4 ms·

I am pleased how X/Twitter responded to this request. X/Twitter notified the person, sent a copy of the the subpoena, suggested legal representation, provided

I am pleased how X/Twitter responded to this request. X/Twitter notified the person, sent a copy of the the subpoena, suggested legal representation, provided recommendations, and defied the NYPD order of silence.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
They also could have done the complete opposite. Imagine your life being in the hands of Twitter.
- fuzztester 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - fuzztester 3y ago
    [flagged]
- fuzztester 3y ago
  [flagged]
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  I mean technically Twitter could have hired a hit man to come after you too. But they didn't. So I don't get the point
  - AI_beffr 3y ago
    why has nobody responded to this comment? the OP should yield to this comment
  - jjjjj55555 3y ago
    I'm afraid I don't get your point either. Hit man? The police overreached here, and the only thing that protected the victim was, of all things, Twitter. The police are supposed to be the good guys, but that obviously wasn't the case here. My comment was merely expressing surprise at the irony of the situation.
- gretch 3y ago
  Your life isn’t in the hands of twitter. It’s in the hands of NYPD, an institution designed to protect the public. While it’s certainly nice to have, we shouldn’t have an expectation that a private business to defend us from the corruption of the police. Like, that’s a much bigger problem that Twitter does or doesn’t do
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >It’s in the hands of NYPD, an institution designed to protect the public. It's not at all designed to protect the public; in the US the police don't even have a legal duty to protect the public. It's designed to enforce the law.
- sneak 3y ago
  Walgreens and CVS do the opposite with our medical data. They turn it over to police without even a warrant. https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/cvs-rite-aid-walgreens-hand-out-medical-records-to-cops-without-warrants/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/cvs-rite-aid-walgree... There should be consequences when large service providers fail to protect the rights of their customers. Walgreens/CVS are pretty close to a duopoly.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  Sounds like twitter acted more ethically than government department. So I guess I choose twitter.
avidiax 3y ago
I doubt this is the only request that NYPD sent in this matter. How did the other companies behave? The NYPD may have pulled this request to avoid scrutiny, but they probably didn't pull all the similar requests that succeeded. The problem is that it's impossible to generate standing in the court if you can't know about their requests.
throwaway2037 3y ago
> The notification included a copy of the subpoena, which warned X not to tell Clancy of its existence. "You are not to disclose or notify any customer or third party of the existence of this subpoena or that records were provided pursuant to this subpoena," the document read. > But X, following its own corporate policy, told Clancy anyway, and suggested he might want to get some legal representation to fight the subpoena, recommending the American Civil Liberties Union. I too was surprised by this! When the police dept wrote: "You are not to disclose or notify any customer..." is that a legal demand backed by law, or simply a request? I wish I knew more. I suspect it is a request, and that is why Twitter would ignore it. I am sure that Twitter has very conservative internal and external legal counsel to advise on these matters. Plus, there must be many, many of these requests from NYPD.
- input_sh 3y ago
  > Last Wednesday, Sachs wrote to the NYPD to challenge the administrative subpoena, which the NYPD had sent on its own authority, without any warrant or judicial approval. If the NYPD did not withdraw the subpoena, Sachs told the NYPD, Clancy would go to court with a motion to quash it. If it's not backed by a court order, it's a polite request. But even when it's a court demand, companies have several different counter-measurements. For example, they can tell the court "we can't provide data because we don't have that data" (Signal does this), or "we do have that data, but extracting it is resource-intensive, so the court should pay up" (some of the "Twitter Files" were precisely about this), or straight up ignoring non-American court orders (this is or at least was Reddit's general policy).
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    My question was about telling the end customer that you are sharing data due to subpoena.

jjjjj55555 3y ago

They also could have done the complete opposite. Imagine your life being in the hands of Twitter.

fuzztester 3y ago
[flagged]
- fuzztester 3y ago
  [flagged]
fuzztester 3y ago
[flagged]
DoesntMatter22 3y ago
I mean technically Twitter could have hired a hit man to come after you too. But they didn't. So I don't get the point
- AI_beffr 3y ago
  why has nobody responded to this comment? the OP should yield to this comment
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  I'm afraid I don't get your point either. Hit man? The police overreached here, and the only thing that protected the victim was, of all things, Twitter. The police are supposed to be the good guys, but that obviously wasn't the case here. My comment was merely expressing surprise at the irony of the situation.
gretch 3y ago
Your life isn’t in the hands of twitter. It’s in the hands of NYPD, an institution designed to protect the public. While it’s certainly nice to have, we shouldn’t have an expectation that a private business to defend us from the corruption of the police. Like, that’s a much bigger problem that Twitter does or doesn’t do
- logicchains 3y ago
  >It’s in the hands of NYPD, an institution designed to protect the public. It's not at all designed to protect the public; in the US the police don't even have a legal duty to protect the public. It's designed to enforce the law.
sneak 3y ago
Walgreens and CVS do the opposite with our medical data. They turn it over to police without even a warrant. https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/cvs-rite-aid-walgreens-hand-out-medical-records-to-cops-without-warrants/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/cvs-rite-aid-walgree... There should be consequences when large service providers fail to protect the rights of their customers. Walgreens/CVS are pretty close to a duopoly.
LAC-Tech 3y ago
Sounds like twitter acted more ethically than government department. So I guess I choose twitter.

avidiax 3y ago

I doubt this is the only request that NYPD sent in this matter. How did the other companies behave? The NYPD may have pulled this request to avoid scrutiny, but they probably didn't pull all the similar requests that succeeded. The problem is that it's impossible to generate standing in the court if you can't know about their requests.

throwaway2037 3y ago

> The notification included a copy of the subpoena, which warned X not to tell Clancy of its existence. "You are not to disclose or notify any customer or third party of the existence of this subpoena or that records were provided pursuant to this subpoena," the document read. > But X, following its own corporate policy, told Clancy anyway, and suggested he might want to get some legal representation to fight the subpoena, recommending the American Civil Liberties Union. I too was surprised by this! When the police dept wrote: "You are not to disclose or notify any customer..." is that a legal demand backed by law, or simply a request? I wish I knew more. I suspect it is a request, and that is why Twitter would ignore it. I am sure that Twitter has very conservative internal and external legal counsel to advise on these matters. Plus, there must be many, many of these requests from NYPD.

input_sh 3y ago
> Last Wednesday, Sachs wrote to the NYPD to challenge the administrative subpoena, which the NYPD had sent on its own authority, without any warrant or judicial approval. If the NYPD did not withdraw the subpoena, Sachs told the NYPD, Clancy would go to court with a motion to quash it. If it's not backed by a court order, it's a polite request. But even when it's a court demand, companies have several different counter-measurements. For example, they can tell the court "we can't provide data because we don't have that data" (Signal does this), or "we do have that data, but extracting it is resource-intensive, so the court should pay up" (some of the "Twitter Files" were precisely about this), or straight up ignoring non-American court orders (this is or at least was Reddit's general policy).
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  My question was about telling the end customer that you are sharing data due to subpoena.