Jan 092012
 January 9, 2012  Posted by  Court, Online

Looks like the ACLU of Massachusetts and their client, @p0isAnoN decided to fight. From the PrivacySOS blog:

Today the ACLU of Massachusetts and cooperating attorney Peter Krupp filed a motion to attempt to break down the walls of secrecy surrounding our legal challenge to a Suffolk county subpoena to Twitter. We wrote about the secrecy surrounding the case a few weeks ago; catch up here.

Our challenge today asks Judge Carol Ball to reconsider her decision to keep the entire court proceeding — including our motion to quash the subpoena itself — secret from the public. It asks her to disclose to the public any portions of the court proceedings she agrees will not compromise whatever investigation the government is pursuing involving our client, Twitter user @p0isAn0N [“Guido Fawkes”].

I wish them luck with this motion as I think these are matters of great public concern. As it stands now, the public has no idea whether Twitter has turned over the IP addresses of all users who used particular hashtags or not. We don’t even know whether Twitter tried to negotiate or fight that part of the subpoena. And we certainly don’t know if Facebook, Google, or other services received similar subpoenas and what they did in response to them.

Shouldn’t users know how Twitter, Google, Facebook, and other platforms will respond to such subpoenas or requests? Why won’t they transparently tell us their policies? Twitter has said it will try to notify users, and I give them credit for that, but that’s not enough. They need to explain more about how they respond – as do the other services.

And why, oh why, do they continue to retain logs and information that users don’t want retained and that doesn’t really serve users as much as law enforcement and others?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.