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.'"
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.
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.
Read radical news here
> 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.