Court Forces Twitter to Hand Over Occupy Tweets

Status
Not open for further replies.

whimseh

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2011
69
0
18,580
0
So people get prosecuted for actually standing up against a corrupt government but Westboro Baptist Church (cult) is allowed to protest at funerals?? kk makes sense
 

jossrik

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2002
81
0
18,610
8
Politics only makes sense here to the people making the laws. More laws just makes more criminals, but every politician has to leave their mark. We here in the U.S. are slowly but surely giving away our freedoms.
 

Prince_Porter

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
39
0
18,580
0
That's total BS. I can't wait for this news to spread, that's totally not cool. I can see getting access to his Tweets, but any other information is not theirs to have (IP, personal email, etc), as it's not available to the public.
 

klavis

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2010
131
0
18,630
0
Since when did a privately owned server become public property? It's perfectly clear, privately owned server, means the data, aka the tweets are privately owned in a private space. Public speech is just that, speech done in public, which really isn't available online since most of the space is owned by someone. Even though people maybe able to view said information does not make it public domain.

 

raringcoder

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2011
27
0
18,580
0
The one difference that the Judge is not considering is that someone cannot hack into my mouth and make me says things I don't want to, but someone can hack into my Twitter account and make "me" apparently shout things I don't want to.

Wonder if it is possible to prove definitively who made a tweet.
 

kyuuketsuki

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]erunion[/nom]If they are public, why doesn't the court just google them?[/citation]
This is spot on, really. If the tweets really were public and akin to "shouting in public", then the court should be able to simply google them and would have no need to subpoena the tweets in the first place. The very fact that they cannot do such and the tweets are not available contradicts the notion that they are public.

Anything they cannot freely look up but have to force a private entity like Twitter to fork over should require a warrant, period, as the ACLU attorney said. Especially when the data contains private information as it does in this case.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Why doesn't Twitter just have a random hardware failure and loss of data? ...
 

virtualban

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2007
625
0
18,930
0
Europe has the pirate party growing in popularity. Hope the US gets something like that too, although it is an extremely long shot since politicians in the US have legalized corruption, called it Lobbying, and are at the back pocket of the corporations, of course doing everything in their power to stay in such power position, including using the shouting in the streets and tweets to incriminate, because it is no longer a right to organize and stand up against oppression...
I think all of corporate leaders and politicians should be thrown off to the sea. To do that, people need to organize, and shout in public for the attention of those who don't know where to join in. Anything belonging to the already established political system is potentially corrupted already, so, shouting and street gathering is needed. But since they are making it illegal, then I hope it goes like: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"... Sad state of the whole world, not just the US.
 

CrArC

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2006
40
0
18,590
1
The judge compared tweets to shouting in public
So how does that analogy make any sense at all??!

If you shout in public, it doesn't mean people know who you are or where you are from. And yet that is precisely what they have subpoenaed for.
 

Elsapo

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2009
16
0
18,560
0
"What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you."

Why doesn't a song become mine the moment the artist places it on youtube? By the judges logic I should co-own millions of songs and movies.
 

marthisdil

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2010
27
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]klavis[/nom]Since when did a privately owned server become public property? It's perfectly clear, privately owned server, means the data, aka the tweets are privately owned in a private space. Public speech is just that, speech done in public, which really isn't available online since most of the space is owned by someone. Even though people maybe able to view said information does not make it public domain.[/citation]
Remember, people like you wanted open access on the internet..."internet freedom" as it were.

As such, the Judge (and rightly so), can subpoena the tweets as they are public facing. I do agree with you guys that the guys IP, etc, shouldn't be included. Just the tweets, time, and dates, since they can be viewed.
 

marthisdil

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2010
27
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]CrArC[/nom]So how does that analogy make any sense at all??!If you shout in public, it doesn't mean people know who you are or where you are from. And yet that is precisely what they have subpoenaed for.[/citation]
Until that shout in public leads to you being arrested, then your identity becomes known. Thus, your comparison is moot.
 

klavis

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2010
131
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]Marthisdil[/nom]Remember, people like you wanted open access on the internet..."internet freedom" as it were.As such, the Judge (and rightly so), can subpoena the tweets as they are public facing. I do agree with you guys that the guys IP, etc, shouldn't be included. Just the tweets, time, and dates, since they can be viewed.[/citation]

Freedom doesn't mean public domain, freedom to access what sites I want and to say what I want. That doesn't mean what I say is automatically public domain. I have the right to assemble at my house, with whom ever and how many people I want. That is a freedom, that doesn't mean the government can just come in and take take a recording of our conversations without a warrant. There are rules and terminology in place that can and does translate for the internet, the judge is trying to redefine those terms to what he thinks makes since, in essence creating legislation rather than judging a law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 13
NduPlessis Streaming Video & TVs 11
Z Streaming Video & TVs 15
G Streaming Video & TVs 15
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 15
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 29
G Streaming Video & TVs 43
G Streaming Video & TVs 25
G Streaming Video & TVs 52
G Streaming Video & TVs 97
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 62
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 37
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 27
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 43
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY