background preloader

Thoughts on the DOJ wikileaks/twitter court order

Thoughts on the DOJ wikileaks/twitter court order
The world's media has jumped on the news that the US Department of Justice has sought, and obtained a court order seeking to compel Twitter to reveal account information associated with several of its users who are associated with Wikileaks. Communications privacy law is exceedingly complex, and unfortunately, none of the legal experts who actually specialize in this area (people like Orin Kerr, Paul Ohm, Jennifer Granick and Kevin Bankston) have yet to chime in with their thoughts. As such, many commentators and journalists are completely botching their analysis of this interesting event. While I'm not a lawyer, the topic of government requests to Internet companies is the focus of my dissertation, so I'm going to try to provide a bit of useful analysis. However, as always, I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. A quick introduction to the law The order to twitter It is the second part of the order that is more interesting. Reading between the lines 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Twitter, and Reacting to DOJ's Wikileaks Court Order There's a hint of poetry in the fact that Birgitta Jónsdóttir needed only a tweet to let the world know instantly that the U.S. Department of Justice was after her Twitter records. Jónsdóttir is both a member of Althingi, Iceland's parliament, and someone who helped Wikileaks get its secretly-aquired government documents up on the web and out into the world. Late Friday, Jónsdóttir tweeted the situation: "usa government wants to know about all my tweets and more since november 1st 2009" -- and Jónsdóttir later told Wired.com's Threat Level that Twitter had informed her of that United States District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, had issued a so-called 2703 (d) order [pdf], named for the relevant part of Section 18 of U.S. Code, "a couple of hours ago," informing her that she had "10 days to stop it." If not, it seems, Twitter will indeed hand over the DOJ what it seeks, the specifics of which are detailed in this comprehensive post by digital security expert Chris Soghoian.

ECPA reform: Why digital due process matters Yesterday, the Senate held a hearing on proposed updates to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the landmark 1986 legislation that governs the protections citizens have when they communicate using the Internet or cellphones. Today, the House held a hearing on ECPA reform and the revolution in cloud computing. While the vagaries of online privacy and tech policy are far out in the geeky stratosphere, the matter before Congress should be earning more attention from citizens, media and technologists alike. “Just as the electric grid paved the way for industrial economy, cloud computing paves the way for a digital economy,” testified David Shellhuse of Rackspace. So to take it one step further: updates to the ECPA have the potential to improve the privacy protections for every connected citizen, cloud computing provider or government employee. “Advances in technology depend not just on smart engineers but on smart laws,” testified Richard Delgado of Google.

US subpoenas Twitter for accounts of two Wikileaks volunteers The U.S. Justice Department has ordered Twitter to hand over data associated with multiple user accounts, in preparation for legal action related to Wikileaks. "There are many WikiLeaks supporters listed in the US Twitter subpoena," Wikileaks stated over Twitter tonight. UPDATE, 9:01pm PT: A copy of the order is here, and a copy of the court's unsealing order is here, via Salon's Glenn Greenwald. The order was signed by federal Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan, in the Eastern District of Virginia. In addition to Birgitta Jonsdottir and Jacob Appelbaum reported here earlier this evening, others named include Rop Gonggrijp (whose name is misspelled), Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and all accounts associated with Wikileaks itself. Among those targeted: Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland's parliament who has worked with WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. From Threat Level: At The Nation, Mitchell notes: Some initial questions that come to mind:

US wants Twitter details of Wikileaks activists 8 January 2011Last updated at 18:09 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is currently fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden 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. The US is examining possible charges against Mr Assange over the leaking of classified diplomatic cables. Reports indicate the Department of Justice may seek to indict him on charges of conspiring to steal documents with Private First Class Bradley Manning, a US Army intelligence analyst. Mr Manning is facing a court martial and up to 52 years in prison for allegedly sending Wikileaks the diplomatic cables, as well military logs about incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq and a classified military video.

Ministers must 'wise up not clam up' after WikiLeaks disclosures | Politics Civil servants and ministers need to 'be more proactive' in releasing information, Christopher Graham said. Photograph: Chris Young/PA The government should take the WikiLeaks revelations as a lesson that civil servants and ministers can no longer assume they operate in private, and "wise up" to a world where any official communication could be made public, according to the information commissioner. Christopher Graham, the independent freedom of information watchdog, told the Guardian that the website's disclosures had profoundly changed the relationship between state and public, in a way that could not be "un-invented". Speaking after weeks of revelations from US embassy cables published by WikiLeaks, he said: "From the point of view of public scrutiny, the web and the internet has empowered citizens. "We are strongly of the view that things should be published. Graham, who has been information commissioner since last year, said he opposes the indiscriminate leaking of information.

What the Government Might Be After with Its Twitter Subpoena After a member of Iceland’s Parliament and former Wikileaks volunteer, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, revealed on Twitter yesterday that Twitter has been subpoenaed for details on her Twitter account, Glenn got a copy of the subpoena. The subpoena was first submitted to Twitter on December 14, and asked for account information for six people as well as any account associated with Wikileaks, going back to November 1, 2009. Of particular note, they ask for: records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account, including the date, time, length, and method of connections, data transfer volume, user name, and source and destination Internet Protocol address(es).non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s), such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses. Here’s what they might be after. As Glenn points out, three of the people covered by the subpoena were involved in the production of the video.

U.S. orders Twitter to hand over WikiLeaks records Kettling Wikileaks For current political commentary, see the daily political notes. RMS' Bio | The GNU Project by Richard Stallman Note, a shortend version of this was previously published by the Guardian. Spanish Translation Norwegian Translation The Anonymous web protests are the Internet equivalent of a mass demonstration. Calling these protests "DDOS attacks" is misleading too. The proper comparison is with the crowds that descended last week (December 2010) on Topshop stores. I wouldn't like it one bit if my store (supposing I had one) were the target of a large protest. The Internet cannot function if web sites are frequently blocked by crowds, just as a city cannot function if its streets are constantly full of protests. In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. In the US, no law explicitly requires this precarity. Reading too is done on sufferance. In the physical world, we have the right to pay money and to receive money — even anonymously.

Confirmed: #WikiLeaks demands Google and Facebook unseal US subpoenas (Guardian)

Related: