Twitter Surrenders Occupy Protester's Tweets

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Twitter, facing a contempt of court charge and a fine, finally gave up that Occupy Wall Street protester's data so it can be used against him in court.

Twitter had faced a Friday deadline to comply with the subpoena or face contempt and a substantial fine. In court on Friday, the company's lawyers asked one last time for the judge to stay his order but he refused and they turned over the documents to him.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, talk about being dragged into something that they had nothing to do with.
 
This is the problem you'll get with social media companies storing your data forever.

Yes you have 1st amendment rights. Just be aware that if you say something stupid now, 10 years from now someone could bring that up, out of context, and in a totally different situation to make you look like an ass.
 
This guy hosed himself by bragging on Twitter about ignoring the police and chanting of "take the bridge" and then lying in court saying the cops tricked people into the streets so they could arrest them. Doh!
 
Twitter should have refused. You cannot arrest a corporation and they have enough money to hire private security.
 
damicatz said:
Twitter should have refused. You cannot arrest a corporation and they have enough money to hire private security.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure that individuals from Twitter could be prosecuted criminally and I'm quite sure that Twitter the company can be fined.
 
damicatz said:
Twitter should have refused. You cannot arrest a corporation and they have enough money to hire private security.
Click to expand...

The judge was very specific in stating he would fine them and with a contempt fine he can fine them continuously as long as they are in contempt (there is no limit to the monetary penalty) ... a fine like that could stretch into the millions ... besides the protester was using the wrong argument ... he was trying to use the 4th amendment to fight the request ... he might have had a better argument using the 5th (at least for any information that wasn't public) ;)
 
Why would Twitter not hand the information over? And why does Twitter keep backups of tweets?
 
travanx said:
Why would Twitter not hand the information over? And why does Twitter keep backups of tweets?
Click to expand...

They probably have some kind of legal requirement to maintain records to protect themselves. All the stuff people put on the Internet gets stored someplace by someone at some point. How else do you display it somewhere else?
 
SkribbelKat said:
They probably have some kind of legal requirement to maintain records to protect themselves. All the stuff people put on the Internet gets stored someplace by someone at some point. How else do you display it somewhere else?
Click to expand...

You delete the data after a certain point because you don't want to be involved in digging up past data for lawsuits. I can only imagine the time and money involved in storing everything that twitter has ever done forever.
 
travanx said:
You delete the data after a certain point because you don't want to be involved in digging up past data for lawsuits. I can only imagine the time and money involved in storing everything that twitter has ever done forever.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on whether or not there's a legal retention policy. For Twitter, I can't see why there is such a thing, but meh...I'm not a lawyer or anything. As for storage, I have no idea how they do that or what it takes, but it's probably something really awesome in a server room that I'd love to see and never will.
 
kbrickley said:
The judge was very specific in stating he would fine them and with a contempt fine he can fine them continuously as long as they are in contempt (there is no limit to the monetary penalty) ... a fine like that could stretch into the millions ... besides the protester was using the wrong argument ... he was trying to use the 4th amendment to fight the request ... he might have had a better argument using the 5th (at least for any information that wasn't public) ;)
Click to expand...

The 4th amendment absolutely applies regardless of what the robed fascists say.

How does the court intent to collect the fine? Send their armed thugs to Twitter's headquarters?
 
damicatz said:
The 4th amendment absolutely applies regardless of what the robed fascists say.

How does the court intent to collect the fine? Send their armed thugs to Twitter's headquarters?
Click to expand...

I am not sure if they could arrest the Twitter executives ... but they could list them in default of a court ordered fine and destroy their credit rating ... not the best set of circumstances ... it could also affect their advertising revenues since some companies are not allowed to do business with companies who are in violation of the law

Normally I would say that the 4th amendment argument is best but it has been pretty clear in the courts that they seem to view the internet as the digital equivalent of standing on the street corner and yelling stuff ... since it appears that the defendant had bragged about fooling the police (even though that was his defense) an argument against self incrimination might have worked better for him ;)
 
damicatz said:
The 4th amendment absolutely applies regardless of what the robed fascists say.

How does the court intent to collect the fine? Send their armed thugs to Twitter's headquarters?
Click to expand...

Care to explain how getting getting an official listing of what you publicly published online is an unreasonable search and/or siezure?
 
damicatz said:
How does the court intent to collect the fine? Send their armed thugs to Twitter's headquarters?
Click to expand...

One method is they attach any fees, fines and/or penalties to your taxes, property titles ect. They get their money one way or the other and it's usually expensive as all hell.:eek:
 
griffinhart said:
It was done with a court ordered Subpoena. This falls within the rules defined by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Subpoena's don't require probable cause. Warrants do.

