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.'"

Comments

Any lawyers in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

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? Even a large fine would probably be worth it in the long run from all the goodwill and positive feedback they'd get from their users.

saying that there was no First Amendment issue because activists "have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available."

Its like McCarthyism all over again.

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[Hatta]

Someone would almost certainly get charged with obstruction of justice.

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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?

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

Private tweets and the identities of their recipients.

This is more problematic for the Icelandic MP, as many of those tweets could have been part of government business - It's almost certain that foreign government workers will leave twitter now, being barred by their respective governments - assuming that they hadn't already been so. The ability for the government to get private data is also going to scare off a lot of normal users.

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[GooberToo]

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.

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[Kosi]

WikiLeaks only publishes information that already has been leaked. They don't send out spies to gather such information like those three letter agencies do.

And none of the information published by WikiLeaks caused any real harm to or even endangered a person, nor was it suited to do so. The interest the US have here is about the same of a criminal not wanting to have his crimes and other stuff he is ashamed for published.

btw, recently I stumbled over this fine sentence: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people". :)

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[Mr.Fork]

GooberToo - As a unbiased Canadian, you have no idea how right-winged your comments sound. I'm sorry, in order for your point to be valid - this "deleted information" and "interference" would have to come from a crime after conviction. Is there a conviction we don't know about? Apart from the Private who handed over the documents (and who's charges have yet to be proved in court), what are you're referring to? Has Assange been charged by a US District court, found guilty 'in absentia'? Is there something the rest of the civilized world do not know?

Isn't your first amendment is a foundation and a pillar of democracy? (which a lot of countries view as a model for modern societies). This judge, BTW if you actually did your homework, is a republican who has more ties to the past Bush administration than Halliburton oil-blow-off valve for off-shore drilling rigs.

The prosecution found a judge who would ignore the constitution to rubber stamp what ever they needed.

It's a sad day for US democracy - I'm sorry to say it, but isn't the USA suppose to be a model of democracy? Why is the USA appearing more and more like a totalitarian regime?

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[Anthony Mouse]

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.

Chilling effect

[betterunixthanunix]

I thought the point of the first amendment argument was that this sort of action would have a chilling effect on free speech, not that the twitter users were having their free speech rights directly violated...

Re:Chilling effect

[swalve]

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.

Re:Chilling effect

[countertrolling]

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.

Re:Chilling effect

[TheoMurpse]

As a lawyer, I wish articles like this would link the decision at the very beginning or the very end of the article always. Here, no thanks to the /. summary!

Decisions relying on anti-"chilling effect" policy reasons for the conclusion tend to be at the appellate level, not the district level, and especially not at the magistrate level. Magistrates are appointed for a short number of years and are not Article III judges. Doing what the Article III judges (district, circuit, SCOTUS) say is of the utmost importance to them since Magistrates are basically merely auxiliaries or para-judges. So, no, magistrate judges will almost never rely on public policy concerns such as "chilling effects" to decide an issue. This is my experience as someone who used to work directly for a federal magistrate judge doing research for him.

Now, I humbly offer my analysis of the decision (apologies for it not being perfect writing, but it's Saturday, and the goal is just to shed a little light on what actually is going on in the decision):

Facts

1. Gov't requests Twitter records that do not include the contents of posts. Namely, it requests ID, contact info, registration information, records of connection time, etc.
2. Court orders Twitter to turn over info
3. Twitter users argue to "get rid of" ("vacate") the order to disclose this info.

Issues

1. Does the Stored Communications Act give power to Twitter users to try and get order vacated (i.e., do Twitter users have "standing" under the SCA)
2. was the order properly issued
3. does the order violate 1st Amendment
4. does order violate 4th Amendment
5. One user is Icelandic and a gov't official, so does "international comity" require vacation of the order

Standing under SCA
No, they dont. SCA gives standing only if contents of communications are requested. The distinction between contents and records (non-content data such as ID, access time, etc.) is explicitly made in the law itself, so this isn't just semantics. Government wins issue 1.

Proper issuance of order
Users argue the government did not follow proper procedure to get the order. Users argue info requested is not relevant and material to investigation. Court says it is.

First Amendment
Users argue it creates a chilling effect on free speech by creating a "map of association." Court says that the association between these users was made publicly by the users themselves already, so no chilling effect in this instance can be had. This is where the whole "publicly policy" issue would come into play in an appellate court, but not in an Article I magistrate court. While it could have a chilling effect on other associations (which I personally doubt, as, IIRC from my use on Twitter, everyone's Twitter friend list is publicly accessible anyway), it's not for the magistrate court to decide. That would be for the Circuit or Supreme Courts.

Fourth Amendment
Users argue it's a warrantless search, and the requested IP addresses are "intensely revealing" as to location, including location within a home and movements within. OK, wtf is this bullcrap? Turning over an IP address will tell the police which room in a house you were posting in? That sounds really specious.

In any case, court enters into a "reasonableness" analysis as is de rigueur with Fourth Amendment issues--does the act infringe on expectation of privacy society consideres reasonable? There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in data voluntarily turned over to third parties. This may not be true if the EULA specifies that data will be kept private, but the court doesn't address this issue because the argument was never made. Instead, the court says: Look, you gave Twitter your IP address, so you can't reasonably expect it to be kept secret from police. Other courts have apparently said si

Damn you, George W. Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Damn you, George W. Bush!

