Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Fights US Court For WikiLeaks Details
An anonymous reader writes "Micro-blogging site Twitter is opposing an order from a US court to reveal the account details of supporters of WikiLeaks. Twitter has called on Facebook and Google to reveal whether they also received similar court orders. As part of the US government's investigation into WikiLeaks, a court ordered Twitter, in mid-December, to give details of accounts owned by supporters of the whistle-blower site. Twitter has protested against the subpoena and informed the individuals whose account information has been requested, while raising the possibility that other social networking players have received similar orders."
Most don't realize it, but this whole Wikileaks thing is the beginning of World War III. It is just very weird, very slow, and very online.
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I imagine the millons of accounts that they will have to give details if they count everyone that pressed the "I Like" button on websites/news/etc that talked about Wikileaks.
I'm sure as hell not a lawyer but I don't think it can be both an 'order' and a subpoena--- the type 'd' issued was part of an order I think...
I know we are all quick to jump to the conclusion that 'oh noez teh gubment wants internet ppls infos' as the summary would suggest, but the supeona is asking for information of people who specifically were believed to have aided in the facilitation of leaking the actual documents. They aren't immediately just going after random Joe for saying "I like what those guys do". Now, whether or not Joe is on some CIA black-list now, along with half of us here, well that would be speculation and different story. (Unless somebody can cite otherwise).
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
once the information is leaked to someone else, the information's dissemination is protected speech. The person who originally leaked the information may however, be liable for breaking the NDA they agreed to in order to gain access to said classified information. But considering that our government freaks out if you even say four letter words on tv, wikileaks is screwed.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
TFA says nothing about how Twitter is supposedly "opposing" the court order, other than "protesting" and asking for permission from the court to notify the affected parties.
I see nothing in there to indicate that Twitter is forming any kind of legal opposition to the order. I, for one, would be happy to see that they had. Government overreach should be resisted every time.
Yes, I believe this is "overreach", considering that nobody in the list except Bradley Manning has been accused of any crimes, and Manning himself hasn't even been charged.
Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?
I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
It when down hill after President Eisenhower left office.
The slide down hill hit the after burners when Ronald Regan got into office.
We went ballistic with W.
Hundreds of twitter users are charged with some creative sex crime.
No, it IS the war. It just isn't about militaries fighting it out on a battlefield; it is about governments and free citizens fighting over the rights of man.
I have new found respect for Twitter.
^^vv<><>BA
I am not sure why Twitter is seeking out other social networks to see whether they have been contacted or not. I know for at least Facebook, they have worked and aided the FBI and other organizations in the past to catch or aid in the capture of criminals. For myself at least, it makes sense. But Twitter, I do not get why they sought out twitter. I mean, in terms of information, I can't imagine criminalizing 'tweets' have been sent. Facebook maybe, but not twitter. It is as if either the government is simply grasping for straws, trying to make themselves seem like they can do what they want, or simply, they have lost their minds. Either way, be careful of what you 'tweet'!!! They government is watching you!
This reminds me of the McCarthy witch hunts, and I'm praying that someone will stand up and say so LOUDLY! Going after the Twitter traffic is only intimidation and not going to find anything substantial. Someone please tell the Attorney General to pack sand on this one! I'm saddened that the probable leak violated the trust placed in him when he was given a security clearance (and access), but I also empathize that he acted out of conscience. Pentagon Papers, part 2.
I want Twitter to fight (and not just to warn account users, but to keep the data out of the govt's hands) for the principle of the matter; and I'm not strongly pro- or anti-WikiLeaks (I follow for pragmatic reasons, heh); but it would make my skin crawl if the govt wanted infos on all followers. The money wasted; the police state implications — good heavens, I'd make a time machine and go back in time and trip up revere's horse so the british could come.
Feels like a witch hunt to me. /just saying.
Plus, there's overkill — dont' they have all they need to convict manning?
I agree -- this could well be the start of a fishing expedition.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Surely you ought to use the Twitter Logo instead .. FaceBook's logo is kind of a trademark and not a generic social media icon to be used as you have.
It seems these companies are only wishing to remain in virtual world and want to owe nothing to the real world, not even their loyalty to the free world that gave them life.
How exactly hard would a have been for the government to anticipate this notification, and dump the traffic outta Twitter's mail servers, and run a quick search for "Oh, by the way, we're just warning you the government is after you", and then cross check the emails to mine personal identifiers?
Not hard, methinks.
That doesn't even has freedom of speech ?!?
I'm referring to the request for release of information. One thing is that they are required to release information on people named as suspects in an investigation, but 99.9% of those followers have ZERO connection to the leaks other than casual interest, so they cannot be implicated nor the subject of investigation.
It's equivalent to searching the homes of everybody in a major city because someone there might have talked to someone they suspect of a crime. Very vague connection and extreme overkill.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
that this guy who goes by "ioerror" is pretty dangerous. He's hacked my Linux computer loads of times, ironically as I don't have any classified information at all.
Just the War on Freedom.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
but have any of you stopped for a moment to consider the possible legitimate reasons for such actions by the U.S. government?
I for one believe in the freedom of information. But let me ask...
If this had been Liechtenstein instead of the U.S. whose national documents were being leaked onto the internet, and knowledge pointed to non-Liechtensteinian individuals responsible for the leaks, how would you suppose Liechtenstein should/would operate in investigating these leaks? As a potential threat from espionage? Subversive activity through cyber crime? Moles, double agents, etc...?
I mean, you may not like that a government does not post every scrap of paper on the net for your review, and that may in fact be a proper argument for the future. But as the law of the land sits now, these leaks are illegal. Doesn't the government have a responsibility to investigate?
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
...from the request, and once they have that, they will go to MasterCard and Visa and AmEx and say - "Hey, can you send us all the info on these people's billing histories for the last few years?" - and after how fast they caved on the request to block donations to Wikileaks, do you really think they'd say no? Even if it has to be "under the table"? After that it's called "data mining" - "Ooh look, this one bought a gun! Anti-american and violent! Better put him on the no fly list, just in case." "Oooh oooh oooh this one's name is Mohammed, and he bought a ticket to Egypt. We'll get the Mukhabarat to ask him some questions for us. Bet they can get him to tell us how Assange is guilty of something. One way or another..."
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932290&cid=34749168