Twitter Loses 'Occupy Wall Street' Case, Forced To Hand Over User Info

Re:Twitter Loses 'Occupy Wall Street' Case, Forced To Hand O... by eli on Monday July 02, 2012 @10:27PM (#4192194)

I get what you're saying... that this isn't some shady National Security Letter deal. This is "how it's supposed to work" with a judge signing off on a subpoena.

But I think you are missing why this is of interest to many people: What criminal charges are being investigated here? The article makes it sound like "disorderly conduct" but surely that can't be right. I guess it's unfair to make assumptions since we obviously don't have all the facts, but based on the public information about this case there is certainly at least the appearance that it is based on trumped up, retaliatory charges.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter Loses 'Occupy Wall Street' Case, Forced To Hand O... by latch on Monday July 02, 2012 @10:34PM (#4192213)

I don't think the government has the duty of disclosing that information to the public (or even the suspect) until it charges him. It'd be pretty silly if they did.

They need to convince someone, say a judge, to issue the subpoena/warrant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter Loses 'Occupy Wall Street' Case, Forced To Hand O... by dedward on Monday July 02, 2012 @10:57PM (#4192287)

The prosecutors have to convince a grand jury to issue an indictment. That's what the initial investigation is about.

They may not have the duty to disclose, however, the warrant/subpoena has to be specific, and what IS scary is the idea that those served can be put under a gag order not to talk about it. For big RICO cases it made sense, but for smaller ones that's an abuse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter Loses 'Occupy Wall Street' Case, Forced To Hand O... by eli on Monday July 02, 2012 @10:44PM (#4192241)

I agree. But I think that's a big part of why this case interests people.

[ Parent | on HN ]