Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Twitter Fights US Court For WikiLeaks Details

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the we're-not-gonna-take-it dept.

Facebook 268

An anonymous reader writes "Micro-blogging site Twitter is opposing an order from a US court to reveal the account details of supporters of WikiLeaks. Twitter has called on Facebook and Google to reveal whether they also received similar court orders. As part of the US government's investigation into WikiLeaks, a court ordered Twitter, in mid-December, to give details of accounts owned by supporters of the whistle-blower site. Twitter has protested against the subpoena and informed the individuals whose account information has been requested, while raising the possibility that other social networking players have received similar orders."

cancel ×

268 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Another salvo in the war (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818490)

Most don't realize it, but this whole Wikileaks thing is the beginning of World War III. It is just very weird, very slow, and very online.

Re:Another salvo in the war (2)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818520)

Please elaborate?

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818556)

With war you mean, screaming?
And with world, you mean Fox News?

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818570)

Most people still don't realize it yet, but this whole Wikileaks thing and its fall out actually are the beginning of what will be one day known as World War III. It is just very very weird, very very slow, and very very online.

Happy now?

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818628)

I think he's asking you to elaborate on the exact chain of events that would lead from this incident to WW3.

Re:Another salvo in the war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818806)

I think you missed the joke.

Or better let me elaborate on that...: I think you completely missed the joke.

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818916)

Wikileaks will release a document describing Barack Obama's affair with Dinnerjacket's wife. The U.S. erupts in civil war, and soon after world war after the other countries sense its weakness. Plague soon spreads across the world, and, believing it to be hostile, the countries of Earth destroyed themselves in nuclear retaliation.

Thus did humans move downwards and become known in later millennia as dwarves. Nuclear weapons became magma cannons, and history repeated itself in bitter cruelty. Only the sparkling vampires survived.

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819204)

So in short, the book Metro 2033 will become reality.

No, this IS the war (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818960)

No, it IS the war. It just isn't about militaries fighting it out on a battlefield; it is about governments and free citizens fighting over the rights of man.

Re:Another salvo in the war (2)

RipleySnot (1973476) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818686)

Most people still don't realize it yet, but this whole Wikileaks thing and its fall out actually are the beginning of what will be one day known as THE WIKILEAKS THING. It is just very very weird, very very slow, and very very online. Happy now? There, fixed that for ya..

Re:Another salvo in the war (3, Interesting)

mrzaph0d (25646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818932)

Russian Federation suffers worst information harvest in 55 years... Internet access and wireless riots in Poland. Blackwater invades... Cuba and Nicaragua reach registered ISP customer goals of 500,000. El Salvador and Honduras datacenters fall... Greens Party gains control of German Communication Infrastructure. Demands withdrawal of German references from Wikileaks... Mexico plunged into digital revolution... NATO dissolves. United States stands alone.

Re:Another salvo in the war (5, Insightful)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818620)

The only country at war over the cables will be the USA — and it will not over the leaked cables, but over how they have dealt with the whole matter. The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.

Re:Another salvo in the war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818662)

Not possible! Bareback Obama went to Europe and apologized! He bowed to the China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and even the Burger King! He has brought peace and prosperity and restored the honor. You must be some sort of right wing extremist!

Re:Another salvo in the war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818692)

...and even the Burger King!

While on the other hand, the State Department was working overtime trying to steal the Colonel's secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices.

Damn you, United States! Is nothing sacred??

Re:Another salvo in the war (3, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818848)

There is much more truth to yours and your parent's comments than you realize.

It's called soft power. Quoth an article from the October 24th issue of The Economist, which emphasizes the relationship between America and China, and happens to be the best of my bathroom reading material:

Culture Wars
On the soft-power side, China is slowly learning...Culture, said [Chinese leader] Mr. Hu, was of growing significance in the "competition of overall national strength." A cursory glance at the streets and shops of China suggests what Mr. Hu may have had in mind: the all=pervasiveness of American brands and cultural products, from Coca-Cola to (pirated) boxed sets of a comedy series, "Friends", from Kentucky Fried Chicken to Starbucks. America's intellectual drawing power is evident in the queues of students waiting for visas at the American embassy: in the 2007-2008 academic year more than 81,000 Chinese were studying in American colleges...

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818958)

And it wasn't the fact that we don't throw our citizens in jail for saying that the President sucks? Or that we extend that courtesy to foreign nationals staying with us?

Re:Another salvo in the war (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819038)

Chinese natives who live in America and discover that they enjoy being able to enjoy our culture and criticize their own government without being thrown in jail have also experienced our soft power, with more spectacular results.

But given the political direction of America, things may soon become counterproductive.

Re:Another salvo in the war (2)

OnlineAlias (828288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819356)

Isn't that exactly what the subpoenas are about? Throwing people in jail for criticizing the government? American exceptionalism is starting to sting a little.

Re:Another salvo in the war (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819558)

The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.

Starting?

The US government has been disgracing itself for decades.

-jcr

Re:Another salvo in the war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818666)

Starting?

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

RipleySnot (1973476) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818754)

What does a 15 year old boy do when his parents catch him masturbating. Try to cover it up, defend himself? Blame the parents, not his hormones?

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

d6 (1944790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819390)

>> The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.

starting?

Re:Another salvo in the war (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819550)

starting to?

So... (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818494)

What makes you a "supporter" ?

Re:So... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818500)

Sucking Julian's cock is a good start.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818514)

Well, if you're a teabagging Palinista, unless you're pounding down Assange's door with a torch and pitchfork ready to behead him, you're a "supporter".

Re:So... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818568)

That makes absolutely no fucking sense [thefirstpost.co.uk] , whatsoever.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818674)

That makes absolutely no fucking sense [thefirstpost.co.uk] , whatsoever.

Reread what AC said, I think you hit it too quickly.

Well, if you're a teabagging Palinista, unless you're pounding down Assange's door with a torch and pitchfork ready to behead him, you're a "supporter".

AC was saying that "if you are Palin", inherently saying that if you are of the "palinite" mindset, an individual would be by default a WL supporter if said individuals are not donning torch and pitchfork (which is actually in alignment with your link you posted as a counter point), per the "palinite" mindset of "If you are not 100% choking the red-white-and-blue dick, then you are a terrorist."

Re:So... (4, Informative)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818676)

What makes you a "supporter" ?

Quite a bit, it appears. I imagine that Twitter would have thousands of tweetists who would self-identify as Wikileaks supporters. But the request is only for a handful of accounts directly related in some fashion to Wikileaks.

Based on what information they're requesting and the fact that they're not requesting that accounts be shut down or censored, it appears to me that this is about simply being able to prove that certain people made certain tweets (the contents thereof they are seeking to enter into evidence)..

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819254)

How else are you supposed to silence dissenting voices, if you can't identify them?

Fishing expedition (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819556)

I agree -- this could well be the start of a fishing expedition.

Re:So... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818680)

Anyone who has followed them on Twitter had their Direct Messages subpoena'd

Re:So... (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818700)

I dunno, what makes you a 'terrorist'?

Re:So... (5, Informative)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818738)

What makes you a "supporter" ?

Page 4 of the subpoena covers it, but for the TL;DR crowd, you are a supporter if, FTA:

Among those targeted are WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Dutch hacker Rop Gonggrijp (whose name is misspelled in the subpoena) and Bradley Manning, the US Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking documents to WikiLeaks. Also named in the subpoena are computer programmer Jacob Appelbaum (identified by his Twitter username, ioerror) and former WikiLeaks volunteer and current Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jónsdóttir (left), who wrote the following in a tweet: “just got this: Twitter has received legal process requesting information regarding your Twitter account in (relation to wikileaks).”

They are going for high-profile participants who actually are suspected in playing an active role in the leaks.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819218)

Oh, that makes it OK then.

If I could be bothered logging in my sig would say

- if only

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819262)

So, they certainly must be going after the NYT and the WSJ, eh?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818794)

The list is [salon.com] :

customer or subscriber account information for each account registered to or associated with Wikileaks; rop_g; ioerror; birgittaj; Julian Assange; Bradley Manning; Rop Gongrijp; Birgitta Jonsdottir.

I don't see any "Black Parrot" there, although I do see two ass hats on the list.

It looks like you're probably safe.

Re:So... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819454)

you spelled "assets" wrong.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818876)

According to Wikileaks themselves (Slashdot breaks cut & paste in Chromium, so no link):

WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA [is.gd] [pdf of subpoena].

Which would include people like me.

Re:So... (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818978)

That's a very interesting read of the subpoena. I would even suggest it was a sensationalist interpretation.

Re:So... (2)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819044)

I would agree. Even though I vehemently disagree with what the US Govt. is doing here, and even though I am a follower of @wikileaks myself on Twitter (merely for the same reasons as I follow news sites and the like: some of the stuff is interesting, though I have no strong personal opinion either way about Wikileaks), I struggle to see how the subpoena could be interpreted that way.

Besides, if the subpoena covered every random dude that's clicked on 'follow', i.e. people that haven't communicated directly with Wikileaks but merely received some headlines from them in a one way, RSS-feed-like manner, you'd think they would be drowned in information. 600,000+ Twitter accounts is a lot of information to sort through...

Imagine the money wasted! (3, Informative)

tkprit (8581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819500)

I want Twitter to fight (and not just to warn account users, but to keep the data out of the govt's hands) for the principle of the matter; and I'm not strongly pro- or anti-WikiLeaks (I follow for pragmatic reasons, heh); but it would make my skin crawl if the govt wanted infos on all followers. The money wasted; the police state implications — good heavens, I'd make a time machine and go back in time and trip up revere's horse so the british could come.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818992)

Twitter has said they would notify users if their info is being requested by a government before it is turned over. And that appears to have happened.

Did 637,000 Twitter users receive this notification? I doubt it. Did you receive one?

And BTW, there is no section 2. B. There is a B. 2., and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with you (unless perhaps you're in e-mail communications with them via Twitter). But B. 1. possibly could be construed to mean that visitors IP addresses provided. But somehow I doubt the Feds care.

Re:So... (1)

ryan420 (221788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819606)

They may be referring to "Attachment B", which is quoted several times in comments below. I do agree though that subpoenaed users should expect notification based on Twitter's statements.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819122)

Love it! they want it sent via CD-ROM :) maybe they want it sent with a caddy as well.

They also said fax is fine too. If I were Twitter i'd send them it via fax. One L-E-T-T-E-R per page at a T-I-M-E give those lousy ass lawyers some real work to do for a change.

I also see a personal email address, I can see someone taking that email address and signing old Tracey up to a few unfriendly mailing lists (not me but someone will do it).

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818940)

What makes you a "supporter" ?

Only a dirty Commie would ask a question like that. Who are your friends?
- Joe McCarthy

Facebook (3, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818540)

I imagine the millons of accounts that they will have to give details if they count everyone that pressed the "I Like" button on websites/news/etc that talked about Wikileaks.

one or the other (1)

hsmyers (142611) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818554)

I'm sure as hell not a lawyer but I don't think it can be both an 'order' and a subpoena--- the type 'd' issued was part of an order I think...

Ok, some clarification. (5, Informative)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818590)

I know we are all quick to jump to the conclusion that 'oh noez teh gubment wants internet ppls infos' as the summary would suggest, but the supeona is asking for information of people who specifically were believed to have aided in the facilitation of leaking the actual documents. They aren't immediately just going after random Joe for saying "I like what those guys do". Now, whether or not Joe is on some CIA black-list now, along with half of us here, well that would be speculation and different story. (Unless somebody can cite otherwise).

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818672)

CIA/NSA isn't going to waste harddrive space recording A. Joe Dotter's flaming posts about the government.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818688)

CIA/NSA isn't going to waste harddrive space recording A. Joe Dotter's flaming posts about the government.

Exactly, those gigabytes of child porn for 'evidence archive purposes' don't come free, especially at contractor prices. $800 a GB for archiving hand-drawn lolicon takes precedence. To the cloud!

Re:Ok, some clarification. (3, Funny)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818814)

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/05/report-pentagon-didnt-fully-investigate-child-porn-allegations/ [aolnews.com]
"The investigators left 1,700 names on the list unchecked, defense officials have told Grassley."
They dont waste time looking.
As for this, welcome to the honeypot. Everybody who wanted to help "freedoms" is now on a list.
Did the other web 2.0 sites roll over like the CC and online retailers?
If so, will they go down the lists, name by name?

Re:Ok, some clarification. (2)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818950)

Hard drive space is cheap. Text takes up little space. And they have one hell of a budget.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818682)

I know we are all quick to jump to the conclusion that 'oh noez teh gubment wants internet ppls infos'

Well, they do, but I see what you're trying to say. However, you also just said, emphasis mine,

They aren't immediately just going after random Joe for saying "I like what those guys do".

Aren't immediately going after them? So you do know, then. The effect is to make the public at large believe that their info may be one day be subpoena'd for posting pro-Wikileaks(or any other kind of "subversive" speech) words online. There's nothing the feds can find on Twitter that they don't already know about those key players.

Also, for the first time in my life, I think I'm kinda respecting Twitter.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818768)

Oh most definitely, I personally believe its only a matter of time before your average support is considered 'anti-American' and should be penalized for their thoughts. Oh wait, that is actually already happening.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819504)

I broke my condom on wikileaks. There, now maybe they'll come after me instead of the high-value targets.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (4, Insightful)

rilister (316428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818716)

Yeah, that's great. It's just the 'bad people' that they're after: including an Icelandic MP. Considering this whole 'grand jury' process is going on in secret, why should we be confident that there's a due process behind deciding whose IP addresses are being fished out of Twitter?

I mean, call me an ass when I'm proved wrong, but the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side. They don't 'conspire,' they just receive the stuff and publish it. It's pretty open what they do and how. They're just desperate to pin a crime to pin a crime on Julian and his buddies, because that Espionage Act law is looking like weak beer.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819052)

None of the "bad people" are being arrested or charged with anything. They're just gathering info for the Manning case - using proper judicial channels, so far.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819494)

that being the case, they wont mind when twitter use proper judicial channels to say "no, we don't think we need to give you that information".

witch hunt (3, Interesting)

tkprit (8581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819526)

Feels like a witch hunt to me. /just saying.

Plus, there's overkill — dont' they have all they need to convict manning?

Re:Ok, some clarification. (4, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819256)

Considering this whole 'grand jury' process is going on in secret

Are you putting 'grand jury' in quotes because you don't think there is such a thing, or because you think it actually has a different name? A grand jury is actually called a grand jury, and there actually is such a thing. And the deliberations are secret because many times the grand jury actually decides NOT to indict someone, and this way the initial evidence or prosecutorial arguments put forth while trying to get an indictment aren't spread all over the place. Which is nice, if it turns out the grand jury doesn't find it even worth indicting you, right?

why should we be confident that there's a due process behind deciding whose IP addresses are being fished out of Twitter?

Because the validity of the evidence (and the means by which it was collected) will be evaluated during a trial and argued over by everyone involved ... including by at least one appeals court, depending on how things turn out. A subpoena comes from a judge, not from a cop or prosecutor.

the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side

The implication, by the "hacker" that Manning was chatting with, is that Wikileaks may have worked directly with Manning to set up a place for him to dump the stolen documents. Essentially, helping him to steal them. The communcations surrounding the act of moving those quarter million stolen documents off of government systems and onto Assange's systems are what are in question here. If it turns out that there was coordination between them, that does indeed make a big difference.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

rilister (316428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819480)

Thanks for FTFM. The quotes around 'grand jury' were, I guess, me admitting that I don't know what one is. It still seems like a broad fishing expedition in the hope of finding a charge to hang on Wikileaks, but I guess that's justified if they find that a real crime was committed by them.

nb. you only get to call me an ass when it's shown that Wikileaks 'conspired' with Manning, which would be stupid on their part. I'm betting they weren't that dumb, since that seems to have been anticipated in the way they configured the whole operation.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819560)

Yes, that's how they set things up, but the thing that's being investigated here is that this was such a huge dump (250,000+ files) that some special accommodation needed to be given. And that this was worked out in advance. And that makes a big, difference. So, we'll see.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819514)

providing a place that stolen things could be placed = complicity?

brilliant! i'll get the St Kilda council arrested for providing a parking spot for a thief to dump my car!

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819548)

providing a place that stolen things could be placed = complicity?

Providing a special place, on request, in order to help a specific person that you know to be stealing classified documents, for storage during the act of stealing them? Yes, complicity. That's the whole point here ... that the guy Manning was blabbing to has said that Wikileaks did just that: work with Manning to facilitiate the theft. The point of the investigation (or, this part of it) is to see if that's true.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819544)

Which is nice, if it turns out the grand jury doesn't find it even worth indicting you, right?

Completely fucking wrong. I want to know when government officials are considering that I am worth investigating.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819362)

the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side. They don't 'conspire,' they just receive the stuff and publish it.

Actually Wikileaks is a Soapbox for Julian Assange to push his anti-american agenda. Unfortunately Wikileaks is far from being just a drop-box.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819462)

Lets see if I can understand Lib-Simp thinking on this;

1- it is okay for Asange et.al. to maintain secrecy about their operations, but is not okay for the USA to maintain official secrecy to protect ourselves and supporters.
2- It is Okay for the leakers cabal to steal and use (for their own financial gain, and to the likely physical danger of others)) US information/property,
        but is not okay for the US to pursue how this was facilitated in a court of law.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (3, Interesting)

ryan420 (221788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818730)

I'd agree were it not for the following http://twitter.com/wikileaks [twitter.com] post yesterday: "WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA [is.gd] " [redirect to PDF of the subpoena hosted on salon.com].

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818756)

Point taken. I'll take that as proof otherwise. Thanks!

Re:Ok, some clarification. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818824)

In and of itself, that post is misleading, at least as far as I can tell. I've read through the subpoena several times, and I see NOTHING about a request for information on supporters or followers of WikiLeaks, except for the few individuals mentioned explicitly. I think the idea is coming from Attachment A Item 1, "subscriber names", but that seems to be referring to the names on the accounts listed in the subpoena, not WL followers/supporters.
 
Am I missing something, or is this being overblown a bit?

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818850)

That was my first thought, it makes good page-clicks either way.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818874)

And FWIW, if by "Section 2. B" they are referring to Attachment B, here is what is contained in Attachment B:

1. records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account, including the date, 1. time, length, and method of connections, data transfer volume, user name, and source and destination Internet Protocol address(es);

2. non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s), such as the source nd destination email addresses and IP addresses.

3. correspondence and notes of records related to the account(s).

Again, I see nothing that could be used on supporters or followers, possibly excepting those who engaged in direct contact with the WL account or the others listed in the subpoena.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819120)

I think that WL is twisting it thus:

- Imagine that Twitter is a 'push' medium. A tweet from the WL account could arguably then be classified as a communication ~from~ the account, to other users, who have (by 'following') agreed to receive that communication.

- Then imagine that these pushed messages constituted a 'connection made to ~or from~ the account'.

- You then could argue under subsection 1 above that Twitter would need to reveal the 'destination usernames/IP addresses'.

But it's a very, very long bow to draw. Firstly, Twitter doesn't work that way. Secondly, the list of following usernames isn't private and the feds could find that out simply by going to WL's Twitter page themselves and clicking 'followers'. And thirdly I doubt Twitter even has the IP addresses of every single followers login, every time that they received each individual tweet. I mean, personally I access Twitter from half a dozen IPs, some of which could never identify me personally anyway. What's more I'm usually logged in from multiple places at once (so it's not like a tweet goes 'to' any particular IP ... it just appears on whatever devices I have logged in at the time).

So I think you're right - the subpoena doesn't cover followers. Which would make sense as 99% of those followers are just random dudes that saw something retweeted by a news site or blog, and just thought 'meh, why not follow WL and hear this directly from the source'. They aren't 'useful' to the investigation in any way.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

ryan420 (221788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819586)

Well, let's take a closer look at this sentence from Attachment B:

1. records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account, including the date, 1. time, length, and method of connections, data transfer volume, user name, and source and destination Internet Protocol address(es);

Assuming the "Account" refers to the named twitter users like Wikileaks, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the subpoena could be interpreted as requesting all information regarding all connections made to these accounts. This would most certainly include their 600,000+ followers, and could even include casual visitors to twitter.com/wikileaks, if Twitter keeps connection logs of this sort including the IP addresses.

Honestly, it's not clear cut. This overarching language seems vague enough that it will get argued by lawyers on both sides.

Re:Ok, some clarification. (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818790)

Just to be clear, in case CIA is listening:

oldhack is for the children. The children. For.

No, no, no. Not in that way.

Thank you.

wikileaks (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818630)

once the information is leaked to someone else, the information's dissemination is protected speech. The person who originally leaked the information may however, be liable for breaking the NDA they agreed to in order to gain access to said classified information. But considering that our government freaks out if you even say four letter words on tv, wikileaks is screwed.

"Opposing"? Where does it say that? (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818644)

TFA says nothing about how Twitter is supposedly "opposing" the court order, other than "protesting" and asking for permission from the court to notify the affected parties.

I see nothing in there to indicate that Twitter is forming any kind of legal opposition to the order. I, for one, would be happy to see that they had. Government overreach should be resisted every time.

Yes, I believe this is "overreach", considering that nobody in the list except Bradley Manning has been accused of any crimes, and Manning himself hasn't even been charged.

Re:"Opposing"? Where does it say that? (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819102)

Yes, I believe this is "overreach", considering that nobody in the list except Bradley Manning has been accused of any crimes, and Manning himself hasn't even been charged.

At least according to Wikipedia, Manning has been "charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system in connection with the leaking of a video of a helicopter attack in Iraq in 2007," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source and disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States", on July 5.

With that in mind, it seems that obtaining information about those people who were likely involved in the crime is perfectly legitimate.

Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (4, Insightful)

Exclamation mark! (1961328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818718)

Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (3, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818770)

We were never the 'good guys' we were always the slightly better than the rest guys.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (4, Insightful)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818956)

...and that's when it started to go horribly wrong - when you started to think you were better than others.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (2)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819230)

Don't be a fool. The Americans have done plenty of evil, evil things. I'd still rather have been an American than Soviet, or Chinese citizen when I was growing up. Hell, add in pretty much any Central American, Southeast Asian, or African nation as well.

And this comes from someone who lives in America's hat with all the anti-American baggage that implies.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (0)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819308)

...and that's when it started to go horribly wrong - when you started to think you were better than others.

No, that's when we founded the country.

To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

So, it's a start, and it's one step above most of the world.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819568)

I suppose we should support the slavery of women, by leaving afghanistant. I suppose we should support genocide, by leaving Dalmatia. I suppose we should support the invasion of Taiwan, by leaving Japan.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818786)

This [wordpress.com] . When these types get elected office.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818792)

Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?

When they relized there was more money to be made the other way. Same for just about every other country. We all like to be "nice" and "good" until we do it for long enough to work out that there is a limit to what can be done wearing those clothes. At some point it becomes too easy to pop on another outfit to keep the profits and power rising at the same percentages.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818800)

Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?

When we found out someone already lived here.

Time line (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34818858)

It when down hill after President Eisenhower left office.

The slide down hill hit the after burners when Ronald Regan got into office.

We went ballistic with W.

Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818880)

One would like to say with the news about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip [wikipedia.org] that the US got infected.
But the good/top families did start in very evil ways.

In other news (4, Funny)

jsse (254124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34818942)

Hundreds of twitter users are charged with some creative sex crime.

Re:In other news (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819140)

Hundreds of twitter users are charged with some creative sex crime.
Not wearing a condom while tweeting? Judging by some tweets.....

Twitter (4, Insightful)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819030)

I have new found respect for Twitter.

Re:Twitter (0)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819358)

I have new found respect for Twitter.

You must have picked up the respect for them I lost. =/ Please just mail it to me when they grow up... thanks!

Fuck them and This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819144)

Fuck them and This

Redundant question (1)

Petbe (1790948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819182)

I am not sure why Twitter is seeking out other social networks to see whether they have been contacted or not. I know for at least Facebook, they have worked and aided the FBI and other organizations in the past to catch or aid in the capture of criminals. For myself at least, it makes sense. But Twitter, I do not get why they sought out twitter. I mean, in terms of information, I can't imagine criminalizing 'tweets' have been sent. Facebook maybe, but not twitter. It is as if either the government is simply grasping for straws, trying to make themselves seem like they can do what they want, or simply, they have lost their minds. Either way, be careful of what you 'tweet'!!! They government is watching you!

Re:Redundant question (2)

RipleySnot (1973476) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819354)

I guess a tweet can become a festering stabwound to some... The tweet is mightier than the sword?

McCarthy is laughing in his grave (2)

ayelvington (718605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819458)

This reminds me of the McCarthy witch hunts, and I'm praying that someone will stand up and say so LOUDLY! Going after the Twitter traffic is only intimidation and not going to find anything substantial. Someone please tell the Attorney General to pack sand on this one! I'm saddened that the probable leak violated the trust placed in him when he was given a security clearance (and access), but I also empathize that he acted out of conscience. Pentagon Papers, part 2.

Whats with the FaceBook Logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819588)

Surely you ought to use the Twitter Logo instead .. FaceBook's logo is kind of a trademark and not a generic social media icon to be used as you have.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?