Twitter To Appeal Turning Over Protester's Messages

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter To Appeal Turning Over Protester's Messages

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday July 19, 2012 @07:08PM from the keep-your-hands-off-my-tweets dept.

angry tapir writes "Twitter plans to appeal a ruling to turn over the once-public tweets of an Occupy Wall Street protester charged with disorderly conduct, a case the company says threatens the First Amendment rights of its users. A New York Criminal Court judge ruled last month that Twitter should turn over the tweets of Malcolm Harris, since his messages were public and are not the same as an email or a private chat, which would require a search warrant."

47 of 71 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Can the Public Become Private? by ohnocitizen · 2012-07-19 19:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Imagine putting a sign on your front lawn. A month later you bring it inside your house. Since the sign was public, does that mean the police no longer need a warrant? If twitter loses this appeal, the answer to that question will be no. It is essentially saying anything made public can never be made private. Now, if someone took pictures of that sign on your lawn, that's another matter. So a snapshot of a public site would be fair game. So much so, I wonder if the police monitor tweets and store potentially interesting ones?
1. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by Jerry+Smith · 2012-07-19 19:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Imagine putting a sign on your front lawn. A month later you bring it inside your house. Since the sign was public, does that mean the police no longer need a warrant? If twitter loses this appeal, the answer to that question will be no. It is essentially saying anything made public can never be made private. Now, if someone took pictures of that sign on your lawn, that's another matter. So a snapshot of a public site would be fair game. So much so, I wonder if the police monitor tweets and store potentially interesting ones?
  You can't unsay what you have said. If you scream at someone "I'm gonna kill you", it will be used against you.
  
  --
  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
2. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by hey_popey · 2012-07-19 19:23 · Score: 2
  
  So much so, I wonder if the police monitor tweets and store potentially interesting ones?
  Why wonder? Just assume that some agency, somewhere, does. Maybe not the police, but with all the agencies that could be interested in this, it's likely that this happens!
3. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 19:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is disorderly conduct. It is several orders of magnitude less than threatening to kill someone. Flipping off a cop, pissing in the street, having a temper tantrum, or being drunk in public are items that would normally be grouped under this crime. In the court that I used to work at the penalty was typically a $100 fine and 1 day in jail (which was credited even if you bailed out immediately). It is basically the judicial system's version of a time-out. With a lawyer, it would almost always result in a deferred sentence (no criminal record).
  There is no value to the state in searching for evidence to this crime. If the state needs anything more than the statements of witnesses, the statements of the cops, or voluntarily turned over camera footage, then the prosecutor is wasting his or her time and scarce resources.
4. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-07-19 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  If I bring a weapon they think was used in a crime, inside, don't they still have to get a warrant?
  Why should this be any different?
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
5. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by Chrisq · 2012-07-19 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  If I bring a weapon they think was used in a crime, inside, don't they still have to get a warrant?
  Why should this be any different?
  That brings the interesting possibility by analogy that if a twitter itself was an offence (hate speech, grooming, etc) it would need a warrant but if it was "just a sign", e.g. used to show that X had communicated with Y, then one wouldn't be needed!
6. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by gl4ss · 2012-07-19 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  ..why the need for court order in the first place since the court argues that they're _public_ in the first place.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
7. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by sosume · 2012-07-19 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Say you make a statement in public which could get you arrested for disorderly conduct. I happened to make a movie of you making that statement on my cell phone. I have shown the movie in public, but after you complained I stopped showing it.
  Now the police suddenly wants to prosecute you for disorderly conduct, but they have no evidence. Should they be allowed to force me to hand over my cell phone?
8. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by cold+fjord · 2012-07-19 21:47 · Score: 2
  
  Of course members of the "Occupy" movement have engaged in far more serious behavior: Occupy Wall Street Blotter
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
9. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by TapeCutter · 2012-07-19 23:35 · Score: 2
  
  Why is the parent currently moderated troll?
  It should be obvious to any half-wit that you cannot unsay a public statement when someone calls you on it. You are responsible for your own public utterances. If you run around making death threats or inciting riots, then eventually someone will take you seriously and the rest of us will hold you to account. It's a quaint concept called modern civilization, it's not always logical or fair, and its stubborn rules have been famously compared to an ass. However it does provide us with a superior quality and longer length of life compared to all known alternatives.
  
  Does any of this mean the parent post or I agree/disagree with this particular ruling? - Hell no, the parent didn't state their opinon one way or the other, and I barely skimmed the summary, let alone checked it's claims.
  
