3 ms·

Carter Ruck were trying to suppress anyone knowing about the report, to such an extent that they tried to stop the Guardian reporting on a parliamentary questio

by tarkin2 17y ago

Carter Ruck were trying to suppress anyone knowing about the report, to such an extent that they tried to stop the Guardian reporting on a parliamentary question that spoke about it. Twitter, fueled from the outrage in regard to gagging the Guardian, started to link to that report extensively. The longer Carter Ruck decided to persue this course of action, the more Twitter would link to the report. Therefore, it was wise for Carter Ruck to remove Twitter's fuel. It was wise to stop attempting to gag the Guardian. (Attempting to sue all those on Twitter would be unfeasible, and suing Twitter itself would add even more fuel to the fire) I have no proof this is what Carter Ruck thought. But it's certainly a logical and sensible course of action for Carter Ruck, which makes it likely.

axod 17y ago
Interesting theory, but come on. I doubt they know what twitter is.
- tarkin2 17y ago
  Carter Ruck are a leading British law firm. Their lawyers probably read newspapers. Social media sites are very hot news in the UK, and Twitter is probably the second most famous after Facebook, which is ridiculously famous. Twitter isn't the domain of those who have protracted conversations on social news sites anymore.
- petewarden 17y ago
  I'm not so sure about Twitter's specific role, but the easy availability of online stories does make a massive difference. If you want to see a much more successful attempt to gag the British press, check out the Spycatcher nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher That was 1987, and the main difference was the lack of easy access to foreign controlled media from within the UK made it possible to prevent people reading anything about the allegations in the book. This latest attempt shows that's no longer possible.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    HN readers might find that interesting, not only because of the legal ramifications but because SpyCatcher detailed much (not all) of the UK security services' use of public key cryptography, around the same time that PGP was starting to gain traction in the US and the US government attempted to label the algorithm as a 'munition'. Lovers of cloak-and-dagger spycraft were rather disappointed in the book but it's interesting, if dated, for anyone with an interest in strong crypto.

by tarkin2 17y ago

axod 17y ago

Interesting theory, but come on. I doubt they know what twitter is.

tarkin2 17y ago
Carter Ruck are a leading British law firm. Their lawyers probably read newspapers. Social media sites are very hot news in the UK, and Twitter is probably the second most famous after Facebook, which is ridiculously famous. Twitter isn't the domain of those who have protracted conversations on social news sites anymore.
petewarden 17y ago
I'm not so sure about Twitter's specific role, but the easy availability of online stories does make a massive difference. If you want to see a much more successful attempt to gag the British press, check out the Spycatcher nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher That was 1987, and the main difference was the lack of easy access to foreign controlled media from within the UK made it possible to prevent people reading anything about the allegations in the book. This latest attempt shows that's no longer possible.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  HN readers might find that interesting, not only because of the legal ramifications but because SpyCatcher detailed much (not all) of the UK security services' use of public key cryptography, around the same time that PGP was starting to gain traction in the US and the US government attempted to label the algorithm as a 'munition'. Lovers of cloak-and-dagger spycraft were rather disappointed in the book but it's interesting, if dated, for anyone with an interest in strong crypto.