Last week Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino, Jr. ordered Twitter to hand over three months worth of Occupy Wall Street protester Malcolm Harris' tweets and his personal information. Mr. Harris was one of hundreds arrested for holding a protest on the Brooklyn Bridge last October.
Manhattan prosecutors allege that Mr. Harris' tweets during that period belie his contention that he thought the group had police permission to march across the bridge. The tweets, of course, were deleted after the fact.
In his ruling, Judge Sciarrino declared that Mr. Harris had no standing to challenge the district attorney's subpoena for the records as the information was held by Twitter. In the past Twitter has argued that the individual tweeter "owned" the information and had standing to challenge any government requests for the records.
Now Twitter may find itself in the position of being forced to challenge each and every one of those requests itself. If that's the case, just how much longer can Twitter fend off government requests for user information? At what point does it become too expensive to stand up for principle?
But maybe that's the price that is to be paid for the one social media providers that has refused to bend over and grab its ankles when the government comes calling for records. Other firms have opened their doors wide open whenever someone wearing a dark suit, sunglasses and an earpiece comes a-knocking asking for user records. Twitter has been alone in standing up to the government in its attempts to data-mine user information.
So, if you can't get what you want, just make it so damn expensive and inconvenient that that other side finally just says "here, come and get it." That's what the government's strategy is. And that's something that should worry us all.
Because it's not just the content of the tweets that's at issue. It's something that many people still have a hard time coming to grips with in our social media age - once it's online, it's out there for all to see and it doesn't go away. But it's more than just a case of wishing you hadn't tweeted something - it's about the user's personal information, followers, IP addresses and locations.
Maybe you lost your ability to keep your tweets to yourself when you hit that send button, but did the people who follow you lose their freedom of assembly? Does the government have any business digging around to figure out where you were when you sent that tweet? Does the government have any business knowing whose computer you were using?
When Matthew Harris hit that send button, his tweets became as much a part of the public record as if he had stood on a soapbox and spoken through a bullhorn. But that doesn't mean his followers gave up their right to be left alone by the government.
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
On destroying America by digging up Marilyn Monroe
Today's there's yet more evidence that the U.S. War Against
Leigh Van Bryan and his friend, Emily Bunting, flew into Los Angeles from Ireland for a holiday. A few days earlier, Mr. Van Bryan had tweeted:
"Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America."He had also tweeted that he was going to be in LA for three weeks annoying people and "diggin' Marilyn Monroe up."
Somehow Mr. Van Bryan's messages made their way into the hands of the Department of Homeland Security who weren't too amused. Whether it was his saying he was going to destroy America or dig up the body of Marilyn Monroe isn't clear. But, what was painfully clear over the course of five hours of interrogation was that someone didn't find his humor very funny.
After the interview, Homeland Security reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe.
"Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy America."
The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day".
It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation."
Okay, I get the anti-terrorism hysteria - after all that's apparently part of the government jobs program. So long as there's a threat of terrorism los federales need to keep plenty of security personnel on the payroll. And it's probably just as well because I think the last thing we need is a bunch of unemployed "scoper and gropers" wandering around the streets of this country.
But let's get real. First, does anyone really think that an Irish bartender was intending to blow up something in America? Second, why does Homeland Security give a flying fuck about Marilyn Monroe's bones? Is her coffin hiding evidence of her affairs with John and Bobby?
There's a lot of information out there on the internet and I'm certain that some of it can provide leads to some folks who are up to no good. But you've got to have context. You've got to use a little common sense. Mr. Van Bryan was coming stateside for a holiday, not to conduct a terrorist operation. The grocery clerks at Homeland Security were too caught up in their own self-importance to understand that.
I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again, the world is no more dangerous today than it was on September 10, 2001 - unless we're talking about the exercise of our right to be left alone by the government.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Anatomy of a traffic stop
What follows is the Twitter feed from Arizona Cardinals defensive lineman Darnell Dockett after he was stopped by police.
I don't know why the police always messing w/me I'm never gonna let them search my car with out a search warrant! No matter what!
Police sitting here waiting on back up cuz I told them YOU NOT SEARCHING MY CAR! PERIOD! & now I'm sitting here! Owell I aint got shit 2 do!
There R 3police cars and they are talking! I don't see A search warrant they won't see inside this escalade! I got all day hope they don't!
Police said "do you mind if we look around in your Vehicle?" I said I sure DO! He said "I'm gonna call back up" I said u wanna use my phone?
I think they (POLICE) going to get a search warrant cuz they sitting here looking like fools waiting on something!
These COPS really think I'm stupid they playing good cop bad cop! BOY STOOOOP! I'm not falling for that! NO SIR YOU WILL NOT LOOK IN MY CAR!
This cop just ask me how tall R u & where R U from! I'm bout to ask him can I go across the street to POPEYS while we sitting here waiting!
I been sitting here for a HOUR 1cop by the driver window, 2talking at the car! And the 1by the window being friendly! Like wtf?
I asked the cop why he pulled me over he said I was speeding I said BULLSHIT! But give me the ticket that's when he asked to search my car!
So you gonna lie and say I'm speeding then you wanna search my car! Get the F*ck ouutta here! Better go get a warrant *turns up radio*
OK so now I think they letting me Go cop just brought my DL's and registration! Yeah I'm bout to be out this MOFO!
No ticket and I didn't get punk by PO-PO today now I'm off to my 2nd work out! Police aint searchig my sh*t with no warrant "holla at me"!
I don't know the circumstances surrounding the stop and I don't care about the circumstances surrounding the stop. The police had a hunch. Maybe there was some justification behind and maybe it was because Mr. Dockett is a black man driving a nice car late at night.
Whatever it was it goes to show that when the police ask for consent to search a car it's because they know they don't have probable cause to search it. The police count on motorists being intimidated into consenting to the search - and that's what usually happens.
Mr. Dockett knew better. He knew he was under no obligation to allow the police to search the car absent a warrant (or his arrest). He stood his ground and nothing came of it. And since the police didn't even bother to issue him a citation for speeding - you have to wonder about the basis for the stop in the first place.
You know if the police hate it when someone videotapes them going about their business that it must be driving them crazy that Mr. Dockett live-tweeted the stop. Now the Twitter world knows that it's okay to say no to the police.
The more of a light we cast on this behavior the less likely we are to encounter it. But it takes someone willing to stand up and say no. Thank you, Mr. Dockett, for having the courage to do just that.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Juror sentenced for using Facebook during trial
Joanne Fraill of Manchester, England (probably a Man U. fan), found out the hard way that Facebook and jury duty don't mix well.
On Thursday, Ms. Fraill was sentenced to eight months in prison after being found in contempt of court. It would seem that, while serving on the jury, Ms. Fraill "friended" -- and the use of that word as a verb should itself be a criminal act -- one Jamie Stewart, a defendant in a felony drug case, on Facebook. While the jury was deliberating, Ms. Fraill made contact with Ms. Stewart and discussed the case with her. She even provided Ms. Stewart with details of the jury's deliberations.
Ms. Stewart, who was acquitted, was given a suspended sentence for her role in the online communications.
The widespread use of Facebook and Twitter (and other social media sites) is straining this artificial construct we call the trial. Unless we are going to sequester every jury in every case, someone is going to do a little "research" on the internet about the case. It may be pulling up maps of the scene of an accident. It may be looking at the online profiles of the attorneys involved. Someone might look for the defendant on Facebook or Twitter. Someone's going to go to Google to find out about the breath test machine or DNA testing or some other field of forensic (pseudo-)science.
The information they find might be helpful to the defense. It might be harmful to the defense. It won't, however, be subject to cross-examination. It won't be subject to relevancy or hearsay objections.
Most of us won't have to worry about it too much because most of our trials last no more than a day or two and none of the details of the case ever make it to the local paper.
But one thing is certain - technology has (once again) outpaced our legal constructions and conventions. I don't know what the answer is. Jurors may say they won't do any research outside the courtroom -- but jurors also state they won't allow their own biases to prevent them from being fair (even after they've admitted they will hold it against your client if she doesn't take the stand in her own defense).
On Thursday, Ms. Fraill was sentenced to eight months in prison after being found in contempt of court. It would seem that, while serving on the jury, Ms. Fraill "friended" -- and the use of that word as a verb should itself be a criminal act -- one Jamie Stewart, a defendant in a felony drug case, on Facebook. While the jury was deliberating, Ms. Fraill made contact with Ms. Stewart and discussed the case with her. She even provided Ms. Stewart with details of the jury's deliberations.
Sentencing Fraill, Lord Judge said in a written ruling: "Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror, and her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial."Interestingly enough, the shenanigans occurred after the jury had informed the court that it was deadlocked. The court then gave the jury the option of deciding the case by a majority vote, rather than a unanimous vote.
Ms. Stewart, who was acquitted, was given a suspended sentence for her role in the online communications.
The widespread use of Facebook and Twitter (and other social media sites) is straining this artificial construct we call the trial. Unless we are going to sequester every jury in every case, someone is going to do a little "research" on the internet about the case. It may be pulling up maps of the scene of an accident. It may be looking at the online profiles of the attorneys involved. Someone might look for the defendant on Facebook or Twitter. Someone's going to go to Google to find out about the breath test machine or DNA testing or some other field of forensic (pseudo-)science.
The information they find might be helpful to the defense. It might be harmful to the defense. It won't, however, be subject to cross-examination. It won't be subject to relevancy or hearsay objections.
Most of us won't have to worry about it too much because most of our trials last no more than a day or two and none of the details of the case ever make it to the local paper.
But one thing is certain - technology has (once again) outpaced our legal constructions and conventions. I don't know what the answer is. Jurors may say they won't do any research outside the courtroom -- but jurors also state they won't allow their own biases to prevent them from being fair (even after they've admitted they will hold it against your client if she doesn't take the stand in her own defense).
Monday, June 6, 2011
Twitter just says no
Which online organization actually has the balls to stand up and defend its users' privacy?
It's not Google. It's not Facebook. It's not Wordpress.
It's Twitter.
In the face of government subpoenas asking for users' information, Twitter has stood up and fought. When the US government served Twitter with a subpoena asking for information about four individuals allegedly involved with WikiLeaks, Twitter sought to have the subpoena unsealed so that the users could be notified of the attempts by los federales to access information.
Facebook and Google don't notify their users when they are requested to turn over information in response to a subpoena. So you may never know if you're one of the 4,000 folks the government is seeking information on every year.
And what has Twitter received for daring to stand for principle? Certainly not a lot of praise. The government wants you to believe that Twitter isn't being a good corporate citizen because it refuses to bend to the government's demands.
Twitter should be lauded for its efforts to protect our right to privacy. Twitter shouldn't be condemned, Twitter should be commended for fighting the government's exercise of power.
H/T to Kevin O'Keefe.
It's not Google. It's not Facebook. It's not Wordpress.
It's Twitter.
In the face of government subpoenas asking for users' information, Twitter has stood up and fought. When the US government served Twitter with a subpoena asking for information about four individuals allegedly involved with WikiLeaks, Twitter sought to have the subpoena unsealed so that the users could be notified of the attempts by los federales to access information.
Facebook and Google don't notify their users when they are requested to turn over information in response to a subpoena. So you may never know if you're one of the 4,000 folks the government is seeking information on every year.
And what has Twitter received for daring to stand for principle? Certainly not a lot of praise. The government wants you to believe that Twitter isn't being a good corporate citizen because it refuses to bend to the government's demands.
Twitter should be lauded for its efforts to protect our right to privacy. Twitter shouldn't be condemned, Twitter should be commended for fighting the government's exercise of power.
H/T to Kevin O'Keefe.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Facebook post lands juror in hot water
Think a juror's fondness for social media won't affect your client? Think again. A Macomb County (Michigan) judge removed a juror from a case after the defendant's attorney's son found that the juror, Ms. Hadley Jons, had posted a message on her Facebook page that she thought the defendant was guilty -- before the trial was over.
Judge Diane Druzinski has ordered Ms. Jons to return to court on Thursday to determine if she will be held in contempt.
While the judge was upset and the defendant's attorney was outraged, the fact that a juror had already made up her mind is not that disturbing. We are told in seminar after seminar that anywhere from 75% to 100% of jurors make their minds up before hearing any evidence. Based on the handy 80/20 rule, I will assume that up to 80% of jurors have their minds made before the trial even starts. Why else would we sit through as many seminars as we do dealing with voir dire and using your opening statement to tell a story?
Back in the pre-Facebook days no one would ever have known Ms. Jons had already decided the case before it was over. She might have told a friend and that friend may have told someone else, but there would have been no way to discover those conversations outside Ms. Jons' own admission. The kicker here was that she broadcast here opinion on Facebook without giving a second thought whether someone might be checking up on her during the trial.
This incident points out two very important points. First, you need to know who among your panel uses social media on a regular basis, who posts on Facebook, who spends time on Twitter and who reads or writes blogs that might have something to do with the issues in your case. Second, with our expanded use of social media, we are rapidly shrinking our reasonable expectation of privacy -- just ask Ms. Jons about that.
Judge Diane Druzinski has ordered Ms. Jons to return to court on Thursday to determine if she will be held in contempt.
While the judge was upset and the defendant's attorney was outraged, the fact that a juror had already made up her mind is not that disturbing. We are told in seminar after seminar that anywhere from 75% to 100% of jurors make their minds up before hearing any evidence. Based on the handy 80/20 rule, I will assume that up to 80% of jurors have their minds made before the trial even starts. Why else would we sit through as many seminars as we do dealing with voir dire and using your opening statement to tell a story?