Frankly, this is a witch hunt against the protesters that has gone on for far too long. The New York Thug Department is the one that railroaded them to begin with.
 
damicatz said:
Subpoena's don't require probable cause. Warrants do.

Frankly, this is a witch hunt against the protesters that has gone on for far too long. The New York Thug Department is the one that railroaded them to begin with.
Click to expand...

A subpoena makes it a search and seziure reasonable. Probable cause hasn't got anything to do with your original gripe about it being unreasonable. :p
 
SkribbelKat said:
A subpoena makes it a search and seziure reasonable. Probable cause hasn't got anything to do with your original gripe about it being unreasonable. :p
Click to expand...

Reasonable in who's eyes? The state?

Remember that the Constitution was designed to limit the state. Allowing them to interpret their own limits is foolish and defeats the entire purpose.
 
damicatz said:
Reasonable in who's eyes? The state?

Remember that the Constitution was designed to limit the state. Allowing them to interpret their own limits is foolish and defeats the entire purpose.
Click to expand...

I don't think the average person is able to interpert those limits as effectively as the collective of our government. Visiting Wal-Mart usually makes me realize that big chunks of the US popuation are pretty clueless and need a big brother to keep them in line, keep them employed, and keep them spending. So yeah, the state is the correct entity to determine what is and isn't reasonable.
 
SkribbelKat said:
I don't think the average person is able to interpert those limits as effectively as the collective of our government. Visiting Wal-Mart usually makes me realize that big chunks of the US popuation are pretty clueless and need a big brother to keep them in line, keep them employed, and keep them spending. So yeah, the state is the correct entity to determine what is and isn't reasonable.
Click to expand...

What you are describing is fascism.
 
SkribbelKat said:
No, I'm not. You should read more about it instead of treating it like a dirty word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Click to expand...

I hope that you aren't actually defending it.

Let's see :

1.Obedience to the state - Check (See your own argument : e.g state knows better than its subjects).
2.Individuals united together under one national identity - Check (e.g We are all Americans, Flag Waving, etc. etc.)
3.Indoctrination - Check (See Public Schools).
4.Use of paramilitary organizations to threaten or commit violence against enemies - Check (See : CIA. See : Federal Law Enforcement, especially when decked out in full paramilitary gear. See : copblock.org. See war on drugs.).
5.Use of a scapegoat to justify infringing on civil liberties and the use of violence - Check (See : War on Terror).
6.Authoritarian Leadership - Check (See : Obama deciding that he can unilaterally order the assassination of American citizens without trial or due process. See : Obama unilaterally enacting the DREAM act despite it not having been passed.)

Sounds like fascism to me.
 
damicatz said:
I hope that you aren't actually defending it.

Let's see :

1.Obedience to the state - Check (See your own argument : e.g state knows better than its subjects).
2.Individuals united together under one national identity - Check (e.g We are all Americans, Flag Waving, etc. etc.)
3.Indoctrination - Check (See Public Schools).
4.Use of paramilitary organizations to threaten or commit violence against enemies - Check (See : CIA. See : Federal Law Enforcement, especially when decked out in full paramilitary gear. See : copblock.org. See war on drugs.).
5.Use of a scapegoat to justify infringing on civil liberties and the use of violence - Check (See : War on Terror).
6.Authoritarian Leadership - Check (See : Obama deciding that he can unilaterally order the assassination of American citizens without trial or due process. See : Obama unilaterally enacting the DREAM act despite it not having been passed.)

Sounds like fascism to me.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with being supportive of the state. You're employed, paying taxes, and you're probably a free member of society (assuming you're not in a prison someplace) so you're just like anyone else who does what they're supposed to do.

What's wrong with having a national identity? Government promote a positive national perspective. This one has done that since it was started. It keeps people aligned to a common goal and gives them a common identity the same way a corporate mission statement helps keep a company focused on its objectives. It's not negative and its done globally in other institutions like the Lions Club or the Girl Scouts.

No one is forcing anyone to attend a public school. Home schooling is pretty popular. Institutional education has helped promote a broadly literate society and a baseline set of expectations about general knowledge. Higher education is widely available for those that want it. Compare us to a nation without organized public education like Madagascar.

Organizations like the CIA keep crazies afraid of acting out on other citizens (even though that's not really their job) and they're not more or less paramilitary than some random guy with a gun. As for other enforcement branches, I'd like to see the people that have to deal with criminals wearing protective safety equipment that lets them come home to their families. I would expect a person working putting out fires to be wearing the correct protective clothing and I expect law enforcement to wear a bullet proof vest and a uniform to identify themselves. It's an outfit that suits the job and there's some regular person inside it. It seems like you have the same fear of police that children have of clowns.

I ran a text search on the wikipedia page and didn't find the word scapegoat anyplace. That's kinda outside the definition and you're inventing stuff on your own to add weight to your argument.

You give the sitting president a lot more authority and power than reality does and obviously didn't pay any attention in a social studies class or a college government class.

So yeah, you're insane, but I'm pretty sure you're also all bark and no bite...meaning you migth sit around complaining very angrily, but you'll never actually do anything about it. Using this forum to ramble about the government is silly. You really should relax and not worry about it. :) Get back to insanely trolling the Apple people. That's at least related a little to computer stuff.
 
I have to say - you're quite a dumb fuck if that's not your usual trolling. I pity your soul. And you are nothing like a cat.
 
damicatz said:
Reasonable in who's eyes? The state?

Remember that the Constitution was designed to limit the state. Allowing them to interpret their own limits is foolish and defeats the entire purpose.
Click to expand...

The constitution was meant to limit both the state AND the individual ... it defines fairly clearly what powers belong to each ... YOU as an individual do not have the power to determine who the USA trades with, wars with, or is allowed to immigrate to this country ... in my opinion, the government SHOULD NOT have the power to limit who you marry, whether you have prayers in school, and other things which I think should be individual rights.

One thing I think a lot of Americans have forgotten is the idea of service to their country. The occupy wall street and other protests seem very interested in what the country can do for them ... they are not asking what they can do for their country ... as JFK once so eloquently stated in his famous speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". The USA will never be a true democracy (nor should it be ... if you think government is bad now imagine if all the mouth breathers who live her could actually make laws themselves :eek:) ... as a democratic republic we elect a person to represent us in the government ... if we keep electing people who increase their power and limit ours, whose fault is that, theirs or ours.

Our constitution defined a judicial system that would interpret and execute the laws, which this court is doing, if you disagree with that interpretation then don't reelect the judge or elect members to your city or state government who will change it. Whether it is right or not can be debated, but since they are following the guidelines set forth in the constitution it is most definitely LEGAL ;)
 
damicatz said:
I hope that you aren't actually defending it.

Let's see :

1.Obedience to the state - Check (See your own argument : e.g state knows better than its subjects).
2.Individuals united together under one national identity - Check (e.g We are all Americans, Flag Waving, etc. etc.)
3.Indoctrination - Check (See Public Schools).
4.Use of paramilitary organizations to threaten or commit violence against enemies - Check (See : CIA. See : Federal Law Enforcement, especially when decked out in full paramilitary gear. See : copblock.org. See war on drugs.).
5.Use of a scapegoat to justify infringing on civil liberties and the use of violence - Check (See : War on Terror).
6.Authoritarian Leadership - Check (See : Obama deciding that he can unilaterally order the assassination of American citizens without trial or due process. See : Obama unilaterally enacting the DREAM act despite it not having been passed.)

Sounds like fascism to me.
Click to expand...

1. You have to obey the laws defined by the government and you can protest those laws within reasonable boundaries but if there is no law then the government has no say so over your actions so NO we do not have this

2. What is wrong with national identity ... all countries identify with their national identity ... if they don't then maybe they are living in the wrong country ... given the large number of people who wish to immigrate to the USA I think we are perceived as being a pretty good place to live ... it is only when national identity is used to move the population in a uniform direction that things are bad (Japanese internment during WW2, etc)

3. We do NOT have indoctrination in our public schools ... they can't hardly even say the pledge of allegiance any more ... our history is all over the place since each state has the ability to tweak their own curriculum's (so Boston might not get past the revolution in their history, the south might not get past the Civil War or might skip the Civil Rights era, etc)

4. Give me a break ... as criminals have become better armed and more sophisticated so have the law enforcement agencies that are used to try and arrest or monitor them ... a SWAT team is NOT a paramilitary organization ... we do have lots of paramilitary groups in this country and most of them would love to overthrow the government, they are most certainly not a part of it.

5. The War on Terror was a direct result of an attack on the United States by a terrorist group. Although the scope of the war has expanded into some questionable areas (Iraq for instance) there is little evidence that we are using Scapegoats (people getting "unmerited" attention) ... if a group is promoting a philosophy of war against the USA and western culture in general then that is most likely "merited" attention ;)

6. The POTUS is not an authoritarian figure ... there is a constant struggle between the three branches of government in the USA for Power (Congressional, Executive, Judicial) ... all three like to try and carve out power positions ... the person killed in Yemen was promoting a position advocating attacks on the USA during a time of war (never a safe strategy) ... I would view his death as an act of war and as such is no less moral than the attacks on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Tokyo (all valid acts of war also) ... as to the Dream act ... if Obama is reelected it is quite probable that the Congress will over ride his action ... if he is not the next president will certainly do that instead

:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top