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 Can't Keep Protestor's Data From Cops

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the land-of-the-free dept.

Privacy 105

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "On Monday, Twitter published its first-ever Transparency Report, detailing how many times governments around the world demanded its users' information and asked it to remove content. The results show that the U.S. government asked for more Twitterers' private data than all other governments combined: 679 requests in the first half of 2012, of which 75% were at least partially granted. That's more than all of last year, with half of 2012 still to go. Within hours, the issue of governments helping themselves to Twitter users' private data was illustrated in the case of Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protester who had his Twitter data subpoenaed in a criminal case for 'disorderly conduct.' Twitter had fought the request, which will help prosecutors identify Harris as the tweets' source. But a Manhattan judge ruled that users have no expectation of privacy for their Twitter data."

cancel ×

105 comments

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

If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data .. (5, Insightful)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | more than 2 years ago | (#40525979)

... then why does it save users' messages after they're deleted?

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526035)

... then why does it save users' messages after they're deleted?

Because business people have this belief that the more data they can keep on their users, the more information they'll have to find some pattern somewhere to make money.

Marketing data miners are like those people who spend their lives trying to decipher the Bible to find the name or number of God. The more data, the more informaiton they can use to manipulate the consumer to spend their money on crap - make impulsive purchases - or so they wish.

When people get numbers in front of them, numbers seem to this way hypnotizing them. No one ever asks, "What do these nuumbers means? Are they relevant? Do they even mean anything?"

Nope.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526051)

How completely uninsightful. It must be tough being such an underpaid and bitter computer scientist.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526063)

When people get numbers in front of them, numbers seem to this way hypnotizing them. No one ever asks, "What do these nuumbers means? Are they relevant? Do they even mean anything?"

And they are told that if they sign the cheque it will make the bad numbers go away, and the good numbers come back. The world is full of people who don't care what the numbers are supposed to mean, all they care about is that the numbers on the clock say 5pm, or the numbers on the calendar say "week-end", and the numbers in their bank accounts lull them into a false sense of security.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526143)

Data miners are bots and scripts used by researchers to find trends and make predictions with reasonably good accuracy. Data mining is a trillion dollar industry for a reason, it works. It works and they know everything about you. Get adblock plus and subscribe to the anti-social and adversity lists to help mitigate the amount of information you unknowingly give away.

http://adblockplus.org/en/
http://adversity.uk.to/

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40531153)

Business people, really that is where you put the blame? Wholly fuck you people are ignorant! Look at who is requesting the data and what it's being used for! That a business can make money from it is secondary, but yeah I'm sure that's in the plan as well.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526069)

Because their entire value proposition is helping advertisers in deciding what to sell people.

For example, if somebody is talking a lot about legalizing pot, advertisers will know that they'll have more luck selling Timothy Leary books, Bob Marley or Grateful Dead albums, and Che Guevara T-shirts than they will selling Glenn Beck books, Christian rock albums, and suits and ties.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526131)

That is absolute rubbish. I know that's how we're told things work. How they actually work is that you will be repeatedly spammed on some "keyword" you used once. Is there any fucking reason I am still, 6 months after my trips, getting constant ads from Budget car rental and Miami holidays? The trip is over. I'm probably never going back. But somehow the advertisers seem to think that trips to Miami and Budget car rental are a fetish of mine. I know I could use adblock or something but it's not like I click on the ads anyway. So I figure any extra bandwidth I cost them for no return is all good.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526635)

You are more likely to go to Miami than someone who has never been there. Maybe not you in particular but the group of people who have been there before - and that's all the advertisers have to go on.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40533993)

Ironically, if you gave them access to more of your information, the ads served to you would be more accurate and detailed to your tastes.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526719)

I didn't say they were any good at doing what they claimed to do, but they make their money by convincing advertisers they're good enough. And for that, the more data the better, regardless of whether the user said they wanted to get rid of it.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526997)

its a numbers game.. and I think its absolutely how they operate their business.. many people might not meet all those requirements but its still valuable targeting information

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40527317)

Are you by chance named Dexter? It might clear up a few things..

