maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:57 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:37 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 6285
Location: The Cockney Paradise
Reputation points: 18898
So the social media platform that banned Milo for exercising his right to free speech is now suing Trump's administration on the grounds of free speech. Hmmm. Really makes you think...

Quote:
Twitter is suing the US government after it demanded it reveal the identity of an anti-Trump account.

The @ALT_USCIS profile was an anonymous profile account criticising President Trump’s immigration policy.

The account claimed it was being run by federal employees at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Twitter has requested a court block the Trump administration’s request, calling it a matter of free speech.

The challenge was filed in San Francisco, where the micro-blogging service is based.

"The rights of free speech afforded Twitter's users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the US Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech,” the company argued.

It added that the government "may not compel Twitter to disclose information regarding the real identities of these users without first demonstrating that some criminal or civil offense has been committed".

The move was backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We are pleased to see Twitter standing up for its users' rights, and the ACLU will soon be filing documents in court on behalf of this user," the ACLU said in an emailed statement.

"To unmask an anonymous speaker online, the government must have a strong justification. But in this case the government has given no reason at all, leading to concerns that it is simply trying to stifle dissent."

In January, when Donald Trump became President Trump, several so-called "alternative" accounts for US government services began appearing online.

Most claimed to be authored by current or former employees at those agencies, and they offered harsh criticisms of their new boss.

According to the filing, the government sought to use a power given to the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) - one typically used to obtain records relating to imported merchandise - to get detailed information on who was behind @ALT_USCIS.

The request asked for "all records regarding the twitter account @ALT_USCIS to conclude, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P addresses".

It demanded Twitter hand over the information by 13 March 2017 - though the company was not actually sent the request until the 14th.

In response, Twitter has told the court that "permitting the CBP to pierce the pseudonym of the @ALT _UCCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other 'alternative agency' accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies".

The account itself tweeted on Thursday the portion of the US Constitution that protects free speech.

The accounts were motivated by the gagging of the official National Parks Service Twitter account which, on the day of President Trump's inauguration, retweeted a picture comparing his crowd size to that of President Obama's inauguration in 2009. It was briefly shut down, before reappearing with an apology for the tweet.

According to press reports at the time, President Trump himself called the head of the National Parks Service to complain.

The furore prompted an apparent "rogue" former employee at the Badlands National Park in South Dakota to commandeer the park's Twitter account to published a variety of statistics and facts relating to climate change.

The tweets were quickly removed and the former worker's access revoked - but not before a flurry of new accounts claiming to be from within agencies appeared.

The veracity of the accounts was hard to verify given the authors insisted on keeping their identities secret in order to protect their jobs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39522164


Attachment:
1487532417279.jpg
1487532417279.jpg [ 84.25 KiB | Viewed 1705 times ]

_________________
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19211
Reputation points: 18052
If the Trump Admin wants to clean the Immigration Department swamp, all they have to do is start asking the enforcement guys in the field which superiors have been obstructing the law.

Many of those guys are pissed, and have openly stated that there are still Obama appointees in high-up ICE positions who are still circumventing laws. Saw an article on that exact subject just a few days ago over at Washington Times.

Just follow the trail upwards and toss the bastards out of their appointed offices. No need to ask Twitter who it is because plenty people, attempting to do their jobs in the Department, will happily give them up with assurances.



Border Patrol union urges Trump to cut Obama’s red tape holding back agents
Sunday, April 2, 2017


<...>snip<...>

Quote:
“What’s very concerning to Border Patrol agents is, to this point, we still have the same people who gave us all of the failed operations, who were the authors of the catch-and-release program. They’re still in charge — even under this current administration,” the union chief said. “That’s head-scratching, especially since the president said we’re going to drain the swamp.”




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... licopters/

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:58 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11706
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15595
Ahh, asking for information on the identity of so-called "anonymous" twats . . . I see Herr Trumpolini has taken his first steps down the path to Stalinist purges. Be afraid, be vewy, vewy afwaid.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:48 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11537
Reputation points: 6762
Mac wrote:
So the social media platform that banned Milo for exercising his right to free speech is now suing Trump's administration on the grounds of free speech. Hmmm. Really makes you think...

Quote:
Twitter is suing the US government after it demanded it reveal the identity of an anti-Trump account.

The @ALT_USCIS profile was an anonymous profile account criticising President Trump’s immigration policy.

The account claimed it was being run by federal employees at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Twitter has requested a court block the Trump administration’s request, calling it a matter of free speech.

The challenge was filed in San Francisco, where the micro-blogging service is based.

"The rights of free speech afforded Twitter's users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the US Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech,” the company argued.

It added that the government "may not compel Twitter to disclose information regarding the real identities of these users without first demonstrating that some criminal or civil offense has been committed".

The move was backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We are pleased to see Twitter standing up for its users' rights, and the ACLU will soon be filing documents in court on behalf of this user," the ACLU said in an emailed statement.

"To unmask an anonymous speaker online, the government must have a strong justification. But in this case the government has given no reason at all, leading to concerns that it is simply trying to stifle dissent."

In January, when Donald Trump became President Trump, several so-called "alternative" accounts for US government services began appearing online.

Most claimed to be authored by current or former employees at those agencies, and they offered harsh criticisms of their new boss.

According to the filing, the government sought to use a power given to the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) - one typically used to obtain records relating to imported merchandise - to get detailed information on who was behind @ALT_USCIS.

The request asked for "all records regarding the twitter account @ALT_USCIS to conclude, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P addresses".

It demanded Twitter hand over the information by 13 March 2017 - though the company was not actually sent the request until the 14th.

In response, Twitter has told the court that "permitting the CBP to pierce the pseudonym of the @ALT _UCCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other 'alternative agency' accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies".

The account itself tweeted on Thursday the portion of the US Constitution that protects free speech.

The accounts were motivated by the gagging of the official National Parks Service Twitter account which, on the day of President Trump's inauguration, retweeted a picture comparing his crowd size to that of President Obama's inauguration in 2009. It was briefly shut down, before reappearing with an apology for the tweet.

According to press reports at the time, President Trump himself called the head of the National Parks Service to complain.

The furore prompted an apparent "rogue" former employee at the Badlands National Park in South Dakota to commandeer the park's Twitter account to published a variety of statistics and facts relating to climate change.

The tweets were quickly removed and the former worker's access revoked - but not before a flurry of new accounts claiming to be from within agencies appeared.

The veracity of the accounts was hard to verify given the authors insisted on keeping their identities secret in order to protect their jobs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39522164


Attachment:
1487532417279.jpg

So you're ok with the government trying to force a private company to turn over a bunch of users' private information even though there is no criminal investigation and no crime has been committed? On top of that, the government is threatening a company with action if they even reveal that the government requested the information? I don't care if it was Obama, Clinton, Reagan, fucking Abe Lincoln himself, I am not comfortable nor am I ok with that. Given in to this request sets a real dangerous precedent. You might be ok with this admin having this power but how would you feel if someone like Elizabeth Warren were to win the next election? Would you trust her with that power?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:11 am 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 6285
Location: The Cockney Paradise
Reputation points: 18898
knuckles_95 wrote:
So you're ok with the government trying to force a private company to turn over a bunch of users' private information even though there is no criminal investigation and no crime has been committed?

Show me the part of my post where I said that exactly? It was more about pointing out the hypocrisy of Twitter when it comes to free speech.

_________________
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:23 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11706
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15595
Well . . . the police can arrest you and put you in the interrogation room and ask you to talk in the interest of making you a witness against yourself. They do it all the time, and it isn't exactly illegal. You have a right not to incriminate yourself and they have no right to force you to incriminate yourself so there is a "grey" area there. I've seen a documentary on this one case where detectives in a police force up in Wisconsin or Michigan did this very thing to a retarded kid and then the evidence was being used to prosecute him for a murder he very well may not have been involved in at all . . . it happens, and in that case it arguably was malfeasance if not illegal.

Neither is it illegal for the Trumpolini regime to ask Twatter to give it all its user account details . . . Twatter may not have to comply, it depends on how the Trumpites phrase the request and the legal basis for them having made the request.

Arguably, if their rationale is that the information is critical to national security then team Trump has not only the legal right but the ethical IMPERATIVE to extract that information from Twatter by all legal means at hand, including the detainment and charging of decision makers at Twatter if necessary.

So I'd say, what it really distills down to is: are the twats a national security risk or not? Can Team Trump make the argument that they are a national security risk and thus abrogage Twatters right to protect the identity of its clients?

