So, they're not even pretending anymore
The only good thing I can hope for from this is that it pushes human rights in hegemonised western societies right up the scale of importance.
US Justice Department investigators have won a hard-fought campaign to access the Twitter records of three current and former WikiLeaks associates, rebuffing arguments that the document demand violated the constitutional right to free speech and a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In a 60-page opinion …
>> “With this decision, the court is telling all users of online tools hosted in the US that the US government will have secret access to their data,” Jonsdottir said in a statement.
actually they always had that ability! All servers that are hosted in the USofA are subject to the USofA law, which does give them the right to access anything on that server if they have a warrant. This apply to your facebook account, email account, twitter account and even your shopping account and SMS messages.
As long as the server keeps a copy of whatever is it that you did, then the US government can have access to it, if the server is hosted locally and they have a warrant. That is why VoIP is giving the government some trouble, it is p2p and the server doesn't store conversation.
I honestly believed that this was common knowledge!
Put down the crack pipe and pay attention.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARRANT LESS ACCESS.
If you actually bothered to pay attention to the details of the case, rather than base your opinion on sound bites from the radical left press, you might actually try to understand what is happening.
First, there is this investigation in to how an alleged Manning stole classified documents and gave them to Wikileaks. Who/What/When/Where and how have to be established. At least to a point where a military tribunal can adjudicate this case against Manning.
As part of this investigation, there is an investigation as to the involvement of Wikileaks.
The important thing is that the DoJ had gotten LE Subpoenas for the information. Its not that it was a warrant less search but that instead of the company Twitter handing over the information, they notified the parties involved and allowed them to challenge the Subpoena.
That is the important fact that you don't seem to grasp. LE Subs are legal and can easily be abused. I know this first hand. However in this case. There is a specific investigation and the subpoenas are valid.
Its only a matter of time before the DoJ puts together the pieces.
I wasn't there either and have no idea what Julian did on that night of the 13th with Miss A but I would love to access Anna Ardin's twitter account records. Shame, I am not a FED agent.
On Saturday 14 August at 14:00
'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow?
Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00)
'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing!
Given that this organization exists to publish information that people wish to keep secret surely the folks being investigated here are being a bit hypocritical. Never mind a court order once they knew that somebody was interested they could have just put there twitter messages on their own web site.
Agreed, slightly hypocritical, however, there is a world of difference between releasing secret footage of, as an example, a helicopter gunning down reuters reporters which the military previously denied ever happened and allowing warantless search and seizure of electronic records of citizens without cause.
Especially if said warantless search and seizure follows the release of said footage.
You do know that Assange edited the tape he released, right?
You do know that the helicopter crew were operating within their RoE right?
You do know that civilians do get killed when in a war zone, right?
Clearly you don't know anything about subpoenas or specifically law enforcement subpoenas.
Clearly you don't comprehend that there is an ongoing investigation and that the information being sought has nothing to do with the content but with the information concerning the meta data around the tweets.
Why don't they just wipe their asses with the document they're SUPPOSED to be upholding while they're at it.
Am I alone in being sick and tired of the Supreme Court protecting corporate interests and embarrassed politicians instead of enforcing the Constitution like they're supposed to?
"Am I alone in being sick and tired of the Supreme Court protecting corporate interests and embarrassed politicians instead of enforcing the Constitution like they're supposed to?"
Yes - that sounds like terrorist talk.
I feel another warrantless search coming on...
Its amazing to read all of the comments posted.
First this isn't a case of 'warrantless [sic] search and seizure'.
This is the case of the DoJ during an active investigation had requested a Law Enforcement Subpoena. (LE Sub). Under this subpoena, the target is not alerted and the company being subpoena quietly hands over the data as not to interfere with the ongoing investigation.
Because these subpoenas can be easily abused and the secretive nature of the subpoena, companies hit with the subpoenas can refuse to comply and then notify those involved and let them hire legal counsel to fight the subpoena.
This is what happened. The courts ruled that the LE Sub was valid. This was reaffirmed during the appeals process.
This is not good news for the Assange legal team, nor for his supports who's information is being requested.
Since the bulk of the comment 'tards are a tad slow to pick up the pieces, let me spell it out to you... The DoJ specifically targeted these individuals. Ask yourself why would they do this?
