Is the attack scenario one bad guy? Then you should contact law enforcement. Also you should make sure your security set up is appropriate.
Would you perform these steps in a physical attack? i.e. an imminent physical ass whooping?
Is the attack scenario that you are an big company and people attack you because you are known?
Are you a celebrity facing a crazy person?
Then you should make sure your security set up is appropriate.
Right. Buy a gun.
Attacking people is pointless because new ones will turn up all the time.
Not after they heard about the first one.
But seriously, isn't the right of self-defense a pretty basic one? Sure, if you have no confidence of success, don't persue this option. But if you do, take 'em out.
This is Mr. Allen responding, as Mr. Gates is not longer with our organisation. However, we're all pleased to hear that you have found software solution that meets your financial needs and pledge our support in ensuring that your Linux solution is the only free one used in China.
Our compliance office is currently compiling a list of individuals who appear to be violating your Linux policies by using Microsoft products and suggest a fine of $640/year, payable to Microsoft, for each such violation.
Microsoft is fully supportive of open software solutions and is looking forward to working with your government's current and future mandates in this regard.
I think the point is that if Google had a large number of relevant patents - enough that Microsoft might drool over them - then Microsoft would be inclined to enter into a cross licensing agreement as they have with Apple. Without that option, it's better for Microsoft pursue licensing fees or just protect its intellectual property.
Personally, I think MS and Apple are more interested in creating FUD in the Android market than anything else, so the point may be moot. But if Google had a large patent portfolio to dangle under their noses, then who knows?
But in the US, the "rich" - to be specific, let's say the top 1% - earned 25% of the wealth and paid 38% of the income taxes. That doesn't sound like "virtually nothing".
You, like many others, have confused wealth with income.
Actually, the text you chose to quote indicates that he is confusing nothing. He was specifically talking about income taxes.
On that basis the poor and middle class are massively overtaxed, and the wealthy are drastically undertaxed. Essentially the middle class and lower class are drastically subsidizing the wealthy.
Your link allows the exploration of your claim and it doesn't hold up. For federal taxes, with the exception of the alcohol and tobacco taxes, and social insurance payments, you can see that most revenue sources such as customs, estate taxes, airport/airway excise, highway excise taxes primarily concern upper or middle class folks.
But let's use it as a hypothetical. What if a suspect in Sweden, who was involved in publishing U.S. government leaks online, brutally attacked and raped (by all nations' definitions) a Swedish woman and fled to the U.K.?
Could the UK not extradite him to Sweden, based the possibility that the U.S. might file charges in the future which may or may not involve the death penalty?
Wouldn't this create a huge loophole?
Why wouldn't the U.K. simply extradite him and trust that Sweden would do the right thing?
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Unfortunately we have become the world's police. Even the leaked cables confirm that when you look at the requests from the arab world regarding Iran. I'm not comfortable with that, but can't think of a better nation. But I'll agree. Dictators shouldn't be overthrown just because they're dictators.
3. IMO, the right thing to do would have been to leave Saddam alone, and let the country have a revolution if the citizens decide to have one.
We'd taken several approaches with Saddam. But that changed when he invaded Kuwait. And that war never really ended. Even after surrender he was still firing missiles at our air patrols.
4. Regardless which one was the most evil, the Iraq war didn't result in anything positive, so starting it was a mistake.
It will still be 20-30 years before we know the true effects. In the short term, we can point to some positives like no Saddam, Uday, or Qusay, and free elections instead.
During the conflict I was actively searching out Iraqi bloggers on both sides, as well as those in between. I occasionally check back and most of those blogs just sort of petered out or turned into facebook type blogs. I think that's a good sign, but we'll have to see.
We're leaving a lot more up to the Iraqis than we did with, say, Japan after WWII. Japan is actually a very respectable part of the world community today, despite the kind of atrocities they were committing during WWII. We used a heavy hand in the aftermath. We're using a much lighter hand in post-war Iraq.
Okay, I probably shouldn't do this, but I'm too curious, so....
I think we'll both agree that there's a place in Africa called Zimbabwe. And that this place is currently ruled be one Robert Mugabe.
According to Wikipedia...
There are widespread reports of systematic and escalating violations of human rights in Zimbabwe under the Mugabe administration and his party, the ZANU-PF.
According to human rights organisations such as Amnesty International[69] and Human Rights Watch[70] the government of Zimbabwe violates the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of assembly and the protection of the law. There have been alleged assaults on the media, the political opposition, civil society activists, and human rights defenders.
Opposition gatherings are frequently the subject of brutal attacks by the police force, such as the crackdown on a March 11, 2007 Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) rally and several others during the 2008 election campaign.[71] In the attacks of 2007, party leader Morgan Tsvangirai and 49 other opposition activists were arrested and severely beaten by the police. After his release, Morgan Tsvangirai told the BBC that he suffered head injuries and blows to the arms, knees and back, and that he lost a significant amount of blood.
So now it comes to pass that Morgan Tsvangirai is opposing Robert Mubabi in an election.
and yet you trust him 100% when he says he did what he did because of wikileaks
WTF are you even talking about? Where are you getting this bizarre idea that I'm trusting him? Or that he says he did what he did because of Wikileaks?
He's not using Wikileaks as an excuse for his actions. He's using the leaked documents to go after his opponent. The one that is supported by the UK, Canada, Australia, France, the UK, as well as the US....
you're very stubborn in your position. but not very intelligent
i'll tell you what: when mugabe tells you why he does something, you go right on believing mugabe. i won't. how's that for a deal?
You seem to be under the impression that Mugabe has told me something, ot that I've heard something he's said. But that had to have come somewhere out of your own mind. I honestly couldn't even paraphrase any statement he's ever made. I don't know what he's said. I've just read news articles and Wikipedia's article on him, dude.
"The problem comes when Wikileaks/The Guardian gives Mugabe political ammo by releasing the fact that his opponent feels that the sanctions are needed while Mugabe is in power."
mugabe would still do what he wants to do, whether wikileaks gave him ammo or not
that's the point
You still don't get it.
if wikileaks never existed, mugabe would still be cracking down on the opposition
For all practical purposes Wikileaks never existed for Mugabe, or Europe, or the US, up until this release. And it didn't say anything about Mugabe. It said something about his opponent. Mugabe seized on that.
why do you believe mugabe? how naive are you?
Huh? Where did you get that from?
if mugabe does something vile, mugabe is vile
what is not vile is the red herring lame excuse he makes
Ok, do me a favor. Don't ever buy a Glock. 'kay?
but apparently you can't do that. apparently, when mugabe gives you a stupid lame weak excuse for why he does something, you BELIEVE mugabe! why do you believe mugabe!? it makes you a moron if you believe anything that comes out of that asshole's mouth
Seriously, dude - You finally found the Shift or Caps Lock key. That's progress. Let's leave it at that. DO NOT buy that Glock.
So it doesn't matter that the leaks were published? Boy, the US sure make a lot of stink over nothing...
Well, I guess that would depend on whether you're moronic enough to think that one murder, plus one birth, is a wash.
The fact is that we've elected people to, among other things, manage this collection of intelligence info and act on it accordingly. It's not like this info was laying around a dustbin.
These leaks are like buying into a mutual fund and then going to its offices and leaning over the fund manager's shoulder saying "Ahem, are you going to sell IBM now? Why aren't you buying Wal-Mart shares?"
I'm kind of surprised that your neck didn't snap from the force the point going over your head at such a speed.
Have you really thought about this so little that you think that people other people think that if Wikileaks never came along that Mugabe would be a nice guy? I hate to break this to you, but they're not.
I'm dumbfounded. I mean, we can't even get into the philosophical debate because you don't even understand the question. And you're modded Insightful on/.?
Wikileaks had nothing whatsoever to do with Mugabe being identified as a bad man. That was done long ago and sanctions against Mugabe's government have long been in place.
The problem comes when Wikileaks/The Guardian gives Mugabe political ammo by releasing the fact that his opponent feels that the sanctions are needed while Mugabe is in power.
Now Mugabe uses this to paint his opponent in a way that, to people with limited comprehension skills (such as yourself), as a supporter of sanctions, or a hypocrite.
Wikileaks/The Guardian gets its scoop, you get your fanboy whoop, and Zimbabwe remains a dictatorship.
How does the answer to that question matter? It isn't like, in most cases, there was a choice.
There is always a choice. A choice to attack or not. A choice to defend or not. In the 7th century conquering muslim armies pretty much allowed the defender to choose. "Accept our conditions or be attacked." The Romans typically did this too.
Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?
No, we started out just wanting to be left alone. Not taxed by the king too much. Not being used to finance the empire.
Finally many had had enough and said "Fuck Off King George!" We just did that in taverns at first, but when that didn't get much result we expressed ourselves with flying lead.
The French understood. They had their own King George. But he was named King Lou. They didn't like Lou. But Lou was clueless, so the French could find ways help us get King George off our back.
It cost them a lot, but then when they looked at the results in America, they experimented with ways to progressively limiting Lou's powers, eventually hitting on the idea of chopping his head off.
So now they had what the new U.S. had. Anarchy. Well, they thought that anyway.
What we did (or rather what was done for us by some smart people), was determine a set of rules by which government would best work for the people and creating certain rights for them. But we had a bit of a problem deciding who, exactly, were people. So we tabled part of that argument.
Meanwhile, this French guy, seizing on all the anarchy in France and thinking his pastries the best, got control of France and decided to take over the world.
But the Brits were knocking on our door again. We kicked them out again and afterwards started naming towns after the British general Wellington who owned that pastry licking midget frog.
We then had to assert our freedom to own lands thoughout the middle of North America. We did this through peaceful means, of course. We bought Florida (at the point of a gun), Louisiana from the French.
But finally we were reminded of the debate concerning which humans were people. So we had a raucus lead-based debate on that matter, but eventually settled the issue.
From there we were calibrating our laissez-faire meter until WWI started. We wanted no part of that shit. But we were dragged in, and didn't even agree with the final settlement (in Lou's palace of all places).
So then we get dragged into the next fucking world war.
And then Russia...Fuck, we actually tried to be a mediating force between you guys and Churchill. Britain screwed the Poles and the Russians took everything the could including half of Germany.
South Korea and Japan (the bits we were administering in the post war world) turned out very well.
North Korea, eh, not so much. We tried to fix it (although we didn't start it), and were nearly there when China said no (with flying lead).
Excuse us Americans if we seem meddlesome, but once we got our continent, we just wanted to be left alone. But the world has proven time and time again that we won't be.
So suck it. Suck it Assange, Suck it Putin, Suck it Karzai. You made us. Now you can deal with it.
And we'll still be the good guys. We are a government by, of, and for the people and we won't perish from this earth.
Twitter has said they would notify users if their info is being requested by a government before it is turned over. And that appears to have happened.
Did 637,000 Twitter users receive this notification? I doubt it. Did you receive one?
And BTW, there is no section 2. B. There is a B. 2., and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with you (unless perhaps you're in e-mail communications with them via Twitter). But B. 1. possibly could be construed to mean that visitors IP addresses provided. But somehow I doubt the Feds care.
Quite a bit, it appears. I imagine that Twitter would have thousands of tweetists who would self-identify as Wikileaks supporters. But the request is only for a handful of accounts directly related in some fashion to Wikileaks.
Based on what information they're requesting and the fact that they're not requesting that accounts be shut down or censored, it appears to me that this is about simply being able to prove that certain people made certain tweets (the contents thereof they are seeking to enter into evidence)..
The list of people/accounts that they requested data on is pretty limited - and they're not even requesting that the accounts be shut down.
These aren't just Wikileak supporters (I imagine Twitter has thousands). These are people who are closely related, and some cases (formerly) a part of Wikileaks.
Probably, the DoJ is building a case against Assange (and probably others) and needs to be able to verify the identities of individuals whose Twitter accounts tweeted statements the DoJ wants to use in evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the attack scenario one bad guy?
Then you should contact law enforcement. Also you should make sure your security set up is appropriate.
Would you perform these steps in a physical attack? i.e. an imminent physical ass whooping?
Is the attack scenario that you are an big company and people attack you because you are known?
Are you a celebrity facing a crazy person?
Then you should make sure your security set up is appropriate.
Right. Buy a gun.
Attacking people is pointless because new ones will turn up all the time.
Not after they heard about the first one.
But seriously, isn't the right of self-defense a pretty basic one? Sure, if you have no confidence of success, don't persue this option. But if you do, take 'em out.
Dear Mr Gates,
We like to using your software but it does not go well in Chinese. Instead we have make our own called Red Flag Linux, you can look here:
http://www.redflag-linux.com/en/
Dear Mr. Hu:
This is Mr. Allen responding, as Mr. Gates is not longer with our organisation. However, we're all pleased to hear that you have found software solution that meets your financial needs and pledge our support in ensuring that your Linux solution is the only free one used in China.
