Twitter is weak PC. No balls. They should just come out with this day one and not let the fucking gov suppress them. Just leaking things to wikileaks or whatever, something that chant be traced to a single person. So what will they do?
Twitter discloses national security letters
61–70 of 160 posts
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
There may be additional penalities/costs for letting it get to the point where a court is involved, but yeah, seems like this falls under "due process of law."
Well that's what I mean, it's not like you can just wait for the court to serve you the order. If the additional penalty is that you'll end up in jail or something, then this isn't really realistic is it?
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#63It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.
It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation
It's probably just my own crazy notion, but I think we should assume they're innocent until proven guilty in open court. I also have this other crazy idea that the government should obey the fourth amendment to the constitution (i.e. the highest law in the country), and only conduct reasonable searches with a judicially sanctioned warrant. One based on probable cause and a legally actionable oath/affirmation by the government official seeking the warrant.
But I guess reversing the presumption of innocence and pissing on the separation of powers by creating quasi-judiciaries under the executive arm of government is... good...
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#64This is great Twitter is being open about these. Do these releases get media coverage? Is anyone talking about the various lawsuits and blog posts about public releases of NSLs by tech companies? I wish the NYTimes and WaPo spent as much time caring about this stuff as they did about being the non-critical mouthpiece for various "anonymous intelligence officials". There is definitely a story that could be made out of…
Twitter need to pull their finger out and get end-to-end encryption sorted on their DM's. I mean they onced acuihired Moxie and Whisper Systems yet they still don't have this in place? Many journalists and others are finding that Twitter is the place where initial contact with people/public/sources is being made first, because it's so easy to find and reach out to people. Yet they have no e-2-e on that. Even Facebook…
What does end-to-end encryption mean for a tool with browser-based interfaces and where people often log on from multiple devices? I'm having trouble imagining how I'd do safe and easy key management between my phone, the old phone I stuck to my fridge, my tablet, and then Chrome and Firefox on my work laptop, my personal laptop, and that old laptop that hangs out by the couch for use when I'm watching TV.
I also don't see how end-to-end encryption would help for the sort of data apparently asked for here, which is metadata. If the feds get a warrant to find out who a particular government employee DMed, it would seem that encrypting the contents of the DMs wouldn't help if it's @nytimes they contacted.
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#65This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Internet service companies. While I understand government agencies' desires to investigate persons of interest, the checks and balances of the system were put in place to do just that – check and balance the power of the system. It's outrageous that agencies feel…
I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…
> I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly.
I don't know. Seems really easy to say when it's not you on the receiving end. But I mostly agree about your other points I just have a hard time judging them too harshly for not wanting to risk their business and / or personal freedoms.
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well think about it ... if the investigation or justice proceedings were not completed, or the investigation didn't yield prosecution, thier names would not, and should not be revealed. So which is it? You want full transparency which would cause people to be unlawfully persecuted by the public? Or do you want a functional investigative justice system which protects the identities of the not-proven-guilty? I ask you…
He wants the Constitutional requirement, and the tradition of the separation of powers, to be fulfilled by having a Judge review and sign off on the search. That is all he wants, you are the one imagining insane things.
How you are getting that I want anything different? Also, don't go around calling people insane.
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the same Scott Adams that claims to have been shadowbanned, without any proof? Might his lower Twitter engagement have something to do with people getting sick of hearing from him about Trump?
How would anyone actually prove something like this, short of getting Twitter to admit it? What he has seen is: > my tweets only go out to a subset of my followers. The rest don’t know I tweeted. My followers tell me this is the case. They have to visit my timeline to see my tweets. What other proof could anyone realistically provide?
I mean... any proof that isn't anecdotal accounts from non-specific followers? Before we even start considering that though, I dispute the premise — shadowbanning does not mean hiding posts from some users, it means hiding posts from all users. If some of his followers aren't getting his tweets, maybe he's a victim of the algorithmic timeline?
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…
> I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. I don't know. Seems really easy to say when it's not you on the receiving end. But I mostly agree about your other points I just have a hard time judging them too harshly for not wanting to risk their business and / or personal freedoms.
[deleted]
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may be additional penalities/costs for letting it get to the point where a court is involved, but yeah, seems like this falls under "due process of law."
Well that's what I mean, it's not like you can just wait for the court to serve you the order. If the additional penalty is that you'll end up in jail or something, then this isn't really realistic is it?
[deleted]
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#70This is great Twitter is being open about these. Do these releases get media coverage? Is anyone talking about the various lawsuits and blog posts about public releases of NSLs by tech companies? I wish the NYTimes and WaPo spent as much time caring about this stuff as they did about being the non-critical mouthpiece for various "anonymous intelligence officials". There is definitely a story that could be made out of…
If you read the actual letters, you'll see they ask for "the name, address, length of service, and electronic communications transactional records for all services, as well as all accounts, provided to the individual(s) or identifier(s) listed below." The letter explicitly says not to provide information "that would disclose the content of any electronic communication".
A clear endrun of the law, as 'transactional records' can easily be correlated to posts, and therefore content.