New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data • Hacker News Board

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#11

Post by citizens » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 7:29 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #10

Steveism wrote: post #6

It's troubling that this type of data gathering doesn't require a warrant. The American Government can't expect oppressive countries to clean up their act when the example they set is to bypass civil liberties whenever possible.

If what you mean to argue is that this data gathering needed to be done under court supervision, well, it was. A subpoena is the type of court supervision process that is applicable in this case. What the subpoena means is that an attorney got a court order compelling a party to provide evidence. Warrants are also issued by the courts, but they do something different: They permit law enforcement officials (not attorn…

I haven't bothered to verify the claim but the article states:

"a law called the Stored Communications Act allows authorities to seek data like this without a search warrant"

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#12

Post by freshhawk » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 7:34 PM UTC

"U.S. activists who thought Twitter was a secure way to communicate during demonstrations may" ... be delusional?

Twitter has to comply with US law, whatever it's possible for them to reconstruct and release about activists they can be compelled to release. They, so far, have done a decent job of being transparent, in the US, when they are allowed to be (things like national security letters with gag orders mean their, and everyone else's, claims to transparency have to be taken with a grain of salt).

How much Twitter is pushing back or not is besides the point. It's just stupid to expect more out of Twitter than it is legally possible for them to do.

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#13

Post by freshhawk » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 7:39 PM UTC

tatsuke95 wrote: post #4

Wait, I thought Twitter was going to change the world by allowing open communications channels to circumvent tyranny? Kind of a useless tool in that regard if it documents all your information and the company is willing to hand it all over at a moment's notice. Does Twitter have an official stance on this anywhere?

There's marketing hype and there's the reality of operating a business under US law.

And really, if that was the actual goal then twitter could use plenty of existing encryption technologies to make twitter actually useful for tyranny circumventing communications. That wouldn't be a twitter-sized business though, not even close.

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#14

Post by mikeryan » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 7:40 PM UTC

freshhawk wrote: post #12

"U.S. activists who thought Twitter was a secure way to communicate during demonstrations may" ... be delusional? Twitter has to comply with US law, whatever it's possible for them to reconstruct and release about activists they can be compelled to release. They, so far, have done a decent job of being transparent, in the US, when they are allowed to be (things like national security letters with gag orders mean thei…

I kind of assumed most folks from overseas who were doing this were using Tor + Anonymous Twitter account.

Maybe US Agitators just aren't as savvy as their counterparts in the more oppressive parts of the world.

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#15

Post by Steveism » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 7:41 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #10

Steveism wrote: post #6

It's troubling that this type of data gathering doesn't require a warrant. The American Government can't expect oppressive countries to clean up their act when the example they set is to bypass civil liberties whenever possible.

If what you mean to argue is that this data gathering needed to be done under court supervision, well, it was. A subpoena is the type of court supervision process that is applicable in this case. What the subpoena means is that an attorney got a court order compelling a party to provide evidence. Warrants are also issued by the courts, but they do something different: They permit law enforcement officials (not attorn…

As perviously stated, the article touches on data gathering from Twitter in another Wikileaks related case where data was legally seized without a warrant.

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#16

Post by bunderbunder » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 7:55 PM UTC

citizens wrote: post #11

bunderbunder wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you mean to argue is that this data gathering needed to be done under court supervision, well, it was. A subpoena is the type of court supervision process that is applicable in this case. What the subpoena means is that an attorney got a court order compelling a party to provide evidence. Warrants are also issued by the courts, but they do something different: They permit law enforcement officials (not attorn…

I haven't bothered to verify the claim but the article states: "a law called the Stored Communications Act allows authorities to seek data like this without a search warrant"

That may be true, but since we're talking about attorneys requesting information (as opposed to police seizing data), what's needed is a subpoena rather than a warrant so I doubt that detail is as relevant as the article's author may have thought it is.

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#17

Post by nitid_name » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 8:01 PM UTC

mikeryan wrote: post #14

freshhawk wrote: post #12

"U.S. activists who thought Twitter was a secure way to communicate during demonstrations may" ... be delusional? Twitter has to comply with US law, whatever it's possible for them to reconstruct and release about activists they can be compelled to release. They, so far, have done a decent job of being transparent, in the US, when they are allowed to be (things like national security letters with gag orders mean thei…

I kind of assumed most folks from overseas who were doing this were using Tor + Anonymous Twitter account. Maybe US Agitators just aren't as savvy as their counterparts in the more oppressive parts of the world.

Or maybe their governments aren't the giant, half-the-world's-military, country whose laws Twitter has to respect...

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#18

Post by freshhawk » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 8:07 PM UTC

mikeryan wrote: post #14

freshhawk wrote: post #12

"U.S. activists who thought Twitter was a secure way to communicate during demonstrations may" ... be delusional? Twitter has to comply with US law, whatever it's possible for them to reconstruct and release about activists they can be compelled to release. They, so far, have done a decent job of being transparent, in the US, when they are allowed to be (things like national security letters with gag orders mean thei…

I kind of assumed most folks from overseas who were doing this were using Tor + Anonymous Twitter account. Maybe US Agitators just aren't as savvy as their counterparts in the more oppressive parts of the world.

Not always Tor, which is safe as far as I know IF you can get a Tor connection.

Plenty have been caught and killed or tortured thanks to US tech sold to their governments (and not using Tor level security) so I'm not sure about them being more savvy. The consequences are certainly higher, so they probably are more careful.

It's the domestic people who confuse me, no encryption, from a cell phone account in their name and then thinking "Twitter will break the law to protect me!"

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#19

Post by Daishiman » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 8:12 PM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #7

> U.S. activists who thought Twitter was a secure way to communicate during demonstrations may have another thing coming. People actually think this? I've never been a big fan of the occupy wall street crowd, and when I hear things like this, my opinion of them just keeps falling.

So you're forming an opinion of a group based on what one source claims that group thinks without having neither evidence nor quotes? Sounds brilliant.

Re: New York City Subpoenas Twitter For Occupy Wall Street Protester Data

#20

Post by Retric » Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 9:10 PM UTC

mikeryan wrote: post #5

tatsuke95 wrote: post #4

Wait, I thought Twitter was going to change the world by allowing open communications channels to circumvent tyranny? Kind of a useless tool in that regard if it documents all your information and the company is willing to hand it all over at a moment's notice. Does Twitter have an official stance on this anywhere?

Yep http://support.twitter.com/articles/41949-guidelines-for-law...

Private Information Requires a Subpoena or Court Order
In accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, non-public information about Twitter users is not released except as lawfully required by appropriate legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process.

Some information we store is automatically collected, while other information is provided at the user’s discretion. Though we do store this information, it may not be accurate if the user has created a fake or anonymous profile. Twitter doesn’t require email verification or identity authentication.

So, we release this information, but there is little that proves you are actually you. However, if they also store IP addresses or you have released private information you might have far less plausible dependability.