Dec 262011
 December 26, 2011  Posted by  Court, Online

As reported previously on this blog, the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) District Attorney’s office served Twitter with an administrative subpoena for non-content account information of several individuals who have tweeted about the Occupy Boston movement.

Today, one of the individuals, @p0isAn0N (“Guido Fawkes), responded with a statement to the D.A. on Pastebin:

– It has recently come to my attention that you have deemed it necessary to issue an Administrative Subpoena for my Twitter account along with a few #hashtags. Not only do I find it funny that you issued subpoenas for hashtags, I find it even funnier that you failed to read Twitters terms of service stating that they inform users of people requesting information on their accounts. Let me just quote that for you.

– ” In accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, non-public information about Twitter users is not released except as lawfully required by appropriate legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process document. Some information we store is automatically collected, while other information is provided at the user’s discretion. Though we do store this information, it may not be accurate if the user has created a fake or anonymous profile. Twitter doesn’t require email verification or identity authentication. Twitter’s policy is to notify users of requests for their information prior to disclosure unless we are prohibited from doing so by statute or court order. ”

– And fortunately enough for me, your “administrative subpoena” does not fall under the category of a “Court order” Therefor Twitter notified me of your request and conveniently attached a PDF file of the subpoena. Now as I’m sure you know this document has been spread all over the web. So I ask you, how’s the “Confidentiality and integrity” of your “Ongoing criminal investigation” working out? Not so confidential huh?

– Anyways this is just my official statement to you letting you know your subpoenas will not shake me. So do whatever you think you can to try and stop Anonymous, but you will learn fast. One of us is not nearly as harsh as all of us. You cannot arrest an idea. You cannot subpoena a hashtag.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Don’t expect us.
We’re already here.

#Anonymous #Antisec #CabinCr3w #doxcak3 #OpPigRoast

According to @p0isAn0N, the ACLU of Massachusetts will be assisting him in this matter. Others referred to (often incorrectly) in the subpoena have not publicly indicated whether they have retained legal counsel, or if they have, who is representing them.

Although several individuals on Twitter initially suggested that the motivation for the subpoena was the public revelation of details of some police officers from the Boston Police Department, the subpoena is dated one day before that public disclosure on Pastebin and seeks information for the period of December 8, 2011 – December 13. In light of the timing, the subpoena may be related to the period during which Boston Police were trying to break up Occupy Boston demonstrations.

The subpoena, which the D.A. had asked Twitter to keep confidential, has drawn a lot of attention and has resulted in even more people viewing the file with personal details of members of the BPD.

Twitter has not responded to requests by this blog for information as to whether the social networking site was fighting the subpoena’s request for accounts associated with hashtags.  Nor is there yet any explanation as to why Twitter delayed more than one week before notifying users of the subpoena.  If the past is any indication, they may have been involved in discussions with the D.A.’s office about the scope of the subpoena, but that is purely speculative on my part as Twitter has issued no statement on this case.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.