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

SirFatty (1940968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526983)

No shit Sherlock. Sore:5, Obvious

Re:selling Timothy Leary books, Bob Marley... (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527053)

For example, if somebody is talking a lot about legalizing pot, advertisers will know that they'll have more luck selling Timothy Leary books, Bob Marley or Grateful Dead albums, and Che Guevara T-shirts than they will selling Glenn Beck books, Christian rock albums, and suits and ties.

On that theme, Bob Marley tea [marleysmellowmood.com] is pretty good.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#40535257)

Because their entire value proposition is helping advertisers in deciding what to sell people.

For example, if somebody is talking a lot about legalizing pot, advertisers will know that they'll have more luck selling Timothy Leary books, Bob Marley or Grateful Dead albums, and Che Guevara T-shirts than they will selling Glenn Beck books, Christian rock albums, and suits and ties.

As a life long stoner I find it offensive that you think I want Timothy Leary books, Bob Marley or Grateful Dead albums, or whatever Che Guevara T-Shirts are.

Seriously, is that what you think of stoners?

It's offensive.

Okay, Bob Marley has good music, but just because we are stoners, we are NOT hippies!!!!

Hippies suck. They had their chance, and they fucked it up so bad, it's not even funny. Alot of those hippies became yuppies and when Reagen said Trickle Down Economy, apparently they were still high when they bought into it. I mean, WTF? Even the name is fucked up, Trickle Down Economy? So the Rich get richer and everyone else gets the scraps. Sounds like a great plan I want to get behind.

Shit, here i am stoned and go carried away. Anyways, stoners are NOT hippies. We are the people that are around you ever day. You're boss? A stoner. That cop? A stoner.

We listen to all types of music, we dress all sorts of ways and we are not just hippies.

Stereotypes hurt.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526091)

Messaging is a privacy nightmare. If you mean private messages then it's the same reason that Facebook doesn't really delete messages: you've sent it to another party. You can delete your own copy, but there will still be the duplicate in their inbox. The same goes for texting and emailing. Any situation where you both have separate inboxes is vulnerable to this sort of problem.

If, however, they are keeping data after both users have cleared their inboxes, then that really is dodgy behaviour.

Ultimately the conclusion is if you want to send really private things, use snail mail or talk in person.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526259)

Messaging is a privacy nightmare.

No. Messaging ON FACEBOOK is a privacy nightmare. But if you're dumb enough to use a service whose entire purpose is to look at the contents of your messages, well, you deserve what you get.

Otherwise, just install something like Off the Record [cypherpunks.ca] and enjoy end to end encrypted messaging. Don't save local logs, or save them to an encrypted filesystem, and you're off to the races.

I'm sure some mouth-breather is about to post the xkcd about hitting you with a wrench, but face it, that isn't the threat most of us have to worry about. Unless you're in Syria and subverting the regime or something, ppls in US or Sweden or Japan or something don't have to worry about that, we have to worry about data-miners and advertisers, who don't come after hundreds of millions of people iwth wrenches.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526387)

Messaging is a privacy nightmare.

No. Messaging ON FACEBOOK is a privacy nightmare. But if you're dumb enough to use a service whose entire purpose is to look at the contents of your messages, well, you deserve what you get.

The only services that avoid this problem are those where exactly one copy of the message exists. This means that all email services are affected. I cannot delete a message on your email account after I've sent it to you.

Even encrypted communication is bad because there is still evidence that you sent the message, unless you have plausible deniability (which Off-the-Record does, as it happens). The next problem is that nobody uses encrypted traffic services. I'd use it in flash, but I'd have nobody to talk to because 99% of the population still use regular webmail.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (2)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527735)

> ppls in US or Sweden or Japan or something don't have to worry

Unless you had consensual sex without a condom in Sweden, which apparently is enough to get you extradited from the UK for questioning. Oh, minor sex-infraction plus you pissed off the US.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526801)

... then why does it save users' messages after they're deleted?

