Latest Twitter Problem: Its API Has Been Down And No Info Has Been Provided
from the everything's-falling-apart dept
Last night, I saw a bunch of folks complaining that the various apps through which they accessed Twitter, were no longer working. People using Tweetbot, Twitteriffic, Tweeten, and others all noted that they were blocked from actually using those services to read Twitter. It quickly became clear that Twitter’s API was completely down. There was plenty of speculation that (in a repeat of an earlier era when Twitter greatly limited its API access out of a fear of losing control of the service to third party developers) that Elon Musk was doing this on purpose to try to stop third party app developers from offering ad-free access to Twitter. However, that still seems like pretty broad speculation.
Jack Dorsey, in the past, admitted that the decision a decade ago to cut off their API was one of the biggest mistakes the company made, and in recent years had tried to rectify that with a better developer program and more open API. There were some concerns last month when Elon Musk shut down the Twitter Toolbox program somewhat abruptly, which was a useful tool for many third party app developers.
So while I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this is a deliberate move by Musk to cut off those services, the lack of communication is perhaps even worse. App developers say they’ve had no communications from the company and Musk (so far, as I write this) has said nothing publicly.
None of that is good if you’re trying to cultivate a strong community with the developers who make your service better and more usable. And, given how Twitter has burned developers in the past, it seems particularly worrisome. If it’s intentional by Musk, that’s obviously problematic. But if it’s not intentional, and it’s just that something broke… and no one bothered to communicate with the various organizations that use the API, well, that might even be worse?
Of course, I will note that the Mastodon API remains available for all to use (and just in the past few weeks some really, really cool new services have been developed for it that go above and beyond some of the ones I’ve mentioned in the past). Perhaps this kind of scenario will cause more of them to explore providing new tools, apps, and services for that platform as well.
Filed Under: api, apps, elon musk, third party developers
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Latest Twitter Problem: Its API Has Been Down And No Info Has Been Provided”
Mobile 3rd party apps are off
All 3rd party Twitter apps have to establish wireless connection to Twitter API then Twitter API authorizes. A that is needed to shutdown mobile apps is not allow mobile connect. On my mobile chrome browser Twitter is fine but mobileDOtwitterDOTcom is the definition of torture.
I saw one tweet that office in S.F. closed and office furniture is out. Can’t find tweet post now (shrug). Seems a handy way to force new deals and do whatever he is doing.
I’m not to worried.
WORRIED — Maryland senate Bill revokes concealed carry. I don’t have the ability to jump on Annapolis with both feet: MD State coppers would/could have me in irons for ancient reasons (long memory they have).
Quiet time for me.
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
It would appear it's intentional
From a Daring Fireball post earlier today
(Twitterrific for Mac is still functioning, though — at least as I write this. Unlike Tweetbot, Twitterrific uses different app IDs for iOS and Mac, and whatever is going on, it seems to have affected only the most popular third-party apps.)
Re: I concur
Yes, it’s still fine for me on my Mac as of right now 00:52 on 15/01/2023 GMT/UTC.
I didn’t realise there was an API issue until I saw this post.
The cannot hold, it would appear.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You still refuse to admit all the times you lied
Let’s start small: admit that giving realtime location info on a target is doxxing.
Re:
Giving real time information to anybody listening is the whole point of ADSB.
Re: Re:
While there might be a privacy argument in there with the… plane, the handling of that situation was such a disaster that it about overshadows everything.
Re: Re: Re: Sigh - why do people have to not think before writing?
Look, aircraft transmit their location[1] to anyone that cares to listen on 1,090 megahertz. Latitude, Longitude, height, speed, direction, if it’s on auto pilot or not and with what major modes, all of that, en-clear, no encryption, signal can be picked up for 500 miles with a good antenna.
If someone is planning something nefarious for Musk’s aircraft, do you think they’d bother with a tweet where it is, or monitor it over a large independent network, or gasp! with $100 worth of parts it takes to pick it up and decode it?
News Flash: You can do the same thing with cargo ships at sea too[2].
[1] Depends on the aircraft and the ADSB beacon equipment exactly what all is broadcast.
[2] Although not with the same settings.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Did you think before posting? Clearly not.
Doxxing is dangerous because it exposes potential targeting information to a VAST amount of people, some of whom are probably crazies.
Most people have no idea how to do that, same way they have no idea how to get a home address from the DMV website, even though that isn’t hard. Fuck, most of them aren’t within 500miles but they’re all on twiiter. By posting the info you magnify the threat exponentially. Elonjet even packages it up all nice.
It’s quintessential doxxing.
I’ve seen some whoppers on this site but I think that takes the top for dripping with condescension and yet being so fucking stupid and missing the point.
Re: Re: Re:3
Can you point to a single example of ADSB being used to stalk anyone? The answer is no, because it’s fucking ridiculous.
People have already pointed out that you can’t connect a plane to a person. But, even more to the point, connecting a flight to an airport… gives you very little info. Even in pretty small airports, you can’t just go and find people liek that, especially airports that deal in private jets, which often have tremendous privacy and security.
There is nothing that puts anyone at risk.
And, it’s nothing like “doxing” which is revealing private info about someone. Not something that is literally broadcast out for anyone to follow, and which ahs long been used by tons of different services to track planes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Irrelevant. It could
Literally incorrect, per the actual definition.
Think before you speak
Re: Re: Re:5
Per the actual definition, you’re wrong, as has been pointed out repeatedly.
Ironic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I guess you can’t read, then.
Re: Re: Re:7
Damn, irony two posts in a row! Impressive.
Re: Re: Re:8
Wow. That guy is hilarious isn’t he? He seems to take pride in being wrong.
Re: Re: Re:9
He takes pride in being a Musk stan. A low-quality Musk Stan, at that, and one who expects to be richly rewarded for his 50 Cent Army-level contributions.
I know inflation is a bitch but damn…
Re: Re: Re:5
So, this information, that has been publicly available going back ages, and regularly viewed by tons of people, and yet… you can’t name a single example of it being misused?
Sorry, dude, but that ain’t putting Musk at risk.
It’s also not doxxing. Public info is public info. I’m sorry that your god king is a crybaby, but it’s even more pathetic that you carry water for such a thin skinned hypocritical child.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
It follows all the same rules as a home address. You don’t like the definition? Suck it, I don’t care, it’s doxxing.
Re: Re: Re:7
Apart from the bits about personally identifiable information and malicious intent.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
So….all the same rules? Seriously, that’s the same as a home address.
Re: Re: Re:9
I know you struggle with basic literacy, but this is poor, even for you.
Having the location of Musk’s plane is not the same as having the location of him, ergo(therefore) that information isn’t personally identifiable.
Furthermore(also), posting the location of said plane, or any other plane, isn’t automatically an indication of malicious intent.
Re: Re: Re:7 You really are the dumbest turd in the tank
“It follows all the same rules as a home address. You don’t like the definition? Suck it, I don’t care, it’s doxxing.”
Weird how they don’t arrest people selling maps of the stars homes in California.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yes, quite. It’s a situation in need of a law. The activity is a deep invasion of privacy.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Irrelevant. It could”
You could post something that’s not moronic, but it’s not happening…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
You’re resistant to facts.
Re: Re: Re:7
Physician, heal thyself.
Re: Re: Re:7
How would you know? You’ve not provided any yet.
Well, not full facts. You’ve supported twisted theories about facts that go way beyond what the actual facts say, and provide wild ideas of what might happen your fevered imagination that even you admit haven’t happened. But not straight facts.
Re: Re: Re:3 Clearly not thinking - still (MMB)
Were your comments posted by almost anyone else here on TechDirt, I’d pause to consider that I’m wrong. However, since it is from you, and considering your history, I’m assured I’m correct.
By the way, are you going to attack ADSB-Network, FlightRadar24, RadarBox, ADS-BExchange, ADSB-Scope, OpenSkyNetwork, PlanePlotter, ADSBHub, FlightAirMap, AirLABS, and the Federal Aviation Administration for making the same date availble, LIVE, without fee, to the general public, without even a log in?
Or is your general bile and endless spewing reserved for those of us unfortunate enough to come to TechDirt to try to have adult conversations without childish interruptions from internet trolls?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
nah, what you said was massively stupid.
The DMV makes it really easy to find your home address, too, with considerably less technical knowledge and not within 500 mi. It’s the exact same scenario.
You’re either really biased, very dumb, or most likely both.
Re: Re: Re:5
Perhaps you’re in a different state, but my state doesn’t have an address lookup on its public websites. What state’s DMV are you using and how can I replicate your steps?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Lots of them. Also registry of deeds.
Re: Re: Re:7 Not what was asked
Name. An. Example.
Re: Re: Re:8
He can’t, ’cause he’s lying.
Re: Re: Re:7
Which state’s DMV are you using and how did you find someone’s address on their website?
Re: Re: Re:8
I don’t know about (drive’s) licensing but you can absolutely look up deed holder. Business or law license etc
Re: Re: Re:7
“Lots of them”
i.e. I’m talking out of my ass and even hinting towards what I’m actually talking about would prove me wrong in a second, so I’ll just refer to vague fantasies that don’t exist outside of my head to pretend I’m right.
Re: Re: Re:5
I can’t access address info on any of my state’s websites. Perhaps you’re in a different state? What state DMV, and how can I step-by-step replicate your process?
Re: Re: Re:
“there might be a privacy argument in there with the… plane”
Not as far as I’m aware.
From what I know, the location data is required to travel within public airspace, and that can be accessed publicly and is made available through numerous sites that track the public airspace.
People following the car that picked the passengers up from the airport might be suspect, but not those tracking the plane itself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
And combining that info with a particular owner people might want to stalk is not
It’s just a null argument. My phone is “meant” to tell the cell network where I am at all times. Just broadcasting that shit out there, and it’s even pretty to read with the right equipment. But if you used that to tell all the internet where my phone is at any particular moment that very clearly would be doxxing and also quite dangerous if anyone meant me harm. Ditto a cellular connection on my car, or the EZ-pass transponder, oh and all that is combined with an easily read license plate. Doesn’t make it OK to tell the internet where my car is at all times.
Absolutely meaningless to say “giving real time information” is the point of it. Yeah, for air traffic control purposes.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not even a good example. A better example would be that if your cell phone company recorded your location and then posted that to a publicly available site. Then other people took that info and posted it elsewhere.
Your argument doesn’t even make sense. Just admit that you’ve lost it in this one. This can’t be good for your mental health to shill for a billionaire who doesn’t give a shit about you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That would be basically the same example, except the house is more directly analogous merely because you are not always at your house.
What are you smoking?
Re: Re: Re:
You cannot just read communication between a UE and an eNB or gNB with “the right equipment”, unless your equipment includes a quantum computer to decrypt the transmission.
Re:
Matthew Bennett: The very definition of every accusation is a confession.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
well THAT isn’t true. What is this, grade school “denial is the first sign”?
Re: Re: Re:
You do have a grade school mentality bro…
Re:
Re: Re:
Explicitly, Elon was not on the plane when its location was used to doxx the location of “lil X”. He wasnt in the greater LA area at all. The events literally prove how the location of Elon’s jet is not real time tracking of Elon.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant.
If you release my home address and I’m not home, it’s still doxxing.
Re: Re: Re:2
But if we released the location of your private plane, it wouldn’t be. See the difference?
Re: Re: Re:2
So… the phone book, that was delivered to everyone’s homes until very recently, was just one big massive doxxing conspiracy by the phone companies?
Re: Re: Re:2
Whereas if you release the public information about the location of the plane, and the event you’re complaining about was in car in some unspecified part of the city whose location wasn’t released, it’s not. There’s no way to tie the two locations unless someone’s following you from the airport, and that has nothing to do with whether or not the public saw public information about a plane travelling through public airspace.
Even by your standards, mentioning that you’re in a city is not the same as giving your home address.
Re: Re: Re:2
But its not the release of real-time location data, which was your claim.
Re:
Can you admit that you’re Elon Musk wearing a mustache
Re: Re:
He’s 3 Elon Musks in a trench coat.
Gotta get the blood from the rock somehow...
There was plenty of speculation that (in a repeat of an earlier era when Twitter greatly limited its API access out of a fear of losing control of the service to third party developers) that Elon Musk was doing this on purpose to try to stop third party app developers from offering ad-free access to Twitter. However, that still seems like pretty broad speculation.
Is it though? With how things have developed it sure seems like he needs to find something to fill the gaping hole that the advertisers that have bailed created, and trying to kill off ways to bypass the platform’s ads would certainly fit the bill.
Mind, even if you assume that this wasn’t intentional it’s not like it leaves him/the platform looking any better, as having a major component like that just break out of nowhere with nary a peep to tell people what’s going on is not exactly the best look for a platform that’s supposed to be running better now that Elon is running it.
It appears to be an intermittent or localized failure? That points to more of an oops than deliberate intent.
If it is localized, I wonder if he’s even noticed it’s down? Does Twitter have robust uptime monitoring?
Re:
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I’m sure that they used to, but whatever team managed that most likely has been fired by now.
Re: Re:
Or, the team is still there, but the infrastructure that gave them reliable data has been shut down because they were “wasteful microservices”…
3rd Party Apps
RIP Flamingo
REST APIs
The way I understand REST APIs is that a web application, (such as Twitter) actually relies on the API to work at all.
So, if Twitter is working, then the API is working; it’s just that third-party access to the API is blocked.
Re:
Twitters internal API used for its own apps is private and only known to Twitter.
They have a public API that gives 3rd party apps access to Twitter, but it is completely separate / different any any internal API they use.
Re: API isn't down
If they genuinely prioritise third party access like their own that’s really wholesome. But from a business perspective it’s fucking moronic.
More likely third party access is down and space Karen doesn’t give a fuck, don’t you think?
(Sorry, is think pushing it?)
Re:
So, if Twitter is working, then the API is working; it’s just that third-party access to the API is blocked.
Er, well, maybe. I don’t know about twitter, the cloud service I worked for (yes you know the name) had a lot more than a single API point and more than one level of API ability. For instance, the internal API was .. Never mind, NDA. Point being that differing API services have differing ability and access and rate limits. Example, would you rate limit your internal admin API server at the same rate you would for a user API service? No, of course not.
So bottom line, the internal API can work while the external API points are Fiernted and unless someone is watching [NDA] or something like Zabbix it’s not known. I always constructed synthetic transactions and if the output wasn’t expected, it created an alarm event.
Re:
That’s debatable… Twitter have provided public and private APIs before and had controversy when they shut down public access. There’s no reason to think that Musk didn’t order a mixed API to be shut down without knowing what it actually did.
Deliberate
I’d say that this is deliberate given this recent announcement from Twitter Support. https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1612966286484508672
The reason I say this is because the “For You” feed is most likely gonna be the default feed whereas the third party apps will default to the “Following” feed.
Elon turned off another critical server without thinking?
“Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.”
ok, gotta ask ..
What is the rational behind the idea that having money means one has special societal privileges over and above those afforded to the general public?
What is the defining characteristic that makes these individuals special?
Re:
Uh, you know what money is? It’s a government-supplied token with certain guarantees that you can exchange against anything that is for sale.
That’s all. As to why Twitter is for sale: it started out as a privately owned intenty, then it made in IPO distributing ownership to an open set of people who wanted to own a piece of its operation base, then that set of people sold their interest for more money to Musk who had money (or credit) available due to past endeavors.
This is really standard operations in a mercantile society (I hesitate to call this even capitalistic since we are not talking about means for production, and this is mere single-person ownership).
Re: Re:
You did not answer the question.
Special societal privileges … for example the desire to not have your tail number public info. What makes Elon special such that his public info is now secret while others are not special in this same way.
Elon has access to money, that is all and not very special.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s not secret, it’s just as accessible as it’s always been.
Money gets you access to power. Those in power need money to stay in power. So people in power share that power with those who have money. This is not new or surprising or up for debate.
Re: Re: Re:2 This is not new or surprising or up for debate.
At what point during the breakdown of a human livable climate does that get debated?
Re: Re: Re:3
Good question! I’m pretty sure that if our possible future climate hellscape comes to pass you can replace the word “money” above with the word “resources” and it will be just as accurate.
Re:
“What is the rational behind the idea that having money means one has special societal privileges over and above those afforded to the general public?”
Money lets you buy politicians, legislature and other things the average worker can’t buy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I shouldn’t ask but I gotta…..what “special” privileges do think Musk has gotten, exactly?
Re: Re:
It’s what he is asking for
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fritter works fine as a reader app.
It looks like they are just dumping bot apps. It makes sense.
Crazy like a Dox
You think elonjet is a doxer ..
Clearview AI
(head explodes)
Re:
https://tenor.com/view/your-head-a-splode-gif-25091009
Two things happened on Friday...
1) the API was down, but not actually for very long, but it is unusual – historically Twitter has had ludicrously good API quality and performance in recent years.
2) They have turned off a bunch of API keys on purpose.
You can check the full stats we have at https://api.expert (it’s totally free as a resource) but we’re only seeing a max of 10 minutes actual downtime against our API keys – however – that’s more about as much as we measured for all of last year.
Mobile 3rd party apps are off
All 3rd party Twitter apps have to establish wireless connection to Twitter API then Twitter API authorizes. A that is needed to shutdown mobile apps is not allow mobile connect. On my mobile chrome browser Twitter is fine but mobileDOtwitterDOTcom is the definition of torture.
I saw one tweet that office in S.F. closed and office furniture is out. Can’t find tweet post now (shrug). Seems a handy way to force new deals and do whatever he is doing.
I’m not to worried.
WORRIED — Maryland senate Bill revokes concealed carry. I don’t have the ability to jump on Annapolis with both feet: MD State coppers would/could have me in irons for ancient reasons (long memory they have).
Quiet time for me.
Twit folks have some info
Twit folks have some information.
https://youtu.be/M6Hxioq0CAA
— some bot clean up
— journalists
— some apps will return
Much indirect to not out long time people
I’m going to keep an ear open. Short video is worth a look.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The stats posted on several articles showed that 25% of the twitter users are in the US and Canada, with 75% of all twitter comments coming from outside of those areas.
Its no wonder broken English is spoken by so many illiterates. So many meaningless opinions to filter. Many sites are like that in 2023. Not worth the time to read.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
And…?
Oh no! Shitter has a problem.
The world must join reality.
Techdirt going to do an article about the Biden theft of classified documents? That were found before the election? And not reported?
Or just going to ignore the over use of force for a highly secured facility under Trump control.
And the lack of pomp for Biden’s collection?
Re:
In one instance we have people who have been lax in how they handled a score of sensitive documents but they voluntarily, without prompting, returned them when discovered.
Then we have the other instance where someone claimed they didn’t have hundreds of missing documents, that could de-classifd sensitive documents just by saying it after being prodded several times to return them, hid documents, moved them around, fought the return the documents, used them in a show and tells for random people at dinners, claimed they where private documents, lied about returning all documents etc etc.
Gee, I wonder what the difference is. How about you use your brain? I know it’s a tall order for you since you have problems understanding context and intent, the hallmark of someone who rather believe in fantasies than factual reality.
Perhaps Biden should just say that he de-classified the documents, that should be enough to satisfy your stupidity at this point since you seem to have accepted that Trump had the power to do that as an ex-president.
Re: Re:
It was actually even dumber than that. Trump said to Sean Hannity that a president could declassify documents “even by thinking about it”.
Re: Re: Re:
In addition, it has been suggested that perhaps Donald excitedly declassified more documents than he actually stole, err misplaced .. ahhh securely stored next to the pool – and as a result the documents found in Biden possession were also declassified at that time.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The statement is correct.
The president has sole authority and need not consult others.
Re: Re: Re:2
He does have to inform people that the documents are declassified, though, or at least document the process in writing while he was still president. Furthermore, there was an executive order governing how documents are to be declassified, and Trump never modified or rescinded it, meaning he was still bound by that order.
So no, the POTUS can’t just declassify documents with his mind. While he doesn’t have to consult with anyone (i.e. ask for advice on it or something like that) and doesn’t have to ask for permission to do so, there has to be some sort of record of him declassifying the documents.
Re: Re: Re:3
That aspect of the issue is bound to be tested in the near future. But without precedent, the outcome is unknown.
Again, there is no binding requirement for notification or documentation.
Re: Re: Re:2
I guess you’re as delusional as Trump.
Re: Re:
In one case you have a vice president with no control over classification, keeping documents in a private residence garage. Easily accessible to any prowler or burglar.
In the other you have a former president who says he declassified documents. Who kept them stores in a location with both unarmed and armed security.
Re: Re: Re:
There is a process for documenting which documents are declassified. Trump had to follow it or enact an Executive Order that changed it.
Re: Re: Re:
In one case you had several hundreds of sensitive documents (including SCI & nuclear) in an unlocked storage accessible by hundreds of Mar-a-Lago members and guests, where Trump employees played a shell-game with the documents to hide them from NARA, where 2 Chinese nationals where arrested prowling the grounds, where law enforcement believes that Chinese intelligence might have penetrated the club, where top secret information was discussed in the open for anyone to hear, where documents was flaunted in front of guest in an effort to brag, where it had to take a court order and a raid to get all the documents back.
In the other case we have someone who isn’t insane enough to say that just thinking “de-classify” de-classifies top secret documents and hasn’t stupid followers who thinks “yeah, that sounds reasonable!” because laws’n’shit doesn’t actually matter when the God-king has spoken. Well, Biden is president now so he can de-classify these documents and there is no problem, right? Isn’t that what you are arguing? That presidents and ex-presidents can just de-classify things by thinking it?
The thing you so conveniently ignore is how the two cases differ because intent and context matters. Trump denied, obstructed, hid, made insane claims, flaunted, delayed and other shit regarding the documents he took from the White House. That Biden and his team couldn’t keep track of where they put a score of documents is fucking embarrassing for them but they at least voluntarily owned up to it when they found them.
Perhaps you think the better thing is to deny any wrongdoing at all instead of owning up to your mistakes, but that is ultimately the damned cowards way who refuses to take responsibility. Are you a damned coward?
Re: Re: Re:2
most of what was found/stolen/“recovered” was in locked rooms. Far from any guest. That a few folders wound up elsewhere is no different than Biden loosing a “few”
if he declassified the material, it’s not too secret
Link?
Moving items is hardly shell games. Going to tell me you never moved a box from one location to another?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/
Where you will find also, agreement to what I have said before: the president isn’t beholden to former president’s executive orders.
Feel free to point to any law that says the president can not unilaterally and without documentation, declassify whatever he wants.
He can. But they were classified when found. Granted he could potentially pardon himself pre facto. And I doubt if impeached and removed, he wouldn’t be pardoned there. But no, a vice president can not declassify documents, making his retention illegal.
Trump will have to face a review. One where the rights of a President will be determined.
If you think anyone is going to step on Trump over this, you’re a bloody fool.
The most likely outcome here is congress placing notification requirements and a timely range on the process. Something that should have been done following Nixon.
Re: Re: Re:3
There where hundreds of folders found in a non-secure storage by the FBI. This is a fact.
Funny how one can “declassify” documents after the fact.
Did you miss the whole debacle with the Japanese and the North Korean missiles that all the guests witnessed?
Not when I have guaranteed to the government that the boxes would be stored in a designated secure storage that only authorized people had access to.
Let me just quote a bit from the article: ‘The president is not “obliged to follow any procedures other than those that “he himself has prescribed”‘. This of course means that a president can set up any kind of procedure they want how to declassify information – but that doesn’t apply to ex-presidents. If Trump declassified the documents while he was president, but claiming as an ex-president that he did it without zero documentation or witnesses after getting caught with secret documents stored willy-nilly (they where only stored securely after the National Archives started making noises about them) at Mar-a-Lago is just him trying to save his skin as he always does – lie lie lie.
Feel free to point out when President Trump did this while documenting and informing others that he did so, and not ex-President Trump saying he did it after the fact.
