Twitter Outs Occupy User After Judges Demand

[bathroommonkey76]

Just over a month after taking criticism for changing its censorship policies, Twitter is handing over the information of a user associated with the occupy movement.

A Massachusetts court ordered the San Francisco-based social-networking site to name the Twitter user behind the account @p0isan0n to the Boston Police Department.

The ACLU had challenged an initial administrative subpoena in court but its motion was denied by a judge and it cannot be challenged further.

A Twitter representative would not confirm whether information beyond the one account subpoenaed was given to authorities.

More here:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Twitter-Outs-Occupy-User-After-Judges-Demand-141207753.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. I recall from many years ago the EFF

saying that everyone should hold themselves responsible for the their own actions so I guess this is one such case.

[MineralMan]

2. This is something to bear in mind for everyone.

There are few online entities that will not turn over that information under subpoena. A few might challenge such a subpoena, but most will respond with the requested information. Their legal advisors will tell them that the information on one person being released under a court order is way less of a hassle than a long court fight over the information. That's true, even if there is a protest created from their action.

What that means on a practical basis is that stuff we post on social networking and other sites, including discussion forums might lead to a subpoena seeking identification of the person posting. Mundane stuff doesn't matter, but when postings involve any sort of illegal activity, threats, or anything like that, there's a distinct vulnerability to law enforcement interest, and "internet privacy" won't work.

While it's theoretically possible to maintain some anonymity on the Internet, it's mostly an illusion, really. The authorities can, and will, find out who you are if they really, really want to, and ISPs and websites will cooperate with them, in the end.

The bottom line is that it's important to use appropriate caution when posting, no matter where you're posting. Even emails aren't immune, if the determination is strong enough to access the information.

[Zalatix]

3. Why does the Government need this information? What crime was committed?

[MineralMan]

4. The article didn't say, so there's no telling.

I imagine whatever tweets were there at that account are gone now. I don't think we'll find out what the alleged crime is in this matter, although if it's in the court system it might be possible to dig it out. I don't have time.

[tledford]

8. The crime is criticizing the 1%. eom

[MineralMan]

16. Probably not. Probably, there are genuine, tangible

breaches of the law involved, for whatever that's worth. It's more than just criticism of the 1%. Everyone's doing that. It takes much more than that to attract this kind of attention from law enforcement. Truly it does.

[MineralMan]

5. That Twitter account is active, and the

person who has the account is posting today.

https://twitter.com/#!/p0isAn0N

If anyone's interested in seeing if there's any info there. He/she is talking about the subpoena and release by Twitter.

[MineralMan]

6. Here's a link to the actual subpoena:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76393350/Subpoena-on-p0isAn0n-OccupyBoston-BostonPD-d0xcak3

[MineralMan]

7. Googling this twitter account finds lots and lots of

stuff. I don't really have time to go through it, but others might find it interesting.

One thing I saw was a tweet by that person, containing a link to a list of NYPD personal info. I did not click that link, and will not. Wherever it is, you can consider it to have an IP trap attached to it. I'm not interested in the information, so I didn't click it.

[Rex]

10. Actually, I would suggest no one click on that link

unless they want to take a chance of getting indirectly involved. No wonder they want to talk to him.

[MineralMan]

12. Yup. It would be stupid, even if you had no interest in what

was there. This whole thing is tied up with the Anonymous stuff, and I don't have any interest in pursuing the information any further. As I've said before, I strongly disagree with some of the things done in the name of Anonymous. Some of those actions have exposed innocent people's private information. Not cool at all. I offered the Google search information for those who want to bother. It was obvious, anyhow. Probably 75% of what's on those result pages is bogus anyhow.

[Rex]

13. Yeah Anon is very toxic right now and people should

be aware of that. All of law enforcement wants to bring the group down. As fast as possible.

[MineralMan]

14. I'm sure you're right.

Right or wrong, Anonymous has drawn attention to itself, and I imagine a lot of harmless people will be drawn into the investigations. Fortunately, they're not the targets of the investigations, so a little annoying interest by law enforcement will be the only consequence for people who are just curious and go exploring around. But...that attention may just not be something people want. If so, it's a good idea to ignore the whole thing and not poke too far into it.

And one more N.B. for amateur internet sleuths: Free anonymizers on the internet are not any assurance at all of anonymity. Truly, they are not.

[Rex]

20. So true...especially since every computer has a unique

MAC address. And it is easy to find, remotely. Just for people lurking and thinking of poking around in anon's business. Make sure you don't have any outstanding warrants first!

[pinboy3niner]

9. Occupy!

Hell, in Boston the cops even raided to capture a sink. A SINK!



First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they take your #sink, then
you win. #almost #OWS #OccupyBoston #occupythesink

[Rex]

11. That sink could be used as a deadly weapon

if thrown!

[pinboy3niner]

15. It could even be construed as...TERRORISM!1!!

[Rex]

21. LOL!

WMD! Call in the swat team a sink has been found!!

[mmonk]

17. Protesting our corporate lords is a definite no no.

Be careful. Comply. Politics which the corporations control is the only proper or acceptable venue. If no one listens, conform. Your life is for them, not you family or your rights.

[MineralMan]

18. Not really. It depends on how you do it, really.

If you do stuff that's blatantly illegal, and flaunt that activity, there will be interest by law enforcement agencies.

If you just protest, not so much.

Go explore the Google search on that Twitter account. Very foolish, whoever owns the account. Very foolish, indeed.

[pinboy3niner]

19. Keep an eye out, MM

Many jurisdictions seem to be moving to criminalize what they used to regard as legal First Amendment protsts.