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."
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
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Quite a bit, it appears. I imagine that Twitter would have thousands of tweetists who would self-identify as Wikileaks supporters. But the request is only for a handful of accounts directly related in some fashion to Wikileaks.
Based on what information they're requesting and the fact that they're not requesting that accounts be shut down or censored, it appears to me that this is about simply being able to prove that certain people made certain tweets (the contents thereof they are seeking to enter into evidence)..
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Page 4 of the subpoena covers it, but for the TL;DR crowd, you are a supporter if, FTA:
Among those targeted are WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Dutch hacker Rop Gonggrijp (whose name is misspelled in the subpoena) and Bradley Manning, the US Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking documents to WikiLeaks. Also named in the subpoena are computer programmer Jacob Appelbaum (identified by his Twitter username, ioerror) and former WikiLeaks volunteer and current Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jónsdóttir (left), who wrote the following in a tweet: “just got this: Twitter has received legal process requesting information regarding your Twitter account in (relation to wikileaks).”
They are going for high-profile participants who actually are suspected in playing an active role in the leaks.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
According to Wikileaks themselves (Slashdot breaks cut & paste in Chromium, so no link):
Which would include people like me.
Twitter has said they would notify users if their info is being requested by a government before it is turned over. And that appears to have happened.
Did 637,000 Twitter users receive this notification? I doubt it. Did you receive one?
And BTW, there is no section 2. B. There is a B. 2., and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with you (unless perhaps you're in e-mail communications with them via Twitter). But B. 1. possibly could be construed to mean that visitors IP addresses provided. But somehow I doubt the Feds care.
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.
At least according to Wikipedia, Manning has been "charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system in connection with the leaking of a video of a helicopter attack in Iraq in 2007," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source and disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States", on July 5.
With that in mind, it seems that obtaining information about those people who were likely involved in the crime is perfectly legitimate.
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.
No actually.
Subpoenas are an investigative mechanism. Nobody goes to jail (directly) because of a subpoena. It is used to establish the “these are the facts” of a case. It is the traditional legal mechanism to shine light on something.
From what I’ve read, the US Justice department thinks it is very unlikely that they can mount an effective court case against Assange and Wikileaks over the publication of the leaks. There is too much precedence in the other direction (specifically the Pentagon Papers) to pass muster in an American court. The legal precedent in the US is that if someone gives you classified information and you publish it, that you are not criminally liable; regardless of what the foaming at the mouth commentators would wish to be true. Anyway, neither the UK or Sweden would extradite for such a case. Facing two, high legal hurdles, they’ll want a very strong and airtight case before pushing ahead. What they are likely investigating is whether Manley was in contact with Assange while he was still doing his downloads and if Assange encouraged him; and more importantly, whether it is provable in court. That is an entirely different affair if Assange encouraged the downloads, because it becomes espionage.
Birgitta Jonsdottir is likely the weak link if that is indeed the case. She is possibly the one who put Manley in contact with Assange. We know that she lacks discretion, having taken Assange as a guest to a function at the American Embassy in Iceland, so it is not surprising that investigators may feel that they can gain relevant information to the case there.
I find it funny and ironic that self styled openness activists would be up in arms about a subpoena. I take that back. I find it sad and disheartening. I agree with what Assange says in public (e.g. his statements during his TED interview and his op ed in the Sydney Morning Herald), but Wikileaks’ secretiveness reminds me a bit too much of the pig in Orwell’s Animal Farm.
IIRC, they are requesting the followers for all of these individuals. If you have followed any of these people on Twitter, your name will be included.
Additionally, none of these people had anything to do with the leak. The leak was performed by a single man. A private in the Army who is currently being tried in a military court for leaking the documents where he will likely be found guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.
These people are people who may have had some involvement in the publishing of the documents, or in supporting Julian Assange. The feds are likely trying to build out a profile to see if any of these assets can be leveraged against Assange (be it diplomatically or in court).
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs