Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Sues US Government Over Attempt To Unmask Anti-Trump Account (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the anonymous-coward dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: According to Twitter's suit, filed today in Northern California District Court, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has attempted to use a "limited-purpose investigatory tool" to unmask the owner of the Twitter account "@ALT_USCIS." The account, one of several "alt" or "rogue" government accounts that appeared in the wake of Trump's ascent to the presidency, was used "to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration," according to Twitter's complaint. In the suit, Twitter writes that @ALT_USCIS has purported to be a dissenting member of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. On March 14, Twitter received a summons from Customs requesting records that could reveal the identity of the account's operator, including IP logs and any associated phone number or mailing address. In addition to the Department of Homeland Security and its subagency, the lawsuit names four individuals as defendants: DHS secretary John Kelly, acting CBP commissioner Kevin McAleenan, and special agents Stephen P. Caruso and Adam Hoffman, who issued and served the order itself.

19 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by jimmifett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that only now twitter is concerned about the free speech of it's users.

    Stop, this is too much. I can't take it anymore, I'm going to have liquids shoot out my nose from laughter.

    1. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a private corporation, Twitter is allowed to decide what its users are allowed to post on its service. As a public entity the government is not.

    2. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah they wear their politics on their sleeve. Personally I'm not OK with purportedly neutral global communications platforms pushing such a political agenda. It's their right but people should be very wary of engaging in business with such a company.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    3. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by jimmifett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite the opposite, i'm very much pro-free speech. Also not alt-right (aka, leftists that are fed up with left authoritarianism).

      I find it hilarious that twitter purports itself to be a platform of free speech when that is the absolute last thing they are with their shadow bans, zero transparency or ability to address bans, etc.

      They can run their crap company into the ground however they choose, but for them to claim they are protecting the free speech of their users, that is just too much to take seriously.

    4. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      The most anti-free speech action you could ever take would be to require private entities (not government)

      The most anti-free speech action you could ever take would be to turn a blind eye to censorship by private entities, then feign shock when it turns out the government encouraged that censorship.

      This isn't a theoretical thing either, we saw it with Bush's administration withholding government contracts from Qwest over refusing to participate in (at that time illegal) warrantless wiretapping (and then arresting the CEO for financial statements that had been made, that were no longer correct after the withdrawal of the government contracts).

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah they wear their politics on their sleeve. Personally I'm not OK with purportedly neutral global communications platforms pushing such a political agenda. It's their right but people should be very wary of engaging in business with such a company.

      Well start your own then.

      If you dont like Twitter, dont use them. Even by the most European of Euro standards, Twitter is still a private organisation, not a public utility and not subject to carrier regulations.

      Realistically, I'd be more concerned that the government is trying to force Twitter to reveal the name of someone who is merely making fun of the government. We're not talking about threats or attacks, we're talking about parody here.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. shocked! by LetterRip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm shocked! Shocked to see the Trump administration abusing criminal investigative tools for political purposes.

    1. Re:shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, it's a crime for federal employees to post to Twitter while on the clock?

      Someone should tell the president.

    2. Re:shocked! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      Makes sense.

      By the way, we suspect you of being a government employee posting on /. during work hours. We've got a subpoena that requires you to hand over your computer, cell phones, hard drives, passwords to any online accounts you use, etc.

      We're just checking if you're a government employee, of course, so your data will be completely safe with us and there is no chance that we'll use anything else we may find against you.

    3. Re:shocked! by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a crime to release official information without permission, And even more of a crime if it's sensitive or classified. There's this category of "For Official Use Only". . .

    4. Re:shocked! by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, yeah. If they really only want to see if it's an employee doing it on company time, then it's no longer "political". That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such. The only real problem would be if it's not a government worker and they harass him - at that point I'll be concerned.

      They cited tax law on imports as the basis for the warrant.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      How exactly are tweets criticizing the President related to investigate power for

      determining the liability of any person for duty, fees and taxes due or duties, fees and taxes which may be due the United States"

      Obviously there is zero relationship, and this is purely an attempt to abuse unrelated investigative powers for political purposes.

    5. Re:shocked! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such.

      So, as I sit here at McChord Air Force Base in Washington State, in my cushy job as a C17 Mission Planner, you are telling me I'm breaking the law prattling on Slashdot? Is that why we have and Official Social Media Policy that talks about using Social Media on GOV computers? Oh, that's right, you don't work for the government and in fact have no idea what you are talking about.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:shocked! by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      Time for a refresher on the current state* of speech restrictions promulgated by government-as-employer. I think most people would understand that, when acting as an employer, the government has significantly more latitude than it would against a private citizen. At the same time, most people would understand that this lattitude has bounds of its own.

      So cribbing the major part of the link above (but do read the whole thing), the place that the court put that balance* is that the government may not fire an employee based on the employeeâ(TM)s speech if (all of):

      1. 1. the speech is on a matter of public concern
      2. 2. the speech is not said by the employee as part of the employeeâ(TM)s job duties
      3. 3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agencyâ(TM)s operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public

      The application of these three standards to the instant case I think weighs in favor of the employee, but ultimately that's a fact-bound decision that would require reviewing what his or her job duties are, what the topic and contents of the tweets were and what sort of proof the government produces about the harm to the agency.

      * Note: This is the current state of the law as it is, not the law as I wish it to be. You could say that this is the praxis of the law, not the truth of it. I have no beef with people that wish argue about what the law ought to be or what is a more correct interpretation of it. They may even be right and the practice of it currently wrong (it's surely happened many times in the past), that does not change what is currently practiced.

    7. Re:shocked! by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So?

      Maybe you don't understand, if this was a criminal prosecution they would have brought charges against a John Doe and applied for a warrant. Using the national security tool they are using (designed for foreign actors outside US jurisdiction) bypasses the requirement to obtain a warrant and avoids that nasty complication of proving the speech in question is NOT protected speech.

      Your blatant disregard of how this bypasses standard criminal procedures by waiving it away blatantly ignores that they are doing it this way so they don't have to get a subpoena and document why this speech isn't protected. Any time the wrong procedure is being used like this you can bet dollars to donuts the are abusing the process because what they are doing would have never met the requirements for a valid warrant. Don't cheer lead so hard that you ignore abuse of power.

    8. Re:shocked! by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they were investigating a crime they would have gotten a warrant. Their goal is persecution, to make the (legal) criticism stop.

  3. Re:Treasonous behavior by ausekilis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's amazing how quickly we forget about our own Constitution. The same document that created the job for the President protects the public's right to criticize him. Sure, we can't overtly slander or libel him, but we can say a lot of other things.

    IANAL, but Penn and Teller said it well on their show BS: "To call someone an idiot or a moron is defamatory and you open yourself up to a lawsuit. But to call them an asshole or motherfucker, you're expressing an opinion and you're pretty much in the clear."

  4. Re:Treasonous behavior by harperska · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What sort of backwater third world dictatorship do you think you live in where vocal criticism of the dear leader amounts to treason?

  5. NOT Treasonous behavior by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    By its' very definitiion. . .

    The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    Hint: we're not at war.

    Now, this very well COULD meet the legal definitions of sedition, as well as the employees in question being sanctioned for violating policy. . .

  6. Too bad federal prosecutors report to Trump by laughingskeptic · · Score: 2

    Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. https://www.justice.gov/crt/co...