tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post2701482943247309457..comments2024-01-24T20:01:37.600-05:00Comments on slight paranoia: Thoughts on the DOJ wikileaks/twitter court orderChristopher Soghoianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08950937382104783909noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-55902788136152048372011-03-01T22:55:53.877-05:002011-03-01T22:55:53.877-05:00"Anonymous said...
The DOJ is not, and will ..."Anonymous said... <br />The DOJ is not, and will not ask Twitter for our personal info.<br /> ... U.S. has no intention of curbing free speech of the people or the news media. "<br /><br />Will you please grow up, anonymous? You are speaking for an entity of which you a very ignorant. You obviously have a blind, idealistic ideal of an idea that once existed, but has faded away with the development of the Military-Industrial complex. We could fill many pages of many books with examples of this, but in the interest of simplification, i will provide only one:<br />http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-17317704203990801512011-01-10T17:11:54.528-05:002011-01-10T17:11:54.528-05:00Very good post! Thanks for this analysis, even if ...Very good post! Thanks for this analysis, even if there might be a couple of uncertainties regarding the term of subpoena. <br /><br />I think your blog entry must be read together with Glenn Greenwalds opinion of today on salon.com called "Government-created climate of fear" to get the full picture: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/ <br />That whole action seems to be part of an official intimidation campaign rather than a sound legal act.<br /><br />I travelled to the US twice in the late 80ies and loved it. Today, I am shocked and disturbed by the way that wonderful country has - or seems to have - evolved... How can this be, and why?Alice McDuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07944973222481979071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-43333437213951037852011-01-10T14:19:54.938-05:002011-01-10T14:19:54.938-05:00Sorry for hogging your comment section, but just n...Sorry for hogging your comment section, but just noticed this.<br />>>My initial impression is that this is not a request for communications content, but communications between the user and twitter itself<<<br />--------------------------------------<br />The disclosure requests in Attachment A of the subpoena is fully of 2703(c) [i.e., Records of remote communication info excluding communication content]<br /><br />2703(b) [i.e., remote communication content] has not been requested. So tweet message content has not been requested.<br /><br />Yes, so the request is for 'when, how, where' info rather than 'what' info.<br /><br />The investigative agency does seem to know already that there hasn't been any private messages between them :PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-22653513777403179362011-01-10T14:08:14.415-05:002011-01-10T14:08:14.415-05:00Hey Mr Anonymous: "The DOJ is not, and will n...Hey Mr Anonymous: <b><i>"The DOJ is not, and will not ask Twitter for our personal info.<br />U.S military documents were stolen from the U.S. And, Wikileaks received this stolen property, which is illegal, of course. And by publishing this information it has put the lives of the military personnel of the U.S. and its allies in jeopardy.</i></b><br /><br />Hey Mr Anonymous... I keep hearing from media sources, & I see you like repeating the statement, "<i>And by publishing this information it has put the lives of the military personnel of the U.S. and its allies in jeopardy."</i> Unfortunately for you who believe everything that comes from the media, there's not one shred of evidence presented that any <i>"lives have been put in jeopardy"!</i> And all of us with the ability to use our common sense knows d@mn well if someone had been harmed by Wikileaks postings, they'd be parading said evidence all over the globe.<br /><br />ITS CRAP.. people who repeat it are CRAP. thus I challenge you Mr Anonymous.. Back up your statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-47855349321469737972011-01-10T13:52:36.963-05:002011-01-10T13:52:36.963-05:00We Humans have learned very little from the past. ...We Humans have learned very little from the past. Giving LE (Law Enforcement) carte-blanche access, to a tool like this is asking for trouble (As history has shown). How many abusive parents, & spouses are police officers. A Spouse leaves an abusive relationship, I pray they remember to dump their cell phones. Children leaving abusive parents.. Same goes for them. There are tons of situations where we wouldn't want a LE officer to have this kind of access to track down anyone they see as PROPERTY, or a threat.. Most of these abusive people are also paranoid, & or delusional. You might be asking yourself, "How does this critic know this is going on?"