back to article Yay, we're all European (Irish) now on Twitter (except Americans)

Africans, Asians and Australians are all European now, as least as far as Twitter is concerned. The micro-blogging site updated its privacy rules over the weekend and all non-US accounts will now be managed by Twitter International, headquartered in Ireland. This means that stricter European data protection laws will apply …

  1. JetSetJim
    Black Helicopters

    orly?

    >Three quarters of all Twitter accounts are held outside the US, and this new move should put their information beyond the reach of the NSA.

    Ha, ha. As if. Perhaps officially, at least.

  2. Vimes

    This means that stricter European data protection laws will apply rather than US rules.

    Except that's not the way the US sees it.

    Connie Carnabuci, a partner of the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, said that under the Act which was passed in 2001, US authorities have the ability to pass orders for the disclosure of non-US data that is stored outside the country. “The basis for that disclosure is that you have to establish a sufficient connection with the US,” she said.

    “One is that you have a US company with foreign subsidiaries outside the US, such as a service provider setting up in the Asia Pacific. The second might be that you have a non-US company that sets up a US subsidiary.”

    http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/413379/australian-based_data_subject_patriot_act_lawyer/

    That second point sounds like Twitter International to me.

    If there's a conflict of demand between the US and a country like Ireland who do you think corporations will side with?

    1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      If there's a conflict of demand between the US and a country like Ireland who do you think corporations will side with?

      Whichever way makes more money. More insightful companies look to the long term on this as well particularly if their US market is largely saturated and they've just noticed that there are considerably more non-Americans on the planet than Americans.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "there are considerably more non-Americans on the planet than Americans."

        Well, who'd have thunk it!

    2. Lee D

      The US can see it how they like.

      Nobody in the EU side of the company can provide, help provide, or otherwise allow them to provide EU data to the US without breaking EU law.

      Just because the US say they want the data, doesn't mean that ANYONE will give it to them. And the EU courts will just look at any data request and say "Doesn't apply".

      You cannot be compelled, as an EU citizen, to break EU law in order that a DIFFERENT US company satisfy a US court order.

      And, as pointed out, EU data rules are much stricter already. Nobody in the EU can assist the US in obtaining, or even provide access to, that data without breaking the law. And if the data is in the EU, the US company (an entirely separate legal entity) cannot demand access to it.

      That's WHY Twitter etc. do this. The US can crow all they like. To comply with the order - in ANY fashion - is a breach of EU law. You can't be told "Do this or you'll go to jail" as well as "Don't do that or you'll go to jail" for the same things. And precedence is to the country with actual, legal jurisdiction over the data.

      1. SolidSquid

        Just to expand a little on this, I'm pretty sure you also can't fire someone for not breaking the law on your behalf without opening yourself up to massive lawsuits, so the EU employees would likely be able to refuse to provide the data with impunity.

        1. Vimes

          @solidquid

          The US are already effectively doing so in Ireland by demanding access to Microsoft servers stored there?

          EU privacy rights don't stop existing - or at least shouldn't do so - simply because of the nationality of the company in question and if get ignored there then the same will happen here too.

          EU employees would likely be able to refuse to provide the data with impunity

          ...whilst destroying any prospects the employees would have within the company. It might not get them sacked but it would destroy any future they would have otherwise have had.

          1. SolidSquid

            Re: @solidquid

            Possibly, although that depends on whether the company actually wants to cooperate in the first place. In the case of Twitter (and Microsoft in the case you mentioned) the parent company explicitly doesn't want to provide the data, and the employees provide a perfect loophole to make it possible for them to refuse. Also, if the EU branch of Twitter is a separate company (someone mentioned it might be incorporated as Twitter International) then that company could refuse to cooperate and any employees would be fine for future prospects.

            Regarding the Microsoft case, the US are demanding the data but I don't think they've actually been able to force the issue yet, and Microsoft are putting up a fight over it. Them demanding the data doesn't necessarily constitute a legal requirement to provide the data

        2. Julz

          It might make your life interesting if you subsequently go on holiday with your family to Florida.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Solution: don't go on holiday to an oppressive, backward, violent regime

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "US company (an entirely separate legal entity)"

        This is the critical point. I'd expect Twitter to have taken a look at the Microsoft case & ensured that there was a more effective legal firewall between the two entities. Of course this is only an expectation, reality might be different.

