Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   NY Judge rules that your "tweets" belong to Twitter and not you, which means prosecutors don't need a warrant before obtaining them, even if you've "deleted" them   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 44
    More: Obvious, Judges' Rules, New York, The Atlantic Wire, American Journal of Psychiatry, Brooklyn Bridge, Occupy Wall Street, prosecutors, Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr.  
•       •       •

1461 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-24 09:36:13 AM  
No shiat. What do you think it means when you agree to this?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
 
2012-04-24 09:43:42 AM  
What I post publicly on the internet can be used against me? The hell you say!
 
2012-04-24 09:46:48 AM  
i640.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-24 09:54:25 AM  
User agreements are actually enforceable? Color me shocked
 
2012-04-24 10:15:14 AM  
I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise. If you write something down on a piece of paper and throw it into someone else's property in order for the world to read it, you'd be an idiot to expect that to be considered your private property.
 
2012-04-24 10:23:05 AM  
But it's ok to admit to crimes here on fark and not fear prosecution
 
2012-04-24 10:27:13 AM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: But it's ok to admit to crimes here on fark and not fear prosecution


Schwaa?
 
2012-04-24 10:27:41 AM  
Do you own "twitter.com"?

Then, WTF did you think?
 
2012-04-24 10:32:13 AM  

RexTalionis: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).


If a user is granting Twitter a license, doesn't that imply that the user and not Twitter is actually the owner of the content produced by that user?

/GED in law
 
2012-04-24 10:44:36 AM  

SurfaceTension: RexTalionis: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

If a user is granting Twitter a license, doesn't that imply that the user and not Twitter is actually the owner of the content produced by that user?

/GED in law


Sure. But Twitter also has the right to redistribute that content however they choose (by the terms of the license agreement).
 
2012-04-24 10:48:35 AM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: But it's ok to admit to crimes here on fark and not fear prosecution


Just because I talk about my kiddy porn collection here on Fark doesn't mean...

Oh shiat
 
2012-04-24 10:50:08 AM  

RexTalionis: SurfaceTension: RexTalionis: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

If a user is granting Twitter a license, doesn't that imply that the user and not Twitter is actually the owner of the content produced by that user?

/GED in law

Sure. But Twitter also has the right to redistribute that content however they choose (by the terms of the license agreement).


That is how I read it. Yes, "you" own the content.... and by putting it on Twitter (or anywhere else similarly), you basically "gave" the rights to the content away.

If you want to have "ownership" of your "content", buy a domain name for $10 and post your own blog.
 
2012-04-24 11:03:35 AM  

dletter: RexTalionis: SurfaceTension: RexTalionis: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

If a user is granting Twitter a license, doesn't that imply that the user and not Twitter is actually the owner of the content produced by that user?

/GED in law

Sure. But Twitter also has the right to redistribute that content however they choose (by the terms of the license agreement).

That is how I read it. Yes, "you" own the content.... and by putting it on Twitter (or anywhere else similarly), you basically "gave" the rights to the content away.

If you want to have "ownership" of your "content", buy a domain name for $10 and post your own blog.


The judge is using the precedent of your phone number (owned by the phone company so no warrant needed to get a "pin register" of all the numbers that called/were called by it) and your bank account (owned by the bank so they can fork over all your account information/activity if the prosecutor so much as says please). If those are not your personal property, then by analogy, neither is any other account, online or otherwise, that you maintain,
 
2012-04-24 11:19:23 AM  

Magorn: The judge is using the precedent of your phone number (owned by the phone company so no warrant needed to get a "pin register" of all the numbers that called/were called by it) and your bank account (owned by the bank so they can fork over all your account information/activity if the prosecutor so much as says please). If those are not your personal property, then by analogy, neither is any other account, online or otherwise, that you maintain,


That's an interesting analogy. The bank may own the account, but isn't the money, which might be called "content", actually mine? Hmmmm...then again, a bank can be forced by the state to forfeit the contents of someone's bank account. (You see this with really bad people, like Ghaddafi.)
 
2012-04-24 11:39:04 AM  
Anything you say can and will be used against you.
 
2012-04-24 12:10:15 PM  
Whoa, whoa. Next thing you're going to tell me that Twitter and Facebook are using member data for marketing purposes.

/The "obvious" tag nearly exploded out of sheer obviousness.
 
2012-04-24 12:15:27 PM  

SurfaceTension: Magorn: The judge is using the precedent of your phone number (owned by the phone company so no warrant needed to get a "pin register" of all the numbers that called/were called by it) and your bank account (owned by the bank so they can fork over all your account information/activity if the prosecutor so much as says please). If those are not your personal property, then by analogy, neither is any other account, online or otherwise, that you maintain,

That's an interesting analogy. The bank may own the account, but isn't the money, which might be called "content", actually mine? Hmmmm...then again, a bank can be forced by the state to forfeit the contents of someone's bank account. (You see this with really bad people, like Ghaddafi.)


The actual tangible proterty contained in the account is yours and cannot be siezed except by due process. However the "information" generated by that account belongs to the bank and can be subpoenaed. The weird grey area is when an account is "frozen". It still belongs to you even though you can do nothing with it.
 
2012-04-24 12:18:15 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: But it's ok to admit to crimes here on fark and not fear prosecution


Besides speeding, not many of the crimes admitted to on Fark have actually been committed. (Not even the war crimes that guys in the Marine Core are allegedly rushing back to their FOB to brag about.) About the closest you get are the people who like to talk about their sexual conquests involving unconscious girls at frat parties, but in their defense, they aren't usually aware that they've done anything other people would have a problem with.

Not that I'm complaining. Some of the best Fark threads are the ones where Criminal ITGs square off against Vigilante ITGs. "I beat that cop's ass like a drum and I was three counties away before his little piggy friends showed up to help him." "Oh yeah? Better not try that in the jurisdiction of my civilian posse, we're out there patrolling on horseback in the gray dawn and when we catch little shiats like you we dispense our own special kind of justice." Etc. etc.

/also, it's illegal to fake your own death for tax reasons. J'accuse!
 
2012-04-24 12:24:13 PM  

ArkAngel: Dead for Tax Reasons: But it's ok to admit to crimes here on fark and not fear prosecution

Just because I talk about my kiddy porn collection here on Fark doesn't mean...

Oh shiat


Doesn't mean what? All it tells me is that you're probably a Republican.
 
2012-04-24 12:26:42 PM  

RexTalionis: No shiat. What do you think it means when you agree to this?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).


I think it means your tweets belong to you, not Twitter, but that Twitter can freely use them or give them to anyone. ;)
 
2012-04-24 12:29:59 PM  

SurfaceTension: RexTalionis: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

If a user is granting Twitter a license, doesn't that imply that the user and not Twitter is actually the owner of the content produced by that user?

/GED in law


You have no control over that which you have freely given to someone else. You used to have control over your words, but then you accepted the terms n stuff so when you tweeted them you gave copyright to twitter to do with as they wish. Up to the point you put your words onto twitter you owned them, when you tweet them then twitter gains copyright and the right to pass on that copyright to anyone anywhere at any time.

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)

The difference between what they are and an owner is semantics at this point, they have the same rights.

My simple test for "Do I own something?" is "Can I destroy it and suffer no consequences from other entities?"

I don`t own much...
 
2012-04-24 12:35:07 PM  

Magorn: SurfaceTension: Magorn: The judge is using the precedent of your phone number (owned by the phone company so no warrant needed to get a "pin register" of all the numbers that called/were called by it) and your bank account (owned by the bank so they can fork over all your account information/activity if the prosecutor so much as says please). If those are not your personal property, then by analogy, neither is any other account, online or otherwise, that you maintain,

That's an interesting analogy. The bank may own the account, but isn't the money, which might be called "content", actually mine? Hmmmm...then again, a bank can be forced by the state to forfeit the contents of someone's bank account. (You see this with really bad people, like Ghaddafi.)

The actual tangible proterty contained in the account is yours and cannot be siezed except by due process. However the "information" generated by that account belongs to the bank and can be subpoenaed. The weird grey area is when an account is "frozen". It still belongs to you even though you can do nothing with it.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-24 12:53:10 PM  

Theaetetus: RexTalionis: No shiat. What do you think it means when you agree to this?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

I think it means your tweets belong to you, not Twitter, but that Twitter can freely use them or give them to anyone. ;)


Of course, Rex was kind enough to cut off the first sentence of that paragraph; the one that reads:

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
 
2012-04-24 12:56:32 PM  

RexTalionis: No shiat. What do you think it means when you agree to this?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).


This. And that.
 
2012-04-24 01:01:56 PM  
How often does it need to be said?
Don't post anything on the internet unless you are OK with the whole world seeing it.
and it being repeated by others
and taken out of context
 
2012-04-24 01:11:37 PM  
Can one of you lawyers or internet GEDs tell me if this carries over to direct messages? @DM tweets?

Because I would think people would be surprised to learn that twitter can post or do anything with those things that they like.
 
2012-04-24 02:11:04 PM  

RexTalionis: No shiat. What do you think it means when you agree to this?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).


"now known or later developed". They're dropping tweets directly to your frontal cortex by 2020.

Seriously though...stop posting crap you'll (likely) regret. Social networking is a hotbed of stupidity and 'the authorities' use that stuff constantly in court cases (especially divorces). Sheesh, you'd almost thing conspiracy guys would catch on and claim this stuff was invented by the gubmint for the gubmint.
 
2012-04-24 02:15:22 PM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: ArkAngel: Dead for Tax Reasons: But it's ok to admit to crimes here on fark and not fear prosecution

Just because I talk about my kiddy porn collection here on Fark doesn't mean...

Oh shiat

Doesn't mean what? All it tells me is that you're probably a Republican.


Hell no. I'm a Fark Independent
 
2012-04-24 02:15:30 PM  
Of course none of this explains why TWITTER doesn't tell cops to go fark themselves without a warrant.
 
2012-04-24 02:25:29 PM  

RoyBatty: Can one of you lawyers or internet GEDs tell me if this carries over to direct messages? @DM tweets?

Because I would think people would be surprised to learn that twitter can post or do anything with those things that they like.


They will get over it.

/not over it
 
2012-04-24 02:26:57 PM  

ProfessorOhki:

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).


Taken together, the whole thing means:
1) You can still use, as your own intellectual property, whatever you say on Twitter;
2) We can use anything you say as if it were ours, too;
3) Thanks for making us billionaires.
 
2012-04-24 02:33:11 PM  

cefm: Of course none of this explains why TWITTER doesn't tell cops to go fark themselves without a warrant.


might have something to do with the cops having nothing to do with this? that could be a reason.

but why let blind cop hate get in the way of that its the Prosecutors (who aren't COPS) who are doing this without a warrant
 
2012-04-24 04:26:56 PM  
i2.photobucket.com

Cops can legally read the stuff I post here?

/unpossible!
 
2012-04-24 07:41:11 PM  

Theaetetus: RexTalionis: No shiat. What do you think it means when you agree to this?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

I think it means your tweets belong to you, not Twitter, but that Twitter can freely use them or give them to anyone. ;)


Not really, if Twitter can do whatver they please with what I tweet. If I really owned it, I should be able to control who uses it, but that is not the case. More like joint ownership and they have the power to fark you in the arse should you say anything incriminating. There is no real deleting tweets.
 
2012-04-24 07:54:23 PM  
rolladuck:

Taken together, the whole thing means:
1) You can still use, as your own intellectual property, whatever you say on Twitter;
2) We can use anything you say as if it were ours, too;
3) Thanks for making us billionaires.


It's nearly the exact same text you'll find on any user-generated-content heavy site. It basically says "we can show your stuff to people, including all the rights we need to send it through the tubes, including reformatting it for mobile, or a game console, or whatever."

Let's do a quick comparison:

Twitter:
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

Fark:
You retain all ownership rights in your Submissions. However, by submitting the Submissions to Fark.com, you hereby grant Fark.com a non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Submissions in connection with Fark.com and Fark.com's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of Fark.com (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels/outlets.

Seriously. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Fark, it's all the same.

Well, except Fark has this gem:
Text comments, AudioEdit submissions, and Photoshopped images posted on Fark by registered users may not be reposted or broadcast without the express written permission or license from Fark.com, and must attribute Fark.com as the source.

Which apparently means that you can't share anything I'm saying to you without asking Drew for permission. Technically, I think it also makes using the quote button some sort of trap.
 
2012-04-24 09:36:48 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Well, except Fark has this gem:
Text comments, AudioEdit submissions, and Photoshopped images posted on Fark by registered users may not be reposted or broadcast without the express written permission or license from Fark.com, and must attribute Fark.com as the source.

Which apparently means that you can't share anything I'm saying to you without asking Drew for permission. Technically, I think it also makes using the quote button some sort of trap.


IANAL (top and bottom), but I seem to recall Drew saying he put that in there to open up legal recourse against some scumbag from, say, selling posters of rugbyjock's photoshops at $25 a pop.
 
2012-04-24 10:39:14 PM  

RexTalionis: No shiat. What do you think it means when you agree to this?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).


This. Heck, it's right there. Don't like it, don't tweet.
 
2012-04-25 02:01:05 AM  
Remember, if you're using it for free, chances are good that you are the product being sold.
 
2012-04-25 02:48:42 AM  
And thus the end of privacy, and pretty much the rest of our rights in the US.

Government tries to do A, but is blocked.
Government goes to Third Party who happens to do A and requests 'A'.
Third Party, knowing that the government has all the power in the world to fark up it's day, responds with 'sure, here is A'.


Replace 'A' with pretty much anything the government is not actually allowed to do.
 
2012-04-25 03:16:26 PM  
Also, that birthday greeting you sent to your grandma when you were 8 belongs to Hallmark.
 
2012-04-25 04:22:00 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: But it's ok to admit to crimes here on fark and not fear prosecution


Hey, she said she was 18.
 
2012-04-25 07:05:02 PM  
fark TwitFaceSpace......
 
2012-04-26 11:57:33 AM  

kim jong-un: And thus the end of privacy, and pretty much the rest of our rights in the US.

Government tries to do A, but is blocked.
Government goes to Third Party who happens to do A and requests 'A'.
Third Party, knowing that the government has all the power in the world to fark up it's day, responds with 'sure, here is A'.


Replace 'A' with pretty much anything the government is not actually allowed to do.


You state it so simply like that and it seems so preposterous.
 
2012-04-27 04:52:24 AM  
Too many tweets make a twat
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report