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'd agree were it not for the following http://twitter.com/wikileaks post yesterday: "WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA" [redirect to PDF of the subpoena hosted on salon.com].
In and of itself, that post is misleading, at least as far as I can tell. I've read through the subpoena several times, and I see NOTHING about a request for information on supporters or followers of WikiLeaks, except for the few individuals mentioned explicitly. I think the idea is coming from Attachment A Item 1, "subscriber names", but that seems to be referring to the names on the accounts listed in the subpoena, not WL followers/supporters.
Am I missing something, or is this being overblown a bit?
Considering this whole 'grand jury' process is going on in secret
... including by at least one appeals court, depending on how things turn out. A subpoena comes from a judge, not from a cop or prosecutor.
Are you putting 'grand jury' in quotes because you don't think there is such a thing, or because you think it actually has a different name? A grand jury is actually called a grand jury, and there actually is such a thing. And the deliberations are secret because many times the grand jury actually decides NOT to indict someone, and this way the initial evidence or prosecutorial arguments put forth while trying to get an indictment aren't spread all over the place. Which is nice, if it turns out the grand jury doesn't find it even worth indicting you, right?
why should we be confident that there's a due process behind deciding whose IP addresses are being fished out of Twitter?
Because the validity of the evidence (and the means by which it was collected) will be evaluated during a trial and argued over by everyone involved
the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side
The implication, by the "hacker" that Manning was chatting with, is that Wikileaks may have worked directly with Manning to set up a place for him to dump the stolen documents. Essentially, helping him to steal them. The communcations surrounding the act of moving those quarter million stolen documents off of government systems and onto Assange's systems are what are in question here. If it turns out that there was coordination between them, that does indeed make a big difference.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Feels like a witch hunt to me. /just saying.
Plus, there's overkill — dont' they have all they need to convict manning?
1- it is okay for Asange et.al. to maintain secrecy about their operations, but is not okay for the USA to maintain official secrecy to protect ourselves and supporters.
Yes and no. Yes, in that Assange's organization is not in the US and thus not part of US laws. They may maintain any level of secrecy allowed in the country that hosts them, or in which they are registered as a business (which I don't think they are). And Yes, some level of government secrecy is needed to maintain the legitimate operations of the government. No, in that Assange put himself in the open now, and thus some level of openness is probably the "high road". And No, the US government is an elected body, and should be held accountable to its citizens, as much information as humanly possible should be available to me and you, so we can make informed decisions about retain our current politicians and condone their actions, or the opposite.
2- It is Okay for the leakers cabal to steal and use (for their own financial gain, and to the likely physical danger of others)) US information/property,
but is not okay for the US to pursue how this was facilitated in a court of law.
Yes and no. First, "cabal" really? Physical danger, really? I have seen no proof of physical danger, nor have a read any articles pointing to direct human damage caused by any leak Wikileaks published. Your first clause is fallacious and highly suspect. Your bias is showing. The "cabal" did not steal any information, it was given to them by an individual or individuals (who may or may not be Manning). I have seen no information leading me to believe that Wikileaks "stole" anything themselves, thus they are, and should be, pretty much immune to prosecution on that front, at least. If publishing, or making the leaks available, is indeed illegal, then yes, the government should pursue them. In my opinion this would be a case where you support the law, even if its breakage was, arguably, ethical.
If the government, on the other hand, does its usual liberal reading of the law (and by liberal I mean twisting the interpretation towards its wanted goals, and not the fair spirit of the law), then the government has no real "right" to push it. They will, and it will have some level of popular support, but it still won't be right. Wikileaks, at the moment, is guilty of doing no more than smearing egg on our faces. I have a hard time feeling bad, it is bad to be embarrassed, but the best way of avoiding this is to refrain from doing things you know would be embarrassing, and not just prosecuting everyone bold enough to tell the truth. Perhaps if our government didn't act like an asshat, none of this would have happened.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey