Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Fights US Court For WikiLeaks Details

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

42 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Another salvo in the war by Anonymous Coward · · 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 SimonTheSoundMan · · 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.

    2. Re:Another salvo in the war by mrzaph0d · · 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.
    3. Re:Another salvo in the war by jcr · · 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."
    4. Re:Another salvo in the war by Requiem18th · · 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.
    5. Re:Another salvo in the war by netsharc · · 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!
    6. Re:Another salvo in the war by hawguy · · 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.

    7. Re:Another salvo in the war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I give up. What did you do?

    8. Re:Another salvo in the war by nagnamer · · 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.
  2. So... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What makes you a "supporter" ?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:So... by cosm · · 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
    2. Re:So... by Motard · · 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)..

    3. Re:So... by cosm · · 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
    4. Re:So... by MrHanky · · 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.

    5. Re:So... by JumperCable · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What makes you a "supporter" ?

      Only a dirty Commie would ask a question like that. Who are your friends?
      - Joe McCarthy

    6. Re:So... by Motard · · 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.

    7. Re:So... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How else are you supposed to silence dissenting voices, if you can't identify them?

    8. Re:So... by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, they certainly must be going after the NYT and the WSJ, eh?

    9. Re:So... by RobertM1968 · · 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!
    10. Re:So... by RobertM1968 · · 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!
    11. Re:So... by RingDev · · 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
  3. Facebook by gmuslera · · 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.

  4. Ok, some clarification. by cosm · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 ScentCone · · 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.
    6. Re:Ok, some clarification. by ScentCone · · 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.
    7. Re:Ok, some clarification. by Omestes · · 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
  5. "Opposing"? Where does it say that? by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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.

  6. Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by Exclamation+mark! · · 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 · · 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 Black+Parrot · · 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
    3. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by sincewhen · · 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.
    4. Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? by jbssm · · 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.

  7. In other news by jsse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hundreds of twitter users are charged with some creative sex crime.

  8. No, this IS the war by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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.

  9. Twitter by Baseclass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have new found respect for Twitter.

    --
    ^^vv<><>BA
  10. Imagine the money wasted! by tkprit · · 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.

  11. witch hunt by tkprit · · 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?