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.'"
> 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.
Yes, of course. Likewise, it's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom (hypothetically) to rob a bank and then face punishment after the fact. Did you think that was something new?
If "see, we punished these guys for saying that, and we'll do the same to you if you say that" isn't prior restraint then what would be?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
As an non-US citizen.....
I would expect you to stop putting spending bills and prisoner transfers bills into one package.
It seems such a weird way of doing business. If a measure can't stand on its own, it shouldn't stand at all.