Twitter protects Occupy protester's privacy

22 hrs.

Helen A.S. Popkin

Twitter filed a motion Tuesday?requesting that New York state court to?overturn an order requiring that the social network provide user information to prosecutors. The user was an Occupy Wall Street protester who was?arrested last Oct. 1 in New York City.

Twitter's legal filing accuses?prosecutors?of asking the?company to violate the Fourth Amendment, the Uniform Act and its own Terms of Service.?It's a move the?American Civil Liberties Union heralds as a strike against the "increasingly aggressive attempts" by federal and state law enforcement officials "to obtain information about what people are doing on the Internet."?

In late April, a judge ruled against defendant Malcolm Harris, whose attorney attempted to quash a subpoena requesting his Twitter activity. Harris, along with hundreds of others, was arrested and?charged with disorderly conduct during a protest march on the Brooklyn Bridge.?

Harris, who is protesting the charge along with many others, contends that police officers directed the crowd to march on the roadway, then arrested the marchers for obstructing traffic. Manhattan prosecutors contend that the Twitter records will show that Harris knew about the police order not to walk on the roadways, but did so anyway.

"Defense attorneys have said subpoenas have been issued for at least four protesters? Twitter accounts," the Wall Street Journal noted in April, after the court ruled in favor of the Twitter subpoena. Prosecutors requested the records because protesters "use Twitter to coordinate activities and warn others of law-enforcement efforts. In doing so, prosecutors believe some have revealed intent to break the law."

When reached by msnbc.com,?Twitter provided a statement from legal counsel?Ben Lee:

As we said in our brief, "Twitter's Terms of Service make absolutely clear that its users own their content." Our filing with the court reaffirms our steadfast commitment to defending those rights for our users.

The?Twitter brief mentioned in fact calls out?three reasons why the?subpoena?"imposes an undue burden" by asking the company to violate its own Terms of Service, as well as several federal laws.

"First, the Order surprisingly holds that? Mr. Harris has no right to challenge the District?Attorney?s subpoena for his own?communications?and account information on Twitter. The motion notes that this finding is ?is contradictory to Twitter's Terms of Service, which?"unequivocally state that its users 'retain [their] rights to any Content[they] submit, post or display on or through' Twitter, and which "expressly permits users to challenge demands for their?account records."

Further, Twitter notes that the court requested user information without a warrant -- a violation of the Fourth Amendment, a requirement that "applies even when the government seeks information about allegedly public activities."

Then there's the whole thing about a New York court requesting information from a company located in California, the motion states. Thanks to the?Uniform?Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State (Uniform Act, for short), California-based Twitter isn't required to hand over documentation to a New York court without a?subpoena?issued in its home state. "Because neither the Subpoena nor the Order comply?with the Uniform Act, Twitter cannot be required to produce any documents in response to?either," the motion ?points out.?

Twitter's choice to "stand up for one of its users" is a "big deal" ACLU attorney Aden Fine writes in a blog post announcing the motion:

While the individual Internet users can try to defend their rights in the rare circumstances in which they find out about the requests before their information is turned over, that may not be enough.?Indeed, even though Twitter provided notice to the Twitter user in this particular case, and even though he was able to get an attorney to file a motion seeking to quash the subpoena, the court found that the Twitter user did not have legal ?standing? to challenge the D.A.?s subpoena.

If Internet users cannot protect their own constitutional rights, the only hope is that Internet companies do so.

Twitter's motion comes in the wake of what civil libertarians are calling the U.S. government's move towards a "Surveillance State" in the United States.?

Earlier this week, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that the FBI is courting social networks, VoIP and Web email providers to build backdoors in their services that allow for government surveillance.?

Last month, the House passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a bipartisan bill that?allows the feds and private?corporations (such as Facebook, AT&T, etc.) to share Internet without a warrant or other judicial oversight. As CISPA awaits a vote by the Senate, Twitter's legal expression of noncompliance is being viewed as at least a small win for our increasingly fading Internet privacy. ?

Helen A.S. Popkin goes blah blah blah about online privacy, afterwards asks we to join her on?Twitter?and/or?Facebook. Also,?Google+.?Because that?s how she rolls.

world bank kim kardashian flour bomb hunger games box office xavier joan crawford joan crawford john goodman