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.

(NYPost)   "If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy"   (nypost.com) divider line 66
    More: PSA, accessibilities, Occupy Wall Street, National Lawyers Guild, expectations  
•       •       •

6742 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2012 at 12:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-03 10:13:07 AM  
You tweet because you want to keep something private? I thought the reason for a tweet was to get the info out there...


I'm so confused.
 
2012-07-03 11:46:40 AM  
What an idiot. When I have message I absolutely must keep private, I use only the finest megaphones and billboards.
 
2012-07-03 12:19:31 PM  
so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?
 
2012-07-03 12:27:19 PM  

Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?


I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.
 
2012-07-03 12:28:46 PM  

Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.


i'm totally gonna post pictures of cops anytime I see 'em do their jobs out in the open. i'm sure the cops won't have any problems with that at all.
 
2012-07-03 12:35:18 PM  

Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

i'm totally gonna post pictures of cops anytime I see 'em do their jobs out in the open. i'm sure the cops won't have any problems with that at all.


First, that's not what you said originally. Way to change goal posts. I referred to public statements or tweets. The current state of wiretapping laws are a mess when it comes to filming police officers, but I the courts generally seem to be slowly getting up to speed with the technology.
 
2012-07-03 12:36:01 PM  

Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.


Why do public records require a subpoena?
 
2012-07-03 12:36:21 PM  
Yet another reason Twitter is farkin' stupid and pointless.
 
2012-07-03 12:38:12 PM  

Actual Farking: Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

i'm totally gonna post pictures of cops anytime I see 'em do their jobs out in the open. i'm sure the cops won't have any problems with that at all.

First, that's not what you said originally. Way to change goal posts. I referred to public statements or tweets. The current state of wiretapping laws are a mess when it comes to filming police officers, but I the courts generally seem to be slowly getting up to speed with the technology.


why can't I do all of the above? same reasoning, right?
 
2012-07-03 12:38:30 PM  
I think this ruling is okay, but please don't tell anyone I said this!

Seriously, delete this thread right after I post this.
 
2012-07-03 12:42:29 PM  
Okay poop is coming out
 
2012-07-03 12:42:44 PM  

barefoot in the head: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

Why do public records require a subpoena?


In this case, because the defendant had deleted them. Therefore, the subpoena was needed to get Twitter to go into their archives and compile them.
 
2012-07-03 12:45:10 PM  
I've said it before: Twitter is the tourettes syndrome of the internet.

/And Breitbart.com is the anus
 
2012-07-03 12:45:56 PM  
img388.imageshack.us
News is
img388.imageshack.us

And Tag somehow on vacation.

Didn't the same thing happen with Tehran? They tracked down major players in the riots via Twitter and had them disappear
 
2012-07-03 12:46:15 PM  
i.imgur.com

"Once you tweet, there's no retreat."
 
2012-07-03 12:49:34 PM  
Isn't this slightly more complicated than shouting out a window?

It's not that he tweeted, it's that he deleted said tweet and now the judge wants Twitter to reproduce it. So it almost *is* like a private email that a judge wants revealed. Which is fine with a warrant.

I mean I totally agree a tweet is completely public. But how does that make it mandatory that Twitter overturns the tweets? Doesn't it still require a court order? Isn't the court ordering it?

I guess my beef is with the analogy, as with most, it oversimplifies things.
 
2012-07-03 12:49:54 PM  

Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

i'm totally gonna post pictures of cops anytime I see 'em do their jobs out in the open. i'm sure the cops won't have any problems with that at all.

First, that's not what you said originally. Way to change goal posts. I referred to public statements or tweets. The current state of wiretapping laws are a mess when it comes to filming police officers, but I the courts generally seem to be slowly getting up to speed with the technology.

why can't I do all of the above? same reasoning, right?


I thought the courts had held up the right to film officers while they're on public property. I'm fairly certain you can record them while they're on your property, even if they have warrants, etc. It's when you film them on someone else's property or obstruct them while filming that there's a problem.

