Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 Twitter told to give up Occupy protester's tweets 
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western MI
    Posts
    2,360
    Link
    NEW YORK (AP) — Twitter must give a court about three months' worth of an Occupy Wall Street protester's tweets, a judge said in a ruling released Monday after the company fought prosecutors' demand for the messages.

    Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. rebuffed one of Twitter Inc.'s central arguments, which concerned who has rights to contest law enforcement demands for content posted on its site. But the judge said the company was right on a separate point that could require prosecutors to take further steps if they want to see one particular day of Malcolm Harris' tweets and his user information.

    Sciarrino also decided that he would review all the material he ordered turned over and would provide "relevant portions" to prosecutors.

    The case began as one of hundreds of disorderly conduct prosecutions stemming from an Oct. 1 Occupy march on the Brooklyn Bridge, but it has evolved into a closely watched legal tussle over law enforcement agencies' access to material posted on social networks.

    The Manhattan district attorney's office said Harris' messages could show whether he was aware of police orders he's charged with disregarding. Twitter, meanwhile, said the case could put it in the unwanted position of having to take on legal fights that users could otherwise conduct on their own.

    The DA's office said it was pleased with the ruling, which came after the judge turned down Harris' own request earlier this year to block prosecutors from subpoenaing his tweets and user information from Sept. 15 to Dec. 31.

    "We look forward to Twitter's complying and to moving forward with the trial," Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel R. Alonso said in a statement.

    Twitter called the ruling disappointing and said it was considering its next move.

    "We continue to have a steadfast commitment to our users and their rights," the company said in a statement.

    Harris' lawyer, Martin Stolar, said he was studying the ruling to determine how to respond.

    Harris was among more than 700 people arrested in the Brooklyn Bridge march. Police said demonstrators ignored warnings to stay on a pedestrian path and went onto the roadway. Harris, an editor for an online culture magazine, and others say they thought they had police permission to go on the roadway.

    He challenged the subpoena for his tweets, saying prosecutors' bid for user information, alongside the messages, breached privacy and free-association rights. The data could give prosecutors a picture of his followers, their interactions through replies and retweets, and his location at various points, Stolar said.

    Prosecutors said the tweets might contradict Harris' claim that he thought protesters were allowed on the roadway. And they said he couldn't invoke privacy rights for messages he sent very publicly, though some stopped being visible when newer ones crowded them out.

    Sciarrino ruled in April that Harris didn't have a proprietary interest in his tweets and so couldn't challenge the subpoena, which was issued to Twitter.

    Then San Francisco-based Twitter went to court on Harris' behalf, saying he had every right to fight the subpoena. Its user agreements say that users own content they post and can challenge demands for their records, and it would be "a new and overwhelming burden" for Twitter to have to champion such causes for them, the company argued in a court filing.

    The judge said the company's argument didn't overcome his view that privacy protections don't apply to Harris' tweets.

    "If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy," wrote the social media-savvy Sciarrino, who laced his previous ruling with the hashtag marks used to mark key words in tweets.

    Twitter prevailed on another argument: that some of the tweets shouldn't be turned over because a federal law requires a court-approved search warrant, not just a subpoena issued by prosecutors, for stored electronic communications that are less than 180 days old.

    Sciarrino found that law did apply — but only to Harris' tweets and information for Dec. 31, since the rest were more than 180 days old by the Saturday of the ruling. It was released Monday.

    Prosecutors' bid for the tweets had spurred concern among electronic privacy and civil liberties advocates, and some cheered Twitter's decision to take up the fight at a time when authorities increasingly seek to mine social networks for information.

    Monday's ruling "continued to fail to grapple with one of the key issues underlying this case: do individuals give up their ability to go to court to try to protect their free speech and privacy rights when they use the Internet? ... The answer has to be no," said Aden Fine, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing Twitter's position.

    Harris' case is set for trial in December.
    The DUmmies will be outraged. Again.
    Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
    rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.



    Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sunny,FL
    Posts
    43,422
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,744
    Attention, DUmbass:

    You posted your shit on the internet. You gave up your "right to privacy" the moment you tweeted about how the 1% was oppressing you on your $700 iPhone that mommy and daddy gave you.

    Idiot.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    Attention, DUmbass:

    You posted your shit on the internet. You gave up your "right to privacy" the moment you tweeted about how the 1% was oppressing you on your $700 iPhone that mommy and daddy gave you.

    Idiot.
    Since when is there a right to privacy for publicly disseminated electronic messages?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Since when is there a right to privacy for publicly disseminated electronic messages?
    Since the 99% rose up against the oppression of the 1%ers!!!!111oneoneleventeen1!!1!1!

    [/stupid filthy hippie wannabe]
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Since when is there a right to privacy for publicly disseminated electronic messages?
    C'mon Ody...you know as wells I do that only Conservatives and Republicans are allowed to have their internet conversations and tweets broadcast for all the world to see.

    Liberals think/believe they are exempt.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Since when is there a right to privacy for publicly disseminated electronic messages?
    Yeah, I havent really looked into this but it might be for deleted tweets or who knows. Seems like government wouldn't have gone to twitter if they could just take screenshots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •