Twitter Fights US Court For WikiLeaks Details

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Fights US Court For WikiLeaks Details

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday January 9, 2011 @12:18PM from the we're-not-gonna-take-it dept.

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."

73 of 268 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Another salvo in the war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-09 12:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Another salvo in the war by flaming+error · 2011-01-09 12:27 · Score: 2
  
  Please elaborate?
2. Re:Another salvo in the war by SimonTheSoundMan · 2011-01-09 12:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The only country at war over the cables will be the USA — and it will not over the leaked cables, but over how they have dealt with the whole matter. The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.
3. Re:Another salvo in the war by RipleySnot · 2011-01-09 12:47 · Score: 2
  
  Most people still don't realize it yet, but this whole Wikileaks thing and its fall out actually are the beginning of what will be one day known as THE WIKILEAKS THING. It is just very very weird, very very slow, and very very online. Happy now? There, fixed that for ya..
4. Re:Another salvo in the war by Ethanol-fueled · 2011-01-09 13:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There is much more truth to yours and your parent's comments than you realize.
  
  It's called soft power. Quoth an article from the October 24th issue of The Economist, which emphasizes the relationship between America and China, and happens to be the best of my bathroom reading material:
  
  Culture Wars
  On the soft-power side, China is slowly learning...Culture, said [Chinese leader] Mr. Hu, was of growing significance in the "competition of overall national strength." A cursory glance at the streets and shops of China suggests what Mr. Hu may have had in mind: the all=pervasiveness of American brands and cultural products, from Coca-Cola to (pirated) boxed sets of a comedy series, "Friends", from Kentucky Fried Chicken to Starbucks. America's intellectual drawing power is evident in the queues of students waiting for visas at the American embassy: in the 2007-2008 academic year more than 81,000 Chinese were studying in American colleges...
5. Re:Another salvo in the war by mrzaph0d · 2011-01-09 13:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Russian Federation suffers worst information harvest in 55 years... Internet access and wireless riots in Poland. Blackwater invades... Cuba and Nicaragua reach registered ISP customer goals of 500,000. El Salvador and Honduras datacenters fall... Greens Party gains control of German Communication Infrastructure. Demands withdrawal of German references from Wikileaks... Mexico plunged into digital revolution... NATO dissolves. United States stands alone.
  
  --
  this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
6. Re:Another salvo in the war by Ethanol-fueled · 2011-01-09 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  Chinese natives who live in America and discover that they enjoy being able to enjoy our culture and criticize their own government without being thrown in jail have also experienced our soft power, with more spectacular results.
  
  But given the political direction of America, things may soon become counterproductive.
7. Re:Another salvo in the war by OnlineAlias · 2011-01-09 14:29 · Score: 2
  
  Isn't that exactly what the subpoenas are about? Throwing people in jail for criticizing the government? American exceptionalism is starting to sting a little.
8. Re:Another salvo in the war by jcr · 2011-01-09 14:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.
  Starting?
  The US government has been disgracing itself for decades.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
9. Re:Another salvo in the war by Requiem18th · 2011-01-09 16:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  One theory is that US government will eventually decide to mend it's reputation by eliminating anyone who has a bad opinion about them.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
10. Re:Another salvo in the war by netsharc · 2011-01-09 16:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  How about a US citizen who's been arrested and tortured in Kuwait, and has been put in a no-fly-list by the boogie-man-fearing DHS, and for what reason? He's of Somalian origin, moved to Virginia as a baby, US citizen, but traveled to study to Somalia, it was too dangerous, so he moved to Kuwait. And the sharp-as-nails FBI/CIA/fucking morons thinks: he's Muslim, lived in Virginia (so did al-Awlaki), he traveled to Somalia (al-Awlaki's there!), he must know something!
  So they got him, tortured him, he's not said anything because he knows nothing, and now they're (the US) stuck having committed crime against him.. and they still put him in a no-fly-list... well done, fucking morons.
  Google "Gulet Mohamed" if you didn't know about this.
  
  --
  What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
11. Re:Another salvo in the war by WCLPeter · 2011-01-09 17:42 · Score: 2
  
  Most don't realize it, but this Wikileaks thing is the beginning of World War III.
  Your attempts to mislead your fellow Party members with such blatant lies have been reported to the Ministry of Love to arrange for your re-education. The Ministry of Peace assures all members of The Party that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and that Julian Assange, like Osama bin Laden before him, are known to be high ranking members of "The Brotherhood" as well as advisors of the traitorous Emmanuel Goldstein.
  As an Upper Party member you are aware that without the daily "two minutes hate" the proles, and Lower Party members, might stop being scared long enough to think they actually have rights, not just illusion of rights we permit them to have; remember that Big Brother is always watching.
12. Re:Another salvo in the war by hawguy · 2011-01-09 19:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hey cold_fjord,
  Are you white? Born and raised in the USA? Is there no chance whatsoever that you're involved with this:
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/giffords-shooting-political-violence-polarised
  
  Jared Loughner, the suspect in Saturday's shooting spree in Arizona, was not working alone. True, the rampage apparently emerged from his confused, unstable and troubled mind.
  Officials think he was not working alone - who knows, you could be that missing conspirator. Maybe just in case, you should be jailed and tortured until you admit to it. And even though they may find that he *was* working alone, better safe than sorry, right?
  I mean, why not? It's not like you're being a citizen should afford you any special rights. It's for the safety of our children, after all.
13. Re:Another salvo in the war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-09 19:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I give up. What did you do?
14. Re:Another salvo in the war by dave1791 · 2011-01-09 21:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
15. Re:Another salvo in the war by nagnamer · 2011-01-09 21:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Bad analogy. Nothing wrong with masturbation. It shouldn't even be embarrasing. And if anything is leaked during the process, it would be a sign of health, not illness.
  
  --
  Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
16. Re:Another salvo in the war by Killall+-9+Bash · 2011-01-09 23:07 · Score: 2
  
  Usage unwords synonymous crimethink. Rectify.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
So... by Black+Parrot · 2011-01-09 12:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

What makes you a "supporter" ?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-09 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, if you're a teabagging Palinista, unless you're pounding down Assange's door with a torch and pitchfork ready to behead him, you're a "supporter".
2. Re:So... by cosm · 2011-01-09 12:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That makes absolutely no fucking sense, whatsoever.
  Reread what AC said, I think you hit it too quickly.
  
  Well, if you're a teabagging Palinista, unless you're pounding down Assange's door with a torch and pitchfork ready to behead him, you're a "supporter".
  AC was saying that "if you are Palin", inherently saying that if you are of the "palinite" mindset, an individual would be by default a WL supporter if said individuals are not donning torch and pitchfork (which is actually in alignment with your link you posted as a counter point), per the "palinite" mindset of "If you are not 100% choking the red-white-and-blue dick, then you are a terrorist."
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
3. Re:So... by Motard · 2011-01-09 12:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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)..
4. Re:So... by cosm · 2011-01-09 12:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
5. Re:So... by MrHanky · 2011-01-09 13:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  According to Wikileaks themselves (Slashdot breaks cut & paste in Chromium, so no link):
  
  WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA [pdf of subpoena].
  Which would include people like me.
6. Re:So... by JumperCable · 2011-01-09 13:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What makes you a "supporter" ?
  Only a dirty Commie would ask a question like that. Who are your friends?
  - Joe McCarthy
7. Re:So... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-09 13:31 · Score: 2
  
  That's a very interesting read of the subpoena. I would even suggest it was a sensationalist interpretation.
8. Re:So... by Motard · 2011-01-09 13:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
9. Re:So... by Cimexus · 2011-01-09 13:44 · Score: 2
  
  I would agree. Even though I vehemently disagree with what the US Govt. is doing here, and even though I am a follower of @wikileaks myself on Twitter (merely for the same reasons as I follow news sites and the like: some of the stuff is interesting, though I have no strong personal opinion either way about Wikileaks), I struggle to see how the subpoena could be interpreted that way.
  Besides, if the subpoena covered every random dude that's clicked on 'follow', i.e. people that haven't communicated directly with Wikileaks but merely received some headlines from them in a one way, RSS-feed-like manner, you'd think they would be drowned in information. 600,000+ Twitter accounts is a lot of information to sort through...
10. Re:So... by Seumas · 2011-01-09 14:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How else are you supposed to silence dissenting voices, if you can't identify them?
11. Re:So... by Seumas · 2011-01-09 14:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So, they certainly must be going after the NYT and the WSJ, eh?
12. Re:So... by RobertM1968 · 2011-01-09 18:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's a very interesting read of the subpoena. I would even suggest it was a sensationalist interpretation.
  And you also believe that those 637,000 people will not be on some sort of gov't interest list? I know that speculation on my part is also "sensationalist", but really, do you think it wont happen? And do you think people should want to NOT be put on that list?
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
13. Re:So... by hkmwbz · 2011-01-09 19:22 · Score: 2
  
  the request is only for a handful of accounts directly related in some fashion to Wikileaks
  No, it covers all followers.
  
  --
  Clever signature text goes here.
14. Re:So... by RobertM1968 · 2011-01-09 19:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The part YOU apparently did NOT read. Sections B1-B3, which ask for information on those who have connected to or from the WL people's accounts (ie: tweeted them or received a tweet from them? Subscribed to them? Or hit the "Follow" button? Those ARE common uses of "connected"/"connection"/etc in the Internet world). In addition, Section B3 pretty much invalidates the anonymity seemingly being granted in Section B2 (or at least a large portion thereof).
  And from there, a further fishing expedition can take place to request even more information on whatever of the 637K people the govt has further interest in.
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
15. Re:So... by RingDev · 2011-01-09 21:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
Facebook by gmuslera · 2011-01-09 12:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Ok, some clarification. by cosm · 2011-01-09 12:35 · Score: 5, Informative

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
1. Re:Ok, some clarification. by Ethanol-fueled · 2011-01-09 12:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I know we are all quick to jump to the conclusion that 'oh noez teh gubment wants internet ppls infos'
  Well, they do, but I see what you're trying to say. However, you also just said, emphasis mine,
  
  They aren't immediately just going after random Joe for saying "I like what those guys do".
  Aren't immediately going after them? So you do know, then. The effect is to make the public at large believe that their info may be one day be subpoena'd for posting pro-Wikileaks(or any other kind of "subversive" speech) words online. There's nothing the feds can find on Twitter that they don't already know about those key players.
  
  Also, for the first time in my life, I think I'm kinda respecting Twitter.
2. Re:Ok, some clarification. by rilister · 2011-01-09 12:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, that's great. It's just the 'bad people' that they're after: including an Icelandic MP. Considering this whole 'grand jury' process is going on in secret, why should we be confident that there's a due process behind deciding whose IP addresses are being fished out of Twitter?
  I mean, call me an ass when I'm proved wrong, but the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side. They don't 'conspire,' they just receive the stuff and publish it. It's pretty open what they do and how. They're just desperate to pin a crime to pin a crime on Julian and his buddies, because that Espionage Act law is looking like weak beer.
  
  --
  'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
3. Re:Ok, some clarification. by ryan420 · 2011-01-09 12:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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].
4. Re:Ok, some clarification. by AHuxley · 2011-01-09 13:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/05/report-pentagon-didnt-fully-investigate-child-porn-allegations/
  "The investigators left 1,700 names on the list unchecked, defense officials have told Grassley."
  They dont waste time looking.
  As for this, welcome to the honeypot. Everybody who wanted to help "freedoms" is now on a list.
  Did the other web 2.0 sites roll over like the CC and online retailers?
  If so, will they go down the lists, name by name?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
5. Re:Ok, some clarification. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-09 13:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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?
6. Re:Ok, some clarification. by JumperCable · 2011-01-09 13:26 · Score: 2
  
  Hard drive space is cheap. Text takes up little space. And they have one hell of a budget.
7. Re:Ok, some clarification. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-01-09 13:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  None of the "bad people" are being arrested or charged with anything. They're just gathering info for the Manning case - using proper judicial channels, so far.
8. Re:Ok, some clarification. by ScentCone · 2011-01-09 14:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Considering this whole 'grand jury' process is going on in secret
  
  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 ... 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.
  
  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.
9. Re:Ok, some clarification. by ScentCone · 2011-01-09 14:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, that's how they set things up, but the thing that's being investigated here is that this was such a huge dump (250,000+ files) that some special accommodation needed to be given. And that this was worked out in advance. And that makes a big, difference. So, we'll see.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
10. Re:Ok, some clarification. by cold+fjord · 2011-01-09 17:39 · Score: 2
  
  In a nutshell, yes.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
11. Re:Ok, some clarification. by Omestes · 2011-01-09 20:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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
12. Re:Ok, some clarification. by RingDev · 2011-01-10 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  So by your argument, NYT, MSNBC, FOX, Guardian, and many other corporations are also guilty of the espionage equivilant of 'recieving stolen property'?
  It's not like they don't know where the stuff is coming from. Or that they don't have a financial interest in seeing the information distributed. They are effectively laundering it, while turning a profit.
  -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
"Opposing"? Where does it say that? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-01-09 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:"Opposing"? Where does it say that? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-01-09 13:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by Exclamation+mark! · 2011-01-09 12:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
1. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by Joe+U · 2011-01-09 12:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We were never the 'good guys' we were always the slightly better than the rest guys.
2. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by Fluffeh · 2011-01-09 13:00 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  When they relized there was more money to be made the other way. Same for just about every other country. We all like to be "nice" and "good" until we do it for long enough to work out that there is a limit to what can be done wearing those clothes. At some point it becomes too easy to pop on another outfit to keep the profits and power rising at the same percentages.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
3. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by Black+Parrot · 2011-01-09 13:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
  When we found out someone already lived here.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
4. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by AHuxley · 2011-01-09 13:13 · Score: 2
  
  One would like to say with the news about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip that the US got infected.
  But the good/top families did start in very evil ways.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
5. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by sincewhen · 2011-01-09 13:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...and that's when it started to go horribly wrong - when you started to think you were better than others.
  
  --
  -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
6. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by Baron_Yam · 2011-01-09 14:13 · Score: 2
  
  Don't be a fool. The Americans have done plenty of evil, evil things. I'd still rather have been an American than Soviet, or Chinese citizen when I was growing up. Hell, add in pretty much any Central American, Southeast Asian, or African nation as well.
  And this comes from someone who lives in America's hat with all the anti-American baggage that implies.
7. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by quenda · 2011-01-09 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
  No, the US stated off as a bunch of terrorists in the 1770s. It took a long time to earn Good Guy status. The real respect came from WWII and its aftermath.
  Sad that the respect is being squandered.
8. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by cold+fjord · 2011-01-09 18:12 · Score: 2
  
  When we found out someone already lived here.
  A positively Churchillian response.....
  Ward Churchill, to be specific. If we are going to have that, then we should have some Horowitz.
  
  It will probably come as a surprise to many people, both friend and foe alike, that I am opposed to any attempt to fire Ward Churchill for the essay (now part of a book) that has become notorious in which he denounces his own country as a genocidal empire, supports America's terrorist enemies, and says that 9/11 was a case of the "chickens coming home to roost."
  We live in country whose cornerstone document is a Bill of Rights that guarantees Americans a right to make fools of themselves if they so desire. State institutions like the University of Colorado are forbidden by our Constitution from firing people for expressing opinions, however offensive, idiotic or evil (and Churchill's comments on 9/11 qualify as all three). If, on the other hand, as some have charged, Churchill is not really a Native American as he claims, then of course he should be fired for fraud.
  Yes, Churchill is a self-declared ally of our enemies in the terrorist war against us. But so are many academic leftists, including those now rallying to his defense. A decent university system with serious academic standards would probably not have hired Churchill in the first place, let alone promoted him to a position of responsibility and honor as the chair of the Ethnic Studies Department. But that does not give the regents of the university the right to fire him because he has embarrassed them now.
  The real question is why wasn't anybody embarrassed before? In 1998, to cite one example, Churchill published a book - Pacificism as Pathology - which was essentially an argument for violent revolution to overthrow America's democracy. It was dedicated to an American terrorist who blew herself up while making a bomb intended to kill Army recruits and their dates at a social dance at Fort Dix. Why weren't any of his colleagues or superiors upset about this?
  Churchill is most widely known, in fact, for his academic writings in defense of the Black Panthers, a leftist gang that murdered a dozen people, and for his academic treatises accusing America of plotting and carrying out genocide against minorities throughout its history.
  Those who marvel at the current spectacle should keep in mind the fact that there is absolutely nothing new here, nothing that has not been not publicly known for years. The offending essay itself was published three years ago. No, whatever sin he has committed has not only been a matter of public record for more than 30 years, it has been reviewed over and over by duly constituted academic authorities at CU. The opinions that have suddenly catapulted this professor into the limelight have been examined and applauded by his university professors, the search-and-hiring committees that put him on the faculty of CU-Boulder, the promotion-and-tenure committees that made him a full professor, and the department that elected him chair.
  In sum, Churchill's views, which are both hateful and ignorant, represent the views a substantial segment of the academic community at Boulder and on campuses generally. Robert Jensen, a leftist professor at the University of Texas whom I have debated on TV over the Churchill matter, fully shares Churchill's views that America should lose the war on terror and that the terrorists are in fact "resistance" fighters opposing the American empire. A well-known required text for "Peace Studies" programs authored by two professors at well-known universities teaches students that the word "terrorist" describes the American Founders, that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and that America is the world's "most terrorist state." Churchill's new book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which contains his offending essay, is up for a Gustavus Myers Awar
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
9. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by jaxtherat · 2011-01-09 18:14 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, I grew up in the Soviet Union, and it wasn't really all that bad.
  
  --
  http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
10. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by jbssm · 2011-01-10 01:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Some reasons why American might feel the US is 'better' than other countries:
  - Introduction of Democracy to the modern world.
  That was France.
  
  - Abolishment of Slavery, world-wide.
  Actually you where the last Western Northern Hemisphere country to do that.
  
  - Defeated the most powerful nation (Britian). Twice.
  Ok you did defeat Britain, now if they where actually the world's most powerful nation is a bit open to interpretation.
  
  - Accepted women as equal citizens
  You where also basically the last Western Northern Hemisphere country to do that. Europe had Universal Suffrage long before USA.
  
  - Defeated the Nazis and the Japanese
  No, here we go again. I know you don't really learn history at school there, but see, the URSS defeated the Nazis. Ok? Repeat after me and tell your friends, the URSS defeated the Nazis. No other nation was actually indispensable to the defeat of the Nazis except for URSS.
  
  - "Invented" electricity (specifically, AC current)
  No, the AC current (nobody invented electricity just like nobody invented light) can be attributed to a variety of names: Guillaume Duchenne - French, Lucien Gaulard - French, Nikola Tesla - Serbian, Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti - English/Italian. And in all these names you don't see a single American, now do you?
  
