Advice To Twitter Worker Who Deactivated Trump's Account: 'Get A Lawyer' (thehill.com)

An anonymous reader quotes The Hill: A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues has this advice to the unnamed Twitter worker said to have pulled the plug on President Trump's Twitter account: "Don't say anything and get a lawyer." Tor Ekeland told The Hill that while the facts of the case are still unclear and the primary law used to prosecute hackers is murky and unevenly applied, there is a reasonable chance the Twitter worker violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act...widely considered to be, as Ekeland explained it, "a mess." Various courts around the country have come up with seemingly contradictory rulings on what unauthorized access actually means. Ekeland said the Ninth Circuit, covering the state of California, has itself issued rulings at odds with itself that would have an impact on the Trump Twitter account fiasco as a potential case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that employees do not violate the law if they exceed their workplace computer policies. It has also ruled that employees who have been told they do not have permission to access a system cannot legally access it. Depending on which ruling a court leans on the hardest, a current Twitter employee without permission to shutter accounts may have violated the law by nixing Trump's account.
Ekeland points out that just $5,000 worth of damage could carry a 10-year prison sentence.

Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.

Comments

Part of Job Description

[Herkum01]

If they are authorized to disable accounts that violate their Terms of Use, it seems like it is part of their job. If it were anyone else it would be no problem but good forbid Donald Trump get smacked.

Re:Part of Job Description

[quonset]

Their job is to disable accounts when told to do so. Not whenever they feel like it. Not when they don't like what someone is saying. Not because they feel like it.

This is no different than an admin leaving or being fired and botching the system before they walk out.

Re:Part of Job Description

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be that this person was a moderating who decides if a person violated the term of service based on the companies policies.
Maybe this person decided to finally correctly apply this to this twitter account.

If that is the case, the lawsuit is going to be interesting.

Re:Part of Job Description

[jwhyche]

OMG, this is absolutely hilarious. Let's unpack this, one mistake at a time.

Like OMG, so much ignorance and arrogance bound up in one post. How efficient of you. Oh look, you even used a number list that I can use to correct you. Aren't you smart? Let us begin.

1. 1) Facebook and Twitter are private companies because they work in the private sector, as opposed to a public company that works in the public sector. A private company is owned by private individuals, be it one person or many through stocks. Where as a public company is owned by a government entity. An example of a public company is the Postal Service or many municipal services such as police and fire. What you are confusing is publicly traded companies, where they are traded on a stock market. They are still private companies.
2. Owning the pipes and wires, as you put it, is irrelevant. What matters is they own the social media that people post and use to communicate on. If government decides that regulating them would be in the best interest of the country they can and will do it. The government in the past has regulated many private companies in the public interest. These include at one point the banking and airline industry.
3. 2) Feel free to call bullshit on anything you want, doesn't make it any less true. I suggest you check out Tucker Carlson on Foxnews. He has been calling for government regulations on facebook, google, and twitter for several weeks. I believe Sean Hannity at some point has called for it too. Tucker Carlson, I know, has had congress critters on that agree with his option that they should be regulated. So yes, there are calls in some conservative sides to regulate facebook, twitter, and google.
4. 3) Facebook, Twitter, and Google most certainly do control information and speech. Almost everything you do now on the internet has some connection to google in it. Searches, advertisement, and even many times the phone you even use. How many people have facebook accounts? Billions. We now live in a world where is considered strange not to have one. Twitter is so big that matters of state are being express over it now.
5. All of these companies have shown they will manipulate data to fit their cooperate policy. Many times these policies conflict with conservative views. These three companies control so much information now they can actively affect polices and even elections. The world drops a collective brick in it's pants when NK responds to one of Trumps less presidential tweets. Since so much speech goes through these companies it is very easy to see where people are worried their polices might be a threat to free speech. Which leads to calls to regulate them.

There we go. You have been illuminated.

Fucked

[HornWumpus]

As soon as you have to pay a lawyer, you are FUBAR.

Remember how money gets distributed by courts. Lawyers first.

A mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fucking travesty!

Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.

But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.

Damage turning it back on

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the employee who turned it back on? How much damage is that?

yes, please see a lawyer immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

While these comments are fairly amusing, Trump and Twitter entered into a contractual agreement. This employee violated that agreement. Unless you are an expert in contract law, you can't begin to estimate the potential damage done or even which states rules apply. In fact, just pick a favorable State and sue. While Twitter claims they can terminate services for no reason, Twitter wasn't involved here. Civil suit damages can reach crazy numbers fast, so even if you don't see jail time aka CFAA, you may never make another dime.

Account terminated for violating terms of service.

[DonaldWilliamGillies]

I think the worker could pretty easily say that he terminated the account for hate speech, and he would WIN in court. Then the tables would be turned, and Twitter would be forced to justify why it has allowed a hate-speech account to violate its terms of service for such a long, long time ...

No way he can claim this was accidental

[thrillseeker]

Assumptions based on what I've read: The contractor's actions appear to have been intentional, applied after termination, done without company directive, and did harm to the business. I think this ticks a lot of the boxes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. While the action was "easily" (I assume) undone without loss of data, the negative reactions to the company must have a bottom line calculation. Hell, if Twitter doesn't sue the contractor then it can be viewed as condoning the act, and Twitter's public shareholders likely have a class-action suit ready-made for lack of effort regarding their fiduciary responsibility, since being publicly traded comes with a responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and a multi-billion dollar company is a juicy target.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[ClickOnThis]

U know it.

No, I doubt it.

IANAL, but it is widely understood that the prosecution carries the burden of proof. In this case, the prosecution would need to prove that hate was a motivating factor in the crime, in order for it to be characterized as a hate crime. Deactivating Obama's Twitter account just because you don't like his politics would not qualify.

Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Troy Roberts]

If you want to make it unprofitable for undocumented foreigners, then the government should prosecute the employers that hire them.

However, that won't happen, because the Republicans don't really want to change anything. They just want to use the issue politically.

Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi

[bongey]

There is NO SUCH THING as HATE SPEECH, there is only SPEECH.

Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama

[Powercntrl]

Remember forks censorship is ok when the left does it.

This wasn't "the left". It was a lone wolf performing an act of digital vandalism, and he'll face the consequences of his actions.

That being said, it might benefit his approval rating if Trump spent less time incessantly whining on Twitter about sensationalized issues du jour, and more time learning how to suck less at being president. He could start by reading the Constitution.