Slashdot Mirror
Revived Lawsuit Says Twitter DMs Are Like Handing ISIS a Satellite Phone (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A long-standing lawsuit holding Twitter responsible for the rise of ISIS got new life today, as plaintiffs filed a revised version of the complaint (PDF) that was struck down earlier this month. In the new complaint, the plaintiffs argue Twitter's Direct Message service is akin to providing ISIS with physical communications equipment like a radio or a satellite phone. The latest complaint is largely the same as the one filed in January, but a few crucial differences will be at the center of the court's response. The plaintiffs also offer new arguments for why Twitter might be held responsible for the attack. In the dismissal earlier this month (PDF), District Judge William Orrick faulted the plaintiffs for not articulating a case for why providing access to Twitter's services constituted material aid to ISIS. "Apart from the private nature of Direct Messaging, plaintiffs identify no other way in which their Direct Messaging theory seeks to treat Twitter as anything other than a publisher of information provided by another information content provider," the ruling reads. At the same time, the judge found that the privacy of those direct messages "does not remove the transmission of such messages from the scope of publishing activity." The new complaint includes some language that might address that concern, explicitly comparing Twitter to other material communication tools. "Giving ISIS the capability to send and receive Direct Messages in this manner is no different than handing it a satellite phone, walkie-talkies or the use of a mail drop," the new complaint reads, "all of which terrorists use for private communications in order to further their extremist agendas." The Safe Harbor clause has been used in the past to protect service providers from liability for hosting data on their network. However, "Brookings Institute scholar Benjamin Witters argued against protecting Twitter under the Safe Harbor clause, claiming that the current reasoning would also protect companies that actively offer services in support of terrorists."
with c4
Twitter itself buys into (through their vague ToS and uneven/biased enforcement) arguments equating disagreement with harassment, and criticism with threats. And it throws even those stances out the window when the "harassing" party aligns with the right politics. Their Trust and Safety Council contains known harassers and doxxers.
If Twitter consistently took up a principled position to protect free speech (instead of cracking down on political thoughtcrime at the drop of a hat), they'd be in a much better position to resist this.
If ISIS using Twitter is no different to ISIS using a satellite phone, walkie talkies etc, ""all of which terrorists use for private communications in order to further their extremist agendas." then why aren't the creators of those devices involved in this litigation?
So they hold Twitter responsible, but not Skype (Microsoft), Yahoo, AOL, or any of the other companies that offer IM-type or bulletin board type services where information can be passed? Hell - with a little planning, a Wikipedia article edit could be used as a communication channel, not to mention the talk portion where editing an article is discussed. Or even Slashdot - read at -1 and find your messages for the Kettle Run on the next anniversary.
Lawsuits are pending for manufacturers of cell phones, walkie talkies, regular phones, paper, pencils, pens, and tin cans with string between them.
I thought Obama did that.
ISIS (and other terrorist groups) killed 19 Americans last year. Total. Cops killed 1,125 Americans last year (it's actually a higher number, since the US gov't doesn't keep track of Americans killed by cops).
Americans with guns killed over 35,000 Americans last year.
But ISIS is used as the excuse to take away people's rights.
You are welcome on my lawn.
We need sensible tweet control. And a ban on assault tweets.
This is really it.
In what way is ISIS an "existential threat" to the USA, if toddlers with guns kill roughly three times as many citizens?
I'll let them say that providing online communication is just like selling walkie-talkies. So they plan to sue Walmart for selling walkie-talkies? No, that would be ridiculous? Yep, same as this.
how about all the other instant messaging, or IRC, or what about internet forums, email, messages can be passed & forth a multitude of ways, laying the blame all on Twitter is a load of horse shit to me, i hope the Twitter lawyers wins this, and the plaintiffs are blacklisted from any litigation ever again
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It would be better just to hand them a regular satellite phone and let the various intelligence dragnets scoop up the ISIS members and all of their like minded contacts. While we are stuck with all these massive privacy invasions we might as well reap some benefits from them.
I don't like Twitter. However, to state that it's offered in support of terrorism is stupid. It's offered to everyone. It's service is neutral.
If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.
If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.
And if somebody buys a Satellite phone and then turns out to be an ISIS member, who then speaks in code so he's not detected, do you then go after the phone provider?
You want info, get a warrant. But the fact that the service exist doesn't mean it does so for the purpose of servicing a terrorist organization.
You can have my tweet when you pry it from my cold, dead smartphone.
So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?
In that case... if we look at this link... does that mean that Republicans are perfectly justified in seeking to de-fund Planned parenthood (who unlike the NRA, receives federal dollars) as they didn't get most of the 600k+ which was spent in the current cycle?
Or... some people/groups have beliefs which are not so easily swayed by campaign contributions... so the $$$ spenders notice this and end up giving money both to those who can be swayed, but also in support of those who already share their view.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
... anyone manufacturing and/or selling a firearm to the public in the United States must reasonably expect at least one of their weapons to be used by terrorists, just as was the case in San Bernardino.
Are the plaintiffs against Twitter in this case arguing that since it is possibly for even *one* gun that is sold to a civilian in the US to be used for crime and/or terrorist activities, then all gun sales should be banned?
Please note - I'm not a US citizen and don't generally support the idea behind the Second Amendment. However, in this case I am using it to try and highlight the potential inconsistency of the argument being put forward.