Our compliance office is currently compiling a list of individuals who appear to be violating your Linux policies by using Microsoft products and suggest a fine of $640/year, payable to Microsoft, for each such violation.
Microsoft is fully supportive of open software solutions and is looking forward to working with your government's current and future mandates in this regard.
What makes almost 600 patents too small a number?
I think the point is that if Google had a large number of relevant patents - enough that Microsoft might drool over them - then Microsoft would be inclined to enter into a cross licensing agreement as they have with Apple. Without that option, it's better for Microsoft pursue licensing fees or just protect its intellectual property.
Personally, I think MS and Apple are more interested in creating FUD in the Android market than anything else, so the point may be moot. But if Google had a large patent portfolio to dangle under their noses, then who knows?
But in the US, the "rich" - to be specific, let's say the top 1% - earned 25% of the wealth and paid 38% of the income taxes. That doesn't sound like "virtually nothing".
You, like many others, have confused wealth with income.
Actually, the text you chose to quote indicates that he is confusing nothing. He was specifically talking about income taxes.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/
On that basis the poor and middle class are massively overtaxed, and the wealthy are drastically undertaxed. Essentially the middle class and lower class are drastically subsidizing the wealthy.
Your link allows the exploration of your claim and it doesn't hold up. For federal taxes, with the exception of the alcohol and tobacco taxes, and social insurance payments, you can see that most revenue sources such as customs, estate taxes, airport/airway excise, highway excise taxes primarily concern upper or middle class folks.
That's far more than I've seen reported.
But let's use it as a hypothetical. What if a suspect in Sweden, who was involved in publishing U.S. government leaks online, brutally attacked and raped (by all nations' definitions) a Swedish woman and fled to the U.K.?
Could the UK not extradite him to Sweden, based the possibility that the U.S. might file charges in the future which may or may not involve the death penalty?
Wouldn't this create a huge loophole?
Why wouldn't the U.K. simply extradite him and trust that Sweden would do the right thing?
And Assange, not being an American, is pretty much incapable of treason against the USA.
Context can be important...
If that were true, that would mean they could charge the newspapers with treason.
Actually newspaper reporters and editors have been charged with treason in the past...
That doesn't change the fact that he governed while a majority voted against him.
Actually, by your reasoning, a majority voted against every single candidate in the race.
I'd be all for a switch to instant runoff elections, but complaining about the results at this point is just sour grapes.
No, Manning was the man who gave the stuff out to Assange.
Manning also happens to have the misfortune of being in the military, where the rules are different from both the civil and criminal courts.
Misfortune? It's a voluntary force. He voluntarily and actively joined it.
Here's the way I see it:
1. Saddam was in no way a nice guy
Agreed.
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Unfortunately we have become the world's police. Even the leaked cables confirm that when you look at the requests from the arab world regarding Iran. I'm not comfortable with that, but can't think of a better nation. But I'll agree. Dictators shouldn't be overthrown just because they're dictators.
3. IMO, the right thing to do would have been to leave Saddam alone, and let the country have a revolution if the citizens decide to have one.
We'd taken several approaches with Saddam. But that changed when he invaded Kuwait. And that war never really ended. Even after surrender he was still firing missiles at our air patrols.
4. Regardless which one was the most evil, the Iraq war didn't result in anything positive, so starting it was a mistake.
It will still be 20-30 years before we know the true effects. In the short term, we can point to some positives like no Saddam, Uday, or Qusay, and free elections instead.
During the conflict I was actively searching out Iraqi bloggers on both sides, as well as those in between. I occasionally check back and most of those blogs just sort of petered out or turned into facebook type blogs. I think that's a good sign, but we'll have to see.
We're leaving a lot more up to the Iraqis than we did with, say, Japan after WWII. Japan is actually a very respectable part of the world community today, despite the kind of atrocities they were committing during WWII. We used a heavy hand in the aftermath. We're using a much lighter hand in post-war Iraq.
We'll have to see if that pays off.
Okay, I probably shouldn't do this, but I'm too curious, so....
I think we'll both agree that there's a place in Africa called Zimbabwe. And that this place is currently ruled be one Robert Mugabe.
According to Wikipedia...
There are widespread reports of systematic and escalating violations of human rights in Zimbabwe under the Mugabe administration and his party, the ZANU-PF.
According to human rights organisations such as Amnesty International[69] and Human Rights Watch[70] the government of Zimbabwe violates the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of assembly and the protection of the law. There have been alleged assaults on the media, the political opposition, civil society activists, and human rights defenders.
