WebProNews

Tag: Malcolm Harris

  • Twitter Appeals Occupy Wall Street Tweet Ruling

    When a New York judge ruled that Malcolm Harris did not have fourth amendment protections for his tweets because they are not physical property, Twitter had every reason to just give up and let the courts have the tweets. Instead, the company challenged the court ruling, stating that the subpoena of Harris’ tweets violates its terms of service, the Stored Communications Act, and the fourth amendment to the U.S. constitution.

    Unfortunately for Harris and Twitter, the challenge was rejected back in July, on the basis that Harris could not assert privacy rights to tweets that were formerly public. Twitter was once again ordered to hand over the tweets.

    Today it has been confirmed that there is yet another twist in the case. Twitter has filed their appeal of the decision, taking the matter to the New York Supreme Court. Benjamin Lee, Twitter legal counsel and Litigation & IP lead at Twitter, announced the filing this afternoon through Tweets:

    In its appeal, Twitter makes many of the same arguments that it made in its initial motion. In short, the company states that Twitter users own their tweets, and argues that Harris certainly has a proprietary intrest in his formerly public tweets. It also asserts that the subpoenas issued by the trial court violate both the U.S. and New York state constitutions.

    The ACLU has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Twitter. In a post to the ACLU blog, ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Aden Fine outlines his organizations reasoning for weighing in on the matter. From the blog post:

    Under the First and Fourth Amendments, we have the right to speak freely on the Internet, safe in the knowledge that the government cannot obtain information about our communications or our private information unless law enforcement first satisfies First Amendment scrutiny and obtains a warrant showing probable cause. The DA didn’t do that here. Instead, it has tried to avoid these constitutional hurdles by issuing a mere subpoena for Harris’s Twitter information.

    Whether the New York Supreme Court is likely to side with the trial court or with Twitter is unknown at this point. The court’s decision, though, will help set far-reaching free speech and privacy precedents. It will decide the matter of what rights Twitter users, and users of social media in general, have to their data and other information they have posted.

    (via TechCrunch)

  • Twitter Defends User In Court Over Occupy Tweets

    We reported last month on Malcolm Harris, a member of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and his attempt to have a tweet subpoena quashed. The judge in the case denied his motion saying that Tweets are not physical property and can therefore be obtained without a warrant. It was a disappointing ruling, but it made sense. We went on with our lives and just hoped that next time would be different.

    Well, there’s been a new development in the case. A development that I don’t think anybody ever saw coming. Twitter, the actual company, has filed a motion with the court to quash the order that Harris’ Tweets be subpoenaed. The company says that Harris does indeed have a proprietary interest “in the content that he submits to Twitter” saying that a subpoena effectively violates Twitter’s Terms of Service which states that users “retain rights to any Content [they] sumbit, post, display on or through Twitter.”

    But wait, it gets better. Twitter also states that the subpoena “imposes an undue burden” on themselves by making them break the law. What law? The SCA, or the Stored Communications Act, which they state “expressly permits users to challenge demands for their account records.” They also say that the Fourth Amendment’s “warrant requirement applies even when the government seeks information about allegedly public activities.”

    But wait, it gets even better. On a final note, Twitter says that the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings has been violated in this case. To break that down, the case is currently being heard in New York but the subpoena is directed at a company in California. For the court to have access to Harris’ Tweets, New York has to present the appropriate certification to a California court, schedule a hearing and obtain a California subpoena for production. In essence, the court can’t even begin to obtain the Tweets until they issue a subpoena in California.

    Wow, I mean, wow. I didn’t think I would ever see the day when an Internet company would lay the legal smackdown on the courts. This is a sound argument and one that the court can’t ignore. Twitter has essentially proven, at least in the case of their service and their state, that the Fourth Amendment does apply online. I’m sure that the court is going to try to use some kind of trick to get access to the Tweets, but it’s going to be even harder for them from now on.

    Twitter has set an example here. I was worried when they announced their plans to selectively censor Tweets based on country, and I’m still worried about that. I’m immensely relieved, however, that they are taking a person’s privacy and rights into account with this case. If the court wants to get ahold of those Tweets, they will have to supply a search warrant.

    Score one for the Internet. It’s a bright day, go out and enjoy it. Now if only we could apply this same reasoning to trash like CISPA.

    [h/t: ACLU]