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.

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?

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.

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.