  Now, just for fun of being a trollish devils advocate let's change the wording of the GP's quote, we can sensationalise it a bit and correct the claim to accurately reflect the situation that is described in TFSummary...Imagine putting a burning cross on your front lawn. A month later you hose it down and bring it inside your house. Since the sign was public, does that mean you can refuse a court order to hand it over?
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
10. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by c0lo · 2012-07-19 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine putting a sign on your front lawn. A month later you bring it inside your house. Since the sign was public, does that mean the police no longer need a warrant? If twitter loses this appeal, the answer to that question will be no. It is essentially saying anything made public can never be made private. Now, if someone took pictures of that sign on your lawn, that's another matter. So a snapshot of a public site would be fair game. So much so, I wonder if the police monitor tweets and store potentially interesting ones?
  You can't unsay what you have said. If you scream at someone "I'm gonna kill you", it will be used against you.
  Yes, but if you didn't record me at that time, don't ask me to scream again.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
11. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by Hatta · 2012-07-20 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you care about the rule of law, you should be complaining about the crimes of bankers. Whatever laws the Occupy movement has broken pale in comparision to the crimes of Citibank, Countrywide, Goldman Sacks, MF Global, etc. If they can break the law and get away with it, why should we respect the law?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
12. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by tomhath · 2012-07-20 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think he doesn't care about those crimes too?
13. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by mister_playboy · 2012-07-20 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  If he had posted this once it could have been a legit, if off-topic concern. Since he had to post it multiple times like an APK-wannabe, we can see he's just flamebaiting.
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
14. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by Hatta · 2012-07-20 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Are you referring to me, or ColdFjord? Any time people bring up the crimes committed by Occupy, they need to be reminded that Occupy happened because a much more powerful group committed much more serious and harmful crimes. There is nothing off topic or flamebait about pointing out who the real dangerous criminals in this country are.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
15. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by Hatta · 2012-07-20 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  If he did, he'd be condemning prosecutors for not having their priorities straight.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
16. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by moj0joj0 · 2012-07-20 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  You can't unsay what you have said. If you scream at someone "I'm gonna kill you", it will be used against you.
  It is doubtful that that phrase, without context, will be used against you. Words on their own have no standing without context. Now, if you pull a knife, wave it menacingly at an individual and scream "I'm going to kill you!", now you are talking about something that will get you in trouble. People scream, whisper, shout, say and text 'I'm going to kill you' all day every day with no repercussion and there shouldn't be any repercussion, because that phrase is a well known idiom.
  While it is true that you can't pull words back from the past, you can, figuratively, unsay most comments. How successful the unsaying is debatable and dependent upon the comment, to whom it was said and in what context you made the comment you wish to retract.
17. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by gr8_phk · 2012-07-20 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  You can't unsay what you have said. If you scream at someone "I'm gonna kill you", it will be used against you.
  No, but you don't have to turn over recording of it. Suppose Twitter didn't archive all the tweets - then what? In fact, why DOES twitter archive all tweets?
18. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by WCguru42 · 2012-07-20 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  ...but there is a law requiring that they keep a copy of all such signs and give then to police when asked...
  I was with you up until that point. This whole case is about whether or not the law actually requires that. Twitter is arguing that they do not have that responsibility under the law.
  
  --
  "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
19. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by ClioCJS · 2012-07-20 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine a creepy man is looking into my bedroom window. I close my blinds. What has been publicly viewable is now no longer.
  
  --
  -Clio
  Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
  Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
20. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by bhagwad · 2012-07-20 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, only the contents of the message were public. His identity itself was not. So the court has clearly made a mistake in reasoning here.
21. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by ohnocitizen · 2012-07-20 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  But you can destroy a sign. Or store it in the basement. Is a twitter post more like physically saying something, or making a sign?
22. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by chrismcb · 2012-07-20 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't about a search warrant. At least not at this stage. In your case, it is like the cop showed up and said, we want a copy (or picture) of the sign you had in your front yard.
  A subpeona is involved. Not quite a search warrant, but still a court document.
  Also in your particular case, if there was evidence that the sign existed, and that you now had it in your house, it is very likely they could get a search warrant for it.
23. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by chrismcb · 2012-07-20 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Flipping off a cop... in public are items that would normally be grouped under this crime.
  Excuse me? Flipping off a cop is an expression, which I have a right to. If they are giving out disorderly conduct tickets for flipping of a cop, or calling them a pig, something is definitely wrong.
24. Re:Can the Public Become Private? by kqs · 2012-07-20 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  But the issue is not viewing the content; the issue is forcing someone else (Twitter) to give you their copy without a warrant. To continue the analogy, this is letting the police look through your neighbor's photos to find all of the ones they took of your front yard, when your neighbor doesn't want to.
What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 19:27 · Score: 1

