Yeah, it sounds like an absolutely ridiculous ruling. The judge compares a tweet to shouting something out a window. Which is a perfectly good analogy. But then in his analogy, since you shouted it out the window of the Twitter Bar, now months later that establishment is required to turn over all its CCTV recordings and information on you to the DA
How is this "absolutely ridiculous"? The government is investigating someone they suspect committed a crime and issued a subpoena to get more information. It's how the system is supposed to work.
As the judge noted, there are different standards for the subpoena depending on whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the information being subpoenaed, because the Stored Communications Act of 1986 adds certain extra requirements on when an ISP may release materials that fall under the latter category.
What was in dispute here wasn't that some information was subpoenaed following proper procedure, but that the judge held that the "proper procedure" in this case was the procedure for public information in which there isn't a "reasonable expectation of privacy", while Twitter was arguing that the subpoena was requiring them to disclose things that were not in fact public information.
Sure, but the idea that tweets have an expectation of privacy, reasonable or not, is absurd.
From a PR point of view, Twitter did the right thing. They executed their right to challenge the subpoena. Now they have to begrudgingly hand over the data. It makes it look like they'll fight for their users, even though there's clearly nothing they can do.
The top comment, by Tangaroa, points to 18 USC 2703 which covers this. A company can be compelled to give that information.
You really find it odd that the government can force company X to turn over your ip address, name, email and other such information?
The concern over growing fascism comes from warrantless government behavior. This, on the other hand, seems completely within the realm of government acting properly.
You're right. I stand corrected. I found the article confusing, but maybe it's just me. If the judge agreed that the subpoena is inadequate, why did he still order Twitter to disclose all public and private data from September 15, 2011 to December 30, 2011? I guess some of those protections are based on a date range?
