Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Rejects Prosecutors' Subpoena For a User's Data Without Warrant
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "In defense of user privacy, Twitter filed a motion (PDF) yesterday in a New York state court asking a judge to block a subpoena that would force the company to turn over the data of one of its users, Malcolm Harris. Harris was arrested in an Occupy Wall Street protest on the Brooklyn Bridge in October for 'disorderly conduct.' The company's lawyers claim that the subpoena violates the fourth amendment and Twitter's terms of service, which says that users' tweets belong to them and thus can't be handed over to law enforcement without their consent."
That's fine. This is what due process is all about.
But they will just come back with a warrant and make it 'difficult' for twitter.
No. that will not make it difficult for Twitter. That will protect Twitter.
Complying with a warrant provides legal grounds for Twitter to act. Giving out information without one opens Twitter up to lawsuits.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
That's fine. This is what due process is all about.
Uh, due process? OK, how about root cause? Let's start at step one and answer the relevancy between someones private communications and a charge of disorderly conduct. What, are all OWS detainees winning the grand prize of an FBI file? Are they now considered domestic terrorists?
Kudos to Twitter and recognizing due process, but it is the least of our concerns here.
Subpoenas are issued by the clerk of the court at the discretion of the attorneys involved.
Warrants are issued by judges.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
The secret is in the reading of TFA. Twitter's angry that the subpoena claims that Harris has no right to challenge it. The only circumstance allowed by the Stored Communications Act under which the subpoena is filed in which this right can be withheld is if Harris has "no proprietary interest in the content," which is patent bullocks and makes no sense. Officially the subpoena is being made by the prosecution in anticipation of a particular defence; by contrast I do believe a warrant requires suspicion of guilt before it can be issued. It's also very, very unnecessarily broad, and hence blatantly meant to fish for incriminating materials.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
TFA gives some pretty compelling reasons.
1. that the data belongs to Harris under Twitterâ(TM)s terms of service, and handing it over would violate both those terms of service and the SCA.
2. it argues that handing over Harrisâ(TM)s data would violate the Fourth Amendmentâ(TM)s protections against searches without a warrant, which it argues applies even when the government is seeking information about allegedly public activities like a userâ(TM)s tweets.
3. it points out that Twitter is in California, and argues that the New York prosecutors need to make their case to a California court to obtain Twitterâ(TM)s data.
All seem like valid arguments to quash a subpoena to me.
What, are all OWS detainees winning the grand prize of an FBI file? Are they now considered domestic terrorists?
Pretty much every protester is considered a possible terrorist by the gov't today, and it's likely that most of the OWS protesters went in with the assumption that they were going to get a file opened on them. All the ones that I've met did anyway (most of them probably already had one though, so they might not be representative).
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Because the user has deleted all of his tweets before February 2012.
The prosecution believes that his tweets (including those deleted) will contradict his "anticipated defense" - specifically, that he was induced or forced to step onto the roadway by police, rather than stepping out onto the roadway of his own volition, and obstructing traffic. For instance, if they can show he tweeted a photo of himself and some other protesters dancing around in the roadway minutes before he was arrested, it sort of torpedoes the "The police threw me into the street!" defense.
The reasoning the court is using in supporting the subpoena (by rejecting the defendant's motion to invalidate it) is that the records are akin to bank records - they are *about* the user, but the user has neither possession nor a "proprietary" interest in those records - in other words, the records belong to the bank, and so a subpoena is sufficient for the bank to turn over records about the defendant. Given Twitter's terms of service (granting them a worldwide irrevocable license to reproduce, present and display... etc. etc.... your tweets) and the precedent of bank records, the judge has ruled that the defendant has no standing to challenge the validity of the subpoena.
You can read the full order here, and it goes into fairly deep detail about the issue, and is a fairly straightforward read.
Twitter is most deffinately doing The Right Thing here.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
First, per the Twitter terms of service, all communication is the property of the user and NOT Twitter. Twitter is arguing that it can't surrender what it doesn't own without a warrant. Think of it like this. I open a safe deposit box at my local bank. If the government wants access to property in the box, then is a subpoena to the bank enough? Twitter is in essence claiming they are like the bank; a repository and conduit, nothing more. (for safe deposit boxes, a subpoena will get you the paperwork about the box, but not inside it)
Secondly, Twitter is saying that the government needs a warrant for this information under the Fourth Amendment.
Third, Twitter is saying that if New York prosecutors want access to Twitter information, they need to file in Twitter's home state of California.
There is a lot of unsettled law in moving from the physical to the digital world. The government is arguing that many rights from the physical world don't translate to the digital one, Twitter disagrees.
Pretty much every protester is considered a possible terrorist by the gov't today, and it's likely that most of the OWS protesters went in with the assumption that they were going to get a file opened on them.
And we are back to the 60s again when the FBI used to send people into churchs and other gatherings of non-violent organizations in order to spy on, and sometimes screw with, them. COINTELPRO shit. Pretty sad it only took ~35 years for them to start pulling the same stunts. We have some really short institutional memory.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
And the actual motion explains some pretty compelling reasons why the subpoena went forward:
1) That Mr. Harris had to agree to Twitter's terms of service to have an account;
2) That the terms of service grant Twitter the following:
The essential argument is that since the user is granting Twitter that license to his tweets, the user has no "proprietary" (ownership) interest in the tweets, because by posting, he specifically gives up his right to prevent Twitter from doing anything they wish with that tweet he's submitted. In essence, they conclude that he's "given away" his tweet to Twitter via that license, and that he therefore has no standing to claim that it is "his property" which may not be disclosed by Twitter without his permission.
A police state? Perhaps not. A corrupt government? Definitely. TSA, Patriot Act, "for the children" excuses left and right, free speech zones, NDAA, completely idiotic wars...
As is contesting one. Civilized men settle their differences in courts of law.
Government: "Hand it over!"
Twitter: "No."
Both: "Rather than the government breaking out the tanks, and Twitter breaking out the Molotovs, why don't we just ask a judge how we should resolve this?"
Trial by observing the ritual combat of lawyers beats the hell out of the alternative.
The FBI has nothing to do all day long but assemble files on people who are not suspected of nything.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/26/are-95-of-people-investigated-under-new-guidelines-innocent-but-entered-into-database/
They obviously have time to spare on ...
Check, your move.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
One might argue that Booth considered himself a patriot, is what the sig is saying I think.
When does anyone wake up and consider themselves a proper villain? I doubt even Hitler thought of himself as a villain.
History determines who is the villain and who is the patriot. The victors write history. Some philosophers might are argue that there is no "right or wrong", just different points of view. The matter seems highly subjective, yet ironically, it's insisted upon being objective by everyone.
Take the Red Pill.
I've never understood people who suggest that assigning moral blame is simply the victors prerogative, as though nobody else would have an opinion. If this were the case, history would not contain episodes of "victor"-villainization. But they're actually really easy to find. In the U.S. alone, and just off the top of my head, we have slavery, genocide (or close to it) of the native americans, japanese internment, segregation, the Mai Lai massacre...the list goes on. No, I think it is cear that people can detect right from wrong (if only very imperfectly) no matter how the victor spins it. (Of course, suppressing information may be a problem; but it's a different one from the mater of moral relativism you're talking about.)
caritj.org