Comments on: My tweets refuse to be subpoenaed http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Currmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/#comment-42032 Sun, 04 Mar 2012 11:29:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11855#comment-42032 Our history of protesting is wonderful and brave.
Which of them was anonymous; Patrick Henry, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King.
The faint of heart need not apply.

]]>
By: MidwestVoice http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/#comment-41682 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:15:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11855#comment-41682 mutt – what ever you may think of any protester, there is a basic right to free speech in this country. There USED to be an expectation of privacy also; the continued and expanded spying on US citizens (remember W’s phone tapping without warrants!?!) should concern us ALL. There is more and more domestic surveillance of US citizens that have done nothing criminal – personally, it scares the h*ll out me! I do not want to live in a police state, yet the so-called Patriot Act is still in force and warrant-less surveillance is still being carried out. And please, spare me the “if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t mind” garbage! I have nothing to hide, but that does NOT mean that I will allow my home or possessions to be searched without a warrant and reasonable cause — that should also go for my electronic communications as well. Big Brother is watching more than ever and not all of us believe that is the way the United States of America should operate! I love my country, but that does not mean I agree with everything my government is doing – too much of which is supposedly to keep me “safe”. Which of course begs the question, “safe from whom”?

]]>
By: Frump http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/#comment-41669 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:43:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11855#comment-41669 @mutt3003 So what else besides information can be conveyed on Twitter? The issue isn’t that people use Twitter to communicate, the issue is what is being communicated. As the writer pointed out, the US government was happy to see Twitter used in Arab Spring so that the protesters could coordinate their peaceful activities against political regimes that the US government opposed. However, the US government apparently feels threatened by the peaceful activities of Occupy Wall St. and is using their power in order to intimidate. The US people have traditionally prided themselves in the belief that this could not happen in the US because they are better than that. Guess not …

]]>
By: mmiller459 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/#comment-41666 Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:58:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11855#comment-41666 He’s not a clown. The OWS protestors were legitimately protesting the hijacking of this country by the 1 percent. He is also arguing a constitutional principal that seems to be beyond mutt3003 — the right to privacy and freedom from unusual search and seizure by the US government. The issue is not whether we have something to hide or not; it is whether or not the government has the right to intrude like this, and whether we should allow the government’s intrusion to have a chilling effect on free speech.

]]>
By: rahul_singh http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/#comment-41664 Sun, 19 Feb 2012 07:53:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11855#comment-41664 “When students used Twitter to coordinate protests in Iran in 2009, The U.S. State Department applauded and intervened to keep the service online.”

if you can prove it in the court it might help you!

]]>
By: mutt3003 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/#comment-41662 Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:40:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11855#comment-41662 This clown is comparing himself to the student protesters in the middle east? Give me a break. If he was just “spreading information”, what does he have to hide? Just as with cell phone calls and email, if the government gets a judge to agree, they can get it.

]]>
By: Nullcorp http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/02/17/my-tweets-refuse-to-be-subpoenaed/#comment-41648 Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:37:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=11855#comment-41648 Interesting story, and it’s great to hear a subjective viewpoint from someone directly involved.

The reality is that the law can get whatever data they want. Twitter is a company whose aim is to profit (nevermind that they are not currently profitable). Thus, whatever their internal politics may be, they have to comply with certain rules. They are not inherently a platform for activists. The fact that their service became a popular tool for protesters around the world is a side-effect of its simplicity and availability. But it’s not really the right tool for the job.

What is needed is a truly anonymous, realtime, encrypted messaging platform that is as easy to use as Twitter. Maybe Anonymous or their contemporaries are developing it, or already using it. The problem is that it can be exploited by the “bad guys” just as easily. Such a service could be used to mobilize a terror cell, or detonate a remote explosive device. We would have to accept that tradeoff in order to have truly free speech and untraceable online communication. Would it be worth it?

]]>