There are probably other problems when you have 2-party consent laws, although I think those only apply to audio recordings (so video with no audio is kosher).
 
2012-07-03 12:51:26 PM  

Actual Farking: Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

i'm totally gonna post pictures of cops anytime I see 'em do their jobs out in the open. i'm sure the cops won't have any problems with that at all.

First, that's not what you said originally. Way to change goal posts. I referred to public statements or tweets. The current state of wiretapping laws are a mess when it comes to filming police officers, but I the courts generally seem to be slowly getting up to speed with the technology.


Um... no. Illinois's law just got struck down. You can now legally record cops in public everywhere in the country. Whether they try and stop you is up to the stupidity and assholishness of the individual cops, but it is legal. And if they stop you, it's lawsuit time
 
2012-07-03 12:51:29 PM  
On a side note, why the fark does the NY Post not check my useragent string before asking me to download their blasted tablet app?

</threadjack>
 
2012-07-03 12:52:27 PM  
"ORDERED A BURGER MINUS TOMATOES!!! WHO EVEN LIKES THOSE"
 
2012-07-03 12:52:56 PM  
A whole generation of people have no concept of what privacy is, until something that they freely made public comes back to bite them in the a$$.

The minute they break up with someone, their relationship status changes. The whole embarrassing drama is played out on facebook or twitter, for every one of your hundreds of "friends" to see and comment on.

This is fresh in my mind, because my cousin's 18 year old is going through this right now. He's the sweetest kid, but he was the dumpee, not the dumper. He posts with hurt and some anger, and of course his pals chime in "what a biatch, you can do better," etc., she responds, hurt and defensive. The show goes on. I just wanted to private message him that this is not the way to go. I guess if I were growing up with all this, I might do dumb stuff like that, too. Who knows.
 
2012-07-03 01:03:48 PM  

poisonpill: Isn't this slightly more complicated than shouting out a window?

It's not that he tweeted, it's that he deleted said tweet and now the judge wants Twitter to reproduce it. So it almost *is* like a private email that a judge wants revealed. Which is fine with a warrant.

I mean I totally agree a tweet is completely public. But how does that make it mandatory that Twitter overturns the tweets? Doesn't it still require a court order? Isn't the court ordering it?

I guess my beef is with the analogy, as with most, it oversimplifies things.



I disagree. If I shouted out the window a minute ago, it doesn't exist right now. You can't hear it any more than I can read this guy's deleted tweets. But if somebody recorded it, then the recording is evidence. Like Twitter's record of this guy's deleted tweet. Seems like a pretty apt analogy, since the issue the judge was primarily addressing the expectation of privacy of the recording.
 
2012-07-03 01:06:36 PM  

King Something: Okay poop is coming out


media.screened.com


Now you're making it go back in!
 
2012-07-03 01:07:54 PM  

Wulfman: poisonpill: Isn't this slightly more complicated than shouting out a window?



Actually now that I re-read your post, I don't think I'm disagreeing with your point about the legalities. Just whether the analogy holds up.

So if I assault you in a hotel lobby and the hotel has it on record, is a warrant needed for the police to watch it? Maybe I'll have to think about this after lunch.
 
2012-07-03 01:09:10 PM  

Liliac_Hill: A whole generation of people have no concept of what privacy is, until something that they freely made public comes back to bite them in the a$$.


Years ago I would agree it was a generation but society as a whole seems to have no clue what privacy is and now that they have the ability to broadcast their life, they broadcast their life not understanding that it is now all public and stays on the internet forever. I sometimes handle divorces and the first thing I obtain is a list of the client's and defendant's twitter account, facebook, myspace, and any other social media website or nick they use. Then I tell my client scrub it all squeaky clean or delete it and stop using it.

