Twitter ordered to hand over occupy protester's tweets

[Kuya]

A US court has ordered Twitter to release old messages and details about a user arrested during an Occupy Wall Street protest in New York.

The micro-blogging firm contested the subpoena, saying the tweets were owned by users rather than the company.

But a judge said defendant Malcolm Harris' privacy would not be violated if the material was handed over.

"If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy," Judge Matthew Sciarrino wrote in his decision.

Nevertheless, the judge said he would personally review the information and would only release the relevant sections to prosecution and defence lawyers.

The case centres around Mr Harris, managing editor of the New Inquiry website, a cultural magazine site.

He was arrested on 1 October - along with hundreds of other campaigners - during a march across New York's Brooklyn Bridge.

Prosecutors claim tweets by Mr Harris would reveal that he was "well-aware of police instructions" ordering protesters not to block traffic.

Mr Harris, and others, say they thought police had given them permission to march on the road.

Prosecutors have asked to see tweets posted by Mr Harris between 15 September and 31 December.

Mr Harris's lawyer had tried to block access to the postings, but the judge ruled that once the messages had been sent they became the property of Twitter. That would mean the defendant was not protected against unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution.

But Twitter challenged the subpoena, arguing that the judge had misunderstood how the service worked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18684128

I like the fact that twitter is at least resisting the order, even though i understand the judge's argument about expectations of privacy. I would ask however, if the tweets were public or if they were directed at specific persons, because as what the judge implies, there are degrees of expectations on privacy. I agree with twitter's alleged policy that once you post something on twitter it still belongs to you and not twitter, because i feel that using a medium is not the same thing as abrogating all rights to whatever goes on inside of that medium.

[Jer]

I would ask however, if the tweets were public or if they were directed at specific persons, because as what the judge implies, there are degrees of expectations on privacy.

Given they thought this was something they tried, I'd almost have to say they were not public tweets. Trying to say, 'You can't have copies of something I told the world' isn't a relevant argument. If the tweets they are wanting access to were not public, I have an issue with it.

On the other hand. If they were public, then he's an idiot and I fail to see how they could have been prevented from getting them.

[Haiko]

I don't know Twitter so someone could correct me if im wrong..Can he make his twitter page private?If so he should be safe, right? If public he fucked?

[archibaldcrane]

I don't know Twitter so someone could correct me if im wrong..Can he make his twitter page private?If so he should be safe, right? If public he fucked?

Well, if Twitter is being subpeoned to turn them over, his privacy setting isn't going to matter - Twitter will still be able to access them.

[Kuya]

Which is, suffice it to say, a problem for users if privacy settings don't matter. I am wondering if the court took into account expectation of privacy by looking at what the privacy settings were.

[Yugl]

I would have thought that privacy settings are intended to withhold access to information from casual users rather than the government.

[Mazmaz]

I think the argument is that, if his privacy settings were such that he was not "shouting his tweets out the window", as it were, then those tweets are not Twitter's property.

[archibaldcrane]

Which is, suffice it to say, a problem for users if privacy settings don't matter. I am wondering if the court took into account expectation of privacy by looking at what the privacy settings were.

This is implying that "the court" isn't some computer illiterate 75-year old judge.

[Kuya]

I would have thought that privacy settings are intended to withhold access to information from casual users rather than the government.

The argument isn't about what privacy settings are intended for, but about expectations of privacy.

[Stumblingdrunk]

if people would stop voting republican like a bunch of inbred texans this court would work much better

[Yugl]

The argument isn't about what privacy settings are intended for, but about expectations of privacy.

I understand that. My thought was that it's common sense to believe you have no privacy when posting information on a social media site. The exception to this is when you have privacy settings set to restrict access and that this restriction only applies to casual users.

[Saga]

The micro-blogging firm contested the subpoena, saying the tweets were owned by users rather than the company.

How are the tweets the user's property and not Twitter's? Twitter is the vehicle by which a user chooses to disseminate whatever information they want. My Facebook status updates aren't my property, it seems unreasonable to expect a Tweet to also be my property.

[hey]

How are the tweets the user's property and not Twitter's? Twitter is the vehicle by which a user chooses to disseminate whatever information they want. My Facebook status updates aren't my property, it seems unreasonable to expect a Tweet to also be my property.

Uh, the same way most every site's users can post content and still retain ownership of the content they post?

[Kuya]

I understand that. My thought was that it's common sense to believe you have no privacy when posting information on a social media site. The exception to this is when you have privacy settings set to restrict access and that this restriction only applies to casual users.

Do people expect that, when you limit access to information online, that the government is the exception to that?

[hey]

Do people expect that, when you limit access to information online, that the government is the exception to that?

I'm no lawologist, but isn't that why they got a subpoena?

[Yugl]

On a social media site, I imagine they do. I can see exceptions for sites with explicitly illegal agendas, but that's not twitter.

[Byrthnoth]

I don't support the prosecution in this case, but I'd give you good odds that this guy tweeted something incredibly incriminating, which makes him an idiot. I support idiots even less than the prosecution. I'm fine with this being set up as a legal precedence as long as it's limited to public forms of broadcast like Twitter (or more invasive things in the case of violent crimes). I think they're perhaps digging a little deep given the nature of the crime, but there are many things he could have done to protect himself (like not using the same twitter account that he uses for other things). If you're knowingly breaking the laws as a form of public protest, perhaps you should be a little more knowing about ways to protect yourself from the repercussions.

Also, I think the judge's analogy was close but not quite correct. Shouting out your window only spreads what you said to the 4-5 people that can actually make out what you've said and is (overall) a lot easier to discredit than personally immortalizing something in the annals of the internationally accessible internet.

[Yugl]

I'm curious as to how this would work if the tweet were his property. Assuming a scenario where you deleted information only recoverable by the site owners, what would happen? If the subpoena is exclusive to the owner and the owner cannot recover intentionally deleted messages, would they be back at twitter's door or would they have no legal means of obtaining the tweets?

[Ragnus]

This just in: Anything you say can and will be used against you.

[hey]

I'm curious as to how this would work if the tweet were his property. Assuming a scenario where you deleted information only recoverable by the site owners, what would happen? If the subpoena is exclusive to the owner and the owner cannot recover intentionally deleted messages, would they be back at twitter's door or would they have no legal means of obtaining the tweets?

Why would it even matter? Twitter has access to the tweets. If a court says they have to give them up, they have to, regardless of what the owner says. You can't give something to a friend to stop a subpoena.