Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Jun 2013 17:02 UTC
Legal I didn't want to put this in the article on the coordinated PR campaign, but the fact that one company refuses to cooperate with the US government in the way Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others were more than willing to do, is very, very important. This means that the argument "but we had to do the things we did because Washington told us to" holds no water. Twitter's refusal proves that the others did not have to say yes - they chose to do so. Whenever someone - a corporate PR person, company blogger, or fanboy - tells you Microsoft, Apple, or Google had no choice, all you need to say is "Twitter".
Thread beginning with comment 564131
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sat 8th Jun 2013 19:20 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

If the report is true (and to be clear, its far from confirmed) then it proves that Twitter disregarded a FISA court order and was in contempt of court.

It was morally the right thing to do, but I can hardly hate a company for not wanting the ire of the militant wing of our government.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 8th Jun 2013 19:30 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No. You got it wrong.

The other companies went *beyond* the legal obligations to please the US government. Twitter just complies with those requirements - but no more.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sat 8th Jun 2013 19:49 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users in response to lawful government requests


So they're legally obliged to comply and decided to do so in the most responsible and secure manner they can.

I would warn you about letting your outrage put the cart before the horse, but we're way past that, given the like 4-5 articles on the same thing in a days timespan.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by aargh on Mon 10th Jun 2013 11:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
aargh Member since:
2009-10-12

Disclaimer: I'm not too familiar with Twitter

I thought everything you posted on Twitter is already publicly accessible - isn't that true?

The US government could still ask for user passwords, but I don't know what that could get them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by kristoph on Tue 11th Jun 2013 04:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Well, Google totally denies it, in the strongest possible terms and it apparently took Apple 5 years to get on board so I am not sure it's fair to say the biggest players have 'gone beyond'.

And honestly who the fuck cares about Twitter. It's not like random evil doers make plans over twitter.

(Yeah yeah I agree that spying on everyone because 10 guys play to blow something up is wrong but I am just trying to make a point that no one seriously thinks those 10 guys are going to plan it over twitter.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by gfg233 on Sat 8th Jun 2013 19:50 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
gfg233 Member since:
2013-06-07

From what I read there is no obligation for the companies to make the data disclosure process easier or more efficient. If that's true Twitter aren't breaking any rules by telling them to p*** off on an interface or portal to their servers, though they certainly aren't making any friends in government either.

Edited 2013-06-08 19:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Soulbender on Sun 9th Jun 2013 03:48 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

then it proves that Twitter disregarded a FISA court order and was in contempt of court.


Well, companies seems to have little problem being in contempt of court when it's something that threatens their profits so it's nice to see one of them standing up for something else.

but I can hardly hate a company for not wanting the ire of the militant wing of our government.


But maybe that's exactly what you SHOULD do? Well, maybe not hate but seriously question the company's ethics and priorities.

Reply Parent Score: 5