        1. Vimes

          ...a more effective legal firewall between the two entities

          Is that even possible? Legal firewalls are all well and good, but what's the point if technical limitations make the whole thing an exercise in futility?

          Surely Twitter would either work as a single system with US users conversing with non-US users, in which case non-US data is available to US systems or it would operate as a separate service?

          And if non-US data is available within the US where, in any real sense, is the protection?

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            @Vimes

            "Is that even possible?"

            Irish citizens set up an Irish company called, e.g. Twitter International. TI operates rest-of-the-world Twitter as a franchise from US Twitter. The franchise agreement is made in Ireland under Irish law The terms of service specifically exclude any acts which would be illegal under Irish law (assuming that even needs to be said).

            "Surely Twitter would either work as a single system with US users conversing with non-US users, in which case non-US data is available to US systems or it would operate as a separate service?"

            As things stand now I doubt the system operates from a single data centre. Providing a seamless service between multiple servers is something they must have a good enough handle on already. Anything which goes between US & non-US subscribers could presumably be accessed via the US subscribers' accounts but then you wouldn't expect anything to prevent that. Purely rest-of-the-world traffic would be out-of-bounds as would any personal data held on non-US account holders including those conversing with US subscribers.

      3. MacroRodent

        You cannot be compelled, as an EU citizen, to break EU law in order that a DIFFERENT US company satisfy a US court order.

        In theory. In practice, if a senior guy from the parent company, say Twitter (US) comes to Ireland and tells an IT guy working at Twitter (Ireland) to hand the data or clear his desk, how many have the balls to resist the order?

        1. Lee D

          Constructive dismissal on unreasonable grounds.

          You can't be ordered to break the law just to keep your job.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          " if a senior guy from the parent company, say Twitter (US) comes to Ireland and tells an IT guy working at Twitter (Ireland)"

          As per my reply to Vimes, the international operation would have to be a separate operation. So if the senior guy from Twitter (US) isn't wearing his visitor's badge the IT guy simply calls security to get him escorted from the building. Because a visitor would be his only possible status.

        3. LDS Silver badge

          Just record the conversation and then sue the company for damages...

          Also, because if you act you are legally responsible for breaking the laws, ask for a signed request of handing off the data, so you can show you're not responsible for it. 99% ot the times, the senior guy backs off.

          Something alike happened to a colleague of mine when he was working for an Italian telco. The then Head of Security asked to access data protected by the privacy laws. My colleague asked for a formal request, which never came. Instead, another guy was asked, who complied. When the affair became a scandal, people were arrested, included the guy who accessed the data illegally, and he spent a couple of years in jail.

          Sometimes, clearing your desk may not be the worst option you have....

      4. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        An Eu based employee can't be ordered to break eu law - but a US employee at head office can be ordered to remote in and copy the data.

        1. Lee D

          "An Eu based employee can't be ordered to break eu law - but a US employee at head office can be ordered to remote in and copy the data."

          The EU employees who provide that facility are, by definition, breaking EU data protection law.

          It's against that law to provide access to someone who does not require it for their job, and also to allow that data to cross international borders. The courts interpret this to the extreme that even PROVIDING A POTENTIAL ABILITY to do such things is punishable (and, lately, with personal responsibility not just corporate!).

          If you don't know this, and you work in IT in the EU, you really need to go read up on the EU law and case law.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Big Brother

            Re: Lee D

            "......It's against that law to provide access to someone who does not require it for their job, and also to allow that data to cross international borders....." it's Twatter, anyone can look. All the Yank TLAs need to do is get someone in the US to look at the public data and - bingo! - it is in the US courts' jurisdiction. You can imagine how it works - Bob at the NSA calls up Fred at the DEA; "Fred, we need to have legal grounds to keep tabs on what Annie The Anarchist is tryping in Dublin, can you ask an intern to go look at her FB/Twatter/Instragram/Pinterest/etc pages, maybe send a friend request?" Once the data has traversed the US borders and is on a system in the US the NSA will legally have the right to analyse and monitor that data. Think your data is staying only in Europe? Ever heard of VPNs? All the NSA needs is a system in Europe to use as a gateway.

            Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA wasn't keeping tabs on tools like Google's web crawlers - once Google has indexed a website it is in a US datacenter on US soil, and fair game for the NSA. Writing their own web crawler to sit on a server in Europe at the end of a VPN would be childsplay. The Twatter announcement is just another example of a commercial company trying to promote their services by playing to the paranoia of the tinfoil-attired.

          2. Vimes

            @Lee D

            The EU employees who provide that facility are, by definition, breaking EU data protection law.

            Even when taking Safe Harbour into account?

            Besides which even Twitter's own new policy tells us that by using their service we're allowing our information to be exported to the US.

        2. MrXavia
          Joke

          "An Eu based employee can't be ordered to break eu law - but a US employee at head office can be ordered to remote in and copy the data."

          And then I expect the US would honour extradition treaties for one of their citizens that broke EU laws...

          And I can almost say that with a straight face...

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          An Eu based employee can't be ordered to break eu law - but a US employee at head office can be ordered to remote in and copy the data.

          That's one of those jurisdictional issues that haven't even remotely (pun intended) been settled under international, or many national for that matter, laws. The way the US is acting, e.g. 'hackings' of various corporate and governmental systems, the law is that of the country that was the target but then this creates the situation whereby a US citizen could be extradited and prosecuted under EU law.

          Oops!

      5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Lee D

        ".... Nobody in the EU can assist the US in obtaining, or even provide access to, that data without breaking the law....." Cough* The GCHQ *cough. Or any number of other European spook agencies which co-operate with the NSA's ECHELON system, including Ireland's own Directorate of Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Intelligence_(Ireland)#Electronic_surveillance). If the Yanks have a reason to want to look at your Twattering, they will.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          Re: Lee D

          If US spooks collaborate with Irish spooks, and they have a warrant, it's another story. If they don't have a warrant, but it's an intelligence agencies cooperative operation for some reason, it's still another story (but spooks may end in trouble, ask those who operated a "rendition" in Milan).

          Nobody is saying the Irish-stored data will be completely safe, just it means they're not under the whimsical decision of some US judge with little knowledge of international laws and bilateral agreement, and like ancient Romans, divide the world in "Americans" and "Barbarians" to whom the Empire laws don't apply.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "That second point sounds like Twitter International to me."

      You'd have to look closely at how TI is set up.

    4. LDS Silver badge

      Sorry, but that's just the opionion of an Australian lawyer - not the outcome of an EU court ruling.

      Moreover, US should be aware if this is pushed too far, it could start to work the other way round... with US companies having subsidiaries outside the US being forved to disclose US data to non US entities... if I were a US judge I would be very careful to not open a Pandora box, but some US judge look to still live in some Western boomtown and fans of Charles Lynch rules...

      Corporations like Twitter knows very well their business outside US could be severly hit if any US judge believe US jurisdiction extends wherever a US company has an office. They won't side with the US gov for a simple reason - foreign money are still money...

      1. Vimes

        @LDS

        Sorry, but that's just the opionion of an Australian lawyer - not the outcome of an EU court ruling.

        That's sort of the point I was trying to make really - EU courts wouldn't be involved in the first place, even for EU companies (since they would still have to make data available to its US parent for the system as a whole to work).

        The data centre might be in the EU, but it still has to play nice with those that aren't.

        And as for backlashes: these demands are often accompanied by gagging orders. It's easy to get away with something as long as people don't know it's happening.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          Re: @LDS

          "since they would still have to make data available to its US parent for the system as a whole to work "

          Not true at all.

          "The data centre might be in the EU, but it still has to play nice with those that aren't."

          So what? The fact that an EU data centre is connected to an US one doesn't mean US has jurisdiction over the EU stored data. Or do you mean my ISP has legal access to data stored on my PCs?