All of this for disorderly conduct? You have to be kidding me. There has to be some political motivation in these prosecutions. Disorderly conduct has to be the least severe of all criminal offenses. I can't imagine any DA wanting to waste a court's time trying to get subpoenas for it.
1. Re:What is going on? by Chrisq · 2012-07-19 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  All of this for disorderly conduct? You have to be kidding me. There has to be some political motivation in these prosecutions. Disorderly conduct has to be the least severe of all criminal offenses. I can't imagine any DA wanting to waste a court's time trying to get subpoenas for it.
  Just wait for the sentences. What's the betting that protesters get way higher average sentences than the guy who has had too much to drink and is causing a nuisance in a public place.
2. Re:What is going on? by cold+fjord · 2012-07-20 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not trolling, I'm completely serious. . . as are some of the criminal charges.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
3. Re:What is going on? by cold+fjord · 2012-07-20 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  My goodness . . . I thought dissent was the highest civic duty, but it looks like "Occupy" partisans don't tolerate dissent. Will wonders ever cease?
  But, here again is the link: Occupy Wall Street Blotter
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
4. Re:What is going on? by Hatta · 2012-07-20 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Given the range of criminal behavior that the banking industry has been involved in, you should be very concerned about the rule of law in this country when protesters are arrested and bankers aren't.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
5. Re:What is going on? by Hatta · 2012-07-20 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Dissent is the most severe of all offenses.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
6. Re:What is going on? by s73v3r · 2012-07-20 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, I don't give a shit about your conservative talking points. I won't give a shit until after the crimes committed in the banking sector are prosecuted, and even then, I might not give a shit about such low level crimes.
  Only a complete douchebag would care more about a few low level disorderly conduct crimes than bringing those who engineered the collapse of our economy to justice.
7. Re:What is going on? by residieu · 2012-07-20 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  So because other protesters where doing worse things they have grounds to punish minor offenses more harshly?
8. Re:What is going on? by residieu · 2012-07-20 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Who is claiming they deserve lighter sentences?
9. Re:What is going on? by Solandri · 2012-07-20 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Be that as it may, this is actually a pretty important case from an online privacy standpoint. If I send an IM to a few dozen friends, is it private? Is it public? If I deleted everything I uploaded to Facebook when I decided they were a crappy service 5 years ago, but FB still has a copy, can law enforcement get at it? These are questions that will need to be answered at some point.
  
  In that respect, it's actually a good thing it's only for a disorderly conduct charge. That way the judge/jury ruling on this will consider its consequences for the smallest of infractions. If it had been for first degree murder, the seriousness of the crime may have made the judge/jury overreach in the interest of seeking justice.
What if I emailed it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 20:01 · Score: 1

If there are only 2 people party to the conversation, the person posting the twitter and the person reading it, is it public then?
If an email is sent from one person to another, is it public then, so public that we skip the warrant.
Why are they trying to skip the warrant BTW, what's wrong with them justifying their demand by a warrant???
What if the email is to 50 people on a mailing list, is it then public and doesn't need a warrant to demand it?
1. Re:What if I emailed it? by darksabre · 2012-07-19 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  Tweets are public as they can be read by any member of the public regardless of whether that someone is party to the conversation or not. A member of the public cannot read an email that was not sent to them at least not in the general case. So tweets are public, emails are mostly not. Emails can become public if they are sent to an email list with a publicly readable archive etc.
  Warrants are costly and time consuming. Why use one if it is not needed? Do you like wasting time and throwing money away?
  As to the specifics of this case, well get the tweets from a currently public source or get a warrant, seems reasonable to me.
Wayback Machine? by Pichu0102 · 2012-07-19 20:08 · Score: 2

Have they tried looking into the Wayback Machine to see if it's holding the tweets? It'd hard to imagine that they're not archived somewhere from when they were public. The only question is if they'd be admissible as evidence from a source like Wayback instead of the direct site itself.
1. Re:Wayback Machine? by silentcoder · 2012-07-19 20:23 · Score: 2
  
  >The only question is if they'd be admissible as evidence from a source like Wayback instead of the direct site itself.
  I don't see a question there, you can never actually VIEW an original website unless you physically at the server looking at the source files. Any browser creates a copy (downloading the page) and displays that copy. All web pages are already indirectly viewed.
  So either ALL web-based content is hearsay evidence (which is clearly NOT the current position of the courts) or archives should be admissible as evidence.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Not so public by geniusj · 2012-07-19 20:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

The comment may be public, but clearly his identity isn't, or they'd know it.
1. Re:Not so public by cold+fjord · 2012-07-19 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe they do know it, but just need evidence that will stand up in court.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
2. Re:Not so public by Barefoot+Monkey · 2012-07-19 23:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  His identity is Malcolm Harris, apparently. That's not the problem. It seems they want to use tweets that he made and later deleted as evidence against him, but those tweets don't exist anymore, which is why they're pressuring Twitter to provide them again.
3. Re:Not so public by thsths · 2012-07-20 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  > which is why they're pressuring Twitter to provide them again.
  And if they have a legitimate interest, they should have no trouble getting a warrant. I think this is quite a simple case...
Twitter should be by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 20:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Commended for taking this stance. We should loudly complain when companies like Google and Facebook spit on our data rights but similarly warmly thank the companies that try to protect them. So, thanks Twitter, still prefer to use Statusnet on my own server but at least you're trying or your cunning marketing is working on me.
On a legal note, could it be argued that the user posts messages with a degree of privacy (albeit small) by the understanding they can retract tweets?
1. Re:Twitter should be by Jesrad · 2012-07-19 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Damn right they should be commended for fighting to make privacy a bit more valuable. If they win I can then trade that privacy for slightly more valuable services to Facebook, Google, etc...
  
  --
  Maybe we deserve this world ?
2. Re:Twitter should be by Dunbal · 2012-07-19 22:51 · Score: 2
  
  No. They can ask nicely that the citizen turn in his recording. But they can't demand anything. Except a search warrant from a judge.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
3. Re:Twitter should be by chrismcb · 2012-07-20 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  You could be given a subpeona to show up in court as a witness.