Slashdot Mirror
NYC Lawyers Subpoena Code
RonMcMahon writes "Lawyers for the city of New York have subpoenaed the text message records of thousands of people involved in demonstrations at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Tad Hirsch, creator of the TXTmob code that enabled convention demonstrators to transmit messages to thousands of telephones, has been instructed to release the content of messages exchanged on the service and to identify people who sent and received messages. Hirsch argues that release of such information would be a violation of users' First Amendment and privacy rights. 'I think I have a moral responsibility to the people who use my service to protect their privacy,' said Hirsch."
It's GPLed! Just download the code at http://sourceforge.net/projects/txtmob/
They cannot subpoena logs that you don't keep.
If this was a corporation (which has no soul or moral code), the content of the messages would already be in NYC's lawyers' hands.
Fortunately in this case, it's a man who believes in human rights.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Like this one.
You don't know me.
You don't know whether it is really me writing this or someone pretending to be me.
You don't know how many "me"s there are behind this nickname.
You don't know how many other accounts I have that pretend to be someone besides me.
Which me is the real me?
Which you is the real you?
Which way to Kathmandu?
Would you, could you in a car?
Eat them, eat them! Here they are.
Anonymous political speech has a long tradition in the US. Many of our founding fathers hid behind pseudonyms while writing many of what are termed 'The Federalist Papers' which laid much of the groundwork for the US Constitution.
If the messages were inciting people to break the law I could possibly understand, but on the face of what few facts I have on the subject right now my knee wants to jerk right into the Government's jaw a few times.
Don't click this link, it is malicious.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Every time you surrender your rights to the state in return for assurances that a) people who might be breaking some minor law like jaywalking have nothing to worry about and b) the new powers will be used only against the really, really bad people, should sit up and take notice. This is exactly the kind of thing you can expect.
How many people who want to exercise their legal right to protest will sit home next time because their career ambitions include jobs where even being on the same street as a protest could knock them off the hiring list?
It's always best to assume governments and police forces are led by lying, treacherous fascists. You will occasionally be pleasantly surprised to find that it's not the case. More often, you'll find out that power-tripping assholes are attracted to those jobs the same way child molesters are attracted to schoolgrounds and bank robbers are attracted to banks.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Why keep records at all? If I was organising something that could be used for civil disobedience then I'd make sure it was all anonymous with no records kept for precisely this reason.
If he was interested in human rights we would release the text since knowing the information would help free the people being charged in the lawsuits or it would prove that something wrong was done and make sure those people had no chance of doing the same thing in the future.
Instead he stored the messages for some personnal or business reason.
The data cannot be subpoena'd if it does not exist. Why does his system keep records of who said what to whom? And if it needs the records, why doesn't it delete them after a short period? And if the system does keep an archive, why didn't he delete it manually before now, if people's privacy is so important?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I think GP's point is that it's easier to be evil when you aren't signing your own name to the order.
(IANAL)
...have the missing White House e-mails been located yet?
For those who have forgotten (or never heard about) the whole unconstitutional ordeal.
http://www.2600.com/rnc2004/index.html
Down with Amurkan fascists! And their plastic orange fences.
We have all gone to look for America.
Yes, I know that the threat isn't the same as actually taking legal action, that's why I called it a scare tactic.
And for many of the letters I've seen evidence for, if it took them 20 minutes I'd be surprised. Many look almost like the form letters of old with open spaces to type in the relevant information via typewriter.
As for the $50k defense fund, I'd hit the RNC up, personally. They'd probably be willing to throw that much at it just to keep anything embarrasing out of the public eye, even if it'd only be embarrasing if taken out of context.
I don't read AC A human right
There's a difference:
- You said the corporation is fighting to protect its breathalyzer code. It wants to maintain its own property & future profits. Makes perfect sense.
- But what if the State sued the corporation to obtain the *emails* sent across the machines? Does the corporation have a vested interest to protect them? Nope. The corporation will not fight. It will just hand them over to the government, as if they were best friends.
In this particular case, we have a man who has no vested interest
But he does have a morals. He's fighting purely upon the principle of protecting others.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
IIRC, the subpoena is generally signed by a clerk of court. The party being subpoenaed can file a motion to quash the subpoena, in which case the judge looks at it. If the subpoena is vastly overbroad, there may be sanctions against the party trying to enforce it.
I don't really see any problems with this. The city is trying to defend itself in a series of lawsuits about its arrests of a bunch of protesters. One of the elements of its defense is probably that the people who were arrested were not just innocent bystanders caught up in the spur of the moment, but had planned and coordinated their effort. And, that's most easily discovered by subpoenaing records of that planning and coordination. Perfectly legitimate.
*sigh*. information wants to be free is just a more pithy (and to some confusing) way of saying secrets are hard to keep or information is hard to control. Information tends to escape, to find a way out, and once it does you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, ever. It does not mean that there are no secrets that are worth keeping or at least trying to keep. There may also be something in there about the futility of even trying to control or hoard information. Something about it being a waste of time and so forth.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
People actively and purposely violated a law in new york. This cost the city money and created semi-unsafe situations. The organizers of this lawbreaking can be charged in much the same way organized crime is charged.
Currently, people are suing the city because they where arrested back in 2004 in connections to illegal protests surrounding the RNC convention. The city wants this information to be able to prove or disprove their connections to willfully violating the laws which would make the suits meaningless or point to an avenue of settlement.
Similar to this;
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/breathtaking-abuse-of-the-constitution/
The local prosecutors office ordered and conducted the arrest of the newspaper editors for disclosing the fact that they had been requested, through the act of a horrifically crooked grand jury subpoena (which neither the judge nor jury had approved or even seen), to turn over a list of their entire readership and website visitors over a period of years.
I hope for a similar, if not stronger, reaction.
Umm.. You obviously don't understand your right to protest. You have the right of free speech but you don't have a right to a platform or an audience. Some restrictions are completely legitimate and in compliance with the constitution. That being said, this has nothing to do with the situation at hand and is only clouding the issue.
There are certain facts about this particular situation. Some people were planning to or did break the law. A law that has stood against challenges on the grounds of it's constitutionality. The city arrested people it though was in connection with this but didn't charge all of the people detained. That part is a fact.
There is a lawsuit filed by people who weren't charged for whatever reason but were arrested at some point in connection to the situation. The city needs the records to show an intent which means the arrest wasn't without cause which would negate the claims against them. Illegal things happened or where in the process of happening and going to watch them or participate in them make you an accomplice even if you didn't get charged. This is different from you being somewhere when illegal activity starts happening around you. It isn't that complicated and doesn't need to be.
If this was about an illegal or unconstitutional law, it would have been filed that way. All it is as of now, is people claiming wrongful imprisonment because charges weren't filed against them. The evidence chain is pretty shaky, the city thinks these records will show their intent which would validate their detention and pretty much ruin the cases against them for the people who did intend to break the law.