Twitter Files Lawsuit to Block Order From DHS Meant to Reveal User [UPDATE: DHS Summons Withdrawn, Twitter Drops Lawsuit]

[TimeOmnivore]

Update: Thanks to user @WMGroomAK for the update that the DHS summons was withdrawn and Twitter, therefore, dismissed their lawsuit.

 

Yesterday, Twitter filed a lawsuit in an effort to block an order from the Department of Homeland Security which requests information that would reveal, or lead to a reveal, of a Twitter user, @ALT_uscis, who regularly criticizes the Trump administration and who appears to be a current or former employee of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services division of Homeland Security.

 

From the Washington Post:

Quote

Free speech advocates said the DHS order appeared to be the first time the government has attempted to use its powers to expose an anonymous critic -- a development that, if successful, would have a "grave chilling effect on the speech of that account" as well as other accounts critical of the U.S. government, Twitter said.

 

DHS is "unlawfully abusing a limited-purpose investigatory tool" to find out who is behind the @ALT_uscis account, according to Twitter's court filings.

 

DHS spokeswoman Jenny Burke declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

 

 

 

 

Quote

"Twitter has a pretty strong argument," said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It does look and smell like the government is going after a critic. There's nothing in the summons that CBP [Customs and Border Protection] sent to Twitter that authorizes this request under the power that they have."

 

 

 

 

Quote

In its court filing with the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, Twitter said that DHS officials delivered an administrative summons to the social-networking site on March 14, via a CBP agent, demanding that the company provide records that would "unmask or likely lead to the unmasking" of the person or people behind the account.

 

Twitter maintains that CBP does not have jurisdiction to demand such information, which includes "names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses," associated with the account.

 

But its primary objection, the company said, is that allowing the government to unmask Twitter critics violates the Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. Twitter has defended its users' rights to free expression -- a position it has held for years, notably during the widespread Arab Spring protests in 2011. That right, the company said, is particularly important when discussing political speech.

 

"First Amendment interests are at their zenith when, as here, the speech at issue touches on matters of public political life," the filing said.

 

 

2

 

From The Verge:

Quote

Twitter’s lawsuit focuses on whether Customs has the legal authority to make such a request. CBP’s initial order invoked a statute largely related to taxes on the importation of merchandise into the US, which Twitter argues is insufficient authority to unmask a user. Twitter also writes that unmasking the 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.” Unmasking the account, the company contends, would infringe on political speech protected by Supreme Court rulings. The ACLU has pledged to support Twitter in the case.

 

 

 

 

What do you guys think? Is this the start of a worrying trend to stifle anonymous criticism of the government? Or are the DHS within their rights to demand this information from Twitter, in the event the user is a current or former federal employee, who may (or may not?) have signed contracts which prevent him/her from publicly disclosing certain information he/she may have shared?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/06/the-government-is-demanding-to-know-who-this-trump-critic-is-twitter-is-suing-to-keep-it-a-secret/

http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/6/15211092/twitter-trump-lawsuit-customs-alt-government

Edited April 7, 2017 by TimeOmnivore
Important Update

[kalnick]

12 minutes ago, TimeOmnivore said:

Yesterday, Twitter filed a lawsuit in an effort to block an order from the Department of Homeland Security which requests information that would reveal, or lead to a reveal, of a Twitter user, @ALT_uscis, who regularly criticizes the Trump administration and who appears to be a current or former employee of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services division of Homeland Security.

 

From the Washington Post:

 

 

 

From The Verge:

 

What do you guys think? Is this the start of a worrying trend to stifle anonymous criticism of the government? Or are the DHS within their rights to demand this information from Twitter, in the event the user is a current or former federal employee, who may (or may not?) have signed contracts which prevent him/her from publicly disclosing certain information he/she may have shared?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/06/the-government-is-demanding-to-know-who-this-trump-critic-is-twitter-is-suing-to-keep-it-a-secret/

http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/6/15211092/twitter-trump-lawsuit-customs-alt-government

Unfortunately I think this is just the beginning. It will get much worse.

With Trump in power all the zealots working in government will feel justified doing things of this nature.

 

[HarryNyquist]

If the DHS wait a little bit, Twitter won't exist anymore and it won't be a problem.

[KuJoe]

I think if you're going to use a public service to do something that could jeopardize your career or quality of life, don't rely on said public service to protect you. If the person running that account used his home/work ISP and real e-mail address to sign up for the account then they're going to get caught eventually, with or without the lawsuit.

[Whiskers]

How disgusting. This is a huge overstep of their authority, I feel.

 

(The Department of Homeland Security, I mean.)

[Zodiark1593]

Did New York Times vs Sullivan mean anything to DHS? 

[WMGroomAK]

1 hour ago, TimeOmnivore said:

What do you guys think? Is this the start of a worrying trend to stifle anonymous criticism of the government? Or are the DHS within their rights to demand this information from Twitter, in the event the user is a current or former federal employee, who may (or may not?) have signed contracts which prevent him/her from publicly disclosing certain information he/she may have shared?

This is the rub though...  While individuals have a freedom of expression and speech (at least in the US), if they are a federal employee they may have a contract that they signed a contract that this is currently in breach of or they be privy to sensitive information that it is illegal to share.  A lot of these accounts appear to have been created as a form of political protest, which could also be against their own union anti-lobbying rules if they are a federal employee.  It may also be that some of the tweets on these accounts are occurring by employees during working hours and maybe even on federal equipment which could be a breach of contract.  

 

The big problem I see is that there is too much grey area in all of this situation and too little information being presented to determine how much of a legitimate issue is being presented by DHS vs how much is this being used to silence an opposing political opinion.  

[AresKrieger]

The account I use for giveaways and what not doesn't have an identity attached to it so I haven't a clue what this would accomplish unless you're going after people for petty things, now if they get a warrant (or a blanket warrant for multiple) against someone who posted/endorsed terroristic acts there would be little in terms of backlash, however that isn't what they are trying to do nor is it likely going to reveal anyone since you can easily have fake account info.

[WMGroomAK]

2 hours ago, TimeOmnivore said:

What do you guys think? Is this the start of a worrying trend to stifle anonymous criticism of the government? Or are the DHS within their rights to demand this information from Twitter, in the event the user is a current or former federal employee, who may (or may not?) have signed contracts which prevent him/her from publicly disclosing certain information he/she may have shared?

Well... That was fast...  It appears the summons was withdrawn already and Twitter is dismissing their claim.  

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/07/government-gives-up-on-unmasking-anti-trump-twitter-account/

[tlink]

1 hour ago, WMGroomAK said:

This is the rub though...  While individuals have a freedom of expression and speech (at least in the US), if they are a federal employee they may have a contract that they signed a contract that this is currently in breach of or they be privy to sensitive information that it is illegal to share.  A lot of these accounts appear to have been created as a form of political protest, which could also be against their own union anti-lobbying rules if they are a federal employee.  It may also be that some of the tweets on these accounts are occurring by employees during working hours and maybe even on federal equipment which could be a breach of contract.  

 

The big problem I see is that there is too much grey area in all of this situation and too little information being presented to determine how much of a legitimate issue is being presented by DHS vs how much is this being used to silence an opposing political opinion.  

if they are than they should find out internally not externally. innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.