Those sites grow the fruit of very interesting/bitter/hilarious divorce cases. In fact twitter and facebook can make a contentious divorce go smoothly when you reveal to the other side that you possess copies of all their facebook photos with the new boyfriend/girlfriend or the 1000's of love-tweets and won't be afraid to use it in court.
 
2012-07-03 01:09:34 PM  

ArkAngel: Um... no. Illinois's law just got struck down. You can now legally record cops in public everywhere in the country. Whether they try and stop you is up to the stupidity and assholishness of the individual cops, but it is legal. And if they stop you, it's lawsuit time


Newsflash, slick. Different states have different laws.
 
2012-07-03 01:10:46 PM  

Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

i'm totally gonna post pictures of cops anytime I see 'em do their jobs out in the open. i'm sure the cops won't have any problems with that at all.

First, that's not what you said originally. Way to change goal posts. I referred to public statements or tweets. The current state of wiretapping laws are a mess when it comes to filming police officers, but I the courts generally seem to be slowly getting up to speed with the technology.

why can't I do all of the above? same reasoning, right?


I agree that you should be able to. However, like I said, the web of wiretapping laws and their varying interpretations are still being worked out.
 
2012-07-03 01:13:40 PM  

Wulfman: Wulfman: poisonpill: Isn't this slightly more complicated than shouting out a window?


Actually now that I re-read your post, I don't think I'm disagreeing with your point about the legalities. Just whether the analogy holds up.

So if I assault you in a hotel lobby and the hotel has it on record, is a warrant needed for the police to watch it? Maybe I'll have to think about this after lunch.


In your analogy, the hotel is the owner of the property. Ergo, if the hotel does not want to hand over the video, then yes, a warrant is needed. If the hotel wants to give it to the footage to the police on their on volition, then no warrant would be needed.
 
2012-07-03 01:14:48 PM  
I agree with this ruling. This judge seems to have a handle on changing technology. We need more like him.
 
2012-07-03 01:16:30 PM  
This wasn't about keeping tweets private

The police were asking for like 6 months of twitter activity for a case that took place in a single day event in NYC. They weren't fighting about the tweets, they were fighting about the IP logs, the private conversation tweets, the location data etc etc

So framing this as they were just asking for tweets is BS. They wanted 6 months of data on everything this guy did, said, logged on, spoke to etc on twitter.

So when the police are investigating a potential "disturbing the peace" charge that took place on a single day or 2 in NYC they can have 6 months of location data, ip logs, private conversations etc etc
 
2012-07-03 01:20:54 PM  
I see tweeting as posting flyers all over town.
So this guy posted his flyers and then when he realized what he had done he went back and tried to tear down his flyers. Instead of tearing them down he just covered them up and someone else came along and uncovered them all.
But then again what do I know I don't use Twitter or Facebook.
 
2012-07-03 01:24:27 PM  
"Public" and "private" mean different things? Get the fark outta here.
 
2012-07-03 01:27:49 PM  

thefuzz1096: So if I assault you in a hotel lobby and the hotel has it on record, is a warrant needed for the police to watch it? Maybe I'll have to think about this after lunch.

In your analogy, the hotel is the owner of the property. Ergo, if the hotel does not want to hand over the video, then yes, a warrant is needed. If the hotel wants to give it to the footage to the police on their on volition, then no warrant would be needed.



And that's the situation here, right? That's why the question comes up about whether or not people own their own tweets. Got it.
 
2012-07-03 01:48:20 PM  

Wulfman: thefuzz1096: So if I assault you in a hotel lobby and the hotel has it on record, is a warrant needed for the police to watch it? Maybe I'll have to think about this after lunch.

In your analogy, the hotel is the owner of the property. Ergo, if the hotel does not want to hand over the video, then yes, a warrant is needed. If the hotel wants to give it to the footage to the police on their on volition, then no warrant would be needed.


And that's the situation here, right? That's why the question comes up about whether or not people own their own tweets. Got it.


It was a little more complicated, I believe, with the Twitter case. In the hotel analogy, it's fairly clear that the things you do in a hotel lobby aren't private, so there shouldn't be an issue. Also, the ownership of the recording is fairly obvious.

If I send an email using Comcast, is that email Comcast's property? My expectation of privacy in a private email is different than that in a hotel lobby. Tweets are more public than an email, and more akin to the hotel scenario.

If it were simply a question of ownership, then a hotel that installs a camera in the hotel bathroom could make that footage public because they own the footage. Clearly in a hotel room you have an expectation of privacy that you do not have in the lobby, or in a tweet.

That's my take on it, at least.
 
2012-07-03 02:04:43 PM  
Just set up a FaceTime address for your home Mac, set up a script to auto accept your call and open a screen/audio recording app.

Wanna record the cops just FaceTime your computer and even if they are dumb enough to take your phone it's irrelevant, you have an offsite recording.

/I'm sure you could set this up with Skype or other similar programs as well.
 
2012-07-03 02:05:54 PM  

Actual Farking: ArkAngel: Um... no. Illinois's law just got struck down. You can now legally record cops in public everywhere in the country. Whether they try and stop you is up to the stupidity and assholishness of the individual cops, but it is legal. And if they stop you, it's lawsuit time

Newsflash, slick. Different states have different laws.


Um...no. In all states, if you are in public, you have a right to record anyone, including the police. Illinois was the last state to ban it and their law just got struck down.
 
2012-07-03 02:06:28 PM  
Who thinks tweets are private?

/what a Weiner!
 
2012-07-03 02:28:30 PM  

ArkAngel: Actual Farking: ArkAngel: Um... no. Illinois's law just got struck down. You can now legally record cops in public everywhere in the country. Whether they try and stop you is up to the stupidity and assholishness of the individual cops, but it is legal. And if they stop you, it's lawsuit time

Newsflash, slick. Different states have different laws.

Um...no. In all states, if you are in public, you have a right to record anyone, including the police. Illinois was the last state to ban it and their law just got struck down.


Illinois' law was one of the strictest, but most other states and the federal government still have wiretapping laws that are being interpreted in varying ways.
 
2012-07-03 02:29:13 PM  
"We are disappointed in the judge's decision and are considering our options," Twitter said in a statement. "Twitter's Terms of Service have long made it absolutely clear that its users 'own' their content," the company said.


How about when a user deletes a tweet, you fully delete it and don't keep a back-up? What's the point in keeping deleted content if you're going to be disappointed when a judge requires you give it to them? Personal reading for Twitter employees?
 
2012-07-03 02:54:24 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: barefoot in the head: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

Why do public records require a subpoena?

In this case, because the defendant had deleted them. Therefore, the subpoena was needed to get Twitter to go into their archives and compile them.


Then they are not public, and access should not be granted.
 
2012-07-03 02:57:11 PM  

barefoot in the head: The_Six_Fingered_Man: barefoot in the head: Actual Farking: Weaver95: so the courts are ok with me compiling a database of everything the cops and court officers say or tweet about...?

I don't think any court has a problem with anyone keeping track of anyone else's public statements or tweets. I'm pretty sure people do this all the time anyway. Save your rage for the real privacy violations.

Why do public records require a subpoena?

In this case, because the defendant had deleted them. Therefore, the subpoena was needed to get Twitter to go into their archives and compile them.

Then they are not public, and access should not be granted.


They were, however, public at one time.

This is akin to putting up flyers around town, then deciding to lock them away in a safety deposit box to which you do not have the key.

The materials still exist, but they are not under your control. They were once public, but are now out of the public eye.

In short, I don't know how I feel about this.
 
2012-07-03 02:58:55 PM  
But what about things like google caching, or sites that specifically track deleted tweets? Once you said it in public I can really see your defense. No taksies-backsies?
 
2012-07-03 02:59:34 PM  
That "can" should be a "can't".
 
