NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Twitter exposes British user in court "privacy" vendetta
Twitter exposes British user in court "privacy" vendetta
http://j.mp/kWI7qx (This message on Google Buzz)
- - -
http://j.mp/mBYtYL (UK Guardian)
"The social network has passed the name, email address and telephone
number of a south Tyneside councillor accused of libelling the local
authority via a series of anonymous Twitter accounts. South Tyneside
council took the legal fight to the superior court of California,
which ordered Twitter, based in San Francisco, to hand over the user's
private details. It is believed to be the first time Twitter has
bowed to legal pressure to identify anonymous users and comes amid a
huge row over privacy and free speech online."
- - -
Just a few words on this. First, Twitter's range of practical
alternatives in this case, given a valid, *highly specific* court
order, was extremely limited.
The underlying problem -- and this will only be getting worse in the
foreseeable future barring major sea changes -- is with the outdated
notions of "information control" still held by many courts (granted,
sometimes the result of specific enabling legislation), in association
with the "God-complex" still a feature of so many judges around the
world -- including in the U.S.
Without delving here into the more philsophical aspects of
jurisprudence, it's clear that the legal system per se, still largely
effectively grounded in 19th century concepts of information access,
is having a great deal of difficulty coming to grips with new
communications and research (e.g. search engine) technologies.
In the past, effective "gag orders" -- whether justified or not --
could be enforced mainly through gentlemen's agreements with the
court participants and the local press. But with everyone now capable
of reaching the entire world through social media, the practicality of
limiting court information (and independent juror research) has been
vastly diminished.
Many judges hate this. They also tend to despise jurors who aren't
"empty vessels" on the topics at hand. (Exercise: As a prospective
juror, just try mention the "FIJA" [Google that one, kids!] in open
court some day. But be prepared to be led out of the courtroom in
shackles for contempt of court!)
Another aspect of the problem in this paricular Twitter case is the
complex international jurisdictional issues, which are only
exacerbated by the lack of sensible harmonization of associated laws,
a state of affairs that encourages inconsistent "ad hoc" results from
case to case.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com