HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! Looking for something to read instead? Check out our new Working Futures anthology »
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! Looking for something to read instead? Check out our new Working Futures anthology »

Twitter Stands Up For Devin Nunes' Parody Accounts: Won't Reveal Who's Behind Them

from the good-for-twitter dept

A couple weeks ago, we noted that the judge in Virginia presiding over Devin Nunes' bullshit censorial lawsuit against Twitter, some parody Twitter accounts, and political strategist Liz Mair, had demanded that Twitter reveal to the judge who was behind the two parody accounts (for "Devin Nunes' Cow" and "Devin Nunes' Mom.") As we pointed out at the time, this request was highly unusual. Yes, the judge was in the process of determining if the case did not belong in Virginia, so he wanted to know if the people behind the accounts were based in Virginia, but there are ways to do that that protect the anonymity of the account holders (anonymity being a 1st Amendment right). Specifically, he could have just asked whether or not the account holders appeared to be based in Virginia.

We also wondered if Twitter would refuse the request -- as it has done in the past. And the answer is yes. Twitter has told the judge it won't comply, but did say that neither of the account holders lived in Virginia -- which should satisfy the only legal reason why the judge might want to know who they were.

Twitter on Wednesday told the judge it does not intend to disclose the names of the authors of accounts known as Devin Nunes’ Cow and Devin Nunes’ Mom, according to documents obtained by McClatchy.

“Defending and respecting the user’s voice is one of our core values at Twitter,” a Twitter spokesperson said in response to questions about the court filing. “This value is a two-part commitment to freedom of expression and privacy.”

Twitter in a message to other defendants in the case said it told the judge that the authors of the accounts do not live or work in Virginia....

[....]

“Undersigned counsel has been in contact with lawyers who have advised Twitter that they represent, respectively, the user or users of the @DevinCow account and the user or users of the @DevinNunesMom account,” the letter states. “Each of those counsel has authorized me to inform the Court, through this letter, that their respective client or clients do not reside or work in Virginia and never used the account while physically present in Virginia.”

This is good to see, though it remains to be seen how the judge feels about Twitter pushing back on his request. Again, the whole case is ridiculous and should be thrown out for a whole variety of reasons. But it's already worrisome that the judge thought it was fine to unmask the parody account holders, even if he promised that he would keep the identities secret.

Filed Under: anonymity, devin nunes, devin nunes cow, free speech, jurisdiction, privacy
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 7:04am

    That's the best result, really. Twitter give the judge the information he was officially digging for, while not exposing anything irrelevant to the case. If the judge needs more information than simply whether or not the targets are in his jurisdiction, I hope he has to fight for it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 7:05am

    I hoped Twitter would fight the unmasking. That it is doing so gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. 😃

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 7:05am

    Now what?

    Where the judge and Nunes/his lawyer go from here should be telling. Given they've just been told by the lawyers for the two account holders via Twitter that they do not in fact live in virginia it would seem that undercuts the idea that that portion of the lawsuit at least should be tried in the state, as opposed to california where every other party is.

    If the judge/Nunes lawyer tries to double-down to know who they are it will be pretty clearly to get the names rather than the locations, a blatant attempt to unmask the account owners rather than simply find out the appropriate venue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 7:11am

      The only reason for Nunes wanting the names of the account owners at this point would be for running a public shaming/harassment campaign against them. (And running a fundraising grift for “legal fees” at the same time.) Their speech is constitutionally protected parody; Nunes would lose any lawsuit brought against them on those grounds alone. Unmasking the account owners wouldn’t change that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 7:19am

      Re: Now what?

      Coming from the tech side of things, the only thing I can think of them doing that doesn't make the fishing any more obvious than it is would be to question how Twitter can be so certain. With them not requiring accurate address details to sign up, and VPNs existing, how can they really know with any degree of certainty? The only way I can think of is if the account is associated with a verified account, at which point Twitter might be forced to come up with the details to prove they're telling the truth.

      On the other hand, this would be pretty much admitting that the judge knew they were unlikely to have any concrete proof, and so makes the original demand seem even more questionable than it already does.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        James Burkhardt (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 7:28am

        Re: Re: Now what?

        “Each of those counsel has authorized me to inform the Court, through this letter, that their respective client or clients do not reside or work in Virginia and never used the account while physically present in Virginia.”

        It appears the information was gathered via communication with the parties in question. That raises the likelihood that evidence was provided to Twitter's council to satisfy them that the statement they were making was true to the limit of the evidence available when combined with IP-based geolocation of tweets.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 7:43am

          Re: Re: Re: Now what?

          Well, certainly that's a possibility as well. I've spent so much time reminding people that you don't have to provide valid contact information to Twitter, that I nearly forgot that some people will be doing that!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Adrian Lopez, 13 Sep 2019 @ 8:34am

        Re: Re: Now what?

        You don't have to give Twitter your real name, either, so the judge's request for names seems even less likely to reveal useful information. I find it more likely people would use a fake name than conceal their IP address through a VPN, though either is possible. Moreover, an IP address is not the only indicator of a user's likely place of residence: Twitter can look at the person's phone number, which if I'm not mistaken does have to be confirmed by the user.

        None of these methods are foolproof, of course, but I don't think they have to be. In the end, either Twitter has evidence of these users living in Virginia or it doesn't. I don't think the defendant's place of residence needs to be definitively established as "not Virginia" for Virginia to be the wrong forum.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 8:24am

    Good. Handing over user information for such a blatant fishing expedition would kill them. It'd open up the doors for everyone who wanted to silence critics online, from petty politicians to oppressive regimes... Well, ones even more oppressive than the one Nunes is a lackey for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Deez Nunes, 13 Sep 2019 @ 10:11am

    1 down 49 more to try.

    Well cross viginia off the list. What other states can we sue them in to see if a judge can reveal who made those accounts?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Annonymouse, 13 Sep 2019 @ 10:19am

    A judge that asked for names and promises to keep it confidential is not to be trusted..
    Time for some investigative reporters to do some digging and see who owns them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2019 @ 11:35am

    To the next court Devin Nunes will plow,
    Hoping to unmask Devin Nunes Cow,
    His shrill cries sounding like a sow,
    While the Internet chants How now Nunes Cow

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dr evil, 13 Sep 2019 @ 4:02pm

    A little Twitter bird

    I didn't know Twitter was a thing anymore...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    B🐮bvi🐮us, 13 Sep 2019 @ 4:27pm

    Here are the names

    After ploughing through herded results of a little forensic searching on https://twitter.cow, I can shed a little light on the culprits, Lulubelle Holstein and Angus Galloway. Naturally, they live in Texas.

    Just don't let them know I grassed them up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Smartassicus the Roman, 13 Sep 2019 @ 10:39pm

    Waitaminnit

    “Defending and respecting the user’s voice is one of our core values at Twitter,” “This value is a two-part commitment to freedom of expression and privacy.”

    Horseshit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2019 @ 12:27am

    “Defending and respecting the user’s voice is one of our core values at Twitter,” a Twitter spokesperson said in response to questions about the court filing. “This value is a two-part commitment to freedom of expression and privacy.”

    So long as it is speech we agree with, that is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 15 Sep 2019 @ 5:43pm

    How does Devin Nunes have standing in Virginia? Shouldn't he bring this suit in his state of residence, Iowa, or the state in which he holds political office, California?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.