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

61–70 of 125 posts

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

#61

Post by mikestew »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #38
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 th…

So following your analogy (which I'll state upfront is a poor one), where do you think the government attorney is wrong? Because from where I sit the government attorney, if not completely correct, is at least on the right track. Other companies can piece this together (how else do they know that you are logged in somewhere else?), and I would be shocked if there isn't some means on Twitter's backend to do the same.

And from reading the transcript, it would seem that Twitter's objection is about analyzing the data, as opposed to simply providing it.

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

#62

Post by nickthegreek »

joezydeco wrote: post #35
buildbot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you log into both accounts using the twitter mobile app there is most likely a device ID now associated with the accounts.

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

#64

Post by JohnMakin »

MithrilTuxedo wrote: post #13
sacrosanct wrote: post #3

Needs more context. I glossed over the PDF, but couldn't figure out what this is about. ELI5.

Judging by the dates, content, and mention of asking the NARA for the individuals assigned to the account... I'm pretty sure this is record of what it took for the special counsel investigation to get access to the DMs of @realDonaldTrump.

Judging by the multiple mentions of @realDonaldTrump account and Trump himself throughout the document as well, I'd agree.

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

#65

Post by ceejayoz »

peppermint_gum wrote: post #51
ceejayoz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is not true. "Millions of emails" was in reference to this part of the warrant: "Communications between Twitter and any person regarding the account including contacts with support services and records of actions taken"

A public @mention of Trump by a random person is not a "communication between Twitter [and that person] regarding the [@realDonaldTrump] account" by any sane reading.

That item means they have to hand over things like support tickets or emails sent to the @realDonaldTrump account or Trump's social media team.

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

#66

Post by mtillman »

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.

I can't get over how Twitter's legal team doesn't show up on time for a court appointment. As a founder, I'm certain they're still billing for the time.

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

#67

Post by coldpie »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #39
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?

It's a little bit outlandish, but the most plausible theory I've heard is the Saudis were happy to spend the cash[1] to try to hinder future Arab Spring style events, which were organized largely on Twitter. US banks have a similar motive, it's not hard to draw the line that they would see disrupting low-level leftist activist communication networks on Twitter as valuable. Under that theory, Musk isn't so much doing a favor as being a useful idiot.

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/10/28/how-elon-musk-f...

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

#68

Post by jellicle »

thrway0816 wrote: post #40
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Creating a Twitter account in recent years requires a valid email address and valid phone number, or at least it did until recently. Twitter definitely has a pretty good idea of which human being is behind the majority of its accounts.

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

#69

Post by etchalon »

thrway0816 wrote: post #40
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Judges are assigned randomly. They have other cases. It's the lawyer's job to inform the judge on what they need to know.

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

#70

Post by ceejayoz »

jimbob45 wrote: post #43
roflyear wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You can delete posts within two hours and dang is usually good about deleting stuff if you email him directly from what others have said in the past. If you can’t delete it, you can edit it to be blank. Edit: two hours, thanks

> If you can’t delete it, you can edit it to be blank.

Comments can only be edited for the first two hours.

Post reply on HN