Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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's Lawyers Seek To Block WikiLeaks Data Handover

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the court-docs-limited-to-one-hundred-forty-characters dept.

Privacy 81

jhernik writes "Lawyers on Friday asked a judge to overturn a ruling from earlier this month, forcing Twitter to hand over account details to the Department of Justice, in a case related to the federal government's ongoing investigation of WikiLeaks. The appeal (PDF) seeks to overturn a ruling that would give the government access to Twitter account details for three users who had contact with WikiLeaks. The government also wants Twitter to provide information on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and on Bradley Manning, a US Army private charged with providing data to WikiLeaks."

cancel ×

81 comments

someone standing up for their users? (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643382)

instead of insta-caving to abuse of law? wow. never saw that coming, certainly not from Twitter.

Twitter respect: level UP

Re:someone standing up for their users? (3, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643456)

RT: @v1 instead of insta-caving to abuse of law? wow. never saw that coming, certainly not from Twitter.

Twitter respect: level UP

Re:someone standing up for their users? (2)

vawwyakr (1992390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643520)

Yeah my twitter respect is up too....I guess that brings it up now to the level of car dealers up from sweatshop managers.

Re:someone standing up for their users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35666416)

The obvious delusion of /. posters is hilarious.
Mod parent funny!

Re:someone standing up for their users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643630)

The respect level would be much higher if twatter didn't store user data in the first place.

Re:someone standing up for their users? (1)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645356)

User data... like direct messages? I guess only crazy user-unfriendly companies would want to store private correspondence on its servers.

Re:someone standing up for their users? (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648556)

The respect level would be much higher if twatter didn't store user data in the first place.

....... and how the bloody dick would a service like Twitter go about operating without storing user data?

Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643430)

Tweets are public. Anyone can call them up with a twitter search (as far as that works). So they aren't the issue.

The issue would be the DMs. Those are more like phone calls. But, unlike phone calls, they're archived on Twitter's servers.

So this is like a wiretap that can retrieve past phone calls. Which is a really cool idea.

Frankly Twitter, the EFF, and the ACLU have little chance on that count. A warrant can be issued to bug anyone's communications or retrieve their stored data. I'm not sure why they think they can change that.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (2)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643496)

I think the argument is that the warrant requires "just cause." They don't believe any crime was committed, thus, a warrant is not just.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644122)

Man, is there anybody else who always reads "just cause" as "just 'cause"?

"Why do you want access to our users' information?"
"Just 'cause."

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644556)

These days warrants don't require just cause anymore. Just slap a 'terrorist' or 'national security' label on it and you'll get any data you want. This is most likely just an after-the-fact warrant to get it in the media, they probably already got the data through one of the US Secret Courts and a gagged court order.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645650)

Just slap a 'terrorist' or 'national security' label on it and you'll get any data you want.

Will I?

No. I won't.

You know why?

Because you're wrong. You still need some evidence to back up your suspicion that terrorism or violations of national security are involved. At least, when Republicans aren't running the show.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645936)

You still need some evidence to back up your suspicion that terrorism or violations of national security are involved.

Not since the Patriot Act. Suspicion is enough. The whole AT&T wiretapping scandal was about them giving everything to the FBI and saying "Look for whatever you want. We can do any paperwork later. Or not."

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645626)

Sure. And you ask anyone in jail they say they were framed.

There are laws against giving out secrets, and Manning and Assange are clearly implicated in doing just that. That's enough for a warrant to search their private stuff for evidence.

Let a trial sort out whether they actually did it, and an appeal sort out whether it was actually illegal.

Probable cause is more than clear, here.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645962)

Let a trial sort out whether they actually did it, and an appeal sort out whether it was actually illegal.

But until they actually decide to have that whole "trial" thing, they get to torture Manning and harass Assange without bringing charges or showing any evidence of wrong-doing on anyone's part.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35655274)

Your standards for torture and harassment are higher than mine. I consider your support for these criminals to be torturing and harassing me. Please turn yourself in to your local authorities.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35656012)

Your standards for torture and harassment are higher than mine.

I doubt it. I'm betting it would be pretty easy to convince you that what they currently doing to Manning is torture.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35658594)

No. It totally wouldn't. They're taking his clothes away and giving him a tearaway blanket to sleep in because he's talked of suicide. His lawyer says he said it "sarcastically" but the regulations don't give a damn, if they didn't do this they'd be accused of encouraging him to kill himself.

They have him in solitary confinement, which you'd expect for a young kid who'd just sold out his entire country for a little egoboo. Put him in the rest of the population (he'd be in a military prison, remember) and he'd probably end up beaten and raped and the people doing it would sing the national anthem while they were wiping off. Others in the general population would encourage him not to cooperate regardless of whether it's in his best legal interest. He gets fed and exercised as much as anyone there, and he talks to his jailers and his lawyers as much--maybe more than--anyone there. The argument that what he's undergoing is torture is not much different from arguing that being arrested and jailed is torture. The answer to that is "tough shit, it's jail, not a fucking country club."

So you lose the bet.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35660620)

They have him in solitary confinement, which you'd expect for a young kid who'd just sold out his entire country for a little egoboo.

Except they haven't brought a single bit if evidence to that effect. Once you convict him and put him in solitary that's one thing. But short of a conviction, keeping him in solitary is nothing but punishment. And punishment doesn't start until conviction. He can be held until trial, but not in solitary.

Don't you believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? You've got a problem with the US Constitution?

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35669382)

Except they haven't brought a single bit if evidence to that effect.

Uh, yes they have. That's how they got the warrant to arrest him.

He's innocent until proven guilty. But he's incarcerated until the trial is over, and kept separated from other prisoners for his protection. None of this is unconstitutional. It's due process of the law. And he'd have kept his clothes if he hadn't been a dumbass and mocked his jailer in a way that forced the jailer, by law, to take his clothes away for his protection. But if he wasn't given to being a dumbass he wouldn't have created the evidence that got him arrested.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35669956)

Uh, yes they have. That's how they got the warrant to arrest him.

"Warrant"? He was arrested almost a year ago on suspicion and held for two months before charges were brought.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35646292)

Assange is not a US citizen.

Assange committed no crime because his behavior does not
fall under US jurisdiction.

As for you, "Blar1q", you should stick to commenting on things you
actually know something about. Clearly the law is not one of those things.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (5, Informative)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643504)

The DoJ doesn't want the tweets, they want the account info for the users posting the tweets: email addresses, real names, IP addresses, session logs; the types of things that cannot be found with a simple google search.

Twitter's argument is that the warrant is overly-broad. In addition to information salient to the ongoing case, Twitter feels that the warrant asks them to turn over information with no bearing on the current case, which they feel is an invasion of their users privacy. To be clear, Twitter isn't trying to overturn "warrants can be used to gather information," they're just saying that this warrant should be overturned.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643834)

From TFA: The ACLU and the EFF argue that the order would require Twitter to divulge all direct messages, even those unrelated to WikiLeaks. It âoehas a chilling effect not only on the partiesâ(TM) speech and association rights, but on the rights of Twitter users in general,â the organisations said in a joint statement.

This is an issue that is starting to creep up a lot more. If someone commits a crime using a computer, the police will get a search warrant to search every file in a computer, or every email in an email box. This is because someone can easily store child pornography in a directory/file called "device drivers" and financial crimes email might be sent with a title called "let's meet for dinner tonight." The bottom line, is if you want to investigate Bradley Manning for releasing classified material, and he used twitter to meet people and/or share information, then there's a very strong legal basis for viewing his whole twitter account to see what he's been up to. Even if Bradley Manning also hooked up with a bunch of gay, dope using friends, and that gets him in legal trouble, I'd argue that this is not a chilling effect, but just a time when the Government's legal intrusion on privacy happens to find something more than intended. Now, let's say the Government wanted Bradley Manning's mother's email account, because they believe anti-social behavior is genetic, that would be an example of an illogical step that has chilling effects. But the Government has effectively stopped practices like that since the 1970s, so the EFF/ACLU have to focus on something else,

