4 ms·

While I agree that Twitter should have taken down the tweets about non-public figures, they're not against the rules: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-poli

While I agree that Twitter should have taken down the tweets about non-public figures, they're not against the rules: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... Names are explicitly listed as exceptions to the ban in sharing personal information.

tsimionescu 4y ago
This is about a ban on sharing illegally obtained (hacked) information, not sharing personal details.
- Dudelander 4y ago
  That's not against the TOS. Snowden tweets about PRISM all the time on Twitter.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Its against the same hacked materials policy
    - noxer 4y ago
      There was no hacking material and no evidence that it could be based on such material. You repeat what they intentionally used as "reason" fully aware that it isn't. Heck even if the new articles about the topic would have used hacked material as source it dint not include that material itself and thus wound not fall under that policy anyway. Not even articles about a confirmed hacks fall under this policy even if the hack is confirmed with the hacked material itself. This is and was a excuse from the very start.
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    Sharing hacked materials isn't against the TOS? Twitter explicitly said that they were suppressing the Hunter Biden story because it violated their policy against sharing hacked materials.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Snowden didn't hack the CIA, he obtained the information legally and chose to disclose it (which was probably illegal, but widely regarded as moral). Hacking a 3rd party to obtain information and then disseminate it is a different matter.
    - 0cVlTeIATBs 4y ago
      Snowden was specifically charged with stealing the information as well as releasing it.
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        Could you explain exactly which statute makes "stealing ... information" a crime?
        eggnet 4y ago
        Here you go. https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        Interesting, thank you. "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; ..." It's definitely possible to imagine a situation in which Snowden "knowingly ... sells ... any record ... or thing of value of the United States" to Russia, namely a copy of the information he had available to him while working for the NSA. I'm not sure how courts have interpreted "record ... or thing", and whether (for example) a copy of a page from an internal government wiki would count, but let's assume that digital information is a "thing" and that copies of it are still "of the United States". I'll further grant, for the sake of argument, that the US government has secret evidence that such a selling did take place (perhaps witnessed by a double agent working at the Kremlin, who could be called upon to give a witness statement at a trial held in secret), although I don't actually believe such selling occurred. My main point, though, was that I don't know of any court interpreting "steals" in a statute to mean "making an unauthorized copy of" or "leaking". You're right, though, that there are other laws that cover what Snowden did.

tsimionescu 4y ago

This is about a ban on sharing illegally obtained (hacked) information, not sharing personal details.

Dudelander 4y ago
That's not against the TOS. Snowden tweets about PRISM all the time on Twitter.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Its against the same hacked materials policy
  - noxer 4y ago
    There was no hacking material and no evidence that it could be based on such material. You repeat what they intentionally used as "reason" fully aware that it isn't. Heck even if the new articles about the topic would have used hacked material as source it dint not include that material itself and thus wound not fall under that policy anyway. Not even articles about a confirmed hacks fall under this policy even if the hack is confirmed with the hacked material itself. This is and was a excuse from the very start.
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  Sharing hacked materials isn't against the TOS? Twitter explicitly said that they were suppressing the Hunter Biden story because it violated their policy against sharing hacked materials.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Snowden didn't hack the CIA, he obtained the information legally and chose to disclose it (which was probably illegal, but widely regarded as moral). Hacking a 3rd party to obtain information and then disseminate it is a different matter.
  - 0cVlTeIATBs 4y ago
    Snowden was specifically charged with stealing the information as well as releasing it.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      Could you explain exactly which statute makes "stealing ... information" a crime?
      - eggnet 4y ago
        Here you go. https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        Interesting, thank you. "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; ..." It's definitely possible to imagine a situation in which Snowden "knowingly ... sells ... any record ... or thing of value of the United States" to Russia, namely a copy of the information he had available to him while working for the NSA. I'm not sure how courts have interpreted "record ... or thing", and whether (for example) a copy of a page from an internal government wiki would count, but let's assume that digital information is a "thing" and that copies of it are still "of the United States". I'll further grant, for the sake of argument, that the US government has secret evidence that such a selling did take place (perhaps witnessed by a double agent working at the Kremlin, who could be called upon to give a witness statement at a trial held in secret), although I don't actually believe such selling occurred. My main point, though, was that I don't know of any court interpreting "steals" in a statute to mean "making an unauthorized copy of" or "leaking". You're right, though, that there are other laws that cover what Snowden did.