Judge Rules Twitter Data Fair Game In Wikileaks Investigation

Wired reports that "The Justice Department is entitled to records of the Twitter accounts used by three current and former WikiLeaks associates, a federal judge ruled Thursday, dealing a victory to prosecutors in a routine records demand that turned into a fierce court battle over online privacy and free speech. ... The Justice Department has been seeking the Twitter records under 18 USC 2703(d), a 1994 amendment to the Stored Communications Act that allows law enforcement access to non-content internet records, such as transaction information, without demonstrating the 'probable cause' needed for a full-blown search warrant." Jacob Appelbaum, one of the three, was also detained on his re-entry to the U.S. last August (as well as on numerous other occasions) and had his email records seized as well. The others are Birgitta Jonsdottir (a member of Iceland's parliament) and Dutch businessman Rop Gonggrijp.

Comments

Fourth Amendment down the drain

[k6mfw]

eom

Re:Fourth Amendment down the drain

[blueg3]

No.

They get whether or not the three individuals sent direct messages to one another and what IP addresses they used. They get no content of any messages and they get no information about anyone other than the three named individuals.

One Way to Free Speech

[Bob9113]

There is a question raised, occasionally, of freedom from government versus freedom through government. It should be apparent, by now, to everyone that Free Speech cannot be had through the U.S. Government. They no longer defend the clear expressed will of The Constitution. That leaves us only one choice for the defense of Free Speech: Darknets.

If you've got the skills, get a darknet node up now, and begin teaching your less skilled friends how to do so. It is the only chance we have of retaining our right to Free Speech. And as so many of The Founding Fathers made so clear, Free Speech is the most important right for the defense of democracy. Without Free Speech, we are no more than a tin-pot dictatorship in sheep's clothing.

One important note before you venture there, though: Truly free speech can be a horrifying thing. I have seen things on I2P that have forced me to run back through the logic that leads me to the conclusion that the good of Free Speech outweighs the bad of it. There are things out there that are painful to see if you stumble across them. My advice is this: If you think it might be there, and it might be disturbing; do your very best to avoid stumbling across it. The worst you can imagine is a good enough representation of what is there -- you don't want to see it. Seriously. I heard the same advice but did not take sufficient care about what links I clicked on. It is so profoundly disturbing that I considered uninstalling I2P, despite my absolute conviction that darknets are necessary.

This is what escalation in the war on Free Speech leads to. Sigh. Those images in my head are because of the MAFIAA and the authoritarians. They did this. And I hope someday they suffer for it. They are monsters.

Re:One Way to Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

American's freedom is gone, their rights are gone, and they can't change it back through the 'legal' system or the 'democratic' system because both systems are now much too corrupt. Give up, it's over, there is nothing you can do anymore. The USA simply had inadequate separation of powers: the government makes the law, then it also chooses the judges who are tasked with upholding the law. The central government also has way too much control over the police and other authorities - the government keeps giving the authorities more power and authority because it knows the authorities work for itself.
And it gets even more blurry: homeland security can introduce secret evidence in trials. That means if you are accused of something, and they introduce secret evidence, you don't get to see that evidence and neither does your lawyer - you can't attack this evidence, and there's no certainty the evidence is real and not a fabrication to begin with. It's an easy way to put people in jail for crimes they did not commit, that power is in the hands of the authorities, and not even judges can choose to reject secret evidence!

Where are the USA now?
Corporations and lobby groups rig elections by helping their chosen candidate's campaign. They even control the media and can censor candidates who would rather respect the interest of you, the people. And if a politician who cares about the people did win the elections, corporations have enough to buy him off. People who absolutely can't be bribed are 1 in a billion. That's 7 people on Earth at most.
Authorities have too much authority. Look at the TSA putting check points on highways! (In case the "Cancer machine or groping, your choice!" policy in airports was not enough to bother you).
Police abuse their power and get away with it. They're covered.
Government violates people's rights and gets away with it. Groping, exposing people to radiation, locking people up for years without ever giving them a trial, torture, secret evidence in court, wiretapping, unreasonable intrusive investigation of people are only suspects of something in a paranoid man's mind, etc.