We can’t punish your God-king, can we – regardless of what he does. Hell, you’ll probably cheer him on when he shoots some poor sod on 5th avenue or when he teargas people to get a photo-op in front of a church.
Because no one back then couldn’t even in their darkest nightmares imagine how fucking low the Republicans would sink having a president lying on a daily basis. Nixon was magnitudes more of a statesman compared to Trump and the GOP combined, and that is a fucking sad statement to make.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, there were hundreds found in locked closets or other offices out of standard public access.
There were a few dozen found loose with mixed papers and magazines.
There’s no law or restriction that requires a president notify anyone. Not make any change on the documents themselves.
Yes, he’s no longer in office so he’s of minimal interest to me now.
Well, if they are declassified, he can authorise anyone.
You have shown no more proof than the others’ reports that he is lying.
There is no restrictions on when, what, and how a president can declassify. Not is there any requirement to make any Notification, including changing the document stamps.
I suggest you read up on the absolute disaster that was the Carter administration.
And the point here is, every president held classified documents post office. You forget the whole mess about the Obama library and him forcing the review take place under his watch.
Neither Bush was very cooperative and we won’t get into the Clinton family.
This isn’t some extreme, other than a politicised law organisation trying yet another gotcha for their money masters. They failed. Now evidence of a crime here.
But based on the only evidence in existence, the statement of a former president, trump has No classified information and Biden did.
Re: Re: Re:5
A statement from Trump isn’t evidence, it’s a statement that can’t be verified in any way since he informed no one about it when he supposedly declassified the documents while in office. For it to be evidence, it has to be corroborated in some way by a fact.
If I say the moon is made of jelly-beans, it’s just a ridiculous statement because there are zero facts that can back it up in any way – just like how ex-president Trump said he declassified the documents and since he is a known liar I have no doubt at all that his statements about the documents are pure lies to cover his ass.
This is evidenced by the simple fact that if the documents where declassified there were no reason for him to fight tooth and nail to keep them from the National Archives to the point that the legal system had to be involved to retrieve them. And no, whether the documents where declassified or not doesn’t matter one bit as specified by the PRA of 1978.
As usual, you just keep defending the indefensible so you can ignore the intent of the actions.
Re: Re: Re:6
Some of us care about the law the way it is. And seeing proper changes to errors.
You are yet another guided by blind hatred. There is an opportunity here to fix a major flaw in our system.
You are too indulged in your own mind to see that.
Re: Re: Re:7
Here’s a newsflash for you, ALL presidents before Trump actually documented/communicated the declassification of documents in some way. Even though the law doesn’t exactly specify how a president should declassify documents all other instances of declassification sets a de facto precedence. Such precedence actually have ramifications in how laws are actually interpreted – the law isn’t static, ie it isn’t the way it is.
Please tell me what it is I hate? Be specific.
Yes, institute laws and regulations explicitly stating that even presidents must document declassification of secret documents while they actually are a sitting president and not an ex-president on a clown-show caught with secret documents.
That’s rich coming from you, who ignore facts, context and intentions to defend the indefensible at every opportunity.
Re: Re: Re:8
reality check. No. Again, Carter was notorious .
Handing stuff out and then saying, later, ‘oh, declassified’ etc. some times stating as such after his presidency.
You’re blinded by the who. That’s all the more there is here with you people who hate him.
No, congress will not and can not make a law that makes requirements on presidential powers. What they can do, and probably will her given how many presidents have been caught with classified documents of late, is create a notification process. That’s how the balance of powers work.
Indefensible? I stick to fact. Actual fact. What you think the intent is is not fact, it’s conjecture.
I again find it interesting how quickly you forget the Obama library issues. He, too, stonewalled access until the archive gave up and gave in; agreeing to an on-site review.
You won’t find a single complaint about that situation from me. My only post-presidential complaint was the location of the library.
Btw, the archives didn’t get his documents either.
Re: Re: Re:9
“Again, Carter was notorious .
Handing stuff out and then saying, later, ‘oh, declassified’ etc. some times stating as such after his presidency.”
While in office? Or, months later after being raided to find the stuff people knew he had but refused to return after multiple requests?
I mean, “other presidents broke the law too” is a very weak excuse, but I’m just wondering where the line is here.
“I again find it interesting how quickly you forget the Obama library issues. He, too, stonewalled access until the archive gave up and gave in; agreeing to an on-site review.”
I’d love a citation here. Trump seems to have rambled on about something, but AFAIK he was jus talking about the preparations for his presidential library that followed all existing procedures.
“Btw, the archives didn’t get his documents either.”
Again, citation. My understanding is that they’re stored correctly but they’re awaiting completion of the final destination before they’re moved.
Re: Re: Re:10
Looks like someone said something more recently about this. There’s a whole bunch of 2022/23 crap about it now.
I’m going off my memory and will get back with a link when I find one older than 22.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2022/02/20/bush-obama-trump-all-use-presidential-record-act-hide-history/
Covers some of it
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/obama-center/ct-met-obama-archives-20171004-story.html
There’s a lot of political fudge nonsense right now.
Best I can remember the documents showed up to be stored in a storage unit. The library wasn’t built. He told the NA something along the lines of’ sorry, busy’ for a LONG time.
Eventually he spent a fortune to have them digitally converted.
Again, I didn’t care about the files. I was focused on digging up a memorial park to create yet another modern eyesore that few would utilise. Much like I don’t care about the Trump files or the Biden files.
My commentary here is double standard.
A military style raid on a former president to recover generally secured documents that have been declared declassified… vs ignoring the lack of security at a generic storage unit holding documents admitted to being classified up front.
Nobody who looks at this objectively comes always with anything other than political showmanship.
Every president has kept document troves. Every one of those has included “classified” documents. And every One has made commentary at some point about ‘oh, declassified’.
Apparently someone in the trump camp, or he himself, commented on Obama’s horde last year and that has well buried the local coverage of the time. Best I recall it was “thousands” not 30 million (the total of files) that were believed classified.
I have zero doubt after the political pomp of courts and suits is done Trump will walk away the same as every other president; clean of wrong doing under the law.
And when the pointless showmanship of the failed Dem elites is over, maybe the rest of congress will finally do something about 40 years of this crap. This is nothing more than chest thumping by senior citizens desperate to maintain their power. The majority of America doesn’t actually care. The surveys and polls make that clear.
Much like marriage (finally), abortion, and other national issues; fix the problem.
What benefit is there to to waste more tax money on an another show investigation when the outcome is clear in law.
Re: Re: Re:5
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:
If you actually looked into what the law, regulations and how it has been done historically you would know that is entirely dependent on the classification of the documents. For example, all classified document pertaining to nuclear information can only be declassified by DOE.
Also, documents that are reclassified must be marked with the new classification and if a document is declassified it should clearly state that on the document – this is so people know how to handle and store them. There is also the fact that a majority of the documents that Trump took didn’t belong to him regardless of their classification, this was pointed out to him when the return was requested.
Do keep up, did you miss the whole documents labeled “Top Secret” were kept among beach chairs, umbrellas, and cleaning supplies in an area that may have been accessible to resort guests, or FBI agents found classified documents in Trump’s “45 Office” — located above Mar-a-Lago’s main ballroom, and it was unclear if there was security in place to separate partygoers from Trump’s office, or how Kanye with his entourage was let into Mar-a-Lago in November when Kanye’s driver flashed his credit card to the gate-guard.
Mar-a-Lago was considered a security nightmare, because you had hundreds of people coming and going the whole time.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, that response ended up in a funny place.
Re: Re: Re:2
Generally… been done. Carter and Johnson both had a bad habit of randomly declassifying on a whim.
Oh, and precedent isn’t law.
As for the DOE, sorry, you’re flat out wrong. The president can override them at will.
Re: Re: Re:3
Which doesn’t matter one bit in this discussion since they all did it while they where in office by actually informing people of the declassification through, for example, executive orders.
Yes, by telling them “I have declassified these documents” – because that’s the only way to override something. It’s not reasonable to keep secret the fact you declassified documents from the government agency that is responsible for the documents until you are an ex-president found to have kept several hundreds of top secret documents at their private property.
Let me give you a scenario here that’ll show how unreasonable it is not to inform people about declassifying documents:
* A government employee is found to have sold top secret documents to a foreign power and is arrested. The employee has privately professed his support for a former president on social media. All this make huge headlines whereupon the former president announces that “Oh, I declassified those documents without telling anyone so the employee didn’t sell any secrets and is innocent.”
The alternative is:
* A government employee is found to have sold top secret documents to a foreign power and is arrested. The employee has privately been very outspoken about his criticism for a former president on social media. All this make huge headlines whereupon the former president announces that “He’s a traitor and should get the death penalty.”
Both scenarios are equally valid if a president declassified documents without telling anyone. The former happens when you have a ex-president that is narcissistic and who protects anyone stroking their ego, the latter is what happens when you have a narcissistic and vindictive ex-president who can’t stand any kind of critique.
You are essentially arguing that once someone becomes a president they will be totally unaccountable for all future to the OSA among other things. It’s basically the same argument that was trotted out that Trump as a president could pardon himself.
Re: Re: Re:4
You are correct. And you made my point.
That is, in its entirety, what we have here.
Congress needs to set notification systems in place.
(Btw I Did mention the idea of a president pardoning themselves, in relation to Biden).
Re: Re: Re:3
“The president can override them at will.”
Which usually leaves a paper trail, and is done while in office. Where’s the paper trail?
The problem people have with Trump isn’t simply “he has documents”. It’s the repeated refusal to return them after multiple demands, the weak excuses given to not return them all, and fact that he’s known to have had visits from people who would have been very happy to see those documents (including the Saudis who just happened to loan his son-in-law $2 billion around the same time).
Sadly, as usual there’s a lot of handwaving and poor excuses that wouldn’t get a 5 year old out of eating his broccoli (no, “I psychically declassified them” is not how things work), lots of whataboutism and other playground tactics, but little in the way of defence that would hold up in court.
“nuh uh you’re wrong” is still not a retort that works here. Show the evidence that Trump followed the rules to declassify documents, or failing that where he followed the rules to return them after they were discovered, as others seem to be doing.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ultimately the issue is there are No rules. None; beyond what the president chooses. “I declassified them” is perfectly legal.
A quick google search with president’s names will show this has been a recurring issue for a very long time;
Granted at a much lower scale. Obama had hundreds of documents. Many still not returned.
W Bush made post facto claims as did bill Clinton.
Again Carter’s issues may be a bit buried but are well documented.
Nixon and Johnson both were quite, “irresponsible”.
Kennedy share documents randomly with women.
The only reason there is any kind of discussion here is because a politicised FBI decided to make an unreasonable and unprecedented raid on a former president.
And
That former president is one of the most divisive in two generations.
While trump will almost certainly walk away from this clean, we may finally get some oversight on classification.
The one place we will agree is “I declassified them” should not be how it works.
Then again, we classify WAY too much. Trump, officially and unofficially, declassified more documents than any in recent history.
The fights over the Kennedy documents, the UFO files, the special research portfolio…
A lot of the alphabet hatred for him comes from such releases.
Releases I support.
So… you are correct in thought that I have little care who has access as long as the public eventually gets access as well.
Like it or not, when the dust settles here; trump says they were declassified and that is what will stand. They will be scanned by the archives and eventually the public will read them.
That is far more important than which allies(or should-be allies) he shared them with. In my opinion.
Re: Re: Re:5
““I declassified them” is perfectly legal.”
Proof needed, I believe. I don’t believe that classified docs exist with a specific procedure to declassify then, and I also don’t believe that it wouldn’t involve a paper trail.
“The only reason there is any kind of discussion here is because a politicised FBI decided to make an unreasonable and unprecedented raid on a former president.”
Indeed, nobody else has to be raided because they refused to return documents they were known to have without permission. I’m not sure why the cult has decided that this is the fault of the people asking for property to be returned by the thieves, but I agree it’s unprecedented.
“A quick google search with president’s names will show this has been a recurring issue for a very long time”
Indeed. Which makes it less of an issue for Biden. The issues with Trump are the unprecedented things he did, such as refusing to return documents, being found to have SCIF classified documents that are apparently not supposed to leave the room they’re in, let alone the state, and the suspicious circumstances around the storage.
“Then again, we classify WAY too much.”
I’ll let courts make that decision.
“trump says they were declassified and that is what will stand”
Trump says a lot of things that are demonstrably untrue, and if he claims he waved his magic wand after Biden was sworn in, his magic words have no meaning.
“They will be scanned by the archives and eventually the public will read them.”
The issue isn’t whether the public can read them. It’s whether the Saudis and other visitor to Mar a Lago read them, and whether the $2 billion payment to Jared was related to them, among other concerns.
Re: Re: Re:6
One doesn’t not need price a negative. There is no restriction or regulation on presidential power of classification.
Correct. Nobody eased Obama or W properties to recover “classified” documents. In both cases the former president claimed they were not classified. In both cases the archive declared them “sensitive”.
The more appropriate question here has nothing to do with classification status. As there is no requirement a president make notification of any type in his declassification.
The question is if the former president has a right to such documents in personal archive, (eg presidential library, closet, etc) or if they belong to the people.
I could be wrong, but I believe Obama stonewalled for over 12 months before giving the archive access.
The final question here is who has right of holding on items of presidential creation. Something not set that has concerned the last 7 presidents, and their libraries.
Step away from Trump for a moment. There’s a larger issue here. 40-some years of unanswered questions.
Re:
No none of that, you silly person you ..
In the US we have what is referred to as Equal Justice Under the Law. You know .. where everyone is treated equally.
LOL, cough cough
Re:
Techdirt can’t report on the deranged hallucinations of addicts without telepathy being real, so likely no.
Re:
There will be pomp, for certain, because you clowns will keep screaming about it while frantically deepthroating any attempt to mention Trump’s situation.
This airplane doxxing silliness seems similar to the claim that an IP Address identifies a person.
Another exercise in futility.
Thanks for social bookmarking websites list. Really it gonna help many freshers to bookmark their websites/posts, etc. it has various advantages as mentioned above but most importantly it has the main advantage to bloggers, free social bookmarking websites will help them fetch traffic to their websites. When anyone submits any link to any famous bookmarking website, it gets tons of free attention and traffic.
https://www.odpavingmasonry.com/
Twit folks have some info
Twit folks have some information.
— some bot clean up
— journalists
— some apps will return
Much indirect to not out long time people
I’m going to keep an ear open. Short video is worth a look.
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »