Slashdot Mirror
Icelandic MP To Challenge US Court Ruling On Twitter Privacy
JabrTheHut writes "The Guardian has a story of how Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, is challenging the U.S.'s acquisition of Twitter account information, IP addresses, mailing addresses and even bank information. The U.S. says it wanted these details to help with its investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Jonsdottir said, 'This is a huge blow for everybody that uses social media. We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline. Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers. There would be a hell of a fight. It's absolutely unacceptable.'"
Twitter is based in the US and has servers here. Ultimately they will have to comply with US law whether or not that's good for anybody.
Now you know the police state we are don't use US based Businesses if you know whats good for you.
Not worth it.
I am barely see you up there on your horse. Your tweets are not the same thing as your "private papers."
Number ONE enemy of Truth, Justice and the American Way!
At least they are first in SOMETHING again. That 17th highest standard of living, and 56th least corrupt, just have to sting.
If "Freedom isn't free", you guys are still being cheated.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Well, Hamburg is kicking Farcebook's ass. Soon there may be a EU node of Farcebook on top of it.
Wait until US citizen's personal details will be involved in EU courts... LOL
Communication is too important to leave to the laws of one jurisdiction, and it also must be too interconnected to have one service per nation.
"I want everybody to be fully aware of the rights we apparently forfeit every time we sign one of these user agreements that no one reads," said Jonsdottir.
That' right everyone, remember when you store your information on a computer in the US, be fully aware that information is now subject to US laws.
Someone better warn her that her Facebook, Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo are also at risk. Even her eBay and Google searches, maybe even some info sent through her iPhone or Android device if it passed through Apple or Google servers.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline."
I think she'll get no argument there from the Dept of Homeland Security.
Unfortunately, the DHS (literally translated to Russian, the acronym would be "KGB") seems to think there are none in either place.
It's strange to expect that the same rules apply to all things. If I were looking for absolute anonymity, I wouldn't use a U.S.-based service. In the same way, if I wanted my money to be there the next day, I wouldn't use an Icelandic bank
"We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline. Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers."
The right to free speech is not infinite. Especially when your speech infringes on the rights of others (try right to life of soldiers and CIA),
This woman would be subject to having her home searched and private papers viewed if she were physically in the US. Physical papers could be searched if they were in a US bank vault. The same rule applies when she stores her private papers here electronically. If you don't like a jurisdiction's policy calls on the lines drawn regarding speech and privacy - don't speak in that jurisdiction (servers located there).
Due process has been afforded and civil rights upheld. From TFA - the justice department followed the law and the use of the law was allowed to be challenged.
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
Comparing the searching of a private house to publicly published and available information is just what every under-educated 1%er is all about.
"There would be a hell of a fight."
Not in my country warrantless searches happen all the time but then again we don't even have free speech. Sad thing is i'm from a first world country. Think of the children every one and give the government all your rights.
You've got ten minutes and then I want you back at your desk.
Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers. There would be a hell of a fight. It's absolutely unacceptable.'"
If you lived here, where the actual data resides in the twitter case, no there wouldn't be a 'hell of a fight'. They would come with a warrant from a judge, tear down your door, search your house and you get to sit there politely and watch. If you protest, you get hauled away.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think she'll get no argument there from the Dept of Homeland Security. DHS (literally translated to Russian, the acronym would be "KGB")
(KGB) (Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti or Committee for State Security)
Email, like we were doing in the 1970's? Social media. IRC, like we were doing in the 1990's? Social media.
This is not a "huge blow for everyone using social media", it's a "huge blow for PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY". The rest of us? No problems. I email my friends, we've exchanged PGP keys, and no one in the middle can read what we send no matter how many servers store it. I IM with my friends, and we use OffTheRecord, and our communication is private.
It's sheer idiocy to expect that you can PUBLICLY post information on the site of a company whose business model is to sell it to anyone who wants it, and think you have any amount of privacy at all. Really, people need to learn the very, very basics of the technology they are using, because most people simply seem ... insane. Sure, go ahead, use facebook all you want, just don't expect it to be private. It never was. If you want privacy, USE PRIVATE COMMUNICATION.
Since you apparently missed this, that "attempt at wit" was exactly as meaningful as the post it responded to. That was the point of the response, but apparently it was too subtle, so I'll try to be clear.
Injecting emotion without information does not further dialog.
And when your own contribution to a dialog is devoid of information, calling somebody else out for non-meaningful statements is hypocriitcal, don't you think?
He was funny and his comment was spot on in the first place. Double whammy on you.
"Imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers. There would be a hell of a fight. It's absolutely unacceptable.'"
That would be nice, but I don't think it is very likely. Access to the court system is a matter of how much you are willing to spend, particularly in criminal defense matters.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Didn't mean to get you all riled up. Just a leisurely Saturday morning troll-session. Hint: don't take yourself so seriously. :) Have a good one.
Why is the US investigating Julian Assange?
He is not a US citizen.
He is not a US resident.
His activities do not take place in the US.
Hence the US has exactly zero jurisdiction.
Why is the US investigating Julian Assange?
More people than about you.