  - Built the Bomb.
  Yes you did. Congratulations for building something you used to kill more than half a million civilians. I bet you should be really proud about that one, just like whoever invented slavery for instance should be proud about it.
  
  - Put a man on the moon.
  Yup, and that one a great one I have to admit.
  
  - Invented the microprocessor and the Internet
  Yes, you also did that.
  So basically you have 5 out of 9 of your "American" accomplishments completely wrong, 1/9 (the bomb) is simply no thing any sane person would be proud about, other 1/9 is just not factually correct. So basically you have 2 / 9 right. Congratulations. And congratulations to your fantastic educational system that seem to teach you history very well. No wonder you are so proud of yourselves, you don't know crap about history and are brainwashed since childhood to think you are the best at everything while in the rest of the developed world we tend to learn facts at school.
11. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by jbssm · 2011-01-10 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  Well, I would say that starting by the mass genocide of the native population of a whole continent doesn't classifies as "starting as the good guys". But ok.
12. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by dbIII · 2011-01-10 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Ah yes. If you ask questions you are an "ally of our enemies". Did we suddenly all shift to China a few decades back and people are questioning the Party? Your for us or against us "patriotism" really belongs to a different time, place and ideology. Bringing up loud extremists as strawmen to justify this Communist crap you are trying to shove down our throats is disgusting.
  Extreme and batshit insane to get attention as he is, Ward Churchill is pushing for something closer to George Washington than your pushing towards Mao Zedong.
13. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by stewpidbarnes · 2011-01-10 12:06 · Score: 2
  
  Spain abolished slavery in Cuba in 1886, oh historical savant. Gradual emancipation was agreed to following the 10 Years war's end in 1878.
  http://www.history.ca/content/ContentDetail.aspx?ContentId=222
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba
  http://books.google.com/books?id=-mMBmhYxg8sC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=cuba+slavery+1884&source=bl&ots=H4QyYAqsYs&sig=aMojAia8X6WQdDu_uI4KE3W9WUc&hl=en&ei=yJ0rTdiUEoyr8AbFuuTeCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cuba%20slavery%201884&f=false
In other news by jsse · 2011-01-09 13:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Hundreds of twitter users are charged with some creative sex crime.
No, this IS the war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-09 13:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:No, this IS the war by ultranova · 2011-01-09 17:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  And while the "free citizens" are fighting the scarecrow, their corporate masters are tightening their fist one squeeze at the time.
  The true enemy sits in the boardroom; the lackey in the White House is simply not important.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
2. Re:No, this IS the war by Luckyo · 2011-01-10 01:21 · Score: 2
  
  This is one of those posts that makes you wish it was possible to reach 6 points.
3. Re:No, this IS the war by cromar · 2011-01-10 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  he citizen that has a right to vote, is infinitely more powerful
  That is, unless you are convicted of a felony.
  
  Voting is a way to reach consensus between those who agree to heed its outcome. Corporations are at the mercy of the government less and less. Government is at the mercy of the corporations more and more. Let us also note that what is true in the US is not true or not as true in some other countries. I mean, most of the world's top economies are corporations rather than countries.
  
  Don't forget that things change. Because the majority of those in power today are pampered, lazy pigs doesn't mean that tomorrow they won't be pampered pigs with intentions of institutionalizing corporate feudalism for the next 300 years.
Twitter by Baseclass · 2011-01-09 13:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have new found respect for Twitter.

--
^^vv<><>BA
Re:Redundant question by RipleySnot · 2011-01-09 14:29 · Score: 2

I guess a tweet can become a festering stabwound to some... The tweet is mightier than the sword?
McCarthy is laughing in his grave by ayelvington · 2011-01-09 14:42 · Score: 2

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.
Imagine the money wasted! by tkprit · 2011-01-09 14:48 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
witch hunt by tkprit · 2011-01-09 14:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Feels like a witch hunt to me. /just saying.
Plus, there's overkill — dont' they have all they need to convict manning?