More to the point at hand, if Twitter is trying to claim that the data is owned by the users, not by Twitter, then why are they keeping it when the users delete it? Wouldn't that be.... theft of intellectual material from the user?

The IP laws can cut both ways, it's time we started swinging the sword in the other direction.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527139)

I don't know about the US, but in France (probably rest of Europe too), you have to keep data for one year, maybe two. By law. You might also need this for your own forensics investigations in case one of your user tried to hack you. I'm not saying this is good, mind you, just what the law is and what reasons there could be to keep data.

Re:If Twitter doesn't want to have to provide data (1)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527245)

There's no requirement in the US to do so, but legislation has been proposed to do just that - and most ISPs do it anyway. Preemptively storing everyone's communication in case you might have a legitimate (says a judge) claim to confiscate .00000001% of it is wrong IMO.

Then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526029)

I'll just happily read the contents of all of the letters in your mailbox. After all, they're just hidden in paper! You have no expectation of privacy!

Re:Then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526087)

Yes and I like to examine feces. Since you're going to eventually throw that shit out by dumping it in the public waste system, then you should have no expectation of privacy. So you won't mind while I shove this camera up your ass to look at your shit.

Re:Then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526491)

If I post the letters on a public kiosk (kind of like a tweet) then I have no expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if I put the letter in a sealed envelope and send it via a trusted carrier like the postal service, then I do indeed have an expectation of privacy.

twitter data != tweets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526081)

Sure, I can understand that the tweets are public, but that is not all twitter data is it? The metadata that comes with the tweets, as well as data-mined contact lists were not made public and should be kept private. If you do not know what I am talking about: https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/what-does-twitter-know-about-its-users-nologs

I hope the judge specified published tweets only, not the associated metadata.

Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (3, Interesting)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526093)

Stories like this make me want to prepare a list of news stories paired up w/ amendments from the Bill of Rights, showing how far away we've gotten from the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526177)

The whole purpose of a tweet is to let people know in the most public way possible. What is the controversy about?

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526237)

the right to anonymous free speech.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526275)

Really. Can't tell if you're agreeing with the idiot that thinks this is a First Amendment issue or not. If you're being sarcastic, GOOD FOR YOU. If not, you'd best read that Bill of Rights again and see where you might be waaay off in left field.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526277)

Where does it say "anonymous"?!

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526423)

Where does it say "anonymous"?!

It goes implied in "free", one would guess. It is difficult for someone to speak freely if being pointed as the author of his words could bring harm to him.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (2)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526837)


Freedom of speech is not Freedom to be a idiot. When you make your bed, you must lie in it. If you cannot handle the outcome of your own words perhaps it would be best to shut your mouth and forget about saying it (or in this case typing it).

It falls under the whole idea of personal responsibility, which I know is hard for people to accept today, its all about "me, me, me" and no thought process involved when it comes to thinking ahead of what your getting yourself into.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (2)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527313)

Well there is a legitimate argument to be made that no place does it say the government is empowered to prevent you from being an idot either. The First Amendment does not say anything about disorderly conduct. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument is entirely the invention of the Supreme Court, as its its own power to decide Constitutional questions at all for that matter.

I know the court disagrees but in my reading of the first Amendment I see nothing but pretty absolute language and no real room for exceptions. I don't think the government under our Constitution actually does have the right to prevent anyone for advocating for Violence or even creating dangerous chaos like yelling fire in crowded theater.

Which dose make it all about personal responsibility. It make its incumbent upon the rest of us to maintain the threat you will be treated like a pariah if you do decide to act irresponsibly. That is a social matter though not one for law enforcement.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40532779)

The First Amendment does not say anything about disorderly conduct. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument is entirely the invention of the Supreme Court, as its its own power to decide Constitutional questions at all for that matter.

And this is the problem the Freedom of Speech is not about you being able to say anything you want, its about you being able to voice your opinions and beliefs freely without government interference.

In addition to this, such things as incitement of illegal actions, libel, slander and obscenity has never been protected by the right of freedom of speech in any country. Long before the first amendment was written, in English Common law, there were limitations, and these limitations were kept in the American legal system after the Revolution. Hence why the Supreme Court has upheld these views.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (2)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40528141)

Freedom of speech is not Freedom to be a idiot. When you make your bed, you must lie in it. If you cannot handle the outcome of your own words perhaps it would be best to shut your mouth and forget about saying it (or in this case typing it).

Why not? So if I want to speak out against a government policy, and the outcome of that speech is being put on a watch list, having my house searched and my taxes audited, I should just shut up? Freedom of speech means not being targeted by the authorities just for what you say. Sometimes that requires anonymity.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40532517)

Why not? So if I want to speak out against a government policy, and the outcome of that speech is being put on a watch list, having my house searched and my taxes audited, I should just shut up?

No one said you had to shut up, but you have to accept the consequences. If your words mean that you must use the anonymity that the internet provides, then perhaps your words mean nothing to you and they are best not said.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 2 years ago | (#40528173)

If you cannot handle the outcome

What you advocate here is free speech Soviet Russia style! The speech is free, but then you get sent to Siberia labor camp or executed by a firing squad. No, I am not exaggerating, this is how it actually worked during Stalin times, and is happening in Russia today, in a different form. Today Russian journalists are being assassinated for free speech, because the government does not want to be involved directly.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40532575)

What you advocate here is free speech Soviet Russia style! The speech is free, but then you get sent to Siberia labor camp or executed by a firing squad. No, I am not exaggerating, this is how it actually worked during Stalin times, and is happening in Russia today, in a different form. Today Russian journalists are being assassinated for free speech, because the government does not want to be involved directly.

And yet the people in Russia, both past and present are willing to take that risk to spread their words and their beliefs, knowing full well they face consequences, because they know their beliefs are important to them.

Verses the Occupy movement, and their supporters who use anonymity over the internet to open their yap without thought, without consequences, because they are spoiled kids who grew up and realized the world won't hand them honey and nuts every time they stub their toe on something.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40531327)

and in the land of the mute, one-mouthed men will be kings

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40528025)

I personally agree with you that anonymous speech has an important role... but the founding fathers understood very well that signing the declaration of independence could very well get them killed. They were ready to face the consequences of their not-anonymous speech.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40528079)

I correct myself:

"The history of anonymous political free speech in America dates back to our founding. The seminal essays found in “The Federalist Papers” were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the nom de plume of “Publius” although this was not confirmed until a list of authorship complied by Hamilton was posthumously released to the public. "

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (2)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40529955)

Please review the history of printings of the Declaration of Independence.

The first printing by John Dunlap only bore the names of John Hancock, Charles Thomson and the printer.

It wasn't until Mary Katherine Goddard printed a 2 column version that there was a printed copy which listed all of the signers.

Also, _Common Sense_ was published anonymously, w/ John Adams frequently being accused of being the author.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526561)

TBO, I would have gone with "the right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated", but I haven't read the article yet, so I don't know if these requests were made with or without warrants.
If warrants were properly obtained (notice the word properly) then I find news like this rather encouraging, since it certainly sounds like the police are asking for specific information, as warrants should do. The fact that some of the requests weren't complied with worries me though, since you normally don't have a choice when it comes to complying with a warrant.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (3, Informative)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526979)

In the legal interpretations of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

``...the right to anonymous political free speech has been addressed by the Supreme Court. Most notably in the cases of Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).''[1]

William

1 - http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/homeland-security-shreds-constitutional-right-to-anonymous-political-speech-not-to-protect-our-security-but-to-monitor-dissent.html [washingtonsblog.com]

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (2)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527267)

Since the Founders who wrote of the importance of free speech and the government they envisioned to go along with it often did so under pen names and in anonymous pamphlets so as not to be executed, I'm pretty sure they understood the significance and importance of anonymous and free political speech.

12 guys in black robes said it says that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40533379)

the Supreme Court of the US has said over and over https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity/ [eff.org] that the First Amendment means anonymous speech.

Even the bloody Roberts court has upheld the anonymous component.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526323)

the right to anonymous free speech.

You have the right to anonymous free speech, but not necessarily using Twitter. The right to anonymous free speech doesn't mean any arbitrary other company or person has to provide it FOR you. You don't automatically get to use someone else's printing press.

Anyway the 1st amendment applies to the government, not to private companies. Why do so many people seem to not understand that?

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526681)

Anyway the 1st amendment applies to the government, not to private companies. Why do so many people seem to not understand that?

Because they seem to get most of the other protections and rights that a person would, why not speech too? /sarcasm

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40533289)

Anyway the 1st amendment applies to the government, not to private companies. Why do so many people seem to not understand that?

Because they seem to get most of the other protections and rights that a person would, why not speech too? /sarcasm

Huh?

WTF are you trying to say? That because companies get some legal rights, they have to turn around and provide anonymous free speech others?

You just won the non-sequitor prize.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526577)

Twitter is the technological incarnation of narcissism.

Tweets is not all they ask for. (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40528529)

Be careful though, when they ask for information to Twitter they're not asking simply for tweets. They probably want login info, ips, private messages, etc.

And USA, many times uses gag orders to prevent the services from alerting its users about the "snooping". Twitter successfully contested the right to alert an Icelandic pm, the creator of tor and some other people (who were involved with wikileaks one way or another) but they had to release the data anyway, in the end (If I recall correctly).

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526255)

Wherein does it say in the Constitution that you're entitled to privacy in the sense of not allowing them to divulge data?

I'll be waiting (probably forever...).

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526457)

In the sense that it doesn't make sense to even pretend that you have privacy if the government can just use private companies to find out everything about you.

It doesn't have to say it. You're taking it too literally.

Re:Bill of Rights in the 21st Century (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40528535)

That's just your public school programming kicking in. There's nothing special about the "founding fathers". I personally didn't agree to things like people telling me I can't smoke pot or run around nude but for some reason, living near a bunch of assholes that think they should be allowed to tell me what to do is somehow consenting.

twitter isn't for private data (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526133)

If you want something to be private, don't post it to twitter, facebook, myspace, and so on.

Use a private, encrypted communication channel. Private communication is NOT what social networks are for. They're for the opposite of that.

Modern day advice... (5, Informative)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526153)

I'd always, since the nineties, known that you should never say anything in an email (text/tweet/facebook etc.) or phone call, that you wouldn't want to hear repeated in an open courtroom.

Re:Modern day advice... (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526163)

... that you wouldn't want to hear repeated in an open courtroom.

Or on CNN, for that matter.

Re:Modern day advice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526217)

email (text/tweet/facebook etc.)

Actually email is very unlike tweet/facebook/etc.

Email can be private. You just have to encrypt it, but that's really easy to do. Once you do, no one in the middle can read it, and it's not like tweets and facebooks where one company owns the entire communication channel.

Texts can be private too if you use a plugin like OffTheRecord to encrypt them.

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526347)

ANY Electronic Communication. Everything is recorded. Phone calls are ALL recorded. Anything goes on govt. hard drives, and can be pulled later. Perhaps I could have been more concise, coffee hasn't kicked in yet. This is a modern day reality, there are people in prison who hadn't learned this. It's kind of important to know.

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526393)

Everything is recorded.

Which means nothing if what they record is encrypted.

Electronic communication can be quite private, you just have to use private means. Twitter is not one.

Email CAN be, if you encrypt it end to end. IMs CAN be, if you encrypt them end to end.

This is why everyone moving to services like FB or Twitter is a bad idea. IT's not in their best interest to give you private communications. If you run everything on your own computer, then YOU get to decide whether it should be private or not, and someone recording the data along the wire somewhere will only see an encrypted bitstream.