And by the way, NONE of this stuff is "anonymous." It may be "confidential" but the standards for anonymity are higher = virtually no chance of a person's identity being divulged by any means. Very few things that are widely referred to as "anonymous" really are. Voting is pretty close to anonymous, but in fact, I suspect that in some cases it might even be possible to trace a specific vote to a specific person. In a real national scale election that is probably a very, very slim possibility, but in a smaller scale election it becomes more feasible (and depending on the mechanism for encrypting voter actions). Very, VERY few things done on computers are truly "anonymous," though quite a bit of what is done on them is "confidential."

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11537
Reputation points: 6762
Mac wrote:
knuckles_95 wrote:
So you're ok with the government trying to force a private company to turn over a bunch of users' private information even though there is no criminal investigation and no crime has been committed?

Show me the part of my post where I said that exactly? It was more about pointing out the hypocrisy of Twitter when it comes to free speech.

Free speech is free speech but it doesn't mean unfettered speech. I can say whatever I want until it hurts my employer's bottom line. The 1st Amendment protects your speech from the government (which Twitter is doing) not from private companies. I can stand in a tea shop and scream, "The King is a FINK!" and the owner can tell me to shut up or get out and it wouldn't be an infringement to my free speech. If the government came on after I left and asked for all of the information they have on me with the intentions of shutting me up, then THAT will be an infringement on my right to free speech.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11706
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15595
knuckles_95 wrote:
Mac wrote:
Show me the part of my post where I said that exactly? It was more about pointing out the hypocrisy of Twitter when it comes to free speech.

Free speech is free speech but it doesn't mean unfettered speech. I can say whatever I want until it hurts my employer's bottom line. The 1st Amendment protects your speech from the government (which Twitter is doing) not from private companies. I can stand in a tea shop and scream, "The King is a FINK!" and the owner can tell me to shut up or get out and it wouldn't be an infringement to my free speech. If the government came on after I left and asked for all of the information they have on me with the intentions of shutting me up, then THAT will be an infringement on my right to free speech.


If you are treasonous, the government is behooved to come after you. Free speech does not include treason.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19211
Reputation points: 18052
I think it's a terrible way to go about something when there are other routes to do the same & more.

There are plenty ways to flush out the Pro-Illegal law-flaunting hacks in the Immigration department, in order to issue them the pink slips they wholly deserve, without resorting to strong arming private companies for the names of these secret gov't employee activists.

Unless these "anonymous" gov't employees are posting restricted info which they're not supposed to be publicly releasing.



Mac has a separate but perfectly valid point regarding Twitter's hypocritical Freedom of Speech defense. I think we all know the place is run by Democrats. So no surprise there. They've had their own censorship issues with user masking in the past, along with the outright ban(s) of perceived political opponents. So, yeah, that's worth a chuckle.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Twatter Sues US Over Anti-Trump Account
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11537
Reputation points: 6762
Anthropoid wrote:
Well . . . the police can arrest you and put you in the interrogation room and ask you to talk in the interest of making you a witness against yourself. They do it all the time, and it isn't exactly illegal. You have a right not to incriminate yourself and they have no right to force you to incriminate yourself so there is a "grey" area there. I've seen a documentary on this one case where detectives in a police force up in Wisconsin or Michigan did this very thing to a retarded kid and then the evidence was being used to prosecute him for a murder he very well may not have been involved in at all . . . it happens, and in that case it arguably was malfeasance if not illegal...
It is not only illegal but it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. How do you not know this:

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's why that retarded kid...Brandon Massey...was ordered release.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-new ... on-w450383

Quote:
Neither is it illegal for the Trumpolini regime to ask Twatter to give it all its user account details . . . Twatter may not have to comply, it depends on how the Trumpites phrase the request and the legal basis for them having made the request.

It is when the request comes with a threat of prosecution for noncompliance.

Quote:
Arguably, if their rationale is that the information is critical to national security then team Trump has not only the legal right but the ethical IMPERATIVE to extract that information from Twatter by all legal means at hand, including the detainment and charging of decision makers at Twatter if necessary.

They do not make that rationale. If it was critical to national security they would have gone and gotten a warrant for the information as is dictated by law

Quote:
So I'd say, what it really distills down to is: are the twats a national security risk or not? Can Team Trump make the argument that they are a national security risk and thus abrogage Twatters right to protect the identity of its clients?
If they can make this argument then they should make it to a judge instead of threatening a private company.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group