It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US wants Twitter details of Wikileaks activists

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

US wants Twitter details of Wikileaks activists


www.bbc.co.uk

The US government has subpoenaed the social networking site Twitter for personal details of people connected to Wikileaks, court documents show.

The US District Court in Virginia said it wanted information including user names, addresses, connection records, telephone numbers and payment details.

Those named include Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an Icelandic MP.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The government has subpoenaed the social networking site Twitter for personal details of people connected to Wikileaks, court documents show.

The San Francisco-based website was given three days to respond was also told not to disclose that it had been served the subpoena, or the existence of the investigation.

We seek the truth, and all we get from the government is lies, secrecy, intimidation and corruption.

I can only hope people respond to these tactics be increasing oversight of the government, and EXPOSING it's corruption - before it's too late.

ps I didn't see this headline posted yet, apologies if it has been

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Wow how blatant . Enjoy the little bit freedom we have left . The little corner we had on the internet will soon be hijacked by some evil dictators lol . These guys have been pushing it and pushing it further and further its amazing how you can see your self being forced to cross there line where they set it inch by inch



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
And so, the persecution of the layman has begun. First wikileaks and its founders, now all those who support wikileaks. No doubt they would call affiliation with the website something as small as putting it in your signature or interests. We must all be terrorists for seeking the truth. Bring it on big brother, agitate the masses even more and you will get yours in the end.
"That one in the spotlight he don´t look right to me, get him up against the wall. That one looks jewish! And that ones a coon! Who let all this riff raff into the room? There´s one smoking a joint! And another with spots! If I had my way, I´d have all of ya shot."



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Good post.

Am I the only who is seeing the irony in attempting to collect information from a social networking site.
(yes i know some info is private but most people share their entire lives on those sites)
Two questions come to mind.

1. For all the stories I've read about government level data inspection and data mining, this action leads me to believe that perhaps not all Internet data is collected. I still think its possible but clearly there are holes in this theory.

2. What happens now and down the road, that the US is actively trying to subpoena information related to a foreign member of parliament? That's extremely far reaching and very unsettling.

Tyler Durden had a great OP/ED at ZeroHedge on this specific incident as follows:


The DOJ, instead of pursuing actual threats to so-called justice, such as, among other, the fact that the entire US mortgage industry is based on churn-predicated fraud, that Goldman Sachs is an undisputed monopolist in the OTC market, and that JP Morgan uses its cartel power and FRBNY affiliation to control the commodity market, has decided to instead go after private user information on Twitter of all places. And while the excuse is that this is merely another expansion in the ongoing probe against that uber-terrorist organization Wikileaks
...
it may have actually crossed the line by subpoenaning private data from an Icelandic member of parliament, Birgitta Jonsdottir, a one-time associate of Julian Assange. Furthermore, it appears that Twitter may be just one of many services which have received the DOJ subpoena


Google and Facebook are also named, almost expectedly.

src

But this gets better in some respects. From the same source:


Marc Rotenberg, president of the online watchdog the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in Washington, said it appeared the US justice department was looking at building a case against WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, over its publication of secret US documents.

EPIC has already requested that the US authorities hand over information about their investigations into people who have donated to WikiLeaks via Mastercard, Visa or PayPal.



So i guess my $500 donation (not much but yep) may fall under scrutiny and possibly lead to some other potential problems for me down the road. So be it...as I fully endorse government transparency. If the US government tags me for my donation they can kiss my ass and at the same time stick it up theirs too.

brill



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
isnt that something China would do?

but hey, isnt the US OF A the land of the free?

free from what?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Good post.

Am I the only who is seeing the irony in attempting to collect information from a social networking site.
(yes i know some info is private but most people share their entire lives on those sites)
Two questions come to mind.


A subpoena must be issued for it to be permissable in a court of law, so the only reason they are issuing it is for that purpose. All information is already disclosed, if not easily broken into by our government.

If a subpoena is issued, and accepted in a court of law, that means that the information it provides can be used as evidence. To clarify, it would basically create a court case that is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court, that would allow the government to attain such information at it's own desire under the threat of any form of investigation. Do you see that it is a sham, and they are merely trying to open once closed doors in order to acccess the very heart of what freedoms we have left in the United States?

Iraq isn't about the middle east, neither is Afghanistan, it is about the USA and how to better implement a control grid.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



Those named include Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an Icelandic MP


Both are NOT US citizens..
What right does the US have to SPY on foreigners, especially an MP of another country.?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry

Originally posted by brill
Good post.

Am I the only who is seeing the irony in attempting to collect information from a social networking site.
(yes i know some info is private but most people share their entire lives on those sites)
Two questions come to mind.


A subpoena must be issued for it to be permissable in a court of law, so the only reason they are issuing it is for that purpose. All information is already disclosed, if not easily broken into by our government.

If a subpoena is issued, and accepted in a court of law, that means that the information it provides can be used as evidence. To clarify, it would basically create a court case that is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court, that would allow the government to attain such information at it's own desire under the threat of any form of investigation. Do you see that it is a sham, and they are merely trying to open once closed doors in order to acccess the very heart of what freedoms we have left in the United States?

Iraq isn't about the middle east, neither is Afghanistan, it is about the USA and how to better implement a control grid.


I was under the impression that measures stated in the Patriot Act or even DHS basically trumped legal proceedings (to an extent) in the name of terrorism ? With Twitter being a US operation I can understand the subpoena as you've explained but if the individual they are attempting to prosecute is a foreign member of parliament how does that come into play then ?

If this is to build the case against Manning then yes understood.

thanks for your post.
brill
edit on 8-1-2011 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
They wont indict any Icelandic PM, they'll just use this as a threat to extort something from their government - like forcing them to accept Monsanto GM seeds...

The scary part is, they might not really be after his personal info, I'm assuming they already have all that, what they may really want is details of anyone following those twitter accounts - and those who are will duly be profiled and monitored from here on out (if they aren't already).



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
If this is to build the case against Manning then yes understood.


Correct. Keep in mind that a mere Private would not have access to this sort of information. I have close friends in the 33W MOS, as well as 96,97,98 MOS arrays and they have all assured me that this is a total sham, and he is merely a patsy. Aside from any normal controls, security clearences levels are something of a badge of honor among the military. The security clearance needed to obtain this information without explicit assistance from any higher sources cannot be attained by a private.

The point of the trial is to prosecute a man without a voice or stature, to demonize his alleged actions and help to further clamp down on any leaks in the future, even when the material leaked should never have been classified in the first place.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
isnt that something China would do?

but hey, isnt the US OF A the land of the free?

free from what?


Uhmm.. No.. China would just storm the building at take what they want while shooting people in the process since it deals with State Secrets and releasing the info. Of course thats assuming the Chinese government would allow access to social media sites like facebook or twitter without being able to monitor their activity.. You know, like they did with Google.

The US Government went before a judge and showed information as to why they wanted the twitter information, and the judge found the info reliable and relevant and signed off on the order.

I know this is a difficult concept for some, but its an active investigation dealing with the unathorized access, transfer, receeiving and distributing of classified information. Media is not immune from prosecution for publishing classified information, as many of you like to throw around when referring to Assange and the actions of wikileaks.



Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.


Pentagon paper case



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The US Government went before a judge and showed information as to why they wanted the twitter information, and the judge found the info reliable and relevant and signed off on the order.


You know it's more than likely that the US already had the information...
Obtained illegally.....
They just need to ligitimize how it was obtained so it can be used in court..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
All they have to do is ask and I'd be happy to give it to them.

Silly Americans.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
The security clearance needed to obtain this information without explicit assistance from any higher sources cannot be attained by a private.

The point of the trial is to prosecute a man without a voice or stature, to demonize his alleged actions and help to further clamp down on any leaks in the future, even when the material leaked should never have been classified in the first place.


Agreed. I think many thought the same, myself included how could a simple private have access to such material. I too have been under the impression that he had an accomplice or higher rank. However his chat logs via Lamo are somewhat convincing almost telling and the fact that Poulsen won't reveal them in their entirety draws further suspicion. In the end it won't matter because Manning will most likely never experience life as a free person he is screwed beyond belief.

brill

edit on 8-1-2011 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Although I personally do follow Wikleaks on twitter, which means I am probably looking at a life stretch, I have to say that I have not read a single leaked cable directly from wikileaks. Anything I have heard about has come from other sources such as newspapers, tv news channels, and sites like ATS and other alternative news sites.

Does this mean that the aforementioned will be regarded as the publishers of the leaks and be rounded up and burned at the stake.

Going after FB and Twitter users is an absolute joke imo, and shows a level of desperation or maybe lunacy on the part the US government.

Who makes this stuff up ?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The US Government went before a judge and showed information as to why they wanted the twitter information, and the judge found the info reliable and relevant and signed off on the order.


You know it's more than likely that the US already had the information...
Obtained illegally.....
They just need to ligitimize how it was obtained so it can be used in court..


You are more than likely correct, and that is more or less what I have been prodding at. I think it's rather funny how posters here believe the government invented those social networks, but somehow can't crack them. That the government is suppressing technology from the masses, and creating weather anomalies and such, yet can't gather information better than your run of the mill hacker can.

Comical.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I know this is a difficult concept for some, but its an active investigation dealing with the unathorized access, transfer, receeiving and distributing of classified information. Media is not immune from prosecution for publishing classified information, as many of you like to throw around when referring to Assange and the actions of wikileaks.


Does this also apply then to people who donate to Wikileaks ? I don't think anyone can say with certainty how the money is spent, could even be applied to legal defense costs. Your point is clear with respect to the media and I understand that.

brill



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by brill
 



Agreed. I think many thought the same, myself included how could a simple private have access to such material.


I've read that none of the leaked material was highly classified and that seems correct by what I have seen so far..
It doesn't seem to show any secrets, more so mere comments made by individuals..
No secret plans or black ops stuff..

I heard it was ALL available on the US intranet with little security clearance..

Have I heard wrong?? Is there any Top Secret stuff to be seen.??



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



China would just storm the building at take what they want


The US did that too.

Back in 2002-03, the FBI seized Indymedia's mainframe in England. And deleted a lot, including my stuff.

...That's why I ended up at ATS. Indymedia was off-line, then censored.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join