Opposition gatherings are frequently the subject of brutal attacks by the police force, such as the crackdown on a March 11, 2007 Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) rally and several others during the 2008 election campaign.[71] In the attacks of 2007, party leader Morgan Tsvangirai and 49 other opposition activists were arrested and severely beaten by the police. After his release, Morgan Tsvangirai told the BBC that he suffered head injuries and blows to the arms, knees and back, and that he lost a significant amount of blood.
So now it comes to pass that Morgan Tsvangirai is opposing Robert Mubabi in an election.
Then there's a leak of US cables via Wikileaks.
Finish the story from your own perspective.
Please do. Because I've never seen (or even heard of) anything good coming out of a war, regardless of being through two modern wars.
Well, let's brainstorm some (in no particular order)...
Greek Classicism
The Pax Romana
The Pax Mongolica
A Democratic America
A Democratic France
The Preservation of South Korea
A Democratic Germany
Jews no longer being shoved into ovens
A Democratic Japan
An end to slavery in the US
and yet you trust him 100% when he says he did what he did because of wikileaks
WTF are you even talking about? Where are you getting this bizarre idea that I'm trusting him? Or that he says he did what he did because of Wikileaks?
He's not using Wikileaks as an excuse for his actions. He's using the leaked documents to go after his opponent. The one that is supported by the UK, Canada, Australia, France, the UK, as well as the US....
If certain actions cannot stand the scrutiny of history, is it justified to make them secret in order to protect your own interest?
Your own sig proves that we can, in fact, scrutize these certain actions despite the fact that most were secret at the time.
What's your point?
you're very stubborn in your position. but not very intelligent
i'll tell you what: when mugabe tells you why he does something, you go right on believing mugabe. i won't. how's that for a deal?
You seem to be under the impression that Mugabe has told me something, ot that I've heard something he's said. But that had to have come somewhere out of your own mind. I honestly couldn't even paraphrase any statement he's ever made. I don't know what he's said. I've just read news articles and Wikipedia's article on him, dude.
"The problem comes when Wikileaks/The Guardian gives Mugabe political ammo by releasing the fact that his opponent feels that the sanctions are needed while Mugabe is in power."
mugabe would still do what he wants to do, whether wikileaks gave him ammo or not
that's the point
You still don't get it.
if wikileaks never existed, mugabe would still be cracking down on the opposition
For all practical purposes Wikileaks never existed for Mugabe, or Europe, or the US, up until this release. And it didn't say anything about Mugabe. It said something about his opponent. Mugabe seized on that.
why do you believe mugabe? how naive are you?
Huh? Where did you get that from?
if mugabe does something vile, mugabe is vile
what is not vile is the red herring lame excuse he makes
Ok, do me a favor. Don't ever buy a Glock. 'kay?
but apparently you can't do that. apparently, when mugabe gives you a stupid lame weak excuse for why he does something, you BELIEVE mugabe! why do you believe mugabe!? it makes you a moron if you believe anything that comes out of that asshole's mouth
Seriously, dude - You finally found the Shift or Caps Lock key. That's progress. Let's leave it at that. DO NOT buy that Glock.
What makes you think the other guy isn't?
Um, for starters, a Wiki site that is indisputably better for the world than Wikileaks. Look, you can compare both guys: Mugabe and Tsvangirai
So it doesn't matter that the leaks were published? Boy, the US sure make a lot of stink over nothing...
Well, I guess that would depend on whether you're moronic enough to think that one murder, plus one birth, is a wash.
The fact is that we've elected people to, among other things, manage this collection of intelligence info and act on it accordingly. It's not like this info was laying around a dustbin.
These leaks are like buying into a mutual fund and then going to its offices and leaning over the fund manager's shoulder saying "Ahem, are you going to sell IBM now? Why aren't you buying Wal-Mart shares?"
I'm kind of surprised that your neck didn't snap from the force the point going over your head at such a speed.
Have you really thought about this so little that you think that people other people think that if Wikileaks never came along that Mugabe would be a nice guy? I hate to break this to you, but they're not.
I'm dumbfounded. I mean, we can't even get into the philosophical debate because you don't even understand the question. And you're modded Insightful on /.?
Wikileaks had nothing whatsoever to do with Mugabe being identified as a bad man. That was done long ago and sanctions against Mugabe's government have long been in place.
