5 ms·

US Department of Justice Subpoena to Twitter for Account Data [pdf]

51 points by hornokplease 16y ago

sage_joch 16y ago
1. subscriber names, user names, screen names, or other identities; Wait, does this mean they are requesting information of people who follow WikiLeaks on Twitter?
- zacstewart 16y ago
  That's the first thing I said when I looked at it. Are all the people who've merely subscribed to them on Twitter considered part of the investigation? That's quite scary to me.
  - pyre 16y ago
    I think that 'subscriber' refers to the account owner as they are 'subscribing' to Twitter's service (in the same way that your ISP considers you a subscriber). > The following customer or subscriber account information > for each account registered to... That sounds to me like customer and subscriber are being used as synonyms. Maybe someone else more legal-headed can clarify.
    - sage_joch 16y ago
      Having re-read it a few more times, I think you're right. That's at least a little less concerning than I had originally thought.
    - zacstewart 16y ago
      That sounds more likely. I feel better.
- patio11 16y ago
  Smart money is on "we copy/pasted the same thing we always send ISPs." (Unless Twitter started billing people recently and someone forgot to mention.)
lewkster 16y ago
more info is in Greenwalds blog from which the pdf links: http://salon.com/a/s3yIfAA http://salon.com/a/s3yIfAA Also (German) http://goo.gl/Wnuup http://goo.gl/Wnuup see chat with @WLLegal on Twitter for more updates
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
vaksel 16y ago
i wouldn't be surprised if Twitter wasn't the only one who got that letter. I'd bet Facebook and Google(Gmail) got it too.
- notahacker 16y ago
  What is interesting is that according to the Salon article, Twitter responded by requesting permission to disclose the existence of the subpoena to their customers, leading to the unsealing order that allowed for this document to be published. I think they should be applauded for that.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
This is an interesting and important next step in the WL story. From a political standpoint, somebody is going to have to pay somewhere. It will be interesting to see if they apply current law, create new laws, or work extra-judicially. My guess, and the way this article indicates the story is heading, is that they find some existing law to apply. After all, with a legal system as complex as the United States has, if they want you they'll find something you're guilty of. Remember that they got the gangster Al Capone not for breaking prohibition, gambling, or murder: they got him for tax evasion. If they keep heading this way we all need to pay careful attention to what WL gets charged with, mainly because it will set a precedent for the rest of us.
handelaar 16y ago
There's something inherently hinky about lifting private communication from a member of the national parliament of a NATO member democratic state, then not telling anyone until a month later.

51 points by hornokplease 16y ago

1. subscriber names, user names, screen names, or other identities; Wait, does this mean they are requesting information of people who follow WikiLeaks on Twitter?

zacstewart 16y ago
That's the first thing I said when I looked at it. Are all the people who've merely subscribed to them on Twitter considered part of the investigation? That's quite scary to me.
- pyre 16y ago
  I think that 'subscriber' refers to the account owner as they are 'subscribing' to Twitter's service (in the same way that your ISP considers you a subscriber). > The following customer or subscriber account information > for each account registered to... That sounds to me like customer and subscriber are being used as synonyms. Maybe someone else more legal-headed can clarify.
  - sage_joch 16y ago
    Having re-read it a few more times, I think you're right. That's at least a little less concerning than I had originally thought.
  - zacstewart 16y ago
    That sounds more likely. I feel better.
patio11 16y ago
Smart money is on "we copy/pasted the same thing we always send ISPs." (Unless Twitter started billing people recently and someone forgot to mention.)

lewkster 16y ago

more info is in Greenwalds blog from which the pdf links: http://salon.com/a/s3yIfAA http://salon.com/a/s3yIfAA Also (German) http://goo.gl/Wnuup http://goo.gl/Wnuup see chat with @WLLegal on Twitter for more updates

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

vaksel 16y ago

i wouldn't be surprised if Twitter wasn't the only one who got that letter. I'd bet Facebook and Google(Gmail) got it too.

notahacker 16y ago
What is interesting is that according to the Salon article, Twitter responded by requesting permission to disclose the existence of the subpoena to their customers, leading to the unsealing order that allowed for this document to be published. I think they should be applauded for that.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

This is an interesting and important next step in the WL story. From a political standpoint, somebody is going to have to pay somewhere. It will be interesting to see if they apply current law, create new laws, or work extra-judicially. My guess, and the way this article indicates the story is heading, is that they find some existing law to apply. After all, with a legal system as complex as the United States has, if they want you they'll find something you're guilty of. Remember that they got the gangster Al Capone not for breaking prohibition, gambling, or murder: they got him for tax evasion. If they keep heading this way we all need to pay careful attention to what WL gets charged with, mainly because it will set a precedent for the rest of us.

handelaar 16y ago

There's something inherently hinky about lifting private communication from a member of the national parliament of a NATO member democratic state, then not telling anyone until a month later.