13 Mar 11 | Uncategorized
A federal judge in the US ruled on Friday that Twitter must hand over to the government the personal account information of three users connected to WikiLeaks, rejecting their lawyers’ appeal that the First and Fourth Amendments protect such private online communication.
As part of an ongoing grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks, the Department of Justice originally demanded in sealed court documents the Twitter account details — including personal contact information and IP addresses — of Dutch businessman Rop Gonggrijp, U.S. activist Jacob Appelbaum and Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament. The government wanted Twitter to turn over the details without alerting the three that their information had been subpoenaed.
Twitter successfully fought that gag order in January. But, in trying to have the government’s request entirely thrown out, lawyers for the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation failed to convince judge Theresa Buchanan that the Fourth Amendment right to privacy protects information like IP addresses — or that turning over such information would allow authorities to create a “map of association” of Twitter users that would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment right of free association.
“The Court finds no cognizable First Amendment violation here,” Buchanan wrote in her 20-page opinion. “Petitioners, who have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available, fail to explain how the Twitter Order has a chilling effect. The Twitter Order does not seek to control or direct the content of petitioners’ speech or association. Rather, it is a routine compelled disclosure of non-content information which petitioners voluntarily provided to Twitter pursuant to Twitter’s Privacy Policy.”
13 Mar 11 | Uncategorized
A federal judge in the US ruled on Friday that Twitter must hand over to the government the personal account information of three users connected to WikiLeaks, rejecting their lawyers’ appeal that the First and Fourth Amendments protect such private online communication.
As part of an ongoing grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks, the Department of Justice originally demanded in sealed court documents the Twitter account details — including personal contact information and IP addresses — of Dutch businessman Rop Gonggrijp, U.S. activist Jacob Appelbaum and Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament. The government wanted Twitter to turn over the details without alerting the three that their information had been subpoenaed.
Twitter successfully fought that gag order in January. But, in trying to have the government’s request entirely thrown out, lawyers for the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation failed to convince judge Theresa Buchanan that the Fourth Amendment right to privacy protects information like IP addresses — or that turning over such information would allow authorities to create a “map of association” of Twitter users that would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment right of free association.
“The Court finds no cognizable First Amendment violation here,” Buchanan wrote in her 20-page opinion. “Petitioners, who have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available, fail to explain how the Twitter Order has a chilling effect. The Twitter Order does not seek to control or direct the content of petitioners’ speech or association. Rather, it is a routine compelled disclosure of non-content information which petitioners voluntarily provided to Twitter pursuant to Twitter’s Privacy Policy.”
09 Jan 11 | Digital Freedom, Uncategorized
Almost exactly a year ago, Secretary of State Clinton gave a speech in support of internet freedom, in which she condemned surveillance and censorship overseas. The tactics that the US government is now using in its continuing attempt to indict Julian Assange have robbed Hillary Clinton’s policy of any remaining credibility and leaves the United States compromised in seeking to impose international human rights standards for freedom of expression online.
The investigators appear to be on a fishing expedition to unearth information that will enable it to prosecute Assange and have no shame not only in attempting to force Twitter to hand over personal data about its users, but in trying to keep that attempt secret. Thanks to Twitter’s stand, there is now a chance of challenging the court order.
Reports this weekend reveal the desperate lengths to which the administration will go to: not only in seeking details on an elected member of parliament, Iceland’s Birgitta Jonsdottir, but in being wholly undiscriminating in its requests for information. Why would Twitter have the financial details of its users?
In an interesting post today, privacy expert Christopher Soghoian points out that the judge is not supposed to issue a court order unless the government “offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation”. Is it in any case likely, as Soghoian points out, that someone like Assange would use Twitter for anything private?
20 Oct 10 | Uncategorized
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) published its ninth annual World Press Freedom Index today, with a mixed bag of what secretary-general Jean François Julliard calls “welcome surprises” and “sombre realities”.
Six countries, all in Europe, share the top spot this year — Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland — described as the “engines of press freedom”. But over half of the European Union’s member states lie outside the top 20, with some significantly lower entries, such as Romania in 52nd place and Greece and Bulgaria tied at 70th. The report expresses grave concerns that the EU will lose its status as world leader on human rights issues if so many of its members continue to fall down the rankings.
The edges of Europe fared particularly badly this year; Ukraine (131st) and Turkey (138th) have fallen to “historically low” rankings, and despite a rise of 13 places, Russia remains in the worst 25 per cent of countries at 140th. It ranks lower than Zimbabwe, which continues to make steady — albeit fragile — progress, rising to 123rd.
At the very bottom of the table lie Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan, as they have done since the index first began in 2002. Along with Yemen, China, Sudan, Syria, Burma and Iran, they makes up the group of worst offenders, characterised by “persecution of the media” and a “complete lack of news and information”. RSF says it is getting harder and harder to distinguish between these lowest ten countries, who continue to deteriorate. There are particular fears about the situation for journalists in Burma ahead of next month’s parliamentary election.
Another country creating cause for concern in the run-up to elections is Azerbaijan, falling six places to 152nd. Index on Censorship recently joined other organisations in a visit to Baku to assess the health of the country’s media. You can read about their findings in a joint mission report, ‘Free Expression under Attack: Azerbaijan’s Deteriorating Media Environment’, launching this Thursday, 28 October, 6.30 pm, at the Free Word Centre. Belarus, another country on which Index is campaigning, languishes at 154th.
It is worth noting, though, that relative press freedom rankings can only tell so much. Cuba, for example, has risen out of the bottom 20 countries for the first time, partly thanks to its release of 14 journalists and 22 activists this summer, but journalists still face censorship and repression “on a daily basis”. Similarly, countries such as South Korea and Gabon have climbed more than 20 places, only to return to the position they held before a particularly bad 2009. It seems, then, that the struggle for press freedom across the world must continue to be a “battle of vigilance”.
