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.'"

Comments

Good luck with that

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Good luck with that

[Assmasher]

Exactly. If she kept a US bank account, or owned a home in the US - they would be subject to US search and seizure laws.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

"imagine if the U.S. authorities wanted to do a house search at my home, go through my private papers. "

Your not exactly posting the private papers on social media sites, are you?

Re:Good luck with that

[saleenS281]

Right, and she's arguing that her online account should be subject to US search and seizure laws. The Government completely bypassed their own rules, claiming because it's online they can ignore your right to privacy, and the need to get a warrant to obtain the information.

Re:Good luck with that

[chrb]

Indeed, but they also have to comply with the law of every country that they do business in. And, soon Twitter's international HQ will be based in the E.U., so they will be subject to more regulation (they do say they're already E.U. Data Protection compliant).

Re:Good luck with that

[the eric conspiracy]

Complete Nonsense. This material is covered under long standing US Law, the ECPA aka TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 121 PARAGRAPH 2703 part d, passed in 1986.

(d) Requirements for Court Order.â" A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act

Re:Good luck with that

[saleenS281]

The Justice Department obtained the records under a federal statute that allows for the release of non-content Internet records without obtaining a search warrant, which requires prosecutors to demonstrate probable cause.

No search warrant was obtained. They couldn't even prove probable cause when they attempted to get a warrant, so they found a loophole. Anything else?

Re:Good luck with that

[saleenS281]

And your point is what? That it's OK to have an unconstitutional law because it was upheld by a judge? That's like saying it's OK to put an innocent man to death because his appeals were turned down by the supreme court. Injustice is injustice, even if the legal system green lights it.

Tweets are not private papers

[Godskitchen]

I am barely see you up there on your horse. Your tweets are not the same thing as your "private papers."

Re:Tweets are not private papers

[flaming error]

And our "addresses, mailing addresses and even bank information" are not the same thing as our tweets.

Re:Tweets are not private papers

[ClioCJS]

They aren't getting the tweets - those are a matter of public record. They are getting the IP addresses and meta data around the tweets. If you published a book, I don't need to subpoena the contents of the book. This is more like inspecting your original papers forensically to see where you were when you wrote the book. This isn't information you would be able to get from a published copy. You'd have to get the original pieces of paper it was typed on (assume it's 1970 for this metaphor!) -- something not in public (like tweet IPaddress meta data) -- to do forensic analysis to find that out.

Amerika!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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.

Re:Amerika!

[Entropius]

I'm an American, and I love my country.

But if I were offered an opportunity to emigrate to Iceland tomorrow, I'd probably take it. (Who brought Eastern Europe into this?)

Re:Amerika!

[binkzz]

Yet millions still flock here every year in the hopes of a better life. Hrmm... I haven't heard of hordes of people looking to improve their lot going to the backwards Eastern European country from which you're probably posting.

I think you overestimate it by a tad. There's no flocking, just over a million immigrants a year. If you look at immigrants per year per head of population, the US comes in 31st. Just above most Western European countries, but way below Australia or Canada. Europe as a whole has a lot more immigrants per year than America does, and that includes Eastern Europe.

America hasn't been the promised land for a long time, and not that many people pick it out as the ideal place to live. It's just because American media doesn't cover any international news or events that Americans themselves don't realize this.

Re:Amerika!

[Vinegar Joe]

It's much, much easier for Turks, Africans, Iraqis, Libyans and Afghans to travel to Europe. And stay.

Re:Amerika!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Just keep drinking the corn syrup. It'll all be OK.

Re:Amerika!

[Rei]

I'm from America, and am posting this as I'm being driven to the airport to catch a flight to Reykjavík to sign work and residence permit applications with my new employer. ;) To anyone who's never been there: Iceland is just plain awesome. And to anyone who has the attitude of, "I wish I could move to X place..." -- don't be complacent. You *can* make a change in your life. It's not fantasy; people do it all the time. Right now: pull up a web browser, find an overseas job site, and start applying. :)

Re:Amerika!

[the eric conspiracy]

This is a prime case of lying with incorrectly quoted statistics.

The United States has BY FAR the largest net migration rate in the world. Over 5 millions per year. The 31 nations that have higher per capita rates are tiny countries in comparison to the US, and have a small European component. Europe may have more immigrants, but NOT CLOSE on a per capita basis.

Not only that, but in the same article you linked to it was stated that a 2009 survey found the US is BY FAR considered the most desirable destination in the world, with 165 million adults world wide giving it as it's first choice. Europe only got about 1/8 the number the US did.

Re:Amerika!

[Solandri]

I think you overestimate it by a tad. There's no flocking, just over a million immigrants a year. If you look at immigrants per year per head of population, the US comes in 31st. Just above most Western European countries, but way below Australia or Canada. Europe as a whole has a lot more immigrants per year than America does, and that includes Eastern Europe.

