US court rules Twitter data is not protected

[shabby]

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/privacy-loses-twitterwikileaks-records-battle
www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/...ter-data-isnt-secret-government-orders-are/2/

With this decision, the court is telling all users of online tools hosted in the U.S. that the U.S. government will have secret access to their data," said Jonsdottir. "People around the world will take note, and since they can easily move their data to companies who host it in locations that better protect their privacy than the U.S. does, I expect that many will do so. I am very disappointed in today's ruling because it is a huge backward step for the United States' legacy of freedom of expression and the right to privacy.

That's it folks, the government has access to your pm's.

 

[bfdd]

lol really? there's no way they actually ok'd this. sigh... going to have a bunch of meetings soon.

 

[theeedude]

<rightwing logic> ACLU is against this, so it must be a good thing </rightwing logic>

 

[Nebor]

Sounds good to me.

 

[cubby1223]

All I saw in that article was "blah blah blah"

There are pros and there are cons to "online privacy".

And, unfortunately, we as a society have proven that we WILL abuse that privacy, instead of handling it responsibly. Incident I read about earlier this week as one example:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/We_Find_...hts-nasty-online-sex-rumors/story?id=13915596


It is a balancing act between privacy and security. And don't repeat that tired quote from over 200 years ago, not interested.


You want people protected, you want people to be free, but it is always a balancing act. Always. Nothing is perfect, but a juggling balance is better than either extreme.





People need to be safe and protected from the government - BUT, people also need to be safe and protected from other people. How do you achieve both goals? The extremes protect you from one but leave you totally vulnerable to the other.

 

[IGBT]

freedom of speech..yes. Responsibility for your words..yes.

 

[Double Trouble]

A terrible ruling for anyone who believes in any kind of privacy or oversight. Not only is the government (according to this ruling) allowed to get access to any of your data held with any company (google, facebook, twitter, whatever) without any warrant, you don't even have the option of knowing that someone has been looking at your data. So they have access to all your data, without any warrant, and can do so without you having any way to know about it or restrict it, or even challenge it in court.

What a terrible precedent.

 

[dfuze]

It's a district court ruling, I wouldn't be surprised if it's overruled.

 

[Doppel]

Not surprised. The gov can put GPS on my car without a warrant, tap my phone without a warrant, put out a hit list of US citizens without any public oversight, etc. Nobody is really surprised at this, are they?

 

[Triumph]

I don't give a crap about Twitter, but what about something most of us use, remotely hosted email? I gave up POP service years ago, but in those days servers didn't keep a huge database of your emails because of storage capacity limitations. If the feds wanted to see your emails, they would have to get a warrant, come to your house, and take your computer. (I am pretty sure about this)

So what about now? Are all of my gmail emails subject to gov't proofreading without my knowledge because the data is hosted on a private company's server?

 

[Vic Vega]

As far as Google goes, it's not your email, it's their email - you essentially give it to them by using the service. This has been in Google's TOS for a long time. Should they choose to show the Feds their emails with your name on them, yeah, they can, without your consent.

One more reason the only Google service I use is search.

 

[Vic Vega]

A terrible ruling for anyone who believes in any kind of privacy or oversight. Not only is the government (according to this ruling) allowed to get access to any of your data held with any company (google, facebook, twitter, whatever) without any warrant, you don't even have the option of knowing that someone has been looking at your data. So they have access to all your data, without any warrant, and can do so without you having any way to know about it or restrict it, or even challenge it in court.

What a terrible precedent.

It's terrible indeed but it will be overturned. Hopefully the ACLU will get involved here pretty quick.

 

[Triumph]

As far as Google goes, it's not your email, it's their email - you essentially give it to them by using the service. This has been in Google's TOS for a long time. Should they choose to show the Feds their emails with your name on them, yeah, they can, without your consent.

One more reason the only Google service I use is search.

Interesting. Unfortunately my university "outsourced" their webmail services to Google, at least for alumni, so now I have a @vt.edu account, managed by Google, or something like that. Which isn't what I agreed to 14 years ago when I entered VT. I'm guessing though, that most of the large webmail providers have similar wording in their TOS like you said about Google.

 

[Vic Vega]

Interesting. Unfortunately my university "outsourced" their webmail services to Google, at least for alumni, so now I have a @vt.edu account, managed by Google, or something like that. Which isn't what I agreed to 14 years ago when I entered VT. I'm guessing though, that most of the large webmail providers have similar wording in their TOS like you said about Google.

If it's a free service you bet they do.

If you want to retain ownership of your email and have some protections from big brother (meaning - your email will provider will tell them to pound sand if the ask for email without a warrant) you have to use a subscription based service or the service from your ISP.

 

[1prophet]

<rightwing logic> ACLU is against this, so it must be a good thing </rightwing logic>

Nah when they're done having important things like crosses on public lands removed, perhaps they will put more effort into trivial things like this.

 

[Nebor]

Not surprised. The gov can put GPS on my car without a warrant, tap my phone without a warrant, put out a hit list of US citizens without any public oversight, etc. Nobody is really surprised at this, are they?

Not at all. We're well past the point where putting personal "liberties" ahead of security and integrity of the state is a viable option.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The gov can put GPS on my car without a warrant

Police have been able to follow (tail) you since the beginning of time. The only problems I see with law enforcement attaching GPS tracking devices to cars without a warrant is that they might trespass on private property to attach it, they monitor the location once you are off public roads, and that they might never remove it once they finish. All of said grievances can be prevented with proper regulations and oversight.

I see GPS tracking of vehicles as a cost saving measure. Much cheaper to affix the devices than assign a policeman to follow a suspect.

the government has access to your pm's.

If it makes you feel better, social media and email websites monitor what you voluntarily disclose (even via "private" messages and only to your "circle" of approved friends) for data mining purposes (usually provide you with better advertisements). That is why they provide "free" services. People are willing to trade privacy for monetary savings.

Although, it is reasonable to feel more comfortable with the motives of private companies monitoring your personal information than Uncle Sam.

 

[zsdersw]

We're well past the point where putting personal "liberties" ahead of security and integrity of the state is a viable option.

100% incorrect.

 

[Thump553]

How could anyone have any expectation of privacy in something they posted on Twitter?

Sorry but I don't agree with Chicken Little-the sky is not falling.

 

[Nintendesert]

Isn't Twitter inherently a public forum? What measure of privacy can possibly be expected there?

 

[shabby]

Isn't Twitter inherently a public forum? What measure of privacy can possibly be expected there?

Direct messaging is private and that's what the government is after.

 

[Craig234]

We need to protect privacy rights from the anarcho-conservatives wanting the government to have excessive investigative powers.