4 ms·

BREAKING: tech companies usually cooperate with law enforcement and government when requested. Data shows they are more than 100 times more likely to continue t

BREAKING: tech companies usually cooperate with law enforcement and government when requested. Data shows they are more than 100 times more likely to continue to respond to requests when paid.

potatototoo99 4y ago
I think the important thing here is the lack of judicial oversight. There used to be needed a court order to request things from companies, so someone would actually weight in the evidence and legality of it. Now it's just someone from a secret agency shutting down news stories about laptops because it makes one political candidate look bad.
- themagician 4y ago
  Requests are different from demands. It’s not like the FBI tells Twitter to take something down under threat of violence. They say just ask and Twitter agrees, sometimes, because they are on the same page.
  - ggreer 4y ago
    If the FBI requests something, and you ignore or refuse them, they will find a way to make your life unpleasant. Remember, this organization has a long history of human rights abuses and illegal actions. They even tried to blackmail MLK.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter
- fl0wenol 4y ago
  While I agree with the premise of your statement, remember that: 1) A court order is only required for a subpoena to request information that the service provider isn't already voluntarily providing. It has been common pratice for decades where telecoms and now social media works together with federal entities outside of a legal action. And this was not limited to trap/trace. 2) It's never so specific to be about protecting an individual candidate. It's about the foreign interference, and if that interference backs a specific candidate and attacks their rivals, then it will look like they're trying to protect the rivals. But at the end of the day it they have to trace it back to the foreign influence campaign if they're going to do anything with it. If Twitter jumps the gun and suspends or bans someone they're trying to work backwards from before having evidence its unfortunate but I blame that on Twitter not having stricter standards about such a partnership.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  There has never been need to have judicial oversight when making a request, the FBI can send a request to Twitter just the same as they can ask you to come in for an interview. You're free to refuse.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    Ye no. I would certainly worry alot more if FBI sent me an angry letter compared to say Pizza Hut? You always have an implied threat when a government agency is involved.
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      You can see the letters. They weren’t angry.
      - rightbyte 4y ago
        I meant it as a figure of speech. Could aswell be the county water utility board or whatever as the FBI. You treat these guys differently. That was my point.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      Sure, but you also don't have a team of lawyers who know how to deal with the government. Twitter does (or, well, did).
kyrra 4y ago
Companies should cooperate when compelled so by law, not just cause. This gets into the space where many here knock Chinese companies as they are regularly directed partially by the CCP. The real question is, when does laws that apply only to the government, like the first amendment, start applying to private companies when the private companies are being directed by the government?
- acdha 4y ago
  Cooperation here means that they were enforcing their existing terms of service. That’s very different from legal compulsion.
  - transcriptase 4y ago
    Why are 3 letter agencies paying Twitter to moderate their own site?
    - acdha 4y ago
      They aren’t moderating the site. The FBI was reporting things they felt were under the purview of their election security mandate but they weren’t generally pursuing TOS violations. If you’re referring to the administrative costs, those were a separate issue where U.S. law allows payment for the cost of complying with court ordered 2703(d) requests: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying... Nothing in these dumps suggests that those requests are being abused.
- themagician 4y ago
  Companies should cooperate when they want to, and tell the government to !@#$ off when they don’t want to. Twitter, for me, is a great example of free speech. The government asks them to do things apparently all the time. Sometimes they do it, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they even have a discussion about it internally. That is INCREDIBLE. Ultimately, Twitter became the primary communications vehicle of the President of the United States. They !@#$ing ban him. Power move. I’m sure many demands were made by all sorts of agencies to reinstate Trump’s account and they said, “No. !$@# off.” You want to talk about China and the CCP? Well, here’s a concrete example of something that, had it happened in China with Weibo, you know would have gotten dozens of people “disappeared”. But Twitter did it with zero recourse from the government. As the kids say these day, “Based.” Greatest example of free speech in action my life time.

BREAKING: tech companies usually cooperate with law enforcement and government when requested. Data shows they are more than 100 times more likely to continue to respond to requests when paid.

potatototoo99 4y ago

I think the important thing here is the lack of judicial oversight. There used to be needed a court order to request things from companies, so someone would actually weight in the evidence and legality of it. Now it's just someone from a secret agency shutting down news stories about laptops because it makes one political candidate look bad.

themagician 4y ago
Requests are different from demands. It’s not like the FBI tells Twitter to take something down under threat of violence. They say just ask and Twitter agrees, sometimes, because they are on the same page.
- ggreer 4y ago
  If the FBI requests something, and you ignore or refuse them, they will find a way to make your life unpleasant. Remember, this organization has a long history of human rights abuses and illegal actions. They even tried to blackmail MLK.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter
fl0wenol 4y ago
While I agree with the premise of your statement, remember that: 1) A court order is only required for a subpoena to request information that the service provider isn't already voluntarily providing. It has been common pratice for decades where telecoms and now social media works together with federal entities outside of a legal action. And this was not limited to trap/trace. 2) It's never so specific to be about protecting an individual candidate. It's about the foreign interference, and if that interference backs a specific candidate and attacks their rivals, then it will look like they're trying to protect the rivals. But at the end of the day it they have to trace it back to the foreign influence campaign if they're going to do anything with it. If Twitter jumps the gun and suspends or bans someone they're trying to work backwards from before having evidence its unfortunate but I blame that on Twitter not having stricter standards about such a partnership.
joshuamorton 4y ago
There has never been need to have judicial oversight when making a request, the FBI can send a request to Twitter just the same as they can ask you to come in for an interview. You're free to refuse.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  Ye no. I would certainly worry alot more if FBI sent me an angry letter compared to say Pizza Hut? You always have an implied threat when a government agency is involved.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    You can see the letters. They weren’t angry.
    - rightbyte 4y ago
      I meant it as a figure of speech. Could aswell be the county water utility board or whatever as the FBI. You treat these guys differently. That was my point.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    Sure, but you also don't have a team of lawyers who know how to deal with the government. Twitter does (or, well, did).

kyrra 4y ago

Companies should cooperate when compelled so by law, not just cause. This gets into the space where many here knock Chinese companies as they are regularly directed partially by the CCP. The real question is, when does laws that apply only to the government, like the first amendment, start applying to private companies when the private companies are being directed by the government?

acdha 4y ago
Cooperation here means that they were enforcing their existing terms of service. That’s very different from legal compulsion.
- transcriptase 4y ago
  Why are 3 letter agencies paying Twitter to moderate their own site?
  - acdha 4y ago
    They aren’t moderating the site. The FBI was reporting things they felt were under the purview of their election security mandate but they weren’t generally pursuing TOS violations. If you’re referring to the administrative costs, those were a separate issue where U.S. law allows payment for the cost of complying with court ordered 2703(d) requests: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying... Nothing in these dumps suggests that those requests are being abused.
themagician 4y ago
Companies should cooperate when they want to, and tell the government to !@#$ off when they don’t want to. Twitter, for me, is a great example of free speech. The government asks them to do things apparently all the time. Sometimes they do it, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they even have a discussion about it internally. That is INCREDIBLE. Ultimately, Twitter became the primary communications vehicle of the President of the United States. They !@#$ing ban him. Power move. I’m sure many demands were made by all sorts of agencies to reinstate Trump’s account and they said, “No. !$@# off.” You want to talk about China and the CCP? Well, here’s a concrete example of something that, had it happened in China with Weibo, you know would have gotten dozens of people “disappeared”. But Twitter did it with zero recourse from the government. As the kids say these day, “Based.” Greatest example of free speech in action my life time.