Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:10am

   
   

   If the judge doesn't allow it, he censors the government. Can't have that. Ever.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Atkray (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:22am

   
   

   Well I guess it is a good thing that Twitter has decided to make itself irrelevant then.
   
   Too bad for the precedent this sets though.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   GSMPedia, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:37am

   
   

   yey

   +1 for the internet!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:40am

   
   

   EFF and ACLU can huff and puff and wave their arms around, but there isn't much to argue about here. The warrant only has to rise up to "probably cause" to be valid on it's face, and that only requires a tip, a suggestion, or even "leading information". That could be as little as the people in question exchanging posts on twitter, example.
   
   Probably cause isn't very hard to understand (even wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of the warrant process), I mean, even Mike could understand it (if he wanted to).

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:47am

   
   

   Re:

   You may want to check out the article on "probably cause" while you're on Wikipedia too.
   
   Oh wait.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   weneedhelp (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:52am

   
   

   Re:

   Probably cause isn't very hard to understand.
   
   Appears more difficult to write though.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   PW (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:53am

   
   

   Same as phone #s

   Actually, this ruling seemed consistent with gov't's access to LUDs, where they can find out the numbers dialed from a particular phone. However, the rationale given for this capability, whether w/phone #s or IP addresses, is worrisome to me. This idea that the fact that the phone company is a 3rd party in the transaction which then breaks the privacy expectation between the two parties communicating, creates all sorts of trust problems for cloud-based services.
   
   With analog phone calls, phone companies have not been recording phone calls (as far as we know ;). However, when you start to consider emails, or file hosting, or CRM systems, or... we begin to see the problem of having a 3rd party break the expectation of privacy. While the Stored Communications Act supposedly protects stored emails, this seems at conflict with the rationale given for providing LUDs or IP addresses. I guess this is yet another tension in our privacy laws.
   
   I'm hopeful that as encryption can be performed faster, we will see greater protection of content, not because of legislation, but because of technology. This won't solve the LUDs and IP address issue, but at least the content can be protected beyond the whims of politicians.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Gwiz (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:53am

   
   

   Re:

   Probably cause isn't very hard to understand (even wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of the warrant process), I mean, even Mike could understand it (if he wanted to).
   
   This is line is hilarious. You are chiding Mike for not understanding "probably cause" (twice in your comment no less) and I think the term you are really looking for is "probable cause". Just sayin.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   CK (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:10am

   
   

   The government can't, but Sony can? Shows where true political power lies these days.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    The Groove Tiger (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:21am

    
    

    Re:

    I myself am more a fan of sorta-kinda-perhaps-actually-no-wait-almost-definitely cause.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    The eejit (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:23am

    
    

    Re:

    Heh. The phrase you're looking for is 'Probable cause'. Moreover, how would you like it if you were one of these 'associates' whose info was being disclosed to governments without your consent? Just sayin'.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    coldbrew, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:32am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    Would it be valid to assume that people that type "probably cause" do not speak English as their first language? This isn't the first time I've seen a comment from some AC speaking exactly like this. After the first few times I actually questioned my own understanding of the legal technicalities and specific language.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Gwiz (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Would it be valid to assume that people that type "probably cause" do not speak English as their first language?
    
    Yes, in most cases. And I usually give benefit of doubt.
    
    However, this AC (and I am assuming it's the same one) repeatedly uses "probably cause" really has no other problems with English, even as far as using slang and commonplace terms correctly in his comments.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    DCX2, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:25pm

    
    

    Re:

    Methinks someone didn't bother reading about this debacle. The issue at hand is that they're trying to access this Twitter info without a warrant.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Overcast (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    
    

    "The issue at hand is that they're trying to access this Twitter info without a warrant."
    
    Indeed, and to do otherwise is to start a process where 'innocent until proven guilty' is no longer relevant...
    
    Not that we haven't already been going down that road for years.
    
    What a cesspool of a nation these current politicians and 'justice/law enforcement' excuses are making of the US (and other nations).
    
    The only reason any of these clowns exist is to enforce and protect the rights of the country's citizens. But somehow they spin it to doing 'this and that' is protecting rights or someone else, blah, blah, blah.
    
    Doesn't matter when they no longer follow the rule of law.
    
    The 4th amendment is quite clear - and if there's a doubt, it should fall upon anyone in politics or law-enforcement to adhere to the principles of our constitution, rather than be a lazy slob and find ways around it.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:45pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    A freaking typo. Can you guys perhaps focus on the issue, rather than a single typo?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Mr. Anderson, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:40pm

    
    

    BS

    "However, the judge has denied their attempts to block such data collection, saying that since the government is seeking data about the account, rather than information in the account, the individuals don't really have any case at all."
    
    I remember reading a while ago that the government also wanted the account holders direct messages over Twitter. I believe that's asking to see what's "in" the account, not what's "about" the account.
    
    So in closing, I call total BS on the government their corrupt puppet Judge's ruling.
    
    ZOMG, the internetz is here! Run!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment