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."

26 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 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."
    3. 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!
    4. 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.

    5. 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 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)..

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

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

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

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

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

    7. 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. 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 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.
  4. "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.

  5. 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 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
    2. 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.
  6. In other news by jsse · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  7. 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.

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

    I have new found respect for Twitter.

    --
    ^^vv<><>BA