Wikileaks公式&ニュース系英語tweetまとめ~米司法省の裁判所命令の意味をめぐる思案 #cablegate [2011年-03] #wl_jp
@BiancaJagger I'd be surprised if that were not the case.
2011-01-08 23:54:14@Ciardetti Leaking U.S. violence, criminality and corruption isn't about transparency? We have vastly different understandings of terms
2011-01-09 00:17:18@Nanbp Read the order - it has nothing to do with getting tweets
2011-01-09 00:23:20Note to DOJ: You can't stop me, you can't even contain me.
2011-01-09 00:34:51RT@ggreenwald: hope journalists writing re Twitter/WikiLeaks remember: WL did nothing more than what investigative journalists do everyday
2011-01-09 00:38:37@BSchuler Virtually all challenges to power centers lead to greater repression - the reaction often most hurts power itself: also ironic.
2011-01-09 00:48:03The State Department has been engaging directly with Govt of #Tunisa regarding recent hackings and protests http://bit.ly/eLuxEE #sidibouzid
2011-01-09 00:49:12BBC News - US summons Tunisia ambassador over handling of protests http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12140461
2011-01-09 00:55:01We (@StateDept) have been conveying our views directly to the Government of #Tunisia, in Tunis and in Washington. #sidibouzid #netfreedom
2011-01-09 01:00:05State Dept worries about cyber-attacks on the web-sites of the Tunisian govt (!) - but not about attacks on WikiLeaks http://goo.gl/UEMZf
2011-01-09 01:07:21Had the State Dept redacted the cables pre-publication (as WL offered) there would be no need to create that 30-person unit #wasteofmoney
2011-01-09 01:09:27RT @submergingmkt: #US subpoenae power is not extraterritorial;#Twitter needs 2 "just say no" 2 #DOJ invasions of free speech, privacy
2011-01-09 01:17:24.@emptywheel on what the government may really be after with its subpoena of Twitter http://bit.ly/hgWC1v #Wikileaks
2011-01-09 01:24:51The Telegraph: Twitter deserves credit for defending its users' rights http://bit.ly/ftj7gH #Wikileaks
2011-01-09 01:34:22Stored Communications Act (includes 2703(d)) was written in 1986, when email was almost non-existent. It's a relic, like the Espionage Act.
2011-01-09 01:51:21@calixte @_x4o that silly "democracyis" contest was organized by State Dept in 2010 - it's over. I doubt they'll want to run it again
2011-01-09 01:53:29SCA expert Oren Kerr: Statute "dense," "confusing;" "courts, legislators, & even legal scholars have..a..hard time making sense of the SCA"
2011-01-09 01:53:38There's an effort by EFF, Google, HP, MS, and others to amend the law to require search warrants: http://bit.ly/cBMXmb (via @declanm)
2011-01-09 01:58:00"a doc stored on a desktop computer is protected by..the 4th Amend, but [if] the same doc stored with an ISP," warrant clause may not apply.
2011-01-09 02:00:59@ggreenwald there is some discrepancy in news accounts& language of Attach. A unclear.Can the DOJ access actual content of their DMs or not?
2011-01-09 02:05:19In his characteristically blunt and profane manner, John Cole puts the WikiLeaks subpoena into proper context: http://is.gd/knnu5
2011-01-09 02:06:26@WLLegal I did not read that document as seeking private messages or other communication content.
2011-01-09 02:06:52John Burns w/ major NYT piece on WIkiLeaks / DOJ / Twitter case: http://bit.ly/gqS7IQ
2011-01-09 02:14:51@ggreenwald thanks. I read "correspondence..related to the account" to mean notes *about* (not *in*) account--wording is unclear though
2011-01-09 02:19:33RT @nytimes: U.S. Subpoenas Twitter Accounts of WikiLeaks Figures http://nyti.ms/h5AFvI
2011-01-09 02:21:24