Re:Retroactive wiretap (4, Informative)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644150)

This is all well and good if the DoJ was requesting information regarding Manning's Twitter account. However, they are requesting the direct messages and session logs of three other Twitter users who simply had contact with Manning: "American computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum; Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament; and Rop Gonggrijp, a Dutch computer programmer." (TFA) To my knowledge, no charges have been brought against these individuals, so it would, at a glance, seem inappropriate to file a warrant in an unrelated case in order to perform discovery on them. This seems to be the case that Twitter is making, at least. In any case, it's a legal distinction worth making, and not just a frivolous filing by Twitter's lawyers in order to stall for time.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (2)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644286)

Sorry, above should be "session logs of three other Twitter users who simply had contact with Wikileaks"

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645684)

And it's a moot argument. The warrant specifies what they're seeking to prove. If they find evidence of other crimes in the process, they can't use it to charge anyone with those crimes.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648076)

This is why expert opinions are hard to find on Slashdot. Because every time they post a valid post, they get moderated down and get 100 replies from clueless, emotional, dumbasses (with a +1 bonus). Learn the first thing about the 4th amendment before you waste my time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine

Just like you can't Jon Doe a civil suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35651142)

Just like you can't Jon Doe a civil suit, so the RIAA filed criminal suit, got the Jon Doe information, closed the suit and used that information in their civil suit, which isn't technically allowed.

Really, how naive are you?

Re:Just like you can't Jon Doe a civil suit (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35655302)

Naive enough to know that if the RIAA gained its evidence illegally, I can fuck them in the ass and take all their candy in court.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649758)

And warrants in real life are usually limited in scope to things like "his office", "his home" or even "the filing cabinet in his basement" and are most certainly limited in what they're supposed to be looking for. And you can hide physical objects anywhere too, just like you can hide computer files in other directories.

If physical search warrants acted like computer search warrants, you could steal a candybar from a grocery store, and the police would go to every location you've ever been and tear apart the walls and floors, read every word of your diary, go through all of your porn, etc.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643888)

The DoJ doesn't want the tweets, they want the account info for the users posting the tweets: email addresses, real names, IP addresses, session logs; the types of things that cannot be found with a simple google search.

Twitter's argument is that the warrant is overly-broad. In addition to information salient to the ongoing case, Twitter feels that the warrant asks them to turn over information with no bearing on the current case, which they feel is an invasion of their users privacy. To be clear, Twitter isn't trying to overturn "warrants can be used to gather information," they're just saying that this warrant should be overturned.

Good for them.

And good luck, too. They're gonna need it. Because let's face it, Manning committed espionage. And if he DID coordinate in advance with Wikileaks, so did the whoever he coordinated with...

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644284)

The DoJ doesn't want the tweets, they want the account info for the users posting the tweets: email addresses, real names, IP addresses, session logs; the types of things that cannot be found with a simple google search.

It's interesting the meta-data they're looking for. Included in that list is the size of the communication. So not only do they get some information to work out identities of individuals corresponding with their target, but they also get some indication of what specific messages they might want to subpoena or to what extent that communication could be.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645068)

DOJ doesn't know about Assange and Manning? Time to give up the case when DOJ starts looking for meta data because it implies the actual data is not enough to implicate anyone. More proof that it is just a witch hunt.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645700)

They found the witches. Now they're looking for the Boomslang skin.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645838)

DOJ doesn't know about Assange and Manning? Time to give up the case when DOJ starts looking for meta data because it implies the actual data is not enough to implicate anyone. More proof that it is just a witch hunt.

Really. You have proof that Manning and Assange had a conversation? Or are you just assuming? And even if the Feds know about that conversation, they could be interested in any additional conversations Manning had with other people associated with anything Manning may or may not have handed out.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643622)

So this is like a wiretap that can retrieve past phone calls. Which is a really cool idea.

I think you misspelled horrifying.
Twitter should probably be deleting these messages every so often in the future.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644008)

So this is like a wiretap that can retrieve past phone calls. Which is a really cool idea.

I think you misspelled horrifying. Twitter should probably be deleting these messages every so often in the future.

I suspect that's telling them that they should occasionally throw money in to the furnace.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644102)

That would be a big no-no. Imagine telling Google or [insert email provider here] that they should delete their users messages every so often in the future.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644236)

So this is like a wiretap that can retrieve past phone calls. Which is a really cool idea.

I think you misspelled horrifying.
Twitter should probably be deleting these messages every so often in the future.

When a geek has access to terabytes of information, it's called "cool".
When anyone else has access to terabytes of information, it's called "horrifying".

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645406)

Direct Messages are like email, not instant messages over AIM or MSN. Why would I want Twitter to delete them unless I deleted them from my account first?

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645728)

I don't recall ever being told by Twitter that it offers to keep any messages indefinitely.

Twitter used to be an SMS went out and went to other people's phones and that's it. And people were once "horrified" to find out that the phone company was keeping logs of SMS messages.

Here's a simple rule of thumb: if you don't want people searching for evidence of your crimes, DON'T DO THE CRIMES.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646798)

Here's a simple rule of thumb: if you don't want people searching for evidence of your crimes, DON'T DO THE CRIMES.

or be remotely associated with anyone who might have committed a crime.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647062)

in a different country.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (1)

socialleech (1696888) | more than 3 years ago | (#35672792)

Here's a simple rule of thumb: if you don't want people searching for evidence of your crimes, DON'T DO THE CRIMES.

That's funny..

Your views will change very quickly when the things you are doing now, become things people view as 'illegal'. There is a very very large difference between 'what is illegal' and 'what is morally wrong'

Regardless of if anybody actually did what they claim they did, what the US government is doing is a classic case of the 'ends justifying the means'. Everyone loves it until they suddenly have a problem with what YOU do every day.

Re:Retroactive wiretap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35646434)

"So this is like a wiretap that can retrieve past phone calls. Which is a really cool idea."

You, you little fascist wannabe, are the enemy of everything Americans fought and died for
in WWII.

You might think you are on the side of right, but you couldn't be more mistaken.

babys; we're getting pounded here, web servers... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643458)

phone, near relatives, sheesh. we're not the least bit unknown, or even unsavory. it's like sci-fi. no gooed deed... just for telling the truth.

babys et al, the driving force ahead of the diaper leaks group worldwide, (bm) all skidmarks recorded

all MOMMYS....

so every exchange saved for all posteirierity? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643722)

no. that's not necessary at all unless almost everyone is lying at once, or so afraid that their lies (& associated behaviors) are getting too obvious, or the transaction requires usury (reams of paypers). otherwise, transactions could be conducted, & upon fair conclusion, forgotten. odd? so if you're not peddling toxic poop death, nobody really cares?

Re:so every exchange saved for all posteirierity? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643772)

What about the toxic poop death peddlers though?

they become their own reward as profitsized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644026)

merchants of death? in a newclear society, they are identified before they arrive. glass cages was one suggestion for constraining the current issue of them, as we are used as examples in their terror campaigns, which we also (mommys) pay for, & we never want to forget that again? & again, (ever is a very long time) it sure looks like that (we forgot?) from realer history's point of view. who knew?. the 'math' has always felt 'funny'. now the weather? as for religion..., looks like a black hole to some of us former 'trainees'/altered boys.

the new thinking might be that they (all of us, as fair is fair) be totally disarmed, & given an area where they can kill each other, if that's their goal. it's pretty sad, but now way beyond that.

disarm would be good enough for now? we could easily afford that?