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526663)

I don't disagree with you. But tech moves fast. What was considered 'secure' 10 years ago doesn't fly today. I accept that there is probably no real security in life today, and that you should never say never. As long as you live a law abiding life, there "shouldn't" be a problem. If lack of privacy equals child molesters and truly evil people being found out, I'm for that. Of course it's a fine line, 1984 worries me too. It's not the world I'd like it to be. It's modern day reality being what it is, a trade off of personal privacy for the greater good of society and it's good people.

Re:Modern day advice... (2)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 2 years ago | (#40528929)

Electronic communication can be ...private... Twitter is not one.

Except the constitution was written to protect the people from an oppressive government. And that means it was written expressly to protect Malcolm Harris from persecution. There is a protection both for the "freedom of speech" and "privacy of correspondence". What more can you possibly ask for? Do you want the constitution to literally spell "privacy of tweets should not be infringed upon", or something?

Re:Modern day advice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40530817)

Except the constitution was written to protect the people from an oppressive government.

True.

Do you want the constitution to literally spell "privacy of tweets should not be infringed upon", or something?

Umm, you are aware that Twitter is not the government, right?

If I start up a company with the entire purpose of making your messages public, then don't use that if you don't want them to be public. This has NOTHING to do with the constitution. As you said yourself, the constitution is to protect against an oppressive government, not an oppressive Twitter, which you don't even have to use at all!

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 2 years ago | (#40532333)

Umm, you are aware that Twitter is not the government, right?

Twitter is the envelope, the mailman, the messenger boy, the pigeon. Nobody says that a pigeon is the government. I think you are confusing the messenger boy with the entity that intercepts him, opens your letters, then arrests and sentences you to death by fire.

entire purpose of making your messages public

If it were public then why would the government need to subpoena? I suspect it was not public, but rather private to people who subscribed to the tweets. To make an analogy:

You are in Soviet Russia, 1937. You tell your friends at a gathering that Communism has some issues. The government "subpoenas" everything you say. You are sent to Gulag, where you spend the rest of your miserable life.

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40530007)

Everything is recorded.

Which means nothing if what they record is encrypted.

Not true. Remember the news a while ago about the new gigantic NSA facility in Utah?

Yeah. They're storing everything you say and do online. Been doing it for years. They're already able to crack most encryption. And twenty years from now, they'll be able to crack any encryption you used today.

There is literally no place to hide. If you truly want privacy, do NOT use the Internet. Don't use any cellular phones, either.

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40531139)

Which means nothing if what they record is encrypted.

The NSA now takes a "store now, crack later" approach. That's what their new Utah data center is for.

Re:Modern day advice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40527153)

Thank goodness for OTR. The keys used to encrypt your IMs are changed every 15 seconds and once changed, no messages sent with any prior keys can ever be decrypted or tracked back to the original author other than the fact that someone sent it with a particular IM account.

Check out OTR. It fits right in with your philosophy. I used Psi to merge all my buddy lists into Google Chat and use Pidgin with the Pidgin OTR plugin to use OTR across all the networks using just one login.

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527211)

I'd always, since the nineties, known that you should never say anything in an email (text/tweet/facebook etc.) or phone call, that you wouldn't want to hear repeated in an open courtroom.

Entered as Exihibit A against the alleged hacker, terrorist, drug trafficker, pimp, and child abuser, known as "SteamisheFan". For over two decades this sophisticated and determined criminal has admittedly been using counter-surveillance techniques likely learned in an Al-Qaeda training camp to conceal his nefarious plots.

Re:Modern day advice... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40528187)

Entered as Exihibit A against the alleged hacker, terrorist, drug trafficker, pimp, and child abuser, known as "SteamisheFan". For over two decades this sophisticated and determined criminal has admittedly been using counter-surveillance techniques likely learned in an Al-Qaeda training camp to conceal his nefarious plots.

He's a verily dangerous man... Always 3 steps ahead... I hear he even voted for McGovern for president!

Civil Disobedience... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526203)

...is by definition the refusal to obey the laws of a government. There are circumstances when there is no other recourse, but Occupy never had a compelling reason to go that route.

The US allows peaceful protests, permits can be obtained in most places for protest marches and gatherings. Instead, Occupy/Acorn/Green Party members escalated it to civil disobedience for no particular reason and now they're whining because they're being prosecuted for breaking the law.

Posting AC because they have so many spiteful shills on slashdot

Re:Civil Disobedience... (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526285)

Posting AC because they have so many spiteful shills on slashdot

And you're afraid of...what?

Re:Civil Disobedience... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526817)

Note that you did not dispute the assertion.

Why not ask the person (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526211)

if he has an expectation of privacy. How would the judge know this?

Re:Why not ask the person (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526287)

The judge knows because of the very nature of Twitter: it is not a private communication service. It's entire POINT is to make things public.

It's like if I go shout something with a megaphone from the center of a crowded public square: by definition, there is no expectation of privacy because of the nature of how I decided to communicate. On the other hand, if I say something to someone in the privacy of my own house, then yes, there is an expectation of privacy.

Twitter (1)

motd2k (1675286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526243)

It does appear, on the surface, that Twitter does at least go above and beyond at times in trying to protect what it sees a it's users rights. I suspect at time at considerable expense to themselves too.

did they ask for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526325)

'Anonymous'
one has to wonder if they didnt then think lolsec

That's why... (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526447)

That's why you register as Hater McTots at 123 Nowhere Ln, Springfield, Alaska, HatersGonnaHateSrsly4realz@hotmail.com. Hand that over to the government lol. Seriously, who would be stupid enough to not do that if they're posting something controversial or whatever?

Re:That's why... (2)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526583)

False registration information isn't going to help when they have a full record of IP addresses you accessed the site from. Most Twitter users also either log in from their phone or use SMS to post tweets, which both result in Twitter having your phone number.

Re:That's why... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526833)

that's why I tweet from behind seven proxies

Re:That's why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40527677)

that's why I tweet from behind seven proxies

Crikey, are you tweeting how to build a nuclear weapon in Arab? ;P

Re:That's why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40529179)

How does one do such a thing? I connect to a VPN, then use a proxy, but how would you connect through multiple proxies?

Re:That's why... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40534279)

You can chain web proxies like hidemyass pretty easily. You have to make sure your browser does not run any scripts or plugins, and you are good.

Re:That's why... (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526863)

What makes you think that any competent (and I know it's popular to assume that they're not, but that's asinine) law enforcement wouldn't more prefer to get the IP and time information that each Tweet was posted from if that was the case? How many times and how many people have been tracked down through this method?

I think it's safe to assume this guy wasn't using a proxy even to mask his location. Not that he should have to, but if you want what you're talking about it should be done.

Trending topic (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526461)

That's more than all of last year...

Well, it might just be a sign of the government being slow on the uptake of new things. Twitter has been around for what, 6 years now, and in the common lexicon for maybe 3?

But at least Twitter desires at least the appearance of not wanting to kneel to the government's whims on this. Lets see the same numbers for Verizon or Comcast. I am sure we would find those numbers appalling.

Also, it shows that 25% were not granted. Does it show for what reason, were they illegal requests or what? This is why we need to courts to be deciding what is a legal request and not a three letter agency just pulling as much data about anyone they want to abuse for any reason.

I am afraid the judge is right. (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 2 years ago | (#40526605)

I think the whole point of Twitter is that it is an electronic soapbox -- it is a place where you very publicly announce things. There really is no expectation of privacy.

Re:I am afraid the judge is right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526639)

Agreed.

If you want privacy, encrypt the message and email it to your target audience. Good commercial grade encryption software is free and widely available.

Re:I am afraid the judge is right. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40532357)

It's sad that protesters are always so technologically ill-equipped - using social networking sites, relying on cell comms, etc.