America hasn't been the promised land for a long time, and not that many people pick it out as the ideal place to live. It's just because American media doesn't cover any international news or events that Americans themselves don't realize this.

You're conflating two things - desirability as an immigration destination, and ease of immigration - and attributing both their effects to desirability as an immigration destination.

I'm only familiar with Canada so I'll use it as an example. It's a helluva lot easier to immigrate to Canada than to the U.S. When Hong Kong reverted to Chinese control, a lot of its residents tried to immigrate to the U.S., were declined, and immigrated to Canada instead which gladly accepted them. An immigration visa to Canada can be had in 1-3 years, and you can apply for Canadian citizenship after residing there just 3 years. Wait times for a green card in the U.S. are 4-5 years for favored countries, even longer for other countries. And you have to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years before you can apply for citizenship. The U.S. just makes it a lot harder to immigrate than other countries. Heck, it's a helluva lot easier just to get a tourist visa to Canada than to the U.S.

She said it best herself

[iamhassi]

"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.

Re:She said it best herself

[hedwards]

And likewise if I post something to a site in Germany the information would be available to the German authorities. Or in China to the Chinese authorities. Ultimately, any time you do business with a company or organization online the data is retained or not based upon the laws in their jurisdiction.

The US is hardly the only nation to feel that way and make use of it.

Re:She said it best herself

[mpe]

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.

It's probably more accurate to say that "Storing information on a computer in a foreign country can have many legal implications." Not that it is always obvious where a computer actually is. Especially with "cloud computing", where physical location can vary with time.

Someone better warn her that her Facebook, Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo are also at risk.

With at least Facebook things get "interesting" quickly.
There is is-is.facebook.com, which is in Icelandic.
Facebook claims that Irish data protection law applies within the EU. Iceland's data protection law is more or less identical with that of EU member states.
There's also the map on the Facebook login pages. Which could be interpreted as their having servers in the USA, Canada, France, Russia, Egypt, Japan, Colombia, Ghana, India, Brazil, Chile, South Africa and Australia.

"the same civil rights online as we have offline'

[flaming error]

"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.

Different countries, different policies

[d*m*int]

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

Re:"the same civil rights online as we have offlin

[flaming error]

You've got ten minutes and then I want you back at your desk.

Re:"the same civil rights online as we have offlin

[GNious]

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)

Re:"the same civil rights online as we have offlin

[flaming error]

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?

So Make Your Own Damn Twitter

[Greyfox]

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.

Re:"the same civil rights online as we have offlin

[Ihmhi]

"Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti", or "Committee for State Security". That's not all that far off from "Department of Homeland Security".

Quoting Icelanders

[Rei]

Jonsdottir said, 'This is a huge blow for everybody that uses social media.

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. ;)

Re:Why The Investigation?

[cavreader]

They are not investigating Assange they are trying to investigate and understand all of the circumstances involved with the illegal distribution of stolen data. The only person being prosecuted in the US is Manning because he is accused of breaking very specific civil and military laws. Any competent investigator would try to uncover where and how the data was distributed. The government has followed the law in trying to obtain this information or it wouldn't have ended up in a public court. If the court had ruled against the request the government could appeal the decision but if their appeals were denied they could not have access to the data. If they ignored the court decision and seized the data it could never be used in court to prosecute anyone and it's most likely any government employees or agents involved in seizing the data would be investigated and most likely charged with a crime. This does not sound like the way a "police state" would operate.

Re:Due process has been afforded

[anagama]

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),

1) The revalations stemming from decoding the wikileaks cache are directly responsible for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

2) 4483 US Military Deaths in Iraq in the last 9 years (498/yr): http://icasualties.org/

3) Documented civilian deaths (probably very conservative): 100k+ (over 11k/year) http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Plainly, it SILENCE that would cause death and destruction. In such circumstances, it is immoral, inhumane, and evil to keep the information secret. If anything should be a capital crime, it should be the failure to reveal information where such failure results in 1000s of deaths.

When I google "killed because of leaked cables", I end up with this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/02/cable-reveals-airstrike-killed-21-children-yemen/

But that's a story about our proud government killing 21 children in Yemen and how the information was contained in the cables. So instead of some theoretical bullshit about how the leak endangering soldiers, the truth is it will save 500 soldiers per year and we won't be responsible for 11,000 (min) civilian deaths per year in Iraq. Every person involved in leaking the cables deserves a Nobel Peace prize.

Re:Don't you just love the irony?

[anagama]

Don't be an idiot. There is real and material difference between your credit card data and friends, and committing war crimes. Some things have no public value (your CC number for example) and some are huge.

Why not...

[jopsen]

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 :)