Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Can't Keep Protestor's Data From Cops

Posted by Unknown on from the land-of-the-free dept.

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "On Monday, Twitter published its first-ever Transparency Report, detailing how many times governments around the world demanded its users' information and asked it to remove content. The results show that the U.S. government asked for more Twitterers' private data than all other governments combined: 679 requests in the first half of 2012, of which 75% were at least partially granted. That's more than all of last year, with half of 2012 still to go. Within hours, the issue of governments helping themselves to Twitter users' private data was illustrated in the case of Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protester who had his Twitter data subpoenaed in a criminal case for 'disorderly conduct.' Twitter had fought the request, which will help prosecutors identify Harris as the tweets' source. But a Manhattan judge ruled that users have no expectation of privacy for their Twitter data."

14 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data .. by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... then why does it save users' messages after they're deleted?

  2. Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because their entire value proposition is helping advertisers in deciding what to sell people.

    For example, if somebody is talking a lot about legalizing pot, advertisers will know that they'll have more luck selling Timothy Leary books, Bob Marley or Grateful Dead albums, and Che Guevara T-shirts than they will selling Glenn Beck books, Christian rock albums, and suits and ties.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  3. Bill of Rights in the 21st Century by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Stories like this make me want to prepare a list of news stories paired up w/ amendments from the Bill of Rights, showing how far away we've gotten from the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century by JimCanuck · · Score: 2


      Freedom of speech is not Freedom to be a idiot. When you make your bed, you must lie in it. If you cannot handle the outcome of your own words perhaps it would be best to shut your mouth and forget about saying it (or in this case typing it).

      It falls under the whole idea of personal responsibility, which I know is hard for people to accept today, its all about "me, me, me" and no thought process involved when it comes to thinking ahead of what your getting yourself into.

    2. Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the legal interpretations of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

      ``...the right to anonymous political free speech has been addressed by the Supreme Court. Most notably in the cases of Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).''[1]

      William

      1 - http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/homeland-security-shreds-constitutional-right-to-anonymous-political-speech-not-to-protect-our-security-but-to-monitor-dissent.html

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 2

      Since the Founders who wrote of the importance of free speech and the government they envisioned to go along with it often did so under pen names and in anonymous pamphlets so as not to be executed, I'm pretty sure they understood the significance and importance of anonymous and free political speech.

    4. Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Well there is a legitimate argument to be made that no place does it say the government is empowered to prevent you from being an idot either. The First Amendment does not say anything about disorderly conduct. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument is entirely the invention of the Supreme Court, as its its own power to decide Constitutional questions at all for that matter.

      I know the court disagrees but in my reading of the first Amendment I see nothing but pretty absolute language and no real room for exceptions. I don't think the government under our Constitution actually does have the right to prevent anyone for advocating for Violence or even creating dangerous chaos like yelling fire in crowded theater.

      Which dose make it all about personal responsibility. It make its incumbent upon the rest of us to maintain the threat you will be treated like a pariah if you do decide to act irresponsibly. That is a social matter though not one for law enforcement.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      Freedom of speech is not Freedom to be a idiot. When you make your bed, you must lie in it. If you cannot handle the outcome of your own words perhaps it would be best to shut your mouth and forget about saying it (or in this case typing it).

      Why not? So if I want to speak out against a government policy, and the outcome of that speech is being put on a watch list, having my house searched and my taxes audited, I should just shut up? Freedom of speech means not being targeted by the authorities just for what you say. Sometimes that requires anonymity.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century by WillAdams · · Score: 2

      Please review the history of printings of the Declaration of Independence.

      The first printing by John Dunlap only bore the names of John Hancock, Charles Thomson and the printer.

      It wasn't until Mary Katherine Goddard printed a 2 column version that there was a printed copy which listed all of the signers.

      Also, _Common Sense_ was published anonymously, w/ John Adams frequently being accused of being the author.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  4. Modern day advice... by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'd always, since the nineties, known that you should never say anything in an email (text/tweet/facebook etc.) or phone call, that you wouldn't want to hear repeated in an open courtroom.

    1. Re:Modern day advice... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      ... that you wouldn't want to hear repeated in an open courtroom.

      Or on CNN, for that matter.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Modern day advice... by Shompol · · Score: 2

      Electronic communication can be ...private... Twitter is not one.

      Except the constitution was written to protect the people from an oppressive government. And that means it was written expressly to protect Malcolm Harris from persecution. There is a protection both for the "freedom of speech" and "privacy of correspondence". What more can you possibly ask for? Do you want the constitution to literally spell "privacy of tweets should not be infringed upon", or something?

  5. Re:That's why... by jonnythan · · Score: 2

    False registration information isn't going to help when they have a full record of IP addresses you accessed the site from. Most Twitter users also either log in from their phone or use SMS to post tweets, which both result in Twitter having your phone number.

  6. Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data by hoggoth · · Score: 2

    > ppls in US or Sweden or Japan or something don't have to worry

    Unless you had consensual sex without a condom in Sweden, which apparently is enough to get you extradited from the UK for questioning. Oh, minor sex-infraction plus you pissed off the US.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)