Back in the pre-Facebook days no one would ever have known Ms. Jons had already decided the case before it was over. She might have told a friend and that friend may have told someone else, but there would have been no way to discover those conversations outside Ms. Jons' own admission. The kicker here was that she broadcast here opinion on Facebook without giving a second thought whether someone might be checking up on her during the trial.
This incident points out two very important points. First, you need to know who among your panel uses social media on a regular basis, who posts on Facebook, who spends time on Twitter and who reads or writes blogs that might have something to do with the issues in your case. Second, with our expanded use of social media, we are rapidly shrinking our reasonable expectation of privacy -- just ask Ms. Jons about that.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Skinner execution stayed despite Perry's best efforts
changeJustice: Execution set for 6pm CST tomorrow, Hank Skinner needs us now...Tell TX Governor to grant stay!http://cot.ag/bsEfCPPrisonReformMvt: Call to action! Demand a stay for#HankSkinner Gov Perry 512-463-1782 Fax: 512-463-1849 Main number: 512-463-2000thetrialwarrior: SPEAK OUT AGAINST INJUSTICE: Call Texas Gov. Perry 512-463-1782 and urge him to stay #HankSkinner's execution to allow a DNA test.
Messages bounced everywhere across the Twitterverse yesterday regarding the pending execution of Hank Skinner. Scarely an hour before the State of Texas was set to pump poison through Mr. Skinner's veins, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of execution.
For an excellent analysis of the procedural history of Mr. Skinner's case, please see Houston criminal defense attorney Mark Bennett's blog post.
Back in Twitterville, tweeple were congratulating each other for their efforts in sparing Mr. Skinner's life (at least for now). However, social media had nothing to do with the Supremes' decision late yesterday afternoon. Moreover, the blow-dried one, Governor Rick Perry, ignored the deluge of phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and tweets. You see, there's nothing to be gained for Gov. Perry in delaying the execution. The votes of death penalty abolitionists and criminal defense attorneys aren't enough to make the governor think twice about allowing the murder of a man to go forward.
Perry has sabotaged (successfully to date) the work of the state forensic science commission in looking at the Cameron Willingham case. Perry's supporters don't care about due process and claims of actual innocence -- they want blood. And that blood is what will keep Perry on the public dole for another four years.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The missing tweet?
I guess I must've missed the tweet from @MontgomeryTxDAO about the assistant district attorney up in Montgomery County who was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Houston on Thursday night.
I'm sure it's just an oversight and we should expect to see something on Brett Ligon's Twitter feed anytime now.
I'm sure it's just an oversight and we should expect to see something on Brett Ligon's Twitter feed anytime now.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Welcome to the People's Republic of Maryland
The State of Maryland is contemplating a rule that would ban people from carrying communication devices, including cell phones, into courthouses. The judiciary rules committee (or Chinese politburo) is up in arms over Facebook, Twitter, blogs and the like shedding a little bit of light on what goes on behind the walls of the courthouse.
Proponents of the ban say it would protect witnesses from having their pictures snapped by "snitch" hunters carrying cell phones.
A person may not bring any electronic device into any court facility. -- Maryland's proposed policy
I hate to be the one bearing bad news but the Chinese, the Soviets and every other totalitarian regime has tried to restrict the flow of information but cyberspace knows no boundaries (except for the self-imposed ones companies have implemented when bowing down to kiss the feet of the Chinese dictators). The only entities that fear the public's access to information are those entities that have something they wish to hide.
Anyone arrested in this country has the right to a public trial -- and the public includes the blogosphere, Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Criminal defendants tweeting during trial
After seeing this piece from the ABA, it might be a good idea to tell clients to stay off social media before and during trial.
Sam Riddle, a political consultant in Michigan, went on trial on charges of public corruption and blasted his defense attorney while the jury was out deliberating.
Steve Keefer, on trial for public corruption in Pittsburgh, took his frustration with the state's investigation out by tweeting during trial.
So what's the harm, you ask? Statements made by a party to a suit are admissible, even if the party who made the statement doesn't testify, because the statements aren't considered hearsay. In Mr. Riddle's case it may not matter because he waited until the jury took the case before posting updates -- but should one of the jurors go snooping around the internet...
Mr. Keefer's updates are far more troubling, however, because he began posting updates on Facebook and Twitter during the trial. Any comments he made could be introduced into evidence by the state if he made any harmful admissions.
The danger, of course, becomes greater in complicated multi-day trials when jurors have time to do a little "research" on the side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)