3 ms·

It seems to me that Twitter has upheld the user's privacy as best they could. There is only so far they can go in fighting a court order. Disregard for privacy

It seems to me that Twitter has upheld the user's privacy as best they could. There is only so far they can go in fighting a court order. Disregard for privacy would have the company turning the data in question over to authorities whenever they asked, without so much as a subpoena or court order. That doesn't sound like what has happened here. There is a legal process and like it or not, companies have to abide by it.

mtgx 14y ago
From what I've seen many think the judge is in the wrong to not even allow them to appeal. Why wouldn't the judge allow them to appeal? Makes no sense. http://gigaom.com/2012/09/12/the-facebook-addicted-judge-and-the-little-blue-bird/ http://gigaom.com/2012/09/12/the-facebook-addicted-judge-and...
- tptacek 14y ago
  Huh? How does a judge "not allow someone to appeal"? Twitter and the NYCLU are alleging that by holding Twitter in contempt for not honoring a court order, the judge is effectively infringing on their right to appeal. That's a sane argument, but it isn't the same thing as "not allowing them to appeal". Moreover, if there was a clear and urgent grounds for appeal, the appeals court could expedite the challenge. They haven't.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  This is a tangent but that article makes some weird arguments. What is the relevance that the judge is or was a "Facebook addict" to this case? Who cares that he used MySpace? It just seems like the author is attempting to make the judge look incompetent (which his use of hashtags in the ruling already has accomplished).
j_s 14y ago
> There is only so far they can go in fighting a court order. And for Twitter the line is drawn where cost switches from salaried company lawyer's time to real money directly toward the fight. Lipservice is cheap.
- quaunaut 14y ago
  Look, I'm no fan of Twitter(their practices lately have put me in a position of really hating the company), but this was an obvious case of "If we did bring it to court, we'd lose in a heartbeat." There's no reason to go further when you know you've already lost.

mtgx 14y ago

From what I've seen many think the judge is in the wrong to not even allow them to appeal. Why wouldn't the judge allow them to appeal? Makes no sense. http://gigaom.com/2012/09/12/the-facebook-addicted-judge-and-the-little-blue-bird/ http://gigaom.com/2012/09/12/the-facebook-addicted-judge-and...

tptacek 14y ago
Huh? How does a judge "not allow someone to appeal"? Twitter and the NYCLU are alleging that by holding Twitter in contempt for not honoring a court order, the judge is effectively infringing on their right to appeal. That's a sane argument, but it isn't the same thing as "not allowing them to appeal". Moreover, if there was a clear and urgent grounds for appeal, the appeals court could expedite the challenge. They haven't.
brown9-2 14y ago
This is a tangent but that article makes some weird arguments. What is the relevance that the judge is or was a "Facebook addict" to this case? Who cares that he used MySpace? It just seems like the author is attempting to make the judge look incompetent (which his use of hashtags in the ruling already has accomplished).

j_s 14y ago

> There is only so far they can go in fighting a court order. And for Twitter the line is drawn where cost switches from salaried company lawyer's time to real money directly toward the fight. Lipservice is cheap.

quaunaut 14y ago
Look, I'm no fan of Twitter(their practices lately have put me in a position of really hating the company), but this was an obvious case of "If we did bring it to court, we'd lose in a heartbeat." There's no reason to go further when you know you've already lost.