by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jul 2nd 2012 4:17pm
We recently wrote about Twitter standing up for a user, Malcolm Harris, who had participated in the Occupy Wall St. protests, and whose info was sought by the government under a 2703(d) order (which has fewer protections than an ordinary warrant). Twitter told Harris about the order, and Harris sought to have it blocked -- but the court claimed he had no standing to do so, as it was just an issue between the government and Twitter. Twitter pushed back, noting that individuals control the content of their own account, so Harris should have standing. Unfortunately, a NYC judge has told Twitter to give up Harris' info, though it did say that the government would need to get a warrant for the last day's worth of info, due to a technicality on timing. The court basically punts on the larger issues, focusing on the fact that most of the information requested, Harris' tweets, are already public, and thus there's little to be concerned about. Of course, if that's the case, it's unclear why the government needs to request info from Twitter in the first place...
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- UN Appoints Special Expert To Report On Online Privacy; Surprisingly, US And UK Don't Object
- Good News: Internet Ad Industry Realizes It Needs To Embrace HTTPS
- California Legislators Pushing Warrant Requirement For All Access To Electronic Information, Including That Obtained By Stingrays
- France To Require Internet Companies To Detect 'Suspicious' Behavior Automatically, And To Decrypt Communications On Demand
- Twitter Alters Its Rules To Tackle Revenge Porn