Tweet
By now, you have probably heard that USDOJ has issued a subpoena to Twitter asking for various types of information from the Twitter accounts of Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Rop Gongrijp[sic], and Birgitta Jonsdottir. Here is the subpoena. It was originally issued under seal, which means that Twitter could not tell anyone that it had received this subpoena. Twitter could have simply complied with the sealed subpoena and none of the people listed above even would have known about it.
Instead, Twitter apparently made a motion to unseal the subpoena. It had standing to do this because the sealing of the subpoena infringed upon its own ability to interact with its customers/subscribers as it sees fit. The motion to unseal was successful and Twitter notified its users about the subpoena. It is now up to the users to move to quash the subpoena itself.
Twitter really didn’t have standing to quash the subpoena directly because Twitter doesn’t have much stake in its customers’ privacy. This is in contrast other business models, such as WikiLeaks itself. If WikiLeaks receives a subpoena to divulge information about its users (the leakers) it would have standing to oppose that subpoena because the WikiLeaks business model is centered around protecting the privacy of its users. Take that away and you have basically destroyed the raison d’etre for WikiLeaks and upended its entire business model.
Not that WikiLeaks would be likely to win such a motion to quash. As Judy Miller and Matt Cooper found out to their chagrin, if law enforcement can show a particularized need for a piece of info and that there is no other viable means to obtain that info, the court is going to uphold the subpoena.
However, WikiLeaks would have standing to contest on the merits in a way that Twitter probably does not.
34 Comments
More on what USG is demanding from MP Jónsdóttir at “Icelandic MP Named in Wikileaks Case (Jan. 8, 2011, link: http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=372292 ) and “Icelandic “Wikileaks” MP will fight US Government” (Jan. 8, 2011, link: http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=372293 )
I don’t see how a US subpoena can reach into a foreign country, unless that government’s country agrees to extradite. Not very likely for Iceland or any other European nation at this point in time.
Matt Cooper
==modnote: fixed, thank you==
How can the US Gov have standing? Neither the Jónsdóttir nor Wikilieaks is a US “entity”.
How can the US courts have jurisdiction over either?
Icelandic courts for Jónsdóttir yes, Wikileaks? Is it incorporated anywhere? Assange. Maybe Australia, maybe not. Only the US claims its law covers it citizens anywhere on the world. Extraditing Wikileaks to the US? Wouuld that not have to proceed in the courts that ave jurisdiction over wikileaks?
Maybe the “Piracy on the high seas” doctrine is being applied…
As I understand it, most countries limit their laws to their citizens when the citizens are within its jurisdiction.
The referenced USDOJ subpoena reportedly was issued only to Twitter and asked for information about four or five Twitter customers/subscribers, including Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Twitter is a U.S. based corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California, and thus no foreign person is required to be extradited, even if such extradition would be legal and feasible.
In addition, in theory at least, nothing trumps the need for particular legally relevant evidence in a U.S. law court case, not even so-called POTUS “executive privilege”, as established in a high-profile court case involving ex-POTUS Richard M. Nixon during the Watergate scandal. Nixon refused to release his Oval Office audiotape recordings when subpoenaed for evidence, but he was overruled by the courts and the investigators discovered the crucial 18-1/2 minute gap tape.
Someone else said, and it is fitting here:
Note the fervor in which the gubmint, Democrats in particular, are hellbent on prosecuting Assange and Wikileaks for exposing the truth. Contrast that with:
The collective yawn over Dick Cheney’s and Karl Rove’s exposure of Valerie Plame and the subsequent destruction of Brewster Jennings anti-nuclear Proliferation Workshop.
Obama sucks. Pelosi Sucks, Reid Sucks. And the whole lot of them.
Have there ever been any cases where the legitimacy of electronic records has been challenged? After all, there are hackers on every side here, certainly the various “spook” agencies have hacking ability, and anyone working in the same area – like a military office cubicle – could pick up someone’s electronic device while they were on a “brb”.
Is not Twitter a US entity? Are yousaying Twitter is a foreign entity? Where is it based?
A subpoena can reach into a foreign country via a device called a Letter Rogatory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_rogatory
It only matters if the US has jurisdiction over Twitter.
Think of it like someone overseas deposits money in a US bank in Cleveland. The US can issue a subpoena for the records of that account, even if it has no jurisdiction over the person.
Thanks.
The difference between the treatment of Manning, who if he is the source of the Collateral Murder video, is certainly a whistleblower, with that of Cheney and Libby
AND contrast the treatment of Wikileaks by the MSM, with that of the NYTimes with regard to whether there should be prosecution of the news outlet.
NYTimes’ own lawyer, Floyd Abrams, makes out like Wikileaks and Assange should be clapped in irons. That must scare the pants off the many NYTimes journalists who have broken stories involving classified data that has been leaked to them.
Does that also apply for skype, not a US entity by does do business in the US?
To answer my own question:
It would seem to, skype is registered with the CA Secy of State for service of process.
I wondered that about the “chat logs” that Lamo gave to the gov’t.
If ‘m Manning’s defense lawyer the very first thing I wan to do is have a good computer forensics guy go over the meta data with a fine toothed comb.
Thats how the USAO EDNY “got” Computer Associates for fraud. They were backdating contracts to manipulate quarterly revenues and the date changes for when the contracts were put into the system showed up in the meta data.
Ain’t tribalism grand? “Good is when we steal from you; evil is when you steal from us.”
So if Iran doesn’t like what the NY Times prints they can subpoena all communications to NY Times?
Isn’t there supposed to be freedom of press?
Why isn’t Bob Woodward in prison? He obviously has published state secrets. And who can forget Nixon, Watergate, Yellow Cake, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and Judy Miller.
Am I correct in assuming that Twitter did the right thing by fighting to unseal the subpoenas when they could have simply rolled over for the government? If so, kudos to them!
Iran does not have jurisdiction over the NYTimes b/c NYTimes is not located in Iran.
However, if NYTimes has bureau located in Iran, and depending on what Iranian law says, I think Iran could probably subpoena info held within the Bureau office.
Twitter, according to someone upthread, is HQ’d in San Francisco which is still in the US, so US has jurisdiction to issue a subpoena to Twitter for Twitter’s own records.
The subpoena does not compel Assange or Ms. Jonsdottir to turn over their own records, it compels Twitter to turn over whatever records Twitter has that relate to the named individuals and screen names.
Which is why the request for financial info perplexes me. Twitter, AFAIK, is free and would not have such information from it’s users.
Anybody know anything about any Twitter services that would implicate use of a credit card or bank account?
Well Twitter certainly took a step to protect its relationship with its users.
If my info were being subpoenaed I would be grateful to the service provider who went to bat for my right to contest the subpoena
Humanist,
Who’s to know how many organizations have been subpoenaed if the subpoenas are sealed?
I would file a motion to quash the subpoena, if I were representing one of the subjects named in the Twitter subpoena, on the ground that the Government has no valid legal theory that would warrant a prosecution, such that even if it were to discover the evidence that it’s looking for, the Freedom of the Press Clause in the First Amendment necessarily protects Assange and Wikileaks from prosecution. Therefore, the fishing expedition for information that it cannot use to prosecute them, as a matter of law, then becomes a particularly aggressive form of intimidation to chill investigative reporting and publication of information regarding the Government’s unlawful misconduct by Assange, Wikileaks, and other journalists and news organizations.
That constitutes a prohibited prior restraint on the publication of material that is protected by the First Amendment, and for that reason the subpoenas should be quashed.
I believe Holder and the DOJ know that they cannot prosecute Assange and Wikileaks, but they are determined to use every means at their disposal to intimidate whistleblowers and investigative journalists in order to prevent something like this from happening again.
Thanks for that information. Can’t imagine what a know military metadata might be to get at and untangle. Regarding Twitter having no standing – couldn’t Twitter just say that people use Twitter expecting privacy in their account? And without respect for that, their whole business/service model will crumble. I don’t use Twitter, so don’t know how it works.
I thank you for the article and the clarity it brings to the situation, especially from the standpoint of Twitter itself. I had been prepared to delte my Twitter account as a protest if they “rolled over” and coughed up the info. I feel much better about them now that I understand their footing and how they reacted.
Mason,
How much you wanna bet that every one of those points will show up on Ms. Jonsdottir’s motion to quash?
Cause, that’s her motion right there, plus some sovereign nation stuff
I believe that this is the problem. As information is “cloud-served” and the servers are in the USA, then it suddenly comes under USA laws. EEC Commissar Neelie Kroes has actually started a campaign to fight that in November:
(is in Dutch, you’ll have to Google translate: http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/67925/kroes-waarschuwt-voor-privacyrisico-s-cloud.html)
Love this question – as far as I understand they only suspect Manning because he said something in a chatroom. This means that systems and procedures within the USA Army not only allow someone to download 250.000 files, but that it is also nowhere traceable in the system. In theory this makes all your digital data corrupt/ invalid – because all of them may have been tampered with….
http://www.ornstein.org/2011/01/08/to-mrs-tracy-mccormick-of-that-twitter-wikileaks-subpoena/
Welkom to the Lake.
Great link. For English readership’s convenience, here is Google Translate’s serviceable translation into English from Dutch (link: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwebwereld.nl%2Fnieuws%2F67925%2Fkroes-waarschuwt-voor-privacyrisico-s-cloud.html ).
Iceland should file in International Court of Justice for Preliminary Measures and advisory opinion, as use of Twitter does not constitute any contact with US for subpoena power jurisdiction,& the chilling affect which would result in dissimentation of private comunications of elected official. Worldwide public opinion could lead Obama to accept jurisdiction on one case only basis, as rule of law is instantly international now with social media
Mirjam, I don’t think we know that for sure that they only suspect Manning because of a chatroom script. It is somewhat inconceivable that the US Army would use as system that would make downloading untraceable.
But then again, if the intent was to develop a system that would prevent tracing of tampering, then that is conceivable.
Do you remember the missing $2.3 trillion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A&feature=related
Exactly. When news of this hit, some of the first comments were about closing Twitter acccounts, and that this would be the death of Twitter. Given that Twitter requested the unsealing, they temporarily postponed their death warrant.
It is not just a few individuals whose information is being sought. The subpoena which can be found here – http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf – demands information on those those associated with any account “registered or associated with Wikileaks” on twitter. It asks for records of connections to and from the account,including “user name, and source and destination” i.p. address. The main Wikileaks twitter account has as of a few minutes ago 637,205 followers.
It is inconceivable that there isn’t a USG agency that does not have a backdoor into Twitter, meaning that the USg already has all the information it needs about its targets. Is the purpose of the formal subpoenas to enable its findings to stand up in court? Or is it be for the purpose of intimidation of other potential whistleblowers? Or both?
Is one of the means at their disposal the pulling the national security card to overrule the decision of the court?
Greenwald’s key question.