USA demands twitter hand over Wikileaks supporter messages
36 replies, posted
[quote]A member of parliament in Iceland who is also a former WikiLeaks volunteer says the US justice department has ordered Twitter to hand over her private messages.
Birgitta Jonsdottir, an MP for the Movement in Iceland, said last night on Twitter that the "USA government wants to know about all my tweets and more since november 1st 2009. Do they realize I am a member of parliament in Iceland?"
She said she was starting a legal fight to stop the US getting hold of her messages, after being told by Twitter that a subpoena had been issued. She wrote: "department of justice are requesting twitter to provide the info – I got 10 days to stop it via legal process before twitter hands it over."
She said the justice department was "just sending a message and of course they are asking for a lot more than just my tweets."
Jonsdottir said she was demanding a meeting with the US ambassador to Iceland. "The justice department has gone completely over the top." She added that the US authorities had requested personal information from Twitter as well as her private messages and that she was now assessing her legal position.
"It's not just about my information. It's a warning for anyone who had anything to do with WikiLeaks. It is completely unacceptable for the US justice department to flex its muscles like this. I am lucky, I'm a representative in parliament. But what of other people? It's my duty to do whatever I can to stop this abuse."
Twitter would not comment on the case. In a statement, the company said: "We're not going to comment on specific requests, but, to help users protect their rights, it's our policy to notify users about law enforcement and governmental requests for their information, unless we are prevented by law from doing so."
Most of Twitter's messages are public, but users can also send private messages on the service.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the online watchdog the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in Washington, said it appeared the US justice department was looking at building a case against WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, over its publication of secret US documents.
EPIC has already requested that the US authorities hand over information about their investigations into people who have donated to WikiLeaks via Mastercard, Visa or PayPal.
"The government has the right to get information, but that has to be done in a lawful way. Is there a lawful prosecution that could be brought against WikiLeaks? It seems unlikely to me. But it's a huge question here in the US," said Rotenberg.
Jonsdottir was involved in WikiLeaks' release last year of a video which showed a US military helicopter shooting two Reuters reporters in Iraq. US authorities believe the video was leaked by Private Bradley Manning.
Adrian Lamo, the hacker who reported Manning to the authorities, indicated that Manning first contacted WikiLeaks in late November 2009 – a period covered by the request for Jonsdottir's tweet history.
In 2009 Jonsdottir invited Assange to a party at the US embassy in Reykjavik where he chatted with the ambassador to Iceland. WikiLeaks had recently published a secret report on the collapse of the country's banks.
"I said it would be a bit of a prank to take him and see if they knew who he was. I don't think they had any idea," Jonsdottir said last year.
The MP has distanced herself from Assange and WikiLeaks, saying he should take a step back to deal with an investigation in Sweden. The 39-year-old is fighting extradition to the country, where two women have accused him of sexual misconduct. He denies the allegations.
In Iceland she has championed the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative which is aimed at creating legislation to make Iceland a legal haven for journalists and media outlets.
She is not the first WikiLeaks associate to be targeted by US officials. Last July Jacob Appelbaum, one of Assange's closest colleagues, was interrogated for three hours and had his phones confiscated upon entering the country at Newark airport. Customs officials photocopied receipts and searched his laptop.
The justice department did not returns calls seeking comment last night.[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/08/us-twitter-hand-icelandic-wikileaks-messages[/url]
You were beat by the BBC bot.
BBC bot?
The who now?
BBC has a news bot in the News Node.
Ahh, damn.
I was under the impression the News Node was gaming news?
the bbc bot
[editline]8th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Coffee;27271432]BBC has a news bot in the News Node.[/QUOTE]
which i think is dumb considering the news node has always been used for vidya gaym news.
[QUOTE=skynrdfan2;27271439]the bbc bot
[editline]8th January 2011[/editline]
which i think is dumb considering the news node has always been used for vidya gaym news.[/QUOTE]
It covers technology news, which usually relates to video gaming.
I love how every website is the USA's bitch
Glad to know Twitter is willing to just bend over without a fight. Guess which site I will never be using!
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27271783]Glad to know Twitter is willing to just bend over without a fight. Guess which site I will never be using![/QUOTE]
They are a company based in the United States that has been issued a lawful subpoena by a government agency that has the power to issue such requests.
They can fight it legally, but to what end?
I think it's especially ridiculous since she's an elected official from another country.
Fuck the USA and fuck anyone who supports this shit
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27271783]Glad to know Twitter is willing to just bend over without a fight. Guess which site I will never be using![/QUOTE]
I already don't use it. Such a pain in the ass to use.
America, the land of freedom :patriot:
[QUOTE=bazyboy;27272109]America, the land of freedom :patriot:[/QUOTE]
*As long as you approve of everything we do and not a homosexual
[QUOTE=bazyboy;27272109]America, the land of freedom :patriot:[/QUOTE]
At least cameras aren't on every street corner. Yet...
[QUOTE=GunFox;27271890]They are a company based in the United States that has been issued a lawful subpoena by a government agency that has the power to issue such requests.