What can you do?
Nothing. Your government now owns you and your family. Stop complaining and fighting it, because you can't win anymore. Voting won't work. Lawsuits won't work. Play along, it's best for everyone including yourself. Sorry, but time for change was 20 years ago. You failed to see the danger coming because you didn't care enough, and now you pay the price. Stop resisting, it's over.
I don't mean to sound cynical. I feel terrible for the American people, I don't wish anybody to be denied freedom and human rights, but that's the way it is now and nothing can be done anymore. I sincerely think that Americans would be better off going with the flow at this point.

Re:One Way to Free Speech

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Not that I disagree with you... but I'm not seeing what free speech has to do with this issue.? In an environment where anything violating free speech is illegal there would be no privacy. This issue is about privacy and protection from unreasonable search I would think. In a government that outlawed anything that prevented speech or information from not being free, they would not have to even get a warrant to read your "private" tweets or "private" emails.

Re:One Way to Free Speech

[Bob9113]

This issue is about privacy and protection from unreasonable search I would think.

Primarily, and on its face, I completely agree. And I don't want to suggest that those issues are not vital to our Nation. They are. It is only that I believe that Free Speech is the most important right in the protection of our Nation (Nation in the metaphysical sense, not our borders or governing bodies).

The threat to freedom of speech from this is more subtle, and relies on the assumption that government is inherently imperfect. If one has a government which is imperfect and hence liable to occasional abuse of power, then the inability to speak without the fear of discovery by the government becomes an implicit threat to free speech. Some things must be said anonymously or pseudonymously in order to ensure that complete candor in the public discourse may exist(*). One historical major example is Hamilton, Madison, and Jay using the pseudonym Publius to publish the Federalist Papers.

* Note that this is the same reasoning behind politicians having privacy protection regarding their discussions with their staff members -- the only difference being that the privacy of government officials in the performance of their official duties is a privilege that We The People grant them -- our right to it is inalienable and granted by the creator.

Fourth Amendment Abuse

[rabidmuskrat]

This really seems like quite the abuse of the fourth amendment. The whole lack of a need for probably cause is extremely troubling.

A nasty blow to privacy.

Just Repeal It Already

[organgtool]

If we're going to completely ignore the Fourth Amendment, could we at least repeal it so that we don't have to live under the false pretense that it still has any meaning? I mean, how hard is it to get a damn warrant these days?

Re:Just Repeal It Already

[mcgrew]

I mean, how hard is it to get a damn warrant these days?

Not nearly as hard as amending the Constitution. Why go through the bother of a Constitutional amendment when you can simply ignore the Constitution?

Like the guy said.

[AftanGustur]

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

--Abraham Lincoln

Re:Like the guy said.

[the linux geek]

Coming from him, that's pretty damn funny.

Re:Like the guy said.

[Hatta]

He should know. He was the one that destroyed it. Has any President commited more unconstitutional acts than Lincoln?

Re:Like the guy said.

[HBI]

The biggest competitors are FDR and Wilson.

Re:Hey Governments

[LordLimecat]

Thatll show them for using diplomacy instead of just bombing the shit out of people!! Diplomatic wires want to be free! Incarcerate Tsvingerai! Free Zimbabwe!

Habeas Corpus?

[Quila]

Lincoln ignored a court's ruling that his detention of people without habeas corpus was unlawful since the Constitution reserved the power to suspend habeas corpus to Congress alone.

Congress later approving the action does not make it right. He did what was at the time blatantly unconstitutional.

The problem with a large number of you Americans..

[CapuchinSeven]

The problem with a large number of you Americans (and I say this as someone that, for the most part, likes visiting and likes the American people, it's hard to not like you when you grew up watching Back to the Future in the 80's) is that you've forgotten the lessons of your forefathers, it is the responsibility of a proud and patriotic citizen to question, criticise and shout at their governments. Crying out that if you don't all get in line then "the terrorists win" and swallowing everything your government tells you is something a stupid man does.