Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

dcd.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 125 posts

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#31

Post by roflyear »

josefresco wrote: post #14
joezydeco wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DOJ asked for access to Trump's twitter account, including DMs, deleted items, and drafts. Twitter stalled on producing this information so this hearing was the DOJ asking the judge to start hitting Twitter with fines until they could produce. There's also some confusion at the start because DOJ asked for other possible accounts that Trump might have used as a sockpuppet/backchannel means of communication and Twi…

> Twitter seems to either not be able to discover that, or can't find it They clearly CAN, but don't want to. Their (X's lawyers) objections in the transcript are ridiculous (they claimed they don't have an "affiliated account" category - like really?!?) and when pressed for timeframes suddenly they can produce "impossible" data in less than 24h.

Of course they have affiliated accounts - you can get banned from Twitter for ban evasion, so they most have something to put the two together.

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#32

Post by justrealist »

josefresco wrote: post #10
hnburnsy wrote: post #2

My favorite part is when the government suggests to Twitter that they should Ctl-F to find 'associated accounts'

What's funny is while the judge might look silly suggesting such a basic technique, Twitter's lawyers were clearly "playing dumb" saying that a search for "realDonaldTrump" produced "millions of emails" and therefore was unreasonable.

Well I think they were saying that (1) internally at Twitter there were millions of references to the realDonaldTrump account in slack/email (plausible) and (2) there were a ton of external communications about the account which were probably not material to this request.

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#33

Post by kitanata »

roflyear wrote: post #25
joezydeco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the data you voluntarily submitted to HN, an organization you don't own or pay for? C'mon. If you want to be forgotten, don't participate in the first place.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#35

Post by joezydeco »

buildbot wrote: post #21
joezydeco wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Twitter really as sophisticated as Facebook in this regard? If @realdonaldtrump and @johnbarron are both tweeting from the same IP in the same time frame, could Twitter make the connection that both are the same user? Was there enough backtracking stored in their systems to know that?

They may not have a literal field for the account, but they are asking twitter to run a simple join across database fields for matching IP addresses in the time range. The jusge is clearly fed up with twitters bullshit - the control F comment does actually make a lot of sense, it should be that simple. For example, SELECT * FROM dms WHERE ip=donaldtrumpsaccountip

If the the IP is "the White House" there may be dozens of clients running out that single NAT IP. So you'd need a bit more correlation before you hit all of them with a warrant, I'd think. Some tracking cookie or some ID to show it's the same person behind the keyboard. As the transcript shows, the judge asked about payment (like a credit card # for correlation) but Twitter is free.

Not saying it's a viable technique but I get the idea that judges hate warrants that vague.

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#36

Post by ceejayoz »

justrealist wrote: post #32
josefresco wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's funny is while the judge might look silly suggesting such a basic technique, Twitter's lawyers were clearly "playing dumb" saying that a search for "realDonaldTrump" produced "millions of emails" and therefore was unreasonable.

Well I think they were saying that (1) internally at Twitter there were millions of references to the realDonaldTrump account in slack/email (plausible) and (2) there were a ton of external communications about the account which were probably not material to this request.

They're deliberately playing dumb, though, in a way that was probably pretty transparent to the judge.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/15/special-counsel-obt...

That conversation refers to:

> Among the data the search warrant commanded Twitter to produce: Accounts associated with @realdonaldtrump that the former president might have used in the same device.

They know that doesn't mean "anyone who @mentioned him publicly".

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#37

Post by burkaman »

thrway0816 wrote: post #18

[flagged]

This is not a technological matter, it's product knowledge of a website the judge has no reason to use. This isn't a trial about Twitter, there's no reason for the judge to have any specialized knowledge here. She asked a totally normal question relevant to the discussion (did Twitter provide the requested credit card and bank account information) and then moved on.

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#38

Post by tppiotrowski »

hnburnsy wrote: post #2

My favorite part is when the government suggests to Twitter that they should Ctl-F to find 'associated accounts'

Here's the government attorney explaining how Twitter should do it:

> To the extent that Twitter does not, it should be a simple process. You have cookies associated with an account; you have the email for the subscriber information; perhaps you have the phone number; you definitely have the IP addresses. Control F that through your system to see what other accounts have come from those IP addresses, are linked to that email address, are linked to the phone number, are linked to the same cookies. I don't profess to be a technological wizard, but it does not seem to be a complex issue.

Reminds me of freelancing nightmares where the client would being with: "This should only take a few hours but I need a website with a simple store front and shopping cart...". The best response I came up with to these clients was: if you know exactly how long it will take then you must know exactly the steps involved and how long each takes so you can do the work yourself and you don't need me :P

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#39

Post by HumblyTossed »

postmodest wrote: post #15

At this point, Elon's purchase and seemingly-intentional brand-suicide looks more and more like a political favor. I mean, yes, if we shave this with Hanlon's Razor, the outcome is the same, but the rightward swing of Elon's public statements certainly makes this look more like quid-pro-quo than an oopsie.

Political favor for who?

Re: Twitter's response to US Government search warrant (turned over deleted DMs) [pdf]

#40

Post by thrway0816 »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #24
thrway0816 wrote: post #18

[flagged]

You're complaining that a random judge doesn't know that Twitter is free?

It's a central and ongoing misunderstanding throughout the document that, beyond verified users, the Court does not realize Twitter account is not associated with a verified human identity. A judge should not be walking into this case completely ignorant of the subject matter that will be presented to them, but this one is.
Post reply on HN