28 Mar 2011 | Uncategorized
The three Twitter subscribers whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the US government in connection with its investigation into WikiLeaks have appealed the court order that declared their account details unprotected by rights to privacy and free speech.
A district judge in Virginia ruled 11 March that Twitter must turn over the account information of Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, Dutch businessman Rop Gonggrijp and U.S. activist Jacob Appelbaum. The judge, Theresa Buchanan, further rejected a motion by lawyers for the three to publicly disclose which other Internet companies had been secretly subpoenaed by the government for personal user information in the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed the decision on Friday on behalf of the three users, asking a US district judge to overturn the earlier ruling. The lawyers argue that the public has a significant interest in obtaining access to documents in the case that remain sealed (which could reveal that companies such as Google have been put in a similarly compromising position as Twitter).
The government is seeking access to all of the users’ information — including IP addresses — across an extended period of time, regardless of whether that “Twitter-related speech” had anything to do with WikiLeaks.
“The Twitter order’s breadth is especially significant because the Parties use Twitter extensively and/or have thousands of ‘followers’ who follow what they post,” the appeal states, “and each publishes many Twitter messages wholly unrelated to WikiLeaks, including Tweets discussing Tibet and Tunisia, the Icelandic Volcano, the Transportation Security Administration, obscenity and gay marriage laws.”
The lawyers argue that because of this broad net, the subpoena does not satisfy standards under the Stored Communications Act that the government must provide “specific and articulable facts” suggesting the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Buchanan reasoned that the three users had already made their Twitter posts and associations public through the networking site. But the EFF and ACLU counter that the subpoena seeks significant information that is currently private — including the geographic location of the users when they posted messages, and the identity and location of every user with whom they exchanged private messages.
“It is all private,” the appeal states of the information requested by the government. “The Twitter Order thus has a chilling effect not only on the Parties’ speech and association rights, but on the rights of Twitter users in general, including the Parties’ followers, who will now fear that the government may secretly track their activities, seize their account information, and even map their movements and associations based on what they say about matters of public concern or with whom they communicate regarding political issues. As the Supreme Court has cautioned ‘[t]hese freedoms are delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society.'”
13 Mar 2011 | 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 2011 | 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.”
9 Jan 2011 | 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?
