Slashdot Mirror
US Judge Orders Twitter To Give Up WikiLeaks Data
cultiv8 writes "A US judge Friday ordered Twitter to hand over the data of three users in contact with the activist site WikiLeaks. 'US Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan rejected arguments raised by the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a host of private attorneys representing the Twitter account holders, who had asserted that their privacy was protected by federal law, the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment. Buchanan rejected each of the arguments in quick succession, saying that there was no First Amendment issue because activists "have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available." The account holders have "no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in their IP addresses," she said, and federal privacy law did not apply because prosecutors were not seeking contents of the communications.'"
I can't wait for his time in office to end.
Gitmo will be closed and indefinite detention will end.
There will be no more illegal wiretaps.
oh boy. one great display of freedom after another - freedom to commit war crimes and hide it from public that is. and it is not treason to commit war crimes behind the backs of the elected people - but to let people know it - or, even more, people TO know it.
Read radical news here
2008, let's see:
Progressive President, Democrats in charge of the US House and Senate.
Soooo, Patriot Act not repealed, illegal wiretaps not stopped, the prison at Guantanamo stays around.
Get it through your heads: Even putting the "preferred" people in charge of the US government - it still acts as your enemy.
Will you PLEASE stop voting to fund the beast that is the US government? Without the money it feeds on, it won't be able to steal your freedoms.
Because if it isn't clear by now that supporting higher taxes for "investments" isn't going to help anyone but the political class and their rich hangers-on, you've been duped.
Someone would almost certainly get charged with obstruction of justice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
> nor any other that suggests you have the right to anonymity for partaking in illegal activity or otherwise.
>There is no reason whatsoever anyone NEEDS the write to post anonymous messages online -
That's why you are posting as AC instead of using your real name? Cool, bro.
May I know you SSN, your real name, your address and whatever private data you are hiding from me. Because apparently according to you privacy is an act of terrorism, unpatriotic, un-american, etc.
Please return your geek license and repeat that Turing test. I wonder if you're really a reasonable human or a rep robot.
In addition : there is no terrorist organisation involved. Or do you mean the armed forces who caused that "collateral damage" in Afghanistan?
If somebody at Twitter deleted those accounts, or at least deleted the identifying information and it couldn't clearly be established who had done it... what could the US government do to Twitter as a corporation?
Who cares what they'd do to the corporation. The people who deleted the information would be charged with interference with a federal investigation, destruction of evidence, and likely a number of other associated charges. Furthermore, the fact someone would deem the information worthy of destruction actually bolsters the government's position the information is worth obtaining.
.Its like McCarthyism all over again.
No its not. Go learn some history. The comparison is idiotic.
"WikiLeaks leaked information that the US wants to keep secret"
Well, so did the New York Times, so why aren't they after them as well?
The whole point of the first amendment is "congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". That doesn't guarantee anonymity. The only thing that guarantees anonymity is the person exercising the freedom of speech and what steps they take to be anonymous. Using an interconnected computer network without taking steps beyond a clever nickname does no such thing.
The only thing protecting our 1st amendment rights, and all the others, is the will to use force in their defense. The paper is worthless without the will to back it up.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
that's only a probability..
No, it's an alternative. Either an IP address is linked to a person or it isn't. If it isn't, there is no reason to provide it, because that's why anybody might want a court to give it to them. If it is, it's private, so the court shouldn't be giving it out. The doublethink is trying to have it both ways: You can't say that it isn't private because it isn't identifying and then turn around and say that the court will therefore order it be given over so that the account holder can be identified. It has to be one or the other, and in either case turning it over is the the wrong thing to do.