Tweets become part of the Public Domain with no expectancy of privacy.
I agree with the judge on this one.
Social Media Judge Says Tweets Are for Cops: Agree?
Fef
2012/07/03 00:28:46
|
|
|||||
|
9 votes
|
|
69% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
31% | |||
Occupy Wall Street protester Malcolm Harris claimed that New York prosecutors violated his #CivilRights when they issued a subpoena demanding Twitter provide his tweets and account information. Harris and Twitter tried to quash the subpoena by suggesting the information belongs to Harris -- not Twitter.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. fashions himself an expert on social media and denied Harris and Twitter. Judge Sciarrino himself tweeted using Twitter's conventional hash tags "#quash" "#denied.”
Judge Sciarrino wrote in his decision:
The judge said that since Twitter owns the data, prosecutors can subpoena the company for data without violating the account holder's Civil Rights -- particularly the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution declares:
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unlawful searches by the government. Wikipedia describes it as follows:
GigaOm.com reports:
Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. fashions himself an expert on social media and denied Harris and Twitter. Judge Sciarrino himself tweeted using Twitter's conventional hash tags "#quash" "#denied.”
Judge Sciarrino wrote in his decision:
The widely believed (though mistaken) notion that any disclosure of a user’s information would first be requested from the user and require approval by the user is understandable, but wrong. While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet. [..] As a user, we may think that storage space to be like a “virtual home,” and with that strong privacy protection similar to our physical homes. However, that “home” is a block of ones and zeroes stored somewhere on someone’s computer. As a consequence, some of our most private information is sent to third parties and held far away on remote network servers.
The judge said that since Twitter owns the data, prosecutors can subpoena the company for data without violating the account holder's Civil Rights -- particularly the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution declares:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unlawful searches by the government. Wikipedia describes it as follows:
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
GigaOm.com reports:
In a closely-watched case tied to last year's Occupy Wall Street protests, a New York judge ruled that tweets are no different from words shouted in the street and ordered Twitter to turn over a user's account to prosecutors.
Read More: http://gigaom.com/2012/07/02/social-media-judge-sa...
Top Opinion
-
MarinerFH 2012/07/03 01:29:02
Stupid is as stupid does.
I agree with the judge on this one.
Because the police chose not to exhume the full contents and the server itself , and chose only the sections they were interested in it does not lessen the validity of the subpoena.
If an e-signature is valid as a signed paper, how can 'e-papers' (that which one has stored online that would otherwise ordinarily be stored on paper) not be? Those 1s and 0s are but the 21st Century equivalent of one's 'papers, and effects'.
The part I didn't like was this idea; this road the judge seemed to be going down, that just because something is stored online, it is somehow public, or can be made to be turned over to law enforcement without that requirement. I follow what you're saying though, and agree.
So that invalidates equating it to talking in public . . . how?
Actually, tweeting it makes it even more accessible to the public than just talking in public.
Thanks for bolstering my argument.
The locations of his tweets (indicating his physical comings and goings) and certainly his personal, private messages are not public information, nor are they presumed to be by users when they sign up. Harris had a very solid expectation of privacy.
If this were only about his public tweets there would be no controversy. The police wouldn't even need a subpoena -- they'd just type in the url of his Twitter page and read it. His public tweets, however, are not what any of this is about.
The widely believed (though mistaken) notion that any disclosure of a user’s information would first be requested from the user and require approval by the user is understandable, but wrong. While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet."
It will hopefully be overturned upon appeal, but who can say? Judges make lots of decisions with which people disagree.