<br /><br />BECAUSE I LIVED IT WITH MY EX! Now it all makes sense to me how he found me every time I ran. Until today, I was a Sprint/Nextel customer/subscriber. <br /><br />THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES! AND not only Sprint/Nextel, but also the paranoid nuts who think this is okay, & keep their mouths shut. We here in America have made a huge mistake (Not me mind you) by letting our Government take our freedoms little by little, all in the name of security. The terrorist have been put in charge of Washington. AND I don't mean the taliban. This is scary crapAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-80264946961380583822011-01-10T13:19:52.831-05:002011-01-10T13:19:52.831-05:00Excellent post, thanks as always for taking the ti...Excellent post, thanks as always for taking the time to do it!jonhttp://talesfromthe.net/jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-17266879316174341492011-01-10T13:03:10.682-05:002011-01-10T13:03:10.682-05:00^Correction:
Is the warrant application a public r...^Correction:<br />Is the warrant application a public record?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-75761566874037764232011-01-10T08:20:34.418-05:002011-01-10T08:20:34.418-05:00@James:
Yes, those credit card details,etc... are ...@James:<br />Yes, those credit card details,etc... are because they are described as such in the 'what can be requested for disclosure' section, 2703 c)2.<br />-----------------------------------<br /><br />The link you provided is great :o)<br /><br />Accd. to that 'specific and articulable grounds' preclude "fishing expeditions" by law enforcement.<br /><br />This is very interesting.<br /><br />If its not the BradMan case, but the WL case, then this would be wrong and the warrant can't be valid.<br /><br />If its the BradMan case, the video credit is enough of a link, I guess, but then why was it issued under State authority? Wouldn't BradMan case be investigated under broader laws? Is it normal for federal investigation to get a State warrant? Is the warrant a public record?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-57954359182446496902011-01-10T07:57:38.956-05:002011-01-10T07:57:38.956-05:00Doubts:
1. Wikipedia says court can issue subpoe...Doubts: <br /><br />1. Wikipedia says court can issue subpoenas. The second sign on the subpoena.pdf was that of a clerk. Could it have been issued by a clerk? Would the judges sign still be present if it had been issued by a clerk? Is it normal for the same judge to both issue the sealed document and to unseal it?<br /><br />2. 2703(d) is basically the criteria for the warrant and the disclosed info are actually 2703(b) and 2703(c). But 2703(b,c) aren't mentioned explicitly in the warrant.But the USC is explicit about this. So does that mean that 2703(d) can be used only with 2703(b,c) if nothing else is mentioned in the warrant or does that mean that separate orders would have been issued for 2703(b,c)? If the govt. requests info under a related section (2704,2705) that reference 2703(b), will it have to get a different court order or just the one under 2703(d) will suffice for interlinked sections? Reason for this question is, I want to know whether it is a possibility that Twitter has been served with other warrants under related sections? <br /><br />3. What is the calculation behind the ten day period? Other sections have 'no sooner than 14 days...' clauses, but 2703(d) doesn't seem to have a time limit?<br /><br />-----------------------------------<br />Thanks for posting the USC links. Very helpful. If you have links to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and State warrant procedures, could you post them too? Thanks :o)<br /><br />I have these 2 links but I can't figure out under which section is the warrant procedure that would have been followed in this case. Help please :?<br />http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/<br />http://law.onecle.com/virginia/<br /><br />I want to figure this out because - if its the BradMan case, then would the State Court have issued it? Wouldn't it have been under Federal warrant procedures?<br /><br />If it is not the BradMan case but rather the WikiLeak case, then shouldn't the commission of the crime be established before investigating the associated people's private conversations in such a high profile case with huge repercussions? Especially as the commission of the crime itself is in doubt?<br /><br />----------------------------------<br />Thanks for writing this article :o)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-63115796627158405132011-01-10T07:40:13.767-05:002011-01-10T07:40:13.767-05:00The DOJ is not, and will not ask Twitter for our p...The DOJ is not, and will not ask Twitter for our personal info.<br />U.S military documents were stolen from the U.S. And, Wikileaks received this stolen property, which is illegal, of course. And by publishing this information it has put the lives of the military personnel of the U.S. and its allies in jeopardy.<br />The Iceland lawmaker Briggit J has totally misrepresented what the U.S. is doing. Contrary to what she is saying the U.S. has no intention of curbing free speech of the people or the news media. For some reason she has been claiming this as fact. Probably because she is afraid she may get arrested for working with Wikileaks. How did she get to be a lawmaker in Iceland?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-22851894738384798812011-01-10T05:26:29.182-05:002011-01-10T05:26:29.182-05:00>1. Amateur Hour. The 2703(d) order ... request...>1. Amateur Hour. The 2703(d) order ... requested credit card and bank account numbers of several Twitter users, even though Twitter is a free service and so doesn't have such information ...<br /><br />The reason for this seems to be that they used a template for requesting data from ISPs. The template is available here: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ssmanual/06ssma.html (the last portion of appendix B).<br /><br />Whether they used this template because of incompetence, because they've been firing out tons of the things, or because they felt the template used was applicable enough to twitter is of course unknown.<br /><br />I haven't seen any news organizations mention this, but it does explain the strange requests and ambiguous language.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-84612301103440696972011-01-09T16:13:21.775-05:002011-01-09T16:13:21.775-05:00Thank you for the thoughtful and knowledgeable ana...Thank you for the thoughtful and knowledgeable analysis, Chris. <br /><br />And respect to @Delbius, @Amac and Twitter HQ for putting users expectation of privacy, first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-83459675840408293862011-01-09T14:02:08.544-05:002011-01-09T14:02:08.544-05:00I also got a lot out of this piece, but I do wonde...I also got a lot out of this piece, but I do wonder, though more politely about the definition of subpoena. Not a lawyer either, but that definition doesn't sound right. It seems to me you're conflating the fact that a subpoena can originate with an agency, with the subpoena itself. Don't all subpoena's have to be signed off by a judge? Otherwise, you'd have any agency regularly requesting personal items extra-judicially...omarhttp://hyphenatedrepublic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-14511955185856283832011-01-09T12:47:10.386-05:002011-01-09T12:47:10.386-05:00"following" is a kind of "correspon..."following" is a kind of "correspondence", isn't it?<br /><br />.~.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-79946017115178716112011-01-09T11:17:21.030-05:002011-01-09T11:17:21.030-05:00Interesting post, but I agree with jf that your de...Interesting post, but I agree with jf that your definition of subpoena is not correct. Subpeonas are most often issued by courts to compel the testimony of witnesses, they are *not* an administrative letter unsigned by a judge.theprez98https://www.blogger.com/profile/01074999337241878441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-31163173478095750152011-01-09T10:12:34.319-05:002011-01-09T10:12:34.319-05:00The fact that the 18 USC 2703(d) legal powers were...The fact that the 18 USC 2703(d) legal powers were increased and amended by the anti-terrorism PATRIOT Act, means that the use of such powers in this case, which clearly does not involve any terrorist plot at all, will be portrayed as a "terrorism slur" .<br /><br />Back in 2008, the people of Iceland were rightly furious with the then UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown when his Labour government, which stupidly used anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the financial assets of Icelandic banks, despite having plenty of other financial regulatory powers to do so. <br /><br />This was seen as treating Iceland in exactly the same way as pariah states like Libya, Iran, North Korea etc. <br /><br />This led to the "Icelanders are NOT Terrorists" petition, which was signed by over 10 % of the entire population of the country.<br /><br />More seriously it also led to the cancellation of NATO air defence exercises and to the threat to allow Russian military aircraft to use the strategic keflavik airbase.<br /><br />As a Follower of the wikileaks Twitter account (as a constructive critic of the wikileaks project), I also object to any chance of "guilt by association" through secret Communications Data traffic analysis and data sharing.<br /><br />Note that unlike other countries, e.g. Switzerland, this 18 USC 2703(d) does not specify that any data which is handed over to the US authorities is to be protected in transit or in storage through the use of strong encryption. <br />Given the US Government's record of data insecurity, there is every chance that unprotected copies of this Communication Data will be lost or stolen.Watching Them, Watching Ushttp://SpyBlog.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-20045600365609374542011-01-09T09:26:36.614-05:002011-01-09T09:26:36.614-05:00The Empire counter attacks and will never give up....The Empire counter attacks and will never give up. Unfortunately, all Social Media networks are US based and the world wide IT communtiy should either become very cautious or resist by defying. <br /><br />Facebook and Twitter as open office for the CIA? Brave New World....angelicalaurenconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09919722414348549560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-44291927019823224812011-01-09T07:28:15.003-05:002011-01-09T07:28:15.003-05:00Thank you for the analysis. I tweeted yesterday I ...Thank you for the analysis. I tweeted yesterday I believe this to be 'Twitters biggest test' because their long term success or failure pivots on whether they can be trusted worldwide.@nuxnixhttp://www.multizone.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-78644254919502339292011-01-09T07:10:12.886-05:002011-01-09T07:10:12.886-05:00Hello! :)
Thank you very much for the clear exp...Hello! :) <br /><br />Thank you very much for the clear explanation of this order.<br /><br />I have a question: according to various tweets circulating at the moment the order actually means that the DOJ will be able to access many/all other Wikileaks followers on Twitter, because of Section 2 in Part B of the order, which refers to being able to collect information "such as" the IP and e-mail addresses of "sources and destinations" of tweets sent to and from the five ( six? ) accounts listed. <br /><br />Is this true? <br /><br />Thank you very much. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-26937272221627941982011-01-09T07:09:30.225-05:002011-01-09T07:09:30.225-05:00Hello! :)
Thank you very much for the clear exp...Hello! :) <br /><br />Thank you very much for the clear explanation of this order.<br /><br />I have a question: according to various tweets circulating at the moment the order actually means that the DOJ will be able to access many other Wikileaks followers on Twitter, because of Section 2 in Part B of the order, which refers to being able to collect information "such as" the IP and e-mail addresses of "sources and destinations" of tweets sent to and from the five ( six? ) accounts listed. <br /><br />Is this true? <br /><br />Thank you very much. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-63167591127898517342011-01-09T05:25:59.658-05:002011-01-09T05:25:59.658-05:00It seems a little doubtful that anyone should take...It seems a little doubtful that anyone should take anything you're saying serious. You entirely defined subpoena's incorrectly, so badly that it makes it doubtful that you're qualified to speak on any aspect of law (really? you think an administrative subpoena encompasses the entire definition for the term? ..really?)<br /><br />Then, you referred to Jake as an expert at something that didn't involve getting his name associated with someone elses work.<br /><br />It just makes it very hard to take anything you've said further serious.not_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05206789608401464729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-60378354130695213962011-01-09T05:16:03.538-05:002011-01-09T05:16:03.538-05:00Could the DOJ target private messages on Twitter? ...Could the DOJ target private messages on Twitter? If any whistleblower contacted Wikileaks members through Twitter it would be highly relevant for the case. I guess Facebook and Google got similar orders.Torstennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-20795844046107215212011-01-09T05:13:14.024-05:002011-01-09T05:13:14.024-05:00Great analysis!Great analysis!Boris Loukanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03138174828064075557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16750015.post-3908050633067482702011-01-09T05:05:13.305-05:002011-01-09T05:05:13.305-05:00Wow, good post! Thanks!Wow, good post! Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com