          1. Vimes

            Re: @LDS

            From Twitters 'improved' privacy policy:

            Irrespective of which country you reside in or supply information from, you authorize Twitter to use your information in the United States and any other country where Twitter operates.

            [...]

            We engage service providers to perform functions and provide services to us in the United States and abroad.

            So basically what exactly is the improvement here, since they're telling us they'll still do what they think is best?

            We may share your private personal information with such service providers subject to confidentiality obligations consistent with this Privacy Policy

            'Consistent' - means nothing given what they previously said.

    5. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      >If there's a conflict of demand between the US and a country like Ireland

      i think we can rely on Ireland to stand upto the US - even if it means US corporations being forced to move out of Ireland.

  3. Malcolm 2
    Black Helicopters

    You're damned either way

    Is this a case of “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t”? Will employees and directors of an EU company that refuses to disclose, be liable to arrest if they ever travel to the US?

    Sorry children, the family trip to Disney World is indefinitely postponed …

    1. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: You're damned either way

      >the family trip to Disney World is indefinitely postponed

      Sounds like a win/win...

    2. Mephistro

      Re: You're damned either way

      "the family trip to Disney World Orlando is indefinitely postponed …"

      Yep, the poor kids would have to go to Disney World Paris instead . :-)

      On a more serious note, I'd like any US official that makes such a request from an European company to be sued and judged -probably in absentia- by European courts. That would send a clear message to the incumbents.

    3. hplasm
      Coat

      Re: You're damned either way

      "Sorry children, the family trip to Disney World is indefinitely postponed …"

      You say that like it's a bad thing. Have you seen the size of the mouse problem they have there?

      1. dorsetknob
        Facepalm

        Re: You're damned either way

        "" News Just in ""

        The USA has just declared Disney world a Sovereign State within the USA

        For Diplomatic Reasons all Disney worlds World wide are now US Sovereign territory

        US LAW now Applies in Disney world

        Passports Control and Visa restrictions Apply

        Mickey Mouse Green Cards are available for Current Non US Citizens who work there

        Disney Dollars are now Legal Tender at 1 to 1 parity

        1. LDS Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: You're damned either way

          Latest news: French troops are regaining control of Disneyland Paris, renaming it Parc Astérix II. The Queen of Hearts card troops were unable to stop the Légion étrangère. Prisoners have been sent to the Montecarlo Casino.

          Mickey Mouse and Minni Mouse have been guillotined. Scrooge McDuck fled to Switzerland, while Donald Duck has been captured and convicted... as Foie gras...

    4. Martin Summers

      Re: You're damned either way

      "Sorry children, the family trip to Disney World is indefinitely postponed …"

      Tough shit, when people stop visiting "The land of the free" and its tourist attractions because of potential bully boy tactics, they might just learn then. The world will continue to go round without them.

    5. SolidSquid

      Re: You're damned either way

      If it's explicitly an EU company then the US would have trouble enforcing any US based laws against them without proving they've committed a criminal offence in the US or targeting the US, and what they can do is largely controlled by various international treaties. They might be able to make things awkward for the employees, but actual criminal charges would be pretty difficult to push for

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: You're damned either way

        "what they can do is largely controlled by various international treaties"

        I think this is part of the Microsoft problem. I read somewhere that international treaties are only binding on the Federal govt & not on individual states. It was a local prosecutor who decided to try to cut corners & bypass the access already provided for by international treaty.

        I'd guess that by now any incriminating material in Hotmail/etc mailboxes will have been long deleted by anyone except the spectacularly ill-informed or those already in custody. It seems likely that continuing the case is either an attempt to establish legal precedent or a legal willy-waving.

        1. Martin Summers

          Re: You're damned either way

          "I'd guess that by now any incriminating material in Hotmail/etc mailboxes will have been long deleted by anyone except the spectacularly ill-informed or those already in custody."

          If the material is in your Hotmail etc webmail account then *you* deleting it isn't going to help you.

        2. LDS Silver badge

          Re: You're damned either way

          " read somewhere that international treaties are only binding on the Federal govt & not on individual states."

