rather users' private messages.

All content of each Direct Message greater than 180 days old between each Requested Account contained in Attachment A and any of the following accounts:

A. @wikileaks (https://twitter.com/wikileaks, 16589206);

B. @WLTaskForce (https://twitter.com/WLTaskforce, 783041834599780352);

C. @GUCCIFER_2 (https://twitter.com/GUCCIFER_2, 744912907515854848);

D. @JulianAssange_ (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange, 181199293);

E. @JulianAssange (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange, 388983706): or

F. @granmarga (https://twitter.com/granmarga, 262873196).

15. For each Direct Message identified in response to the preceding requests, documents sufficient to identify the sender. receiver, date, and time each message was sent.

Feinstein's acting like she can use the ECPA's "older than 180 days" trick -- most commonly applied to emails -- to obtain private communications between Twitter users. That's not really how this works. Law enforcement can demand these with a subpoena, but a non-law enforcement entity can't. Feinstein isn't a law enforcement officer. She's a Senator. There's no reason for Twitter to comply with this part of the order.

In fact, it may be illegal for Twitter to turn these communications over. The Stored Communications Act forbids service providers from handing out this information to anyone without a warrant. If Feinstein really wants these communications, she'd better turn this into a law enforcement investigation and have someone obtain the proper judicial permission slip.

Feinstein knows this part of the request is a bit off. That's why she attempts to minimize the multitude of problems in her request with this:

While I recognize that this type of information is not routinely shared with Congress, we have sought to limit the requests to communications only with those entities identified as responsible for distribution of material that was unlawfully obtained through Russian cyberattacks on US computer systems.

This would seem to indicate an actual investigation involving actual law enforcement agencies is a possibility. If so, demands for private communications with these accounts can wait for an actual search warrant. If not, Twitter is well within its rights to refuse her request. This request will sweep up all sorts of communications from accounts not currently under investigation, either by the Senate subcommittee or any US law enforcement agency.

It's more than just the six accounts listed -- even though each of those may have received hundreds of Direct Messages. There's another list -- Exhibit A -- that hasn't been made public. Any perceived violations of privacy laws witnessed here have the chance to grow exponentially should Feinstein somehow coax Twitter into turning over these messages. This is a stupid and dangerous request from a public servant who should know better.

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: authoritarian, dianne feinstein, ecpa, sca, stored communications act
Companies: twitter

34 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 12:02pm

VOTE HER OUT!
Speaking of Feinstein, [Alison Hartson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkQQy6cWBTc) seems like a great choice to replace Feinstein once and for all. If you're from California please participate in the primary and vote for Alison Hartson!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ShadowNinja (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 12:21pm

Re: VOTE HER OUT!
It's disgraceful that Silicon Valley has her a representative in the senate, when she so constantly tries to fuck them over in the name of national security.

It would be like Texas electing an environmental activist to the senate who purposely tried to screw over their state's oil industry in the name of solar and wind energy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 12:22pm

"I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is," -- REALLY?
I bet you know more about her than I do, and I'm CERTAIN that she's a sitting United States Senator. You'd better Google it before LIE any more.

>>> "going after Twitter users' private communications"??? -- Those are property of Twitter. Users are irrelevant here. (Or so you'd argue if were useful. I'm sure you hold that Twitter has Right to control mere users, though. -- YUP, you soon state: "If not, Twitter is well within its rights to refuse her request." -- IN FACT, Twitter is a corporaion and has NO rights. You are flatly a corporatist if believe any legal fiction has any rights.)

>>> "In fact, it may be illegal for Twitter to turn these communications over." -- NO, it's NOT. Congress has the Public's Authority to get ANY information from a mere corporation. -- Congress doesn't use that power often or ruthlessly enough. In the Old Days, Congress routinely sent Federal Marshalls out to bring persons / documents, and had its own JAIL for the recalcitrant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 12:22pm

Re: "I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is," -- REALLY?
>>> "violations of privacy laws"... Hmm. None such come to top of my mind in the current topic besides cultural milieu. Would you please list those? -- It'd be useful to put out because surely Google / Facebook / Twitter are violating any such somehow! -- I suspect that's just a handy phrase you wrote, though.

Techdirt is really only alarmed when "invasion of privacy" might lead to disclosing information that Americans need to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 12:23pm

When you're a senator, they let you do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ANON, 3 Nov 2017 @ 12:34pm

Re: "I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is," -- REALLY?
Whaaaaat...?

A corporation, like a person, cannot be subject to search or confiscation by the state.

What bothers me more is - where was this request coming from? Was this DF going Lone Wolf, or was this from a committee with powers to investigate? AFAIK a plain senator can ask questions, but only Senate committees can issue subpoenas for material on behalf of the senate. What rock did Diane crawl out from under if she thinks a company (or a real boy) would actually hand over private, sensitive material just because she asked?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 12:38pm

Feinstein's acting like she can use the ECPA's "older than 180 days" trick -- most commonly applied to emails -- to obtain private communications between Twitter users.

US v Warshak (6th Cir. 2010)

Warshak argues that the government's warrantless, ex parte seizure of approximately 27,000 of his private emails constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures [Note 12]. . . . We find that the government did violate Warshak's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider ("ISP") to turn over the contents of his emails.

[Note 12] This is not the first time Warshak has raised this argument. . . .

And further:

Moreover, to the extent that the SCA purports to permit the government to obtain such emails warrantlessly, the SCA is unconstitutional.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 1:12pm

I agree with this....
one one condition: Twitter releases Feinstein's office (herself, her aides, etc) private communications as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 1:24pm

Her Royal Majesty Feinstein
Letter to Twitter was on official Senate Judiciary Committee letterhead ... signed by Feinstein as US Senator.