Could it be that they were trying to find a link between Assange and Manning? I mean hypothetically speaking... is it possible that someone gave Assange access to their own twitter account, among other things.
I don't know, but I do know that the scope of the investigation was very limited and fairly specific. I also know that members of Assange's 'volunteers' and supporters have a limited education of the legal system. Not just the US, but that of their own countries legal systems.
This information is contained in the articles referenced along with the information in El Reg's article.
The FAIL isn't on El Reg, but on those who consider themselves to be educated and rational thinking people.
UK Home Secretary Priti Patel today signed an order approving the extradition of Julian Assange to America, where he faces espionage charges for sharing secret government documents.
It also distributed secret files revealing the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and sensitive communications from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, during the 2016 US presidential election.
Julian Assange has won a technical victory in his ongoing battle against extradition from the UK to the United States, buying him a few more months in the relative safety of Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh.
Today at London's High Court, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Burnett approved a question on a technical point of law, having refused Assange immediate permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. The WikiLeaker's lawyers had asked for formal permission to pose this legal conundrum about Assange's likely treatment in US prisons to the Supreme Court:
Julian Assange's psychiatrist misled a judge when he delivered a report stating the WikiLeaks founder would be suicidal if extradited to the US for trial, lawyers for the US government have said.
Barrister James Lewis QC told the Lord Chief Justice yesterday that crucial reports were flawed because it did not clearly state that Assange had fathered two children while hiding in Ecuador's London embassy.
The WikiLeaker-in-chief is wanted in the US. He stands accused of hacking into US military databases and publishing classified docs. Although he won an initial legal bid to avoid extradition, the sole reason District Judge Vanessa Baraitser did not extradite him was because he would be suicidal if sent abroad. At the time the judge described that as "a well-informed opinion carefully supported by evidence."
Accused hacker and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US to stand trial, Westminster Magistrates' Court has ruled.
District Judge Vanessa Baraitser told Assange this morning that there was no legal obstacle to his being sent to the US, where he faces multiple criminal charges under America's Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act over his WikiLeaks website.
Assange is a suicide risk and the judge decided not to order his extradition to the US, despite giving a ruling in which she demolished all of his legal team's other arguments against extradition.
The 2016 hacking of the Democratic Party's email system – and subsequent leaking of its messages – was personally ordered by Vladimir Putin and aided by Julian Assange, according to the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
A just-released volume [PDF] from the panel's dossier on Russia's efforts to meddle in that year's White House race pretty much accuses the Assange-run WikiLeaks of actively helping Moscow in its dirty work – by obtaining the internal memos from Russian hackers and spreading them online to derail Hillary Clinton's campaign and help nudge Donald Trump to victory.
And we're told Trump's team tried to collaborate with WikiLeaks to time announcements with upcoming leaks, encouraged the online dumping of the emails, and tapped up oligarchs close to the Kremlin to exchange inside information.
Prosecutors in the US have upgraded their case against Julian Assange with a second superseding indictment claiming he sought out the services of a notorious hacker who, unbeknownst to the WikiLeaks boss, was secretly working with the Feds.
The Department of Justice this week added yet more material to its indictment against Assange, which accuses him of 18 counts of espionage and hacking. The latest filing does not add any charges, though it includes evidence of Assange asking hackers to steal sensitive and scandalous dirt from government systems for WikiLeaks to disseminate. This could blow a hole in Jules' I'm-a-journalist-not-a-spy defense.
In the filing [PDF], it is said Assange worked directly with Anonymous and LulzSec miscreants in a quest to obtain US government documents and publish them on WikiLeaks.
Julian Assange has been told to hold his tongue and not interrupt court proceedings by a judge as he contests US attempts to extradite him from Britain to stand trial over his WikiLeaks website.
During the cross-examination of human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith, one of Assange’s own witnesses in his extradition trial, Jules shouted out, “I’m here and by proxy” according to The Times.
District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, presiding, warned Assange to keep quiet, telling the Aussie: “Witnesses must be allowed to give their evidence free from interruption. In these hearings, things will most likely be said which you don’t agree with, and you would like to contradict it and speak about these things yourself. This is not the opportunity to do so.”
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022