That's already in place. Look how well it works.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So willful, active support for terrorism is a lesser crime than violating copyright? Is that what Witters suggests?
No, he's suggesting that a business which makes its product available to terrorists is 'providing material support to terrorists,' and it doesn't matter if that product is, itself, not physically material. He's suggesting that a company providing material support to terrorists should not be able to use copyright law to hide from the NSA.
The fundamental claim that we should all be worried about is that doing business with a terrorist, even if you don't know they're terrorists, is equivalent to actively promoting their cause. You know, so if you're an electric company, and one of your customers sets off a bomb, you may be liable for prosecution.
Hello
The funny thing is that equipping a target with a satellite phone improves the ability to identify them. In the case of a journalist and photographer team operating in Syria a few years ago, it was their satellite phone that allowed their location to be triangulated and subsequently attacked.
I would think it would not be too difficult to come up with some interesting usage patterns of DMs (sending messages in languages commonly used by ISIS, using certain phrases common to ISIS, geoIP location, access only from Tor nodes, proxies, VPN connections and so forth as selection criteria for further intelligence collection. Frankly, using DMs sounds like a great way to be targeted by state security services.
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
Dexter is a good dog.
So does that outrage mean that the left will agree that holding firearm manufacturers liable for shootings is fucking ridiculous?
"If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs."
Sure. Where do I send my check? The DNC isn't interested, they claim to oppose gun ownership for a variety of reasons, and pay-to-play isn't at the top of the list, by their own reckoning.
And despite all this discussion, they intend to subvert the Second Amendment, and are talking like they would also subvert the First Amendment. Which make sense if you're a dedicated statist and socialist (not entirely redundant).
You may be guessing I'm opposed to such dimishment of these constitutional rights. Yup. When these are gone, all the others are easily denied. More to the point, however, claims that Twitter is enabling terrorists with tools and functions that permit communication could be lodged against any pre-paid cell phone carrier, payphone carrier, newspaper (classifieds), the list goes on. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable unless you grant the State the permission to intercept all your communications.
I'm not yet ready to do that. The State has shown itself untrustworthy, and my private communications will only be saved for future use if gathered ever. They will not surrender them, never delete them, and share as they wish, with any state or agency. At best. More likely they will lose them to the inevitable hax0r who finally digs in and gets it. Or the whistleblower whose outrage gets the better of them and carries it out the door.
Twitter is not the problem.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Which 20 are those?
I'm sure at least half of those 20 were Islam nations that were conquered by a different sect of Islam.
The only ones I can think of are Malaysia, Bosnia, Albania & Kosovo. The 6 stans became independent in 1991, but not one of them have had an Islamic government, which is what I would think as being conquered by Islam. Even if one did consider it that, the number would be at the most 10. Countries like Syria or Libya don't count - they were always Islamic, just experienced regime changes.
Given some of Twitter's investors and their lack of removal of ISIS/pro-Islamist material - while eagerly purging sources of inconvenient truths (e.g. Milo Y.) - should be enough proof of their loyalties.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If ISIS members are talking to each other, we better sue the air for carrying the air waves! But seriously, can't Twitter take basic steps to not allow ISIS propaganda on Twitter and also try and block them from using DMs?
they would also subvert the First Amendment
To be fair, a lot of republicans would like to subvert the first amendment as well. Freedom of speech is somewhat anathema to politicians (which is why its important!) Maybe not in the same ways or for the same reasons but nonetheless.
When these are gone, all the others are easily denied
First amendment I'd agree with, if only because that would allow the government to silence anyone who raises protest against future rights revocations.
Revoking the second amendment on the other hand would have little consequence for anyone other than gun owners. The US is well past the ability for citizen militias to have any chance of overthrowing their government, no matter how corrupt and the more modern reinterpretation of the second to "defending yourself" has little applicability to national policy either.
Sure you can claim the slippery slope argument, perhaps with some justification, but its not like it would be the first time in history that laws were revoked, even constitutional amendments (the 18th.) Not saying we should revoke amendments all willy-nilly by any means but the first is the only one that would have direct and obvious impact on the ability to uphold the others (well and maybe to a lesser extent the fourth.)
never delete them
Oh quit being so pessimistic.. they'll happily and quickly delete anything that might become an embarrassment to them!
The Second was gutted by the end of the Reagan administration, in that it was illegal to go out and purchase a new infantry rifle. For all the whining by idiot gun owners, the Democrats have done damn little to take away people's guns.
Everybody wants to subvert the First. A large number of Republicans want to establish a state religion, for example. Both parties are leery of peaceable assembly. Both generally want to put undue limits on speech.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Enemies tend to use almost anything they can find against you. The notion that one could sue Twitter is half witted nonsense. A 40 year old, land line telephone could also aid terrorists. Cell phones must be a dandy for terrorists and GPS obviously can aid bad people as well. Any drunk can use an automobile to commit a mass murder. The idea that the selling of a device or service that may, at times, be misused by bad people should not make a company liable. If my neighbor decides to commit suicide with a pistol should I be allowed to file a suit for proximity, traumatic stress syndrome, because i saw his brains on my lawn?
Sure. Where do I send my check?
Neither party is interested in your money. You're not a huge corporation.