Twitter has been ordered to turn over the public Tweets of Occupy Wall Street protestor Malcolm Harris. The ruling is not surprising since the Tweets were previously public and anyone with Internet access could view them. The Tweets are no longer available online; however, they have been saved on Twitter's servers. Twitter and Harris' attorney have been trying to quash the Manhattan district attorney's subpoena demanding the Tweets but have been unsuccessful.
On April 23, 2012, I stated that, "Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy.
On July 3, 2012, I stated that, "If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
While I applaud Twitter fighting for the digital privacy rights of its users, I believe that continuing to fight a subpoena for content that was once public is a losing battle. However, I believe that Twitter along with other social media companies should continue fighting for the personal privacy rights of its users.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Occupy Wall Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupy Wall Street. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Occupy Wall Street Tweets May Be Subject to Subpoena
While the Occupy Wall Street protests have cooled down the past several months, the legal issues involved with them have heated up. According to the Wall Street Journal, a Manhattan judge recently ruled that Twitter has to turn over several months of an Occupy Wall Street protester’s tweets. The tweets may be utilized against the protestor at trial.
In April, the judge in the Occupy Wall Street protestor's case ruled that the protestor does not have the right to quash a subpoena for public tweets. At that time, I stated that, "I generally agree with the main point of this decision (that the protestor doesn't have the right to quash the subpoena) that public Tweets are fair game,"
If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In April, the judge in the Occupy Wall Street protestor's case ruled that the protestor does not have the right to quash a subpoena for public tweets. At that time, I stated that, "I generally agree with the main point of this decision (that the protestor doesn't have the right to quash the subpoena) that public Tweets are fair game,"
If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Occupy Wall Street Public Tweets Subpoena Decision May Have A Troubling Analysis
A judge ruled earlier today that deleted public tweets may be used as evidence in an Occupy Wall Street protestor's trial. While I generally agree with the main point of this decision that public Tweets are fair game, some of the analysis behind the decision may be very troubling.
Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy. However, if one has a protected Twitter account where the owner of the account has the ability to choose who may have access to his Tweets and/or sends a Twitter Direct Message the user may have an expectation of privacy and then a warrant may be needed for the government to be able to access the Tweets and/or the Direct Messages.
One aspect of the decision I found to be very troubling was on page 4 where it states, "Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his." I believe that this analysis is incorrect and demonstrates that Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. may not fully understand social media, digital technology, and public policy. In addition, on page 6 of the decision, it states, "While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet." If Judge Sciarrino's reasoning is extended to all online services that may mean that as a society we don't have an expectation of privacy for password protected digital content. If we don't have an expectation of privacy for our password protected digital content this may drastically harm the ability for technology companies to monetize cloud computing and other future electronic services because businesses and consumers may be hesitant to utilize these services if the government has the ability to access our password protected digital content without a warrant.
While we may not have an expectation of privacy for our public Tweets, some of the analysis for this decision is terribly flawed and demonstrates the need for our judiciary to become better educated about the issues inherent with social media and technology.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy. However, if one has a protected Twitter account where the owner of the account has the ability to choose who may have access to his Tweets and/or sends a Twitter Direct Message the user may have an expectation of privacy and then a warrant may be needed for the government to be able to access the Tweets and/or the Direct Messages.
One aspect of the decision I found to be very troubling was on page 4 where it states, "Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his." I believe that this analysis is incorrect and demonstrates that Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. may not fully understand social media, digital technology, and public policy. In addition, on page 6 of the decision, it states, "While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet." If Judge Sciarrino's reasoning is extended to all online services that may mean that as a society we don't have an expectation of privacy for password protected digital content. If we don't have an expectation of privacy for our password protected digital content this may drastically harm the ability for technology companies to monetize cloud computing and other future electronic services because businesses and consumers may be hesitant to utilize these services if the government has the ability to access our password protected digital content without a warrant.
While we may not have an expectation of privacy for our public Tweets, some of the analysis for this decision is terribly flawed and demonstrates the need for our judiciary to become better educated about the issues inherent with social media and technology.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)