Franzen (the linked article) discusses the justification for surrendering the user's public tweets but not the user's private information. Judge Sciarrino's decision distinguishes between these tweets and the user's "non-content" private information, finding that "The law governing compelled disclosure also covers the above mentioned non-content records." This law is 18 USC 2730[c][1][B], which is fairly straightforward.
In short, this is no big deal. The information was legally subpoenaed in connection with a criminal investigation. I think this is only on the front page because it has the words "Twitter", "Occupy", and "Forced" in the title.
The ruling may be correct under the law, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
The Judge is a douchebag for referencing Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in his ruling. Franklin, Hamilton and Adams wrote pamphlets anonymously with the precise expectation that the content be public while the writer stay anonymous. Obviously I concede that an ink on paper pamphlet is not the same as a tweet.
Rulings like this will only push reputable critical speech of the US government further into less civil minded groups like Anonymous.
Must TOR, I2P and IRC be the domain of our modern day pamphleteers? The sad truth is, probably. The First Amendment hasn't truly protected free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
I guess those who prefer critical thought and freedom over security had better brush up on loathsome l33t speak.
I get what you're saying... that this isn't some shady National Security Letter deal. This is "how it's supposed to work" with a judge signing off on a subpoena.
But I think you are missing why this is of interest to many people: What criminal charges are being investigated here? The article makes it sound like "disorderly conduct" but surely that can't be right. I guess it's unfair to make assumptions since we obviously don't have all the facts, but based on the public information about this case there is certainly at least the appearance that it is based on trumped up, retaliatory charges.
I don't think the government has the duty of disclosing that information to the public (or even the suspect) until it charges him. It'd be pretty silly if they did.
They need to convince someone, say a judge, to issue the subpoena/warrant.
The prosecutors have to convince a grand jury to issue an indictment. That's what the initial investigation is about.
They may not have the duty to disclose, however, the warrant/subpoena has to be specific, and what IS scary is the idea that those served can be put under a gag order not to talk about it. For big RICO cases it made sense, but for smaller ones that's an abuse.
> In short, this is no big deal. The information was legally subpoenaed in connection with a criminal investigation. I think this is only on the front page because it has the words "Twitter", "Occupy", and "Forced" in the title.
I agree. No doubt there are hundreds of similar subpoena's for the same set of information from Twitter users; in this case it happened to be a user connected to a movement that is garnering media attention.
PS: Note that I am not condoning the actual case itself; whilst I can't say their actions are ideal (likely to just annoy the public they need the support of), this case is an extreme overreaction.
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/2703.html
In short, this is no big deal. The information was legally subpoenaed in connection with a criminal investigation. I think this is only on the front page because it has the words "Twitter", "Occupy", and "Forced" in the title.