Occupy Boston activist's Twitter info subpoenaed

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

This has to be the WORST analogy in the history of debate.

It is actually spot on and apparently that is rather upsetting so instead of even attempting a cogent argument, you just offer an empty dismissal.

This has nothing to do with destruction of property.

I never said anyone destroyed my property in my analogy. I said it was used to express an opinion.

This also has nothing to do with TWITTER not approving of a statement made.

Neither did my analogy. It had to do with my control of the medium I SUPPLIED YOU WITH.

This is the government, telling TWITTER that they want your posts. Twitter don't give a # what you talk about.

Actually they do if you read their terms and conditions you will notice that they do in fact specify they do not have the right to grant you immunity in case the government comes along asking who might have VOLUNTARILY signed up for their service.

You should read them sometime.

Now instead of adding things to my analogy that did not actually exist in it in order to ATTEMPT to invalidate it, address it as written and see how it goes.

Betting you cannot.

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by Algernonsmouse

 

Have you ever thought that people don't sign up for twitter, or facebook, or even ATS and get Miranda Rights read to them?

This has what to do with Miranda rights now?

Now all of a sudden it's anything you say can, and will be used against you?

If you want to sign up on my invention and use my medium to do it with, that is possible. As the creator and owner of said medium that is really up to me. If you do not like it, do not rely on someone else to invent Twitter so you can express yourself. I express myself all the time and have never needed an internet connection to do it. Mainly because I know I have no internet priveledges, let alone private internet company priveledges promised me in the constitution.

Can I see your copy?

Don't express yourself too much, because we might be compelled to build a case against you.

That all depends on how and where you express yourself and anyone above 8th grade civics understands this. Someone sounds like a petulent child.

"WHAAAAAAA, I DO NOT GET TO EXPRESS MYSELF EXACTLY HOW I WANT WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF!!!!!!!! WHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA."

Go buy a billboard. Publish a book, magazine, newsletter. Paint the side of your house. Stand in your yard and yell. Why the hell does twitter have to protect your expression for you?

And again, twitter is just "the middle man", they never disapproved or anything like that, so your argument about twitter being a privately owned tool fails.

Again, you are making an argument I did not make and arguing against that. I guess now that it is winter everyony has spare strawmen?

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

 

My post is only off, in your mind, you because I didn't write what you quoted.

To address your comment. The government is not interfering with anything.

If people are dumb enough to write down their subconscious dribble on a social micro-blog site, it is truly their own fault when people read it.

So you're saying that people can be "dumb enough" to exercise their first amendment right? Tell me more...

I won't beat a dead horse because it has been explained pretty well already.

If I contribute to a blog, I am surely speaking freely however it is entirely up to the blog owner whether or not they choose to display it.

Twitter is not the newspaper nor is it subject to the rules applied to what used to be a free speech news system.

Information Sharing and Disclosure Tip We do not disclose your private information except in the limited circumstances described here.

Your Consent: We may share or disclose your information with your consent, such as when you use a third party web client or application to access your Twitter account.

Law and Harm: We may preserve or disclose your information if we believe that it is reasonably necessary to comply with a law, regulation or legal request; to protect the safety of any person; to address fraud, security or technical issues; or to protect Twitter's rights or property.

twitter.com...

Man, legalities can be used to tie us all in knots.

At some point THE SPIRIT of democracy and free speech just need to be darn respected.

Not sure why but they also subpoenaed twitter for the details of political blogger Guido Fawkes at the same time :s not sure why they would want his details as he is generally against the occupy movement...

aclum.org

"The ACLU believes that courtrooms and court proceedings should be open to the public, except in rare and extraordinary circumstances," said Carol Rose, executive director for the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Secret court proceedings, particularly proceedings involving First Amendment issues, are troubling as a matter of both law and democracy. In addition, the manner in which the administrative subpoena in this case was used, and its purported scope, is equally troubling and, in our opinion, well beyond what the Massachusetts statute allows."

At the request of the government, and over the objection of ACLU attorneys, Judge Carol Ball today heard nearly 30 minutes of argument at sidebar--meaning that arguments by the attorneys were closed to the public, with several minutes of the hearing held with the judge hearing only attorneys from the prosecutor's office and excluding the ACLU attorneys. Thereafter, the judge ruled that the record of the proceedings and all documents filed by the parties were impounded by the court.

I'm worried about the precedence this case can set and the fact that the judge is sealing everything related to the case. Was there actual criminal behavior involved on the accounts or were the things the defendant simply said in support of something being used as evidence to mount a case against him/her?

Say any random ATS poster happens to post a story or video that has something to do with Anonymous and they close the post with a comment that they hope whatever Anonymous is planning happens, can that someday be used against them in court as having supported criminal activity?

Please think people.

Originally posted by hadriana
Man, legalities can be used to tie us all in knots.

At some point THE SPIRIT of democracy and free speech just need to be darn respected.

Where are they not that it is upsetting you?
You have just spoken out against twitter thanks to the people that let you use ATS.
If ATS bans you, will you go mute and lose your fingers?

Originally posted by Kali74
Please think people.

Yes, seriously think.
If you want to stay anonymous and say things that might upset the government, do not sign up to a privately owned website on the government maintained internet to do it.


Do any of you understand the difference between freedom of expression and freedom of use of other people's things however you so choose?
I have a neon sign.

Everyone that feels they have the right to make it say anything they want, let me know.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by Kali74
Please think people.

Yes, seriously think.
If you want to stay anonymous and say things that might upset the government, do not sign up to a privately owned website on the government maintained internet to do it.


Do any of you understand the difference between freedom of expression and freedom of use of other people's things however you so choose?
I have a neon sign.

Everyone that feels they have the right to make it say anything they want, let me know.

edit on 30-12-2011 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)

My point was that we don't know what this person said in those tweets. Did he actually say anything criminal or did he simply tweet that he thought something was cool or that he thought something was a good idea etc the way many of our posters support actions of Anonymous even though they are criminal actions. Saying you agree with an action is not a crime, it doesn't make you participatory. My fear, which I do not think is without basis, is that we are witnessing a time in the US when what you say can and will be held against you even if you weren't under arrest when you said them.

reply to post by Kali74


If this were the case; do you not think that many, many more people would be brought up on charges? I highly doubt this is the only guy out there who said that the events were "awesome," "cool," and "should happen everywhere!" Hell - some of the comments on ATS, alone, are enough for someone completely anal to bring charges forward if they wanted (more than enough posts about how police should die - and that's putting it nicely).

For those on about free speech:

You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to freedom from consequence. If I tell a child to go play in the street - and he/she does, and gets killed; I am liable for the words I used. Hell - if I FAIL to tell someone NOT to do something, I can be brought up on charges of negligence (why do you think "Caution: HOT!" appears on a cup of hot chocolate). So, when you start telling people and/or encouraging people to do violent and destructive things.... it should only stand to reason that you be held accountable.

Sure - everyone who actually did those things should be held accountable, too - but you can't commit crime via proxy and expect to avoid responsibility.

Also, this is being taken to court.

Under the provisions of the Patriot Act, and several other pieces of legislation - it is NOT really necessary in order to toss them into prison for an indefinite amount of time (Habeas corpus still applies - but that just means they can't lock you up and forget completely about you).

So, really - I think this serves as a rather promising gesture - that our legal system will not, as a matter of course, be circumvented.

Originally posted by Kali74
My point was that we don't know what this person said in those tweets. Did he actually say anything criminal or did he simply tweet that he thought something was cool or that he thought something was a good idea etc the way many of our posters support actions of Anonymous even though they are criminal actions. Saying you agree with an action is not a crime, it doesn't make you participatory. My fear, which I do not think is without basis, is that we are witnessing a time in the US when what you say can and will be held against you even if you weren't under arrest when you said them.

So your point is that completely made up stuff that never happened upsets you because it makes you fear more made up stuff that never happened is going to happen?
Who was arrested for liking something or charged with thinking something was cool?
What story are you reading?

reply to post by Aim64C

If this were the case; do you not think that many, many more people would be brought up on charges? I highly doubt this is the only guy out there who said that the events were "awesome," "cool," and "should happen everywhere!" Hell - some of the comments on ATS, alone, are enough for someone completely anal to bring charges forward if they wanted (more than enough posts about how police should die - and that's putting it nicely).

The tweet that sparked the latest court battle is said to have provided personal information concerning Boston police officers, which was allegedly hacked from a members-only union website.
However, “GuidoFawkes” later said on Twitter the controversial information he originally tweeted concerning the Boston police had been pulled from “public domains.”
The hacker group Anonymous is said to have broken into the servers used by the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association in October and copied the information, which was later linked through Twitter as payback for “unprovoked mass arrests” of 141 occupy Boston protesters on October 11.
Meanwhile, Peter Krupp, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer who had attempted to quash the subpoena on free speech grounds, objected to the case being held in secret and was troubled by the free speech implications the judge’s ruling represented.
“When an administrative subpoena is used to get information that’s protected by the First Amendment, that raises particularly troubling issues,” the Boston Globe cites Krupp as saying.

The next part is pretty troubling. I've tweeted with OccupyBoston, luckily I didn't see the tweet and wouldn't have retweeted it anyway but many people do hit the retweet button of people they follow, automatically. That link could have been tweeted by a thousand other people. Why isn't the prosecution trying to trace the alleged hack from the domain that was supposedly hacked?

The subpoena in question requested “all available” subscriber information – including IP address logs – connected with the accounts GuidoFawkes,” “@p0isAn0N,” “@OccupyBoston,” “#BostonPD,” and “#d0xcak3”, as a part of an ongoing criminal investigation which is apparently linked to the Occupy Boston movement.

RT.com

My point? The officer that allegedly shot Scott Olsen in the head with a tear gas canister also had his private information shared via hacking (supposedly), that information was posted here on ATS. Does that make the user who posted that info on ATS guilty of a crime?

Another point, I don't think the ACLU gets involved with every social media subpoena and run around yelling free speech violations. If they're involved in the defense, I assume there's a reason.

reply to post by Algernonsmouse

There's no need to be nasty like that, a habit I see you're fully committed to. You don't see what I see in this story, that's fine...that does not make me a paranoid delusional.

reply to post by xuenchen


That's all fine and good, but we've come a long way from Priest-Kings and Divine Emperors. All that nonsense worked well when people were ignorant enough to believe that the ruler was ordained by (the) God(s). Nowadays, we can and do know better.

Nowadays, we realize that generally people assume positions of power because they are able to do some dirty tricks or game the system or the system turns out to be wholly created for that purpose.

This is the problem with the internet and privatization. While a piece of paper may be purchased from a paper mill supplier, there was never any expectation by the paper mill that any and all usage of that paper would still be property of theirs once it traded hands. Now, we see that paper has been digitized, as well as the speech we read on it. Therefore, the "paper" never truly leaves the hands of the "miller" and all speech found on that e-paper is part and parcel of the provider.

In effect, the internet is challenging the traditional concept of ownership. Goods may be owned, but services may not. We are leaving behind a world of goods and heading for a world of services. No longer is water a good that you can possess, it is now a service that is rendered. Television is a service rendered. The Internet is a service rendered.

...BOOKS ARE A SERVICE RENDERED (or at least they're headed that direction with things like Kindle and iPad) and that is a very, very bad thing because no longer will there be an expectation of ownership, but rather a contractual agreement about the usage of the book (or "paper"...meaning blog space) and the provider and the customer enter into that agreement over time and the provider will most likely have the upper hand as customers rarely draw up contracts for the provider to sign (vice versa is the norm).

So, yes, we shouldn't expect any guarantee of free speech on Twitter or Facebook. But at the end of the day, that in itself is the problem. Are we really so lazy that we are willing to trade third-party activism for freedom of speech...doesn't that technically negate the free speech part of the deal?

**By third party activism, I mean that we allow services like Twitter and Facebook to control the message, by disseminating it faster and further than a man on horse back with a bill of grievances to the king or a protester carrying a sign down the street. So, we're letting someone else get that message out faster and further, but they will have the last say on what message can get there.

EDIT: I think the only choice, at this point, is for any popular movement to abandon and ignore the third party providers, whether they be Twitter and Facebook, or ISPs and Cable news outlets. They're report and contort as they wish, and the only way to deal with it is to make it irrelevant, ignore it and do the old fashioned word of mouth. Break through the e-filter that has progressively separated us over the last 15 years. Thumbs down, eyes up, move jaw...it's not hard, try it.

reply to post by Sphota


Good points.

I agree.

I hope people figure it out.

They have not so far as we can see from the results of the internet public arenas.

The school systems are doing nothing while focusing on useless agendas.

Even college degreed people are victims here.

I guess it all depends on what we call success vs. what the learning institutions call success.

Big difference.

It's the P.T. Barnum wisdom at work, always has been.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine


I agree, anything written before the miranda was given should be off limits. If a serial killer decided to write down on a notebook all his deeds and where he put the bodies that is his first amendment right!!! The police did not tell him it could be used against him, and have no right to use it against him!!! You agree don't you My.mind.is.mine?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

 

I agree, anything written before the miranda was given should be off limits. If a serial killer decided to write down on a notebook all his deeds and where he put the bodies that is his first amendment right!!! The police did not tell him it could be used against him, and have no right to use it against him!!! You agree don't you My.mind.is.mine?

His notebook, that he owns and keeps on his property?
So now this person owns twitter?

Why are you all so entitled?

Originally posted by Kali74
There's no need to be nasty like that, a habit I see you're fully committed to. You don't see what I see in this story, that's fine...that does not make me a paranoid delusional.

There is a huge differenece between nasty and delusional.
For example, I never called you paranoid or delusional yet you believe that I have.
I cannot help but laugh at the very fact that IMAGINING being called those things is a pretty good clue you actually are those things but that is not for me to decide, especially not from here.

You went on and on about things that you made up, have nothing to do with this actual story, and then asked me to see the relevance.
I do not.
I wanted you to explain.
Instead you made up something about me calling you names.
Got it.

reply to post by Algernonsmouse


You're being a bit ridiculius don't you think? I didn't say you called me that but, it's implied and implied yet again. Again it's fine if you don't interpret the report the way I do, that's part of what forums are for...to debate and offer various opinions. You are no better than me no matter how you insinuate otherwise. I won't be replying to you again.

reply to post by Kali74

The next part is pretty troubling. I've tweeted with OccupyBoston, luckily I didn't see the tweet and wouldn't have retweeted it anyway but many people do hit the retweet button of people they follow, automatically. That link could have been tweeted by a thousand other people. Why isn't the prosecution trying to trace the alleged hack from the domain that was supposedly hacked?

Are they not?

This faux character is their handle. People on ATS love rabbit holes, and insist on digging ones in the belief they are following them. The police are doing the same.

Actually, after looking at some of this more closely, I don't see where any charges have been filed. They are still collecting information that could lead to charges being filed.

As for posting and/or reposting data - you still have a liability to it, regardless of the source. This is what is known as slander and libel; which has been expanded by the Privacy Act and its amendments. Further - the posting's intent was to generate backlash against the individuals whose private data was posted; which can only be presumed to be addresses, phone numbers, and family member/dependency data.

Posting that kind of information with the intent to generate "inconveniences" is, basically, a public prayer for them to be harassed at their residence by, more than likely, criminal mentalities (since average people don't go around pissing in each others' corn flakes - it's rude and causes bloody noses). Which is cause to suspect criminal intent or conspiracy.

Honestly - a case like this would be very fun to prosecute - there are a hundred different angles to take in both prosecution and defense; a very dynamic court room, indeed.

My point? The officer that allegedly shot Scott Olsen in the head with a tear gas canister also had his private information shared via hacking (supposedly), that information was posted here on ATS. Does that make the user who posted that info on ATS guilty of a crime?

Yes.

Conspiracy. Contempt of Court/Law. The man is not guilty until given a trial and a verdict rendered. If you suspect the department is covering for blatant wrong-doing with internal investigations - YOU file the subpoena on that internal investigation and go for a case against the department and/or the accused.

This is no different than posting your ex's information in the hopes that someone else will get your revenge.

Not only is it wrong. It's cowardice.

Another point, I don't think the ACLU gets involved with every social media subpoena and run around yelling free speech violations. If they're involved in the defense, I assume there's a reason.

No, the ACLU is the tramp of social and personal rights advocacy cases. They'll defend anyone for doing anything under the guise of free speech, freedom of religion, etc. If I'm of a non-white ethnic group, and I want to rape and slaughter white girls as part of some religious ceremony - the ACLU will defend it as my right to do so. I would put money on that.

Facebook and Twitter a great and a positive vehicle of progress when used to organize Arab spring type activities, but it is potentially criminal when used for the Occupy thing?

However it could be a case of wirefraud, we don't know. Perhaps there were some records of promoting illegal activity via Twitter.

I will await my judgement on the situation, until further information presents itself.