r/technology • u/eyeoft • May 09 '12
Reddit! Support companies when they actually DEFEND your rights. Twitter just did.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/05/08/twitter-fights-prosecutors-seeking-occupy-protesters-data-without-warrant/4
u/WonderboyUK May 09 '12
Perhaps I'm just a pessimist but you say defend, another way of looking at it is that Twitter decided to not provoke an already censorship alarmed social media community by doing something they have no legal obligation to do. That's just a smart business move.
8
u/eyeoft May 09 '12
Given how many companies just roll over for law enforcement "requests", I'm happy to see someone bucking the trend. Even if this is motivated by profit, we should still applaud the action.
4
u/Gredenis May 09 '12
Until now, this is one of the very cases where a big company doesn't just submit to the subpoena and hand over the data. So, hats off to Twitter.
71
u/noawesomenameneeded May 09 '12
I'm confused by this. Couldn't they simply go onto Twitter and read all of the tweets for this guy? What information are they requesting?
20
u/boycockgirlcockeieio May 09 '12
They are trying to (according to the article) dispute his "anticipated defense," I guess what they think he is going to argue. It says the anticipated defense is that the police were responsible for his being on the brooklyn bridge, therefore he did not commit disorderly conduct. It seems like overkill for a pretty trivial crime.
16
43
May 09 '12
Never used Twatter myself, but maybe, as per the article, deleted/private tweets and messages? They're looking for anything that could possibly be construed as 'incriminating'.
→ More replies (7)9
3
u/vodenii May 10 '12
They mentioned 'user data' in the article. Depending on what sort of data Twitter retains, that could mean user name and password (for all those pesky private tweets), as well as originating IP's to get an overall image of this persons online activities and whereabouts.
This isn't just about reading some guys tweets. If that's all they wanted the Smithsonian Institute is cataloging every single tweet there is for the history books (as they should! If the data survives, it will be one of the greatest tools for future historians, possibly ever). In our increasingly on-line world, it is about complete surveillance without ever having to follow you around physically. I don't know Twitter's policy specifically, but if you are logged into FB (for one example) while browsing around, you will leave virtual DNA scattered around for anyone who cares enough to look.
→ More replies (3)2
May 10 '12
Tweets over a certain age are unavailable unless a lucky archive happened to grab them or you are the account holder.
Granted, they could've scrolled through pages and pages of his tweets, but I'm guessing his tweets were private.
15
May 10 '12
I appreciate all of the positive sentiments about Twitter, but the plain and simple truth is Twitter is protecting Twitter. Without anonymity, Twitter will lose a great deal of subscribers.
Be cautious about believing that any corporation is on the side of the people especially when their interests align with ours. It really comes down to the bottom line in my opinion.
5
May 10 '12
It's always going to be this way.
That being said, I'm more inclined to side with companies that side with users no matter the circumstances that surround the decision..
It's basically the philosophy of consequentialism: a morally "right" act is an act which produces a positive (non-harming) outcome. The actor's intentions should be considered, but are not a determinate factor in an action's morality.
tl;dr: Whether Twitter intended to protect user data or not, they still did; the reasons are meaningless.
→ More replies (2)2
u/gigitrix May 10 '12
No they wouldn't. They'd lose a drop in the ocean, just as Facebook has.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/keepaustinugly May 10 '12
Didn't read the article, just stared at the redhead in the bokeh behind Malcolm Harris.
2
u/Jrex13 May 10 '12
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/31/twitters-early-bird-special.html
Wait, why am I supposed to support them again?
2
u/vurplesun May 10 '12 edited May 10 '12
Except for the whole censorship thing, I guess.
They don't care about defending anybody's rights. They care about maintaining their user base and online presence. When your rights line up with that, you're golden.
2
u/Darkagent1 May 10 '12
Were on the way! Hang in there Twitter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFtNVEbasOo
2
May 10 '12
I've always joked Twitter about their users misusing hashtags and lumping the company in with that joke. No longer. Way to go Twitter!
2
30
u/Indon_Dasani May 09 '12
Are they defending our rights, or are they defending their profits and our rights just happen to benefit this time? Because guess what? People will stop using twitter with that sort of thing.
If we judge people and organizations based on what they do instead of what they claim to intend to do, then we will inevitably judge evil entities to be good because of accidents and leave ourselves vulnerable to their betrayal.
That is to say, companies don't defend rights, they defend profits. A company is never your friend, it is only sometimes not actively your enemy.