CHILLING: In #OccupyBoston Case, BPD Hits Twitter w/ Subpoena for Users Who Used Specific Hashtags

[kpete]

ACLU: “When an administrative subpoena is used to get information that’s protected by the First Amendment, that raises particularly troubling issues.”
http://rt.com/news/occupy-boston-twitter-court-027/

The Boston Globe reports:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/12/29/aclu-helps-fight-subpoena-prompted-occupy-boston-tweets/YJR0rQ3NB1eTp4N0DOnDgO/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

The use of Twitter information in investigations is a rare, but not unheard-of tool for law enforcement. Last year, federal authorities sought information on Twitter related to the WikiLeaks organization, and a federal judge upheld the request.

But Twitter has become known for opposing such requests and even alerting users of law-enforcement subpoenas.

A week ago, Fawkes tweeted a link to the subpoena that Boston police and the Suffolk district attorney’s office had sent to Twitter in California requesting Internet protocol addresses on his Twitter account, as well as details on the @OccupyBoston Twitter account and for Twitter users who used the hashtags #BostonPD and #d0xcak3.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/30/1050043/-CHILLING:-In-OccupyBoston-Case,-BPD-Hits-Twitter-w-Subpoena-for-Users-Who-Used-Specific-Hashtags?via=siderec
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/wtf-what-fawkes

.........

[Historic NY]

1. Well lighting up twitter with that hashtag would be a start.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. I'm really not liking that ACLU report. They can't do that!

FOIA!

[Tsiyu]

3. Yeah, found this & posted this thread about the situation the other day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100279340

Twitter apparently alerted the owner of the account of a subpoena in defiance of a request...which I thought was brave of them. This related to the Boston protest/Anonymous situation

[MADem]

4. I just knew you were out in front of the curve on that story! nt

[Tsiyu]

5. Well, you were right there with me lol

[starroute]

6. It seems like this is going to be a grand jury investigation -- which is frankly terrifying

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/boston-subpoena-twitter/

ACLU attorney Peter Krupp, who is representing user @p0isan0n, filed a motion to quash the subpoena on First Amendment grounds. But Thursday, the ACLU seemed to be dealt a defeat when Suffolk Superior Court Judge Carol Ball issued an impoundment order after hearing the case mainly in chambers.

This barred anyone in the case from talking about the arguments on either side, or about why the motion to dismiss the subpoena was likely rejected. Impoundment is an extraordinary measure that can be requested by one side of a case, and is generally granted only in cases involving sensitive security issues, investigative issues, witness intimidation, or the possibility of the suspect running.

“I think none (of these reasons) are valid in this instance,” said Krupp.

For its part, the Boston Police told Boston local publication BostInno that the “Boston Police Department is investigating serious threats directed at department personnel. The department will not disclose the specific nature of the intelligence gathered relative to this matter.”


http://privacysos.org/node/417

Citing a representative of the court, the Boston Globe is reporting that the Suffolk County District Attorney's subpoena for Twitter account holder information related to Occupy Boston is "part of a pending grand jury investigation."

As we wrote here yesterday, Judge Carol Ball sealed the proceedings, including her ultimate ruling on whether the subpoena could go forward. That's to say, the public doesn't know whether Twitter will be forced to hand over the subscriber information of potentially hundreds of people who tweeted the #bostonPD and #doxcak3 hashtags, or mentioned Guido Fawkes, in addition to the two accounts subpoenaed, @p0isAn0n and @occupyboston (not the right account for Occupy Boston) and anyone "associated" with them.

But now we know, thanks to the Globe piece, that the judge did agree that the subpoena was part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Which investigation? We do not know. That's because the ADA told the judge in secret, without ACLUm lawyers present. In other words, @p0isAn0n and the other potential targets of the subpoena don't know what they are being investigated for.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Free p0isAn0n! There must be SOME legal means to make all of this public!

[newfie11]

9. Is this shades of things to come in the new year

God I hope not!