Re:they become their own reward as profitsized (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644204)

I'm sure I speak for the whole of slashdot and indeed human kind when I state that your ideas are fascinating. Could I humbugly suggest that you provide directions as to how interested parties may subscribe to your newsletter?

building our own website, so that's good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644632)

if we survive. leaving rob out of the equation will be a real relief, if we survive. he's been a little on the censorish side. he's doing his job, we know. it's ok. apologies are includead. newsletter? cool. got a scoop? maybe a blog about stuff that it's hard to figure out if it matters or not, until you think of how we're really connected? adversarial? condescending? almost never, unless death is in the drawgate.

wee key (diaper) leaks group worldwide, all rights reclaimed

babys rule. disarm

babys web0cidal about their intentions? sissys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645082)

we're being lashed a bit, but nothing like what we've seen so far. stuff is convenient/replaceable.conversely, for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way.... (particularly by order of the lineage of the mutant death peddlers, religious & other greed/fear/ego based murderous zealots etc..), you know the deal. .5 billion population? honestly? chariots? honestly? forget it. groundead. disarm

as for us typists, we'll take our du vitamin, whatever. go phuking worship yourselves (that's as harsh as we get), chew each others' nails off. it must be grand? is that why adolescent movies are all blooddeath now? yuk

the rest, see you at the scheduled million babys+ play-dates etc.... never ends, so that's good.

in a newclear society, having 'more' than your neighbor, is just not necessary, because we ALL would already have more than enough of everything we really need, by using the real math (no usury, tithing (like the gods need money), crazy nitrogenous stuff like that. shortages? are the royals facing shortages? we must focus...on the images?

so we'd never be infiltratdead again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644296)

not exactly, although the genetically, chemically, spiritually altered royals etc... would fail to thrive (when the atmosphere renews itself with added (by the creators et al (all rights shared) nifty stuff (wildcard/meet the need), & almost fade into the bad wrong side of history, at this time. they're deceptive & sneaky though, which we're not designed to be (hard for us to even imagine), so keeping a fractal reasoning channel open to their drone is probably not a bad idea, at this time.

Re:babys; we're getting pounded here, web servers. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643760)

stupid DOJ is educated stupid! Just ask the Pentagon where Manning got the documentS, since they're the ones that gave them to him in the first placE! Along with the Order To disseminate said cableS. The right hand dOesn't know what the left hand is doing, and it could get quite embarrassinG.

Yahoo (1)

conscarcdr (1429747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643604)

would have made haste to bend all over for the govn't.

Twitter's appeal... (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643736)

...is a lot longer than 140 characters.

Privacy? (2)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643776)

I look forward to a time when those big social networks are not hosted in the U.S. Having them hosted in the U.S. means that there is actually no real privacy because the government can always ask for your private information. What I don't understand is why the U.S. public is not raging over they're governments actions, described in the leaked cabels. They're even changing the law so they can prosicute J. Assange. I'm so happy not to live in the U.S, and I'm from Iceland. It's a country that's bankrupt, the politicians are more or less sh** and our so called summer spans two months a year! Now come at me!

Re:Privacy? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643980)

Those social networks live on milking their customers information.

Privacy laws would get in the way of this business model so leaving the US is not an option.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35643992)

But are you glad the US kept Germany from occupying Iceland in the early 1940s?

As an American, I can tell you the reason why people don't give a crap about the US Government actions is because we really don't care what the US is doing to foreign nationals or foreign countries.

We care about the tax rate, the price of gasoline, the price of food and the employment rate.

Re:Privacy? (1)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644508)

I was not born in 1940 but you shouldn't just look at it this way. Aren't you glad that the US/Allies occupied Iceland before Germany? So killing thousands of civilians, spying on other UN diplomats, manipulating politicians and rebels in foreign countrys and losing the lives of thousands of your own soldiers is just none of your business? You have just decided that thinking about that is not worth your while if you can buy gasoline for a reasonable price, you have decent tax rates and the food is cheap? REALLY?

Re:Privacy? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644582)

I didn't say that was my view on the US public in regards to US foreign policy, but those are the things American citizens and voters typically care about.

For 2010 the big topics for voters are - the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, medicare, the deficit. Social Security, Economy, Education, Medicare, the Deficit all tie into the tax rate/economy really.

http://www.good.is/post/interactive-infographic-what-issues-do-american-voters-care-about/ [www.good.is]

Re:Privacy? (1)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644730)

Those are of course valid topics but I can't help but wonder if the US could have avoided terrorism if they wouldn't think so much about the gas/oil prices.

Never the less, I hope for the sakes of the US public that a republican won't be sitting in the White House after the next elections.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644892)

Terrorism as something Americans think about isn't about gas/oil prices or foreign relations. We have a recent history of domestic terrorists too.

Look at Abortion Rights/Pro Life movement, the Black Panthers, SLA or OKC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing [wikipedia.org]

Just this month here in Alaska there was a plot to kill a Judge, an IRS agent and Alaska state police over unpaid taxes and minor arrests.

Re:Privacy? (1)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645448)

Well allright I didn't think about that, but the term "Fight agains terrorism" is also used when you invade other countries and kill foreign civilians (collateral damage as some would call it).

Re:Privacy? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645640)

"Fight against terrorism" is under military issues, terrorism is the concern about terrorism, domestic (OKC bombing, Olympic Park, Virginia Sniper, abortion clinics) and foreign (9-11, Shoe Bomber, etc) as well as things like TSA overreaction to terrorism.

WTC in '93, Africa Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, WTC and Pentagon attacks were not in response to invading another country, but in response to the US and Saudi governments having the nerve to have US military assets in Saudi Arabia. So a post-modern response by people with a 7th century tribal mindset to a post-modern alliance.

Re:Privacy? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646116)

Post-modern alliance? That's a rather strange way to look at it.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646216)

The United States, France and the United Kingdom basing aircraft in Saudi Arabia, some of the aircraft were even at Medina's airport, to bombard a former client of the United States, France and the Soviet Union is very postmodern.

Re:Privacy? No, not privacy, National Defense (0)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644248)

Your problem is that you clearly don't understand the difference between a little corporate malfeasance and National Defense. If it was your safety and security being threatened you might feel a little bit different about it – or not, if you're an idiot. Non-idiots already know that diplomacy is like making sausage – something best not observed too closely.

And you are correct that you are probably happier living in Iceland than in the USA. That makes us happy too.

Re:Privacy? No, not privacy, National Defense (1)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644602)

Your problem is that you clearly don't understand the difference between a little corporate malfeasance and National Defense. If it was your safety and security being threatened you might feel a little bit different about it – or not, if you're an idiot. Non-idiots already know that diplomacy is like making sausage – something best not observed too closely.

Well first of all I don't even understand the word "malfeasance"! But if this information is so dangerous in the wild, than why the hell does it exist? And what security are you talking about? You think this information will make a real difference in the lines of extremists in other countries? I honestly don't think so, it would be the equivalent of pouring a glass of water into Thingvallavatn(google it)!

And you are correct that you are probably happier living in Iceland than in the USA. That makes us happy too.

Oh come on...I know you can do better than that!

Re:Privacy? No, not privacy, National Defense (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645746)

But if this information is so dangerous in the wild, than why the hell does it exist?

You have a smaller then average sexual organ and your genetic markers indicate you are predispositions for diseases that makes you pretty much uninsure-able if you had them.

There is no problem with the information existing, the problem is with the wrong people knowing about it. If people knew about your short pecker, you couldn't get laid except by paying for it. If certain people knew about your predisposition to some diseases, your medical coverage would disappear.

And no, I don't know that any of that is true or not for you specifically, it certainly is for someone out there. There is no reason why that information needs to "not exist", but several good reasons for why it shouldn't be in the open for all to see.

To pretend that if information exists, it should all be in the open is a little stupid. If you think otherwise, post your address and banking information to prove it. Let's not trip over the obvious to make a point that doesn't exist.

Re:Privacy? No, not privacy, National Defense (1)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646400)

To pretend that if information exists, it should all be in the open is a little stupid. If you think otherwise, post your address and banking information to prove it. Let's not trip over the obvious to make a point that doesn't exist.

I never said ALL information should be made public! But in a country where democracy exists and the government is democratically elected all information regarding the governments affairs and affairs of the governments, oh let's call them, agencies should be open!

How are the voters able to make up their mind about who should run the White House when they don't know all their dark secrets???

As I'm writing this I realize that this is not an issue as 96%(not an accurate number) of people in America, and in fact Iceland, vote for the same political party no matter what they have done!

Re:Privacy? No, not privacy, National Defense (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649080)

I never said ALL information should be made public! But in a country where democracy exists and the government is democratically elected all information regarding the governments affairs and affairs of the governments, oh let's call them, agencies should be open!

No they should not.. For much the same reason why your bank account information and other things shouldn't be open. The government runs those affairs, not you. In the course of running them, certain things need to be kept quiet in order for the fruits of those actions to materialize.

How are the voters able to make up their mind about who should run the White House when they don't know all their dark secrets???

The same way they do now and have for more then 200 years.

As I'm writing this I realize that this is not an issue as 96%(not an accurate number) of people in America, and in fact Iceland, vote for the same political party no matter what they have done!

That's because 90% or better of the American public, know that you take some good with the bad. Nothing in the leaks exposed anything I would consider as bad. But to the people they are working with, they would consider them as bad. I don't care that we spied on the UN. The UN can't be trusted anyways. I don't care that some middle east country asked us to engage in a war and we didn't oblige. It's not that important to me as a citizen.. But it is important to the citizens of Iran or turkfuckistan or where ever else. Those things should be secrete during the relevant years.

Stupid headline (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35643940)

The story is wrong. They apparently didn't even read the document they linked to on the ACLU's website.

Twitter isn't appealing. The people whose information is being sought (Jacob Appelbaum, Ron Gonggrjp, and Birgitta Jonsdottir) are.

Re:Stupid headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644572)

Twitter isn't appealing

+5 insightful

Re:Stupid headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645898)

Actually, on pages 11 and 12 of the document, it does sound like Twitter gave resistance and convinced the court to unseal the warrant, where Twitter then informed the individuals of the request, which allowed them to hire attorneys and make a case. Take a look at footnote 8 on page 11, it was either the court came to that conclusion on its own, or Twitter brought this concern to light. While it doesn't explicitly state if Twitter was involved in the decision, I am thinking it probably has a great deal to do with Twitter putting up resistance, otherwise the warrant probably would have gone through, or it would have been thrown out. Instead, it sounds like Twitter did all it could and now it's in the hands of the individuals.

I actually don't like twitter as a service (and don't use it personally), but I am relatively certain that they played a large role in getting the warrant unsealed so the individuals even knew that their information was being requested.

Re:Stupid headline (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646048)

Twitter only got it unsealed, this isn't news. What may be news is that the story submitter ("jhernik") wants us to think that Twitter did more than they did, which means they probably work for Twitter (or their PR firm), seeding the internet with stories that lie Twitter into greater regard.

Here's a thought... (0)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644024)

If the federal government were this aggressive in pursuing and prosecuting Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen, Manning probably would have been too scared to have pulled this stunt...

Good for Twitter! (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644072)

It's great to see a company not bending over and greasing up when the federal Fascists come to call.

Why change the subject? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649876)

Why change the subject?

The subject correctly read "Submission: Lawyers Seek To Block Twitter Data Handover", and now it incorrectly reads "Twitter's Lawyers Seek To Block WikiLeaks Data Handover".

Twitter's lawyers are not involved in this action, but the lawyers of these individuals are.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...