2012-07-03 03:19:50 PM  

OriginalGamer: But what about things like google caching, or sites that specifically track deleted tweets? Once you said it in public I can really see your defense. No taksies-backsies?


If I choose to make it public, it is so. If I choose to no longer publicise it, it is no longer. Could they compel a doctor to break confidentality? A priest?
 
2012-07-03 03:29:39 PM  
But once you made it public, it was. Does deleting your tweet mean everyone who read it forgets? And Twitter is not a doctor or priest.
 
2012-07-03 03:31:09 PM  

Actual Farking: ArkAngel: Actual Farking: ArkAngel: Um... no. Illinois's law just got struck down. You can now legally record cops in public everywhere in the country. Whether they try and stop you is up to the stupidity and assholishness of the individual cops, but it is legal. And if they stop you, it's lawsuit time

Newsflash, slick. Different states have different laws.

Um...no. In all states, if you are in public, you have a right to record anyone, including the police. Illinois was the last state to ban it and their law just got struck down.

Illinois' law was one of the strictest, but most other states and the federal government still have wiretapping laws that are being interpreted in varying ways.


Every state allows public recording. In order to violate wiretapping statutes, you must have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. in your home, bathroom, changing room)
 
2012-07-03 03:40:04 PM  
I try to keep my neo-Nazi bestiality-themed overnight parties private, that's why I never tweet about them. It might affect my reputation as director of a no-kill animal shelter for abandoned pets in south Florida.
 
2012-07-03 03:40:27 PM  

barefoot in the head: OriginalGamer: But what about things like google caching, or sites that specifically track deleted tweets? Once you said it in public I can really see your defense. No taksies-backsies?

If I choose to make it public, it is so. If I choose to no longer publicise it, it is no longer. Could they compel a doctor to break confidentality? A priest?


For people, I think that's the case. You can't un-ring the bell. Once information is known by a segment of "the public" (people not specifically told in confidence), it's known by all of the public.

The Bush Administration tried to do the same thing with classified documents (they tried to have previously un-classified stuff classified), and I seem to remember that it worked.

// you expected sanity from the Executive Branch?
 
2012-07-03 03:42:07 PM  

OriginalGamer: But once you made it public, it was. Does deleting your tweet mean everyone who read it forgets? And Twitter is not a doctor or priest.


An oath is an oath:

"Law and Harm: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Policy, we may preserve or disclose your information if we believe that it is reasonably necessary to comply with a law, regulation or legal request; to protect the safety of any person; to address fraud, security or technical issues; or to protect Twitter's rights or property. However, nothing in this Privacy Policy is intended to limit any legal defenses or objections that you may have to a third party's, including a government's, request to disclose your information."
Twitter Privacy Policy
 
2012-07-03 03:42:42 PM  

ArkAngel: Actual Farking: ArkAngel: Actual Farking: ArkAngel: Um... no. Illinois's law just got struck down. You can now legally record cops in public everywhere in the country. Whether they try and stop you is up to the stupidity and assholishness of the individual cops, but it is legal. And if they stop you, it's lawsuit time

Newsflash, slick. Different states have different laws.

Um...no. In all states, if you are in public, you have a right to record anyone, including the police. Illinois was the last state to ban it and their law just got struck down.

Illinois' law was one of the strictest, but most other states and the federal government still have wiretapping laws that are being interpreted in varying ways.

Every state allows public recording. In order to violate wiretapping statutes, you must have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. in your home, bathroom, changing room)


Some states (I'm looking at you Illinois) have declared the activities of the police in public, while on the job, is a private matter and you can not record them. I'm wating for the courts to hand them a major biatch slapping over this. Here in California, it's a bit more vague. Supposedly, we can record the police, but it's not exactly clear and there is good chance a DA will side with the police and charge you with wiretapping based on the state law that both parties must agree to a recording. The law was meant to apply to telephone conversations, but LEOs love to twist laws to cover their asses.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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