WikiLeaks and Twitter

:shocked:A secret grand jury has issued subpoenas for personal information from Twitter. The information is for persons associated with WikiLeaks. Whether you agree with the WikiLeaks releases is not important here. What is important is that personal information from public sites which promised anonymity is being compromised. The safeguards that have been in place to protect the rights of citizens are being circumvented. This misuse of the Patriot Act is opening the citizens of the United States to future inspection and search for which the Act was not empowered. Twitter may not be the only entity subpoenaed. Social sites such as MySpace, Facebook, etc. and payment and banking sites like PayPal, etc., may also be subpoenaed. U.S. newspapers are also being pressured. The Gov't ordered Twitter not to tell it's clients that their records were being scrutinized. Twitter went to Federal court and had the gag order overturned.

Some of the people being looked at are foreign nationals living in their own countries. Iceland is calling our ambassador to task for invading their citizen's privacy. I think there will be international outrage over this--and rightly so. Our national image is taking a beating over WikiLeaks.

Our government is looking bad because it could not protect it's own secrets. The process it used for protection was flawed and the loss has caused a lot of embarrassment. American nationals who released the information should be prosecuted. However, misuse of the Patriot Act opens ALL of us to future scrutinty. A lot of laws are being skirted to do these subpoenas. No longer would we be assured that our personal information was safe from search and seizure. I do not not want us to lose more of our rights just to stop someone's embarrassment! Time to let your elected federal officials know your views.

Excerpted from the Guardian newspaper in the UK:
The specific clause of the Patriot act used to acquire the subpoena is one that the FBI has described as necessary for "obtaining such records [that] will make the process of identifying computer criminals and tracing their internet communications faster and easier".

The subpoena itself is an unusual one known as a 2703(d). Recently a federal appeals court ruled this kind of order was insufficient to order the disclosure of the contents of communication. Significantly, however, that ruling is binding in neither Virginia – where the Twitter subpoena was issued – nor San Francisco where Twitter is based.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.

 

This post is hidden to guests.
To view this post, please log in.
If you are not a member, you will need to sign up.