You know what would be a worthwhile software project? A simple kit to allow a group to set up an encrypted wifi mesh network that hosts a web-based communication service (on a freenet-like system, that can be mirrored to an online darknet site) that can provide Internet access through darknets to clients (where Internet access is available) and is resistant to any mesh node machines being seized (keep an absolute minimum of any identifiable information, "dead man's switch" functionality, etc)

What's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40526763)

Public postings can't be kept private? Shocking.

No expectation? (1)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527375)

> But a Manhattan judge ruled that users have no expectation of privacy for their Twitter data."

I realize that most users don't read the fine print, but you'd think the published Privacy Policy [twitter.com] might lead someone to believe that there's a clear agreement betwee Twitter and the users that there's at least some stuff considered "private"...

'splain this to me (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527655)

I don't understand the ruling. Does the government have to get a court order or not, and if not, why the hell not?

Do you clods in the prosecutors office not realize the larger historical context of why We The People did not authorize government to intrude without court orders?

It's nice to fancy we are perfecting ourselves as a democracy and that such fears are old-school (see also arguments in favor of gun control) but history offers no such assurance. We prefer to not let the tools of tyrrany germinate.

If you dig a huge, mysterious lizard tail out of the ice in Antarctica, don't put in a warm room next to a furnace.

Change (1)

zeroryoko1974 (2634611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40527759)

All you Obama voters enjoying your "Change"?

When the Service is Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40528635)

First off, When the Service is Free, What is being sold is you.

The rest is problem reaction solution.

Dump your google, facebook, twitter accounts, fuck these fascists, you should dump them just so that you understand how tied into them you have become.

You watch, they will put a monkey wrench in Tim Pool and Lukes / ustream (you know our Journalism 2.0 founders) gears next, just watch, they'll maim them in the street with clubs bullets and flashbangs or fuck with the ustream feed while live next time

Non violent revolution has been made almost completely impossible now. That is the consequences of this spying shit. Distrust, Anger, Hatred

You can't even protest Eric Holder without problem reaction solution now, "after the protests began, a backpack was found by SS and so they cleared out the protest" Yeah not much these treasonous oath breakers can do when a Black Man is standing with a sign saying, ERIC MUST GO - IMUSTBEARACIST?
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cYumsCawlec/T_HIKpIp2aI/AAAAAAAAAE0/qOlN41sU0tY/s1108/IMG_1821.JPG

Fuck twitter
Fuck facebook
Fuck google

My next step up on the ladder is to not bother pointing this shit out anymore. Nobody on slashdot gives a crap right, so why bother wasting time trying to point things out, when I could be prepping for when they do their marital law bit. Sure that fucking steroid bloated jack booted thug only takes orders but it will be one less thug after they cross my fucking path. You chicken shit pussies will end up in the fema camps.

I have a fix... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40528665)

Don't use social networks..... Problem solved...

Is Anyone Making A Twitter Replacement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40529961)

One that doesn't store IP addresses and doesn't save tweets after they scroll off or are deleted by the author? Seems like it would get a great many number of users.

If you're trying to stay under the radar.. (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40530489)

If you're trying to stay under the radar, then you should consider NOT being on twitter!
Or perhaps accessing your account via a pseudonym, a public computer, you get the idea.

Re:If you're trying to stay under the radar.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40532347)

If you're trying to stay under the radar, then you should consider NOT being on twitter!
Or perhaps accessing your account via a pseudonym, a public computer, you get the idea.

Are you kidding? One of the whole premises of Twitter was to be a platform for the politically oppressed. Twitter has seriously failed in its original calling.

Really? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40530515)

Law Enforcement has more than enough evidence to issue a ticket for "Disorderly Conduct", and now their going dig into the Defendants communications? At this point, Petitions for Discovery on those that are associated with the "1%" group would be just as valid by the Defense. I'm reminded of the Accountant that couldn't balance an account because it was off by 1 cent. Which uncovered an multi million dollar scam by a overly greedy manager. Maybe the Defense should start filing for discovery of Law Enforcement ties to campaign donations?

So how could this idea be submitted to the Defense?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>