As such, it was effectively an official Federal Government "demand" for private data from a private party.

Feinstein illegally used the "color of law" and her official position for an end-run around formal judicial due process and the 4th Amendment. Feinstein employed some polite language, but nowhere specified this was just a personal request, nor that compliance was purely voluntary, nor that non-compliance would have no consequence.

"Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)sent total of five letters to various entities "requesting" information related to the Russia investigation. Additional "requests" are expected to be sent in the coming weeks.

Lock Her Up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stderric (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: "I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is," -- REALLY?
Techdirt is really only alarmed when "invasion of privacy" might lead to disclosing information that Americans need to know.

Is this saying that if, e.g., 'Google does it' then it's always wrong, but if 'Americans need to know' then it doesn't matter how information is obtained, even if it invades one's privacy and violates the law?

(BTW, the correct answer to 'Who does Diane Feinstein think she is?' is obviously 'Theresa May'.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: "I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is," -- REALLY?
How can you be so wrong on so many things?

Twitter users' private communications belong to the users, not Twitter, Twitter has to get permission to do anything with them unless compelled by judicial or law enforcement agencies.

Congress may have at one point had (or abused) power such as you describe, but I don't remember it any of my history books and they certainly do not have that power today. Citation needed.

As for privacy laws? You could start with the ECPA for one, I'm sure there are others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 1:44pm

ECPA / SCA

…the ECPA's "older than 180 days" trick… The Stored Communications Act…

Wikipedia: Stored Communications Act

The Stored Communications Act (SCA…)… was enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).

Pub. L. 99-508

This Act may be cited as the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986".

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 1:56pm

Re: "I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is," -- REALLY?

I bet you know more about her than I do, and I'm CERTAIN that she's a sitting United States Senator.

US Senators don't have the authority that she is trying to exert. So it would see that she sees herself as something else.

You'd better Google it before LIE any more.

Typo alert. You left out the "I" before "LIE".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 2:12pm

Re: Her Royal Majesty Feinstein
If I was among those Twitter users named in her demand for private data I would sue the crap out of the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 2:13pm

Re:
Define "they" and "it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 2:14pm

Re: I agree with this....
You agree with it because you're among the named parties whose information Feinstein is interested in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 2:16pm

Re: ECPA / SCA
ped·ant·ry
[ˈped(ə)ntrē]
NOUN
excessive concern with minor details and rules:
"to object to this is not mere pedantry"
synonyms: dogmatism · purism · literalism · formalism · overscrupulousness · scrupulousness · perfectionism · fastidiousness · punctiliousness · meticulousness · captiousness · quibbling
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: ECPA / SCA

excessive concern with minor details and rules

Look, perhaps you already understand that 18 USC § 2703(a)'s “one hundred and eighty days” distinction was enacted under Title II of the ECPA, which is known as the SCA.

I thought Cushing's article would most probably lead unsophisticated readers to erroneously believe that the SCA was a completely separate enactment from the ECPA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 2:56pm

She needs to retire
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitol Police, 3 Nov 2017 @ 3:49pm

But what if...
V jbaqre vs gung vqvbg Frangbe vf tbvat gb or noyr gb qrpelcg gubfr cevingr zrffntrf.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 4:37pm

Re: But what if...

V jbaqre vs gung vqvbg Frangbe vf tbvat gb or noyr gb qrpelcg gubfr cevingr zrffntrf.

Frangbe Srvafgrva qbrf fvg ba gur Frangr Vagryyvtrapr Pbzzvggrr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re: But what if...
You guys know that single ROT13 has been broken, right? You should be using double ROT13.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 5:10pm

Re: But what if...
V jbaqre vs gung vqvbg Frangbe vf tbvat gb or noyr gb qrpelcg gubfr cevingr zrffntrf.

Jryy vs fur whfg areqrq uneqre, V'z fher fur pbhyq svther bhg gur havirefny rfpebj xrl gb rapelcgvba yvxr guvf.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re: But what if...
V hfrq EBG52 sbe rkgen rkgen frperpl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 5:26pm

Re: Re: But what if...
Qbrfa'g fur unir n punve fur pna hfr vafgrnq bs fvggvat ba gur bgure frangbef?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 5:28pm

What do you mean?
Feinstein has only one viewpoint of herself.

And, trust me, it is ego writ large.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 5:36pm

Re: Re: But what if...
gnU cntu gnUor'. QnU zh'gyurtuinz iVdryaVF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 6:16pm

Re: Re: I agree with this....
Have you heard about how things beneficial for the gander also apply to the goose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 6:24pm

Authoritarian witch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 8:40pm

Re: Re:
They say you don't have to define those and prefer you didn't. You might receive unwanted attention. Who are "you"? Maybe you should take the rest of the day off. You will be thinking more clearly tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2017 @ 8:50pm

Re: Re: Re: "I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is," -- REALLY?
Consider that out_of_the_blue and MyNameHere have both advocated against the actions of Snowden. They support surveillance regimes because it's the only way copyright can be enforced to the extent they desire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Nov 2017 @ 9:38pm

Re: Re: Re: But what if...
Qapla'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 4 Nov 2017 @ 1:36pm

She is someone that should have been hospitalized months ago.

Ample evidence that she is losing her mind to something. It is troubling that no one really seems to care she needs serious medical help, and prefers instead to keep her propped up at her job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shane Killian (profile), 10 Nov 2017 @ 9:59am

Re: Re: Re: But what if...
I make it REALLY secure, myself: I use 2^256 rounds of ROT13!
[ link to this | view in thread ]