They can fight it legally, but to what end?[/QUOTE]
To the end of defending their integrity to their costumers. The ability to fight back against something like this is what makes a democracy different from a dictatorship.
If you're just going to bend over to the governments smallest whim then you are giving them power they shouldn't have.
[QUOTE=BmB;27273411]To the end of defending their integrity to their costumers. The ability to fight back against something like this is what makes a democracy different from a dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
Their consumers are people who were frustrated that they couldn't blog MORE and decided to use a service which allows for SMS based blogging. Privacy isn't really the biggest concern for their target consumer.
In reality I'm not even sure that Jonsdottir has any legal say in the matter at all. The government subpoenaed twitter, not her. They probably could have legally handed the documents over without a delay.
Twitter has, in its possession, data which is related to an ongoing investigation. Just like a person can be subpoenaed to provide information or face punishment, companies can too. There are laws which prevent you from being forced to testify about certain things, but I don't believe that this data falls under those protections.
This, for once, is the system operating as intended.
Hmm. I'm following several pro wikileaks news sites
[QUOTE=GunFox;27271890]They are a company based in the United States that has been issued a lawful subpoena by a government agency that has the power to issue such requests.
They can fight it legally, but to what end?[/QUOTE]
Google has successfully fought subpoenas. Why? To protect the privacy of its users, that's why.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27273536]Google has successfully fought subpoenas. Why? To protect the privacy of its users, that's why.[/QUOTE]
Almost universally because they are constitutionally invalid.
[quote="fourth amendment"]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/quote]
The "particularly describing" portion is generally how you shut down such requests, but this request IS particular. It requests for HER data.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27273494]Their consumers are people who were frustrated that they couldn't blog MORE and decided to use a service which allows for SMS based blogging. Privacy isn't really the biggest concern for their target consumer.
In reality I'm not even sure that Jonsdottir has any legal say in the matter at all. The government subpoenaed twitter, not her. They probably could have legally handed the documents over without a delay.
Twitter has, in its possession, data which is related to an ongoing investigation. Just like a person can be subpoenaed to provide information or face punishment, companies can too. There are laws which prevent you from being forced to testify about certain things, but I don't believe that this data falls under those protections.
This, for once, is the system operating as intended.[/QUOTE]
I agree that using Twitter for sending secure messages isn't a good idea even with it's PM system, but from what I read in the article there isn't any proof that they'll find anything in her PMs. As far as I can tell, she used to be involved with Wikileaks, so they want to look at her private Twitter data which most likely contains nothing of value or is even related to Wikileaks.
It kind of seems like getting a warrant to search somebody's house with no evidence or probable cause. You just make some shit up about them having pot or something. Sure, if it's granted you can argue it's legal, but it doesn't make any sense at all.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27273602]I agree that using Twitter for sending secure messages isn't a good idea even with it's PM system, but from what I read in the article there isn't any proof that they'll find anything in her PMs. As far as I can tell, she used to be involved with Wikileaks, so they want to look at her private Twitter data which most likely contains nothing of value or is even related to Wikileaks.
It kind of seems like getting a warrant to search somebody's house with no evidence or probable cause. You just make some shit up about them having pot or something. Sure, if it's granted you can argue it's legal, but it doesn't make any sense at all.[/QUOTE]
You don't need evidence, you need probable cause. The difference can be subtle. In this case it is probable that she has information which may aid in understanding the organization being investigated better.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27273574]
The "particularly describing" portion is generally how you shut down such requests, but this request IS particular. It requests for HER data.[/QUOTE]
I'm not seeing probable cause in this case. I'm seeing association with Wikileaks, something that happens to also be constitutionally protected.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27273639]You don't need evidence, you need probable cause. The difference can be subtle. In this case it is probable that she has information which may aid in understanding the organization being investigated better.[/QUOTE]
But where is the suspicion of promoting/ helpig crime in this case?
Only that would validate the need to have a look at her data.
So the government used its own laws to obtain information. I say good job, at least they used the damn system.
And before I get boxes. Its just one person, not the entirety of twitter. If this was a murder investigation there wouldn't be any problems with this but because its Wikileaks everyone gets up in arms.
Hey everyone, let's all start using DMs on Twitter to show our support of wikileaks.
[QUOTE=Swilly;27273718]So the government used its own laws to obtain information. I say good job, at least they used the damn system.
And before I get boxes. Its just one person, not the entirety of twitter. If this was a murder investigation there wouldn't be any problems with this but because its Wikileaks everyone gets up in arms.[/QUOTE]
Keep telling yourself that when that one person is you.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27273673]I'm not seeing probable cause in this case. I'm seeing association with Wikileaks, something that happens to also be constitutionally protected.[/QUOTE]
We don't know how they got a hold of the Diplomatic cables. The US is looking into whether or not they were obtained illegally or not. Either way, they're building a case, it may lead to nothing or actually go somewhere. The important thing is that they actually did this by the book.
[editline]8th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27273735]Keep telling yourself that when that one person is you.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't use the internet to send messages to someone. Its way too easy to either subpoena the information or just gather it up as it floats through the net.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.