Why so serious? You're an asshole Godskitchen. Hee Hee.
Google traslate says 'department of homeland security' is ' '
'Committee for State Security' is ' '
so no its not literal in either way
If you want your social media to conform to your country's idea of "Reasonable," you should make your own damn social media, and host it in your country. Though I'm sure there's probably a treaty or something, and data taps for secret service on all the border routers outside your nation, so it's probably pointless anyway. Feel free to do it anyway, if it makes you feel better.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Someone who was involved with WikiLeaks, an organization that specializes in exposing private information and secret data, whining about having their personal information exposed to the government. It brings to mind that old saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or just one word, Karma!
Your incompetent rage has made my Saturday. :)
"Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti", or "Committee for State Security". That's not all that far off from "Department of Homeland Security".
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I don't get it. Lots of negative commands here, mostly referring to Jonsdottir citizenship. This is not about an Icelandic citizen not wiling to abide to the law of the US, being the country twitter is operating from. It is also not about her not realizing there are laws in place that will eventually causechere case being thrown out. Laws put in place during the panic following 911, or laws put in place decades ago when locking your door and keeping your diary safe was enough to protect your privacy. This is about someone taking a principalled stand, saying that the state should get a proper warrant if it wants access to information a (wold) citizen doesn't expect to be publicly available. Nomatter what patriotic and ancient laws have been put in place that provide loopholes around this basic expectation.
She is doing what you and I should do, American or not.
Notes to the Guardian (and to Slashdot for just copy-pasting it):
1) The name is "Jónsdóttir", not "Jonsdottir". I assume you know how to use accented characters; this isn't the 1980s. Jonsdottir is not only incorrect, but it would have a different pronunciation.
2) "Jónsdóttir" isn't a last name. It's a föðurnafn, or "patronymic". Think of it as an adjective, not a name -- in terms of actual usage, "Birgitta Jónsdóttir" should be thought of as "Birgitta, whose father is Jón." Saying "Jónsdóttir said" is like saying "Whose father is Jón said". You don't refer to people by their patronymics alone; they're only there for when you need clarity. Even phone books in Iceland are sorted by first name.
Anyway, I was going to make some joke about how, given the typical ignorance of most people about Iceland, and of Americans about the outside world in general, I wouldn't be surprised if the US tried to subpoena her kennitala (Icelandic "Social Security Number" equivalent)... but then I realized that I'd have to take the time to explain what's funny about that and it'd ruin it. ;)
Future headline #86: "GM to Recall Three Remaining Cars"
Seriously, who wants to receive a rat's ass about Iceland? And who writes about countries on the asses of rats and then gives them out to people? Let me tell you, someone like *that* is who the US government should be investigating!
Future headline #86: "GM to Recall Three Remaining Cars"
Maybe people that can actually point it out on a map? Go back to your NFL, champ, the adults are talking.
So if they rule that the data must be kept private, how exactly are they planning on enforcing that ruling? I suppose the Council of Europe could use rude language, but... wait, they are doing that already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
Stasi - The Ministry for State Security
And likewise if I post something to a site in Germany the information would be available to the German authorities.....
.... The US is hardly the only nation to feel that way and make use of it.
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc... are all doing business in Europe, whether they're selling services or ads... Granted sometimes the servers are located in the US, (sometimes it's the EU, or both, who knows?), nevertheless I doubt user agreements have any significant legal standing in most of Europe, the common man cannot be expected to understand 5 pages for legal nonsense, especially not when written in a foreign language.
:)
:)
So why shouldn't Twitter, Facebook , Google etc. be fined for violating European privacy laws?
I realize it would put these companies between a rock and a hard place, as the US would force them to deliver the information... But if we in Europe put these companies in this position, they'll probably buy, sorry lobby, some US politician to come up with better privacy laws, that respects users in foreign countries...
Obviously, this would be a somewhat extreme action to take
But when you do business in EU your subject to our laws... I don't hope the EU starts fining companies for complying with court orders, search warrents, or requests under an obscure "stored communications act" in the US right away, but starting a discussion about what's okay and how to handle violations would be a good thing...
By the way, isn't it kind of arrogant (and stupid) to go to court for information about an MP in a foreign country? What can they possibly learn from her twitter account anyway
Ég geri, myndi ég búa ar ef ég gæti.
Since Twitter operate in Europe the are bound by EU law.
The European Parliament have already passed the resolution unanimously, so the defacto finding is that Twitter have broken EU law by violating her human rights.
Perhaps the people who care are the ones that live there. I do not live in Iceland but I do understand America pissing over people.
It would be interesting to see a full risk analysis of using and giving data to any social network service. Typically these are run by companies - some private, others publicaly listed. The data supplied by users is held by those companies for years. Ownership of companies changes. The ownership of services move. Is there any impediment to Twitter (or for that matter Facebook) selling the service to say a health insurer? Is there any impediment to the then health insurer running data mining to assess your personal risk for determining insurance premiums? Once the data leaves your computer, you have lost control. Sometimes you loose control before it leaves your computer! Surely a Wikileaks volunteer of all people ought to know that.