Boston Judge Upholds Twitter Subpoena re: Anonymous Members

On December 14, the Suffolk District Attorney issued a subpoena to Twitter for information related to Occupy Boston and some members of Anonymous. The ACLU moved to quash on First Amendment grounds. Today, the judge upheld the subpoena.

Twitter released the subpoena to the account holders of those named, @p0isAn0n @OccupyBoston #BostonPD #d0xcak3, who in turn posted it online. You can read it here. The subpoena also sought “IP address logs for account creation and for the period December 8, 2011 to December 13, 2011."

In this pastebin press release, an Anonymous member or supporter posted the reasons the subpoena was invalid.

More here.

It's good that Twitter provided the subpoena to the affected account holders. It's bad that a judge has upheld a subpoena for a hashtag. The ACLU has said it may appeal.

< Colorado Asks DEA to Reclassify Marijuana as Schedule II | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    LOL.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    "Subpoena for a hashtag"...say no more!

    Authoritarian slips are showing left and right.  Grasping for the only tool they know how to use, the hammer.

    Two questions (none / 0) (#2)
    by BTAL on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    Why should have Twitter provided the subpoena to the account holders?  Do phone companies, banks, etc. forward subpoenas to their respective customers?

    What is the difference between subpoenaing an online identity vs one for a individual's alias(es) such as gang/street names?  If the environment is comprised of aliases/hash tags that is the environment.  There is still an individual behind the virtual name who has potentially violated the law regardless what they call themselves.