Slashdot Mirror
US Twitter Spying May Have Broken EU Privacy Law
Stoobalou writes "A group of European MPs will today push EU bosses to say if the US government breached European privacy laws by snooping on Twitter users with links to whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) will today pose an oral question to the European Commission, seeking clarification from the US on a subpoena demanding the micro-blogging site hand over users' account details."
Where is Twitter based?
Where is the EU?
Just Askin.....
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Then what?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Aren't tweets public anyway? And what does it matter if they found links to the latest video/picture of some fat/old person/animal singing?
The Tweets are, but I don't think the IP, phone number or other information of interest associated with the sender/follower is public.
Home of The Suki Series
The story isn't about tweets.
Its about a US Subpoena for the account details about the owners of accounts used to support Wikileaks.
The subpoena is being fought, and may well be stricken down as overreaching.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
They subpoenad twitter not for the tweets but for IP logs and private account information pertaining to certain accounts. They basically want to know from which computers and where the users logged in from (ie. the IP), at what times (ie. IP log), and what they did while there. They'll also know the e-mails, passwords, and other information from those accounts.
THAT, my friend, is definitely not public and I think that's a huge breach of privacy even for these reasons because the US not only subpoenad for the WikiLeaks accounts but many others that were associated with the scandal.
Since when is an American government dealing with an American company bound by European rules? Nobody forced us Europeans to sign up for Twitter. I think we're all aware it's an American entity and that American law applies above all others in this situation.
Somebody doesn't understand how the US legal system works:
Subpoenas get issues by courts, so there is a "judicial enquiry" and judicial oversight. And there is a potentially illegal act, namely the release of classified information; the prosecutor had to convince the judge of that. The order was by a US court to a US company. Furthermore, the individuals targeted were informed and given an opportunity to object.
In Europe, police would be able to get this information without any judicial oversight, without anybody being informed, and without anybody being able to object.
The complaints by these MEP are unfounded and apparently just being made to score political points; beating up on America is a politically successful strategy in Europe.
Maybe my dictionary is out of date, but I never have thought that a court ordered subpoena is a "spying" activity. If they broke in to twitter and trolled through data that would be spying.
Looking at the website it's coming from... maybe I understand now why they think a subpoena is "spying". They say the Bradley Manning is currently being tortured by US jailers, and insinuate the subpoena is a front to cover the trail of supposedly confirmed NSA wiretaps 2x blocks from Twitter HQ. Sure sounds like level headed, unbiased facts abound there.
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/1/8/us-wants-read-wikileakers-twitter-accounts/
"In Europe, police would be able to get this information without any judicial oversight, without anybody being informed, and without anybody being able to object."
Wrong. Logs from ISP and company are also subject to the equivalent of subponea. Where the heck did you get this idea that the police could get whatever they want without judicial oversight ?
They do have the legal right to request the information. This comes under US law and given that there is an ongoing investigation into what Pfc Manning may or may not have leaked it most certainly is relevant. Now, it might be that most or all of the people aren't involved, but you can't very well know that without doing an investigation.
If you don't like our privacy laws, then don't user our services. I don't think that it's that unreasonable to recognize that a service that's headquartered and provided from a foreign state is going to be beholden to foreign laws.
I did look, and I couldn't find any evidence that Twitter is anything other than a US company.
On the face of it this may be silly as EU law obviously doesn't apply to US companies. That however would be misreading the whole thing. The EU is controlled by two entities the European Parliament and the Commission. The latter writes the laws and proposals and the former votes for or against them.
Members of European Parliament (MEPs) are democratically elected. Their primary problem is that nobody in Europe cares what they do or what they say. The EU decisions are in practice always complex compromises. The UK may vote for privacy laws the Netherlands wants in exchange for increased fishing quotas and the Netherlands wants it because the Dutch government can use it as a political tool for some other purpose. In short political ideology does not exist in the EU. This is a big problem for MEPs as they can't get reelected unless they get enough publicity and look as if they are doing something the voters care about. The system works against them and so on occasion they make loud noises about any issue they think will be of interest to the voters. Given the complex nature of compromises in the EU they seldom have the opportunity to do this. In this case the opportunity they saw was in the word "twitter". They know that voters recognize it and have scrambled to make themselves look like they are doing something decisive in the public interest. It's not real, it's just collecting brownie points from the public and getting their name in the papers. So you can forget about it. It has nothing to do with EU privacy laws or the US or twitter - it's strictly a PR thing.
The other branch of the EU executive and legislative power is the Commission. It has two functions. One is to act in the interest of the entity that controls it - the EU's civil service and the other is to provide a mechanism for national level politicians to get unpopular decisions through. The EU is run and controlled by the EU bureaucracy - it's civil servants. The Commissioners represent primarily the interest of their departments. The interest of the civil service is entirely self serving. They are for sending SWIFT data to the US as it will mean many fact finding trips to the US and other countries for the people in the departments. They are strongly for the introduction of checks and balances for sending the data as it creates more work for the civil service and ultimately increases their budget. The politicians on the national level have no problem with this as their use of the Commission is to get through unpopular legislation. When something popular is introduced it's always handled at the national level and the local politicians take credit for it. When it's something unpopular they simply say "we hate it too, but it's EU legislation, we can't do anything about it".
That's how the system works and it's not easy for the MEPs as they are not civil servants, they are politicians and need publicity and votes while they are not really meant to have any significant political power. That's why there was such an outrage at the EP rejecting a gay bashing candidate for the post of the Commissioner for Justice a few years back. Things like that are not supposed to happen and as a rule they don't. So when you hear that the EP is making an inquiry or that MEPs are making noises about something, you can safely ignore it. It doesn't have to make sense as nothing will ever come of it - they are just trying to get themselves noticed in order to get reelected.
Your mistake is assuming that American law applies. There's no question that it's legal within the US, however services offered in Europe to European citizens is subject to European law. The information sought is clearly protected under European laws.
Why do I even bother? It's Slashdot, mostly Americans and people reading this don't know the details of any legal system.
It actually applies to foreign companies for the storage of data pertaining to EU users.
I actually worked on something relating a month ago and the rules are there and the law exists for any service based in any country to take extra care when storing EU citizen data.
The result of this relating to the subpoena? The US simply cannot subpoena data relating to EU residents, only to US residents.
And that is it gentlemen; of course if the US wants to further degrade their reputation with Europe they can always walk all over European regulations they agreed to respect when handling EU data.
That won't be the first time the US just does what it wants and shits on everyone else, but it may be the last... Patience towards the US tantrums is running out in the EU...
--
www.twilightcampaign.net
Wrong. EU law applies to US companies conducting business in the EU. I can't see Twitter foregoing business in the 27 country EU as it is a market of over 500 million people.