The problem comes when Wikileaks/The Guardian gives Mugabe political ammo by releasing the fact that his opponent feels that the sanctions are needed while Mugabe is in power.
Now Mugabe uses this to paint his opponent in a way that, to people with limited comprehension skills (such as yourself), as a supporter of sanctions, or a hypocrite.
Wikileaks/The Guardian gets its scoop, you get your fanboy whoop, and Zimbabwe remains a dictatorship.
Yay.
Not all good outcomes show up on a balance sheet.
Nor bad outcomes. Which is why citing some purported good things coming out of the leaks is meaningless.
How does the answer to that question matter? It isn't like, in most cases, there was a choice.
There is always a choice. A choice to attack or not. A choice to defend or not. In the 7th century conquering muslim armies pretty much allowed the defender to choose. "Accept our conditions or be attacked." The Romans typically did this too.
I can point to some good stuff that has occurred as a result of wars. So let's keep having them.
Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?
No, we started out just wanting to be left alone. Not taxed by the king too much. Not being used to finance the empire.
Finally many had had enough and said "Fuck Off King George!" We just did that in taverns at first, but when that didn't get much result we expressed ourselves with flying lead.
The French understood. They had their own King George. But he was named King Lou. They didn't like Lou. But Lou was clueless, so the French could find ways help us get King George off our back.
It cost them a lot, but then when they looked at the results in America, they experimented with ways to progressively limiting Lou's powers, eventually hitting on the idea of chopping his head off.
So now they had what the new U.S. had. Anarchy. Well, they thought that anyway.
What we did (or rather what was done for us by some smart people), was determine a set of rules by which government would best work for the people and creating certain rights for them. But we had a bit of a problem deciding who, exactly, were people. So we tabled part of that argument.
Meanwhile, this French guy, seizing on all the anarchy in France and thinking his pastries the best, got control of France and decided to take over the world.
But the Brits were knocking on our door again. We kicked them out again and afterwards started naming towns after the British general Wellington who owned that pastry licking midget frog.
We then had to assert our freedom to own lands thoughout the middle of North America. We did this through peaceful means, of course. We bought Florida (at the point of a gun), Louisiana from the French.
But finally we were reminded of the debate concerning which humans were people. So we had a raucus lead-based debate on that matter, but eventually settled the issue.
From there we were calibrating our laissez-faire meter until WWI started. We wanted no part of that shit. But we were dragged in, and didn't even agree with the final settlement (in Lou's palace of all places).
So then we get dragged into the next fucking world war.
And then Russia...Fuck, we actually tried to be a mediating force between you guys and Churchill. Britain screwed the Poles and the Russians took everything the could including half of Germany.
South Korea and Japan (the bits we were administering in the post war world) turned out very well.
North Korea, eh, not so much. We tried to fix it (although we didn't start it), and were nearly there when China said no (with flying lead).
Excuse us Americans if we seem meddlesome, but once we got our continent, we just wanted to be left alone. But the world has proven time and time again that we won't be.
So suck it. Suck it Assange, Suck it Putin, Suck it Karzai. You made us. Now you can deal with it.
And we'll still be the good guys. We are a government by, of, and for the people and we won't perish from this earth.
Twitter has said they would notify users if their info is being requested by a government before it is turned over. And that appears to have happened.
Did 637,000 Twitter users receive this notification? I doubt it. Did you receive one?
And BTW, there is no section 2. B. There is a B. 2., and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with you (unless perhaps you're in e-mail communications with them via Twitter). But B. 1. possibly could be construed to mean that visitors IP addresses provided. But somehow I doubt the Feds care.
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Quite a bit, it appears. I imagine that Twitter would have thousands of tweetists who would self-identify as Wikileaks supporters. But the request is only for a handful of accounts directly related in some fashion to Wikileaks.
Based on what information they're requesting and the fact that they're not requesting that accounts be shut down or censored, it appears to me that this is about simply being able to prove that certain people made certain tweets (the contents thereof they are seeking to enter into evidence)..
The list of people/accounts that they requested data on is pretty limited - and they're not even requesting that the accounts be shut down.
These aren't just Wikileak supporters (I imagine Twitter has thousands). These are people who are closely related, and some cases (formerly) a part of Wikileaks.
Probably, the DoJ is building a case against Assange (and probably others) and needs to be able to verify the identities of individuals whose Twitter accounts tweeted statements the DoJ wants to use in evidence.