[pushing-robot]

I have to respond to the Guantanamo Bay issue, since it pops up so often. In 2009 and again in 2011, congress passed laws blocking the transfer of prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster. I don't know what you expected Obama to do, short of declaring himself emperor and ruling by decree.

It's ironic that one of your complaints is about the president violating the constitution, while the other is about him not violating the constitution to get his way. Funny how our views change depending on whether we oppose or support an issue.

Re:Damn you, George W. Bush!

[Cinnamon Whirl]

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.

Land of the FREE !!!!!!

[unity100]

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.

Re:Land of the FREE !!!!!!

[magarity]

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.

It's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom to publish anything first and then face punishment after the fact. Did you think this was something new? Why do so many people think freedom of the press means freedom from consequences of publishing something proscribed?

Re:Land of the FREE !!!!!!

[unity100]

its not freedom of the press - its freedom of speech.

if you dont have freedom to know, and talk about what you know, then it means that you dont have freedom of speech, period. no amount of legal beautifying can change that fact.

Re:Land of the FREE !!!!!!

[unity100]

What war crimes are you speaking of? Please, do tell.

torture ? kidnapping ? contracting torture prisons in 3rd party client states ?

He has put thousands of lives in jeopardy

What thousands of lives are you speaking of ? Please, do tell.

are you speaking of the lives of the cia personnel that kidnapped people, the bastards that set up torture prisons in client countries, or the whoresons who tortured people in those countries ? or the agents which arranged for killings and murders in iraq, afghanistan ?

noone gives two shits about lives of those people. they chose their path, and they were PAID for it.

dont give us that crap.

Re:Land of the FREE !!!!!!

[causality]

It's a long standing precedent that one has the freedom to publish anything first and then face punishment after the fact. Did you think this was something new?

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?

Re:Land of the FREE !!!!!!

[unity100]

States secrets cannot simply be shouted about because you happen to know them.

and that is precisely why that concept is being used for doing filth, and hiding it.

the damage done is much more than the benefit rendered. there shouldnt be any concept of 'state secret'.

if everyone knew everything there would be no way to do wrongdoing in any part of the world, by anybody, and a lot of the division we have would be unnecessary, including most of arms and armor.

The right to speak anonymously

[erroneus]

The right to speak anonymously in order to protect one's self from retaliation from individuals or oppressive, tyrannical or vengeful governments is an ESSENTIAL part of the first amendment protection. So the judge is simply wrong about this. Having the right to speech is only part of the first amendment. Having the right to free speech without fear is the rest of it.

I think the judge made two errors

[Omnifarious]

First, the point is not that this will effect the participants ability to say whatever they said. The point is that it will effect future participants willingness to say things. It's about the chilling effect, not about the given participants first amendment rights exactly.

Secondly, I do have a privacy interest in my IP address. If I didn't, then why do services like Tor exist to hide it? If nobody cared about that, then nobody would use Tor, but many people clearly do. So people do have a privacy interest in their IP address. So the 4th amendment does apply.

Re:I think the judge made two errors

[Kjella]

Secondly, I do have a privacy interest in my IP address. If I didn't, then why do services like Tor exist to hide it? If nobody cared about that, then nobody would use Tor, but many people clearly do. So people do have a privacy interest in their IP address. So the 4th amendment does apply.

That's not what the judge said, she said there's no 4th amendment privacy interest. You may have a large privacy interest in your ex not talking about your infidelity, STDs and poor lovemaking but you have no 4th amendment protection of it. For the most part, the courts have strictly interpreted the 4th amendment to mean places you own or have exclusive control over like your apartment and bank deposit box. Whatever information third parties have registered about you generally only requires a subpoena of the third party, not you. Same as if you store your drugs in the neighbor's garden shed and his subpoena is valid then you have no 4th amendment protection.

Home of the brave

[Compaqt]

This.

>there was no First Amendment issue because activists "have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available."

The tweets are already published. If they weren't illegal what are you pursuing them for?

So, somebody tweets something in support of Wikileaks, you want to hunt them down to send them to Guantan, and there's no 1st amendment issue.

At this rate Tunisia (which just abolished its state security) and Egypt (whose people raided their state security HQ) will be freer than the "land of the free".

Re:Privacy vs anonymity

[tomhudson]

One of the things that seems to be happening here is that USA Federal case law is beginning to define the difference between privacy, with its constitutional protections, and anonymity, which for all practical purposes only came into existence with the rise of the Internet. That is, before the Internet, there really was no effective way to publish anything to a large audience without leaving a trail that would expose the author's identity to anyone who cared to do the leg work.

I'm sorry, but that is a total falsehood. Amonymous publishing was part and parcel of political movements for centuries. Pamphleteers didn't always sign their names, as noted here

One other feature of 18th C. pamphleteering deserves mention, one that may have a lot of relevance in other countries today where the Web is used for purposes of political insurrection. That is, the pamphlet was preferred by the rebels because it did not provide any target for retaliation by the crown. It was a guerilla form of publishing in which an individual or small revolutionary group could make a point, then disappear. This was in contrast to the more established printers. Typically, the printer owned his shop, his press, his tools and all his stock. If he antagonized the Crown, they knew just where to find him, and the king's agents could easily shut him down. The hit-and-run, anonymous pamphleteer, on the other hand, was almost impossible to find and, thus, to stop.

Anonymous pamphleteering was part of the American Revolution. The same way that samizdat was part of the fall of Soviet Russia.