          AFAIK individual states in the US can't act towards (or against) foreign states, foreign affairs are a Federal matter. That's why I believe that judge is trying to pretend those data are under US jurisdiction - his (or her?) jurisdiction, so he/she can bypass the federal government, the FBI, treaties, etc. etc.

          Here in Italy too, if a judge needs data from a foreign country, the request needs to go through the Ministry of Justice, which can approve and submit it, or deny it. That's because there could be also "political" or "diplomatic" reasons to deny it.

      2. Vimes

        Re: You're damned either way @solidsquid

        ...offence in the US or targeting the US...

        What happens when somebody tweets something subsequently viewed in the US? Would this count as being published in the US since it has been made available there? What would then constitute 'targeting' I wonder if it's subsequently found to be libelous?

        ...controlled by various international treaties...

        You mean like the MLATs ignored by the US in the Microsoft case? What makes you think they wouldn't be willing to ignore other international obligations when they get too 'cumbersome'?

        1. LDS Silver badge

          Re: You're damned either way @solidsquid

          MS didn't disclosed the data. Let's see how it ends... the judge who is trying to ignore jurisdiction and MLATs is walking on a very thin and dangerous line...

          Meanwhile, it's interesting that a Nevada court ruled that FBI can't gather evidence in a private house without a warrant just pretending to be ISP technician. But probably it's just because Las Vegas bosses (even if foreigners, like in this case) can pay better lawyers than most Europeans...

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: You're damned either way

        Kim Dotcom might lend some weight (hah!) to either side of that argument.

    6. LDS Silver badge

      Re: You're damned either way

      If US starts to convict people for something outside their jurisdiction, I see bad times for US tourism... North Korea could become a better destinaton.

      1. Queasy Rider

        Re: You're damned either way

        The US has been convicting people for things done outside their jurisdiction for ages. Having sex with a child in Thailand will get you locked up for years in America. Britain too has jailed people for their actions in the East. I can't remember the specifics, but I believe over a century ago people in England were going to jail for foreign actions which were disgusting their countrymen at home. Maybe somebody here can help fill in the details.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          Re: You're damned either way

          For children abuser, they can act *only* against their own citizens - because you can persecute your own citizens for crimes committed abroad - you have jurisdiction over your citizens.

          They can't jail a foreigner in the US for the same reason - no jurisdiction.

        2. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: You're damned either way

          Having sex with a child in Thailand will get you locked up for years in America.

          I think the case your talking about was about an abuser who, when the law started closing in on him, he fled the country. Eventually he was found in Thailand by the Thai police.

          And yes, just because you're not breaking a local law doesn't mean that the John Law of your home country can't arrest you for breaking your home country's laws. Stupid, I know, but it's the way they've worked in most countries for a long time.

          1. Queasy Rider

            Re: You're damned either way

            I repeat: Having sex with a child in Thailand will get you locked up for years in America. Child sex tourism, look it up.

            November 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM, updated May 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM

            MOBILE, Ala. -- A pair of Gulf Coast residents pleaded guilty in Mobile today to allegations that they made several trips to Thailand to have sex with young boys.

            Burgess Lee Burgess, of Mobile, and Pensacola resident Mitchell Kent Jackson, who used to live in Mobile, pleaded guilty to traveling to have sex with a minor and conspiracy to do so. They face more than 10 years in prison under advisory sentencing guidelines, but have agreed to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into "sex tourism" in hopes of winning lighter punishment.

            http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/31/new.jersey.sex.ring/index.html

            1. Mark 85 Silver badge

              Re: You're damned either way

              Didn't know of that case but that falls under the rest of what I said... to wit: And yes, just because you're not breaking a local law doesn't mean that the John Law of your home country can't arrest you for breaking your home country's laws. Stupid, I know, but it's the way they've worked in most countries for a long time.

              They broke US law while abroad and got nailed for it. LDS in the post after yours made the same observation.

      2. Vimes

        Re: You're damned either way @LDS

        If US starts to convict people for something outside their jurisdiction

        You don't necessarily have to be convicted of anything to have your privacy invaded.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: You're damned either way

        "If US starts to convict people for something outside their jurisdiction, I see bad times for US tourism... North Korea could become a better destinaton."

        I thought they already did that?

        Extraditing people from the UK for crimes committed while on UK Soil....

        Sure the crimes may affect the US, they may be computer crimes where they can be committed at any location, but still the person was not in their jurisdiction at the time of the crime, so their laws should not apply...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I feel safer now

    Since the NSA has such a stellar track record of scrupulously staying within its legally-proscribed boundaries, we can all sleep soundly now.

    And they certainly won't collaborate with GCHQ to bypass the law, either.

    1. Red Bren
      Big Brother

      Re: I feel safer now

      And GCHQ have absolutely no experience of tapping communications to the Irish Republic...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I feel safer now

        FB and Twitter used to give data to the US because they were required to by law. Now they're not.

        Twitter feeds will be attacked by GCHQ et al. in much the same way as banks are attacked by robbers, and for the same purpose, and just as illegally.

        Will GCHQ succeed long-term? maybe. Who wants to bet on GCHQ / NSA vs Google/Facebook/Twitter in the long term hacking game? Once upon a time I'd have bet on NSA hands down, but now all the smart kids are getting jobs at Google, not NSA.

        This isn't to say your data is safe. But Facebook, etc. are in the business of _selling_ data and are not going to sit back and let their potential customers steal it ...

  5. Phuq Witt

    Luckily for the NSA...

    ...Ireland is even more sycophantic and poodle-like when it comes to sucking Uncle Sam's star-spangled big one, than even the UK.

    ...and that's saying something!

  6. thx1138v2

    Rules? What rules?

    "New privacy rules puts majority of users beyond NSA's reach"

    Anyone heard of Edward Snowden? Since when has NSA followed any rules?

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Rules? What rules?

      I think this is much ado over nothing in that nothing has changed except some "legal" (for some value of "legal") data gathering. The Five-Eyes will get what they want when they want it. Depending on the court, their activities might or might not be presented to the court. There's also the stance that if they don't present it, the data slurp never happened, in the eyes of the court.

      I would presume that there's no such thing as a secure internet. You post something, you buy something, anyone can find it if they have the inclination. There's good guys and bad guys and sometimes it's just a shade of gray.

  7. Michael Habel

    But!!!

    Will it put them in a position of being protected from the GCHQ?! Implaying that its just the NSA we have to worry about?, and not the other Four, of the Five-Eyes...

  8. Red Bren
    Mushroom

    Dr No!

    "Yay, we're all European (Irish) now"

    Rev Ian Paisley must be spinning in his grave!

    Unless he was cremated.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Your Tweets are safe now

    As long as the following conditions apply to your Tweet:

    Tweet was emitted while outside US borders or that of its territories, airspace, space itself, or that of the 5 Eyes.

    Directed Tweets only to non-US Tweeters.

    Tweets do not co-exist in a hashtag frequented by US tweeters.

    Tweets do not carry content perceived to be of interest to US tweeters.

    Tweet does not reference any person, place, or thing within US jurisdiction.

    Tweet is more than three hops away from US Tweeters or Tweeters-of-Interest.

    In other news, the US Government has begun construction of an Alternate Universe, in which only US-based laws and ideas will be allowed.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not quite as easy as they pretend..

    The key factor here is leverage. If Twitter US is the HQ and the EU leg is deemed a subsidiary, there is not enough legal separation, and a US judge can do, well, let's call it a Microsoft. If it's a wholly separate company, the picture gets ugly from a different angle: Twitter US should not have access to the data of Twitter, umm, "elsewhere" or "EU".

    It will naturally be a total coincidence that both companies will pay massive licensing fees to some offshore entity, but I digress. As long as it's not quite clear what structure they put in place, I would doubt their own statements about not being beholden to US law.

    Now, stepping back a bit - Twitter? Wasn't all that data public anyway?

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: It's not quite as easy as they pretend..

      "Now, stepping back a bit - Twitter? Wasn't all that data public anyway?"

      The problem may be "forensic evidence". Only the entity storing the content and being able to tie it, beyond any reasonable doubt, to someone, can deliver that kind of evidence.

      What has been shown on someone else monitor may not stand as an evidence, it may be have been tampered with...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like