Twitter Sues Federal Government | Hacker News Reader

Twitter Sues Federal Government

documentcloud.org

361 pointscoloneltcb84 comments

Open articleView on HN

Okay, what seems to be going on is:

a) DHS / Customs & Border Protection want to unmask the person(s) behind the @ALT_USCIS account

b) They want to use an unnamed "investigatory tool" to do this

c) Twitter does not want them to do this, on (extensive) 1st amendment grounds

d) Twitter says the Supreme Court is on their side on this issue

The lawsuit is to stop DHS / CBP from using the tool.

The "tool" is a legal "tool" - an ability granted to the agencies to legally compel Twitter to do stuff.

The reasonable editorial is then that the Government wants to do this because they don't like being criticized or contradicted by these ALT_* accounts, and Twitter wants the accounts to stay anonymous because the criticism is good (both in terms of quality and effect), and taking away that anonymity is all kinds of bad.

(I'm totally on Twitter's side on this)

On c), not just 1st amendment grounds. That's their secondary complaint. Their primary complaint is that the summons invoked a nonsensical justification, related to merchandise imports, for its lawful authority to make such a summons. This one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509

And the reason for the unmasking request from the article:

>@ALT_uscis is one of a string of accounts claiming to be operated by rogue government employees, formed in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration. It’s unclear whether any of the accounts are authentic — including @ALT_uscis — although many purport to offer an insider perspective. The Trump administration has responded aggressively to leaks in the past, including on-the-spot phone checks of White House staffers suspected of sharing information with the press.

Imagine George W. Bush has his stooges trying to undermine and overthrow Obama if you don't see why this would be problematic for current administration.

Is "overthrow" your hyperbolic way of saying "using free speech to dissent"?

If someone is deliberately trying to undermine the government with twitter accounts then they would have a valid case. If there is even probable cause that this is happening then that would be enough for a warrant.

The fact that they resort to a custom's law suggests that they can't show either of these to be true.

> Imagine George W. Bush has his stooges trying to undermine and overthrow Obama if you don't see why this would be problematic for current administration.

I'm uncertain why you think government employees exercising their 1st amendment rights is a problem?

The Verge has a reasonable summary: http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/6/15211092/twitter-trump-laws...

I will host any "alt" accounts on my mastodon instance and give a "YUGE" middle finger to any DHS requests to unmask them. Let's not let freedom die on our watch.

> an unnamed "investigatory tool" to do this

Paragraph 7 of the complaint identifies 19 U.S.C. § 1509 as "the sole statutory authority CBP invoked in issuing the summons" [1]. It appears to be a customs authority related to the "examination of books and witnesses" [2]. Sufficient to say, it's a stupid overreach.

Side note: we need a fund that re-imburses private companies for challenging such orders. It could be managed by the ACLU, EFF, et cetera. What Twitter is doing, here, is public service.

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3538047-Twitter-Comp...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509

> Side note: we need a fund that re-imburses private companies for challenging such orders.

Oh that's good.

Hmm. People have wondered how to make a programmer's union different from existing unions. I wonder if doing dual duty - also running this - would help that, or simply make more kinds of things vulnerable to the failure modes of unions...?

Edit: Basically, an organization to protect programmer's ability to positively impact the world...? Rather than one protecting just the people, or protecting the corporations, since due to startup culture that line is pretty blurry?

This is a fascinating topic. But it would be important to keep it apolitical in nature. Perhaps defending / following the EU's human rights?

This definitely makes sense. Governments and corporations sometimes walk all over customers in the name of collecting more data.

A well funded Corp could keep them on their toes.

From the doc: "the particular investigatory tool employed here — which Congress authorized solely to ensure compliance with federal laws concerning imported merchandise"

DHS is requesting the data pursuant to 19 US § 1509 - Examination of books and witnesses;

  In any investigation or inquiry conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the
  correctness of any entry, for determining the liability of any person for duty,
  fees and taxes due or duties, fees and taxes which may be due the United States,
  for determining liability for fines and penalties, or for insuring compliance with
  the laws of the United States administered by the United States Customs Service...

So it's that last part, for insuring compliance with the laws of the United States administered by the United States Customs Service which probably comes into play in making the request to unmask the account, specifically because the account claims to be an employee of USCIS.

I think many miss this point, in particular about claiming to be employee of USCIS. I could see complications to the "free speech" defense because of that. Will be interesting to watch.

Before people start comparing this to the John Rivello case last month (the guy accused of tweeting a seizure-inducing GIF), Twitter released information in response to police warrants:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3520966-FBI-Complain...

It doesn't appear that a warrant was used in this case, which is in part why Twitter isn't complying.

A comical bit from the filing:

>The CBP Summons ordered Twitter to produce the records to a CBP office in Washington D.C. by 11:45 A.M. on March 13, 2017—the day before the CBP Summons was faxed to Twitter.

I feel the urgent need to express my gratitude to Twitter for fighting this, instead of quietly handing over the information.

I'm sure the cynic in all of us says they're doing this for the PR value. If so, let's make sure they get their money's worth.

> the cynic in all of us says they're doing this for the PR value.

I really doubt it. They were fighting NSL's even when they were prohibited from disclosing that they were fighting them.

This is the account: https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis

Does anyone know why they would have such an interest in this person?

Scrolling back a few pages, apparently he is anti-current policy and pretty vocal but that puts him in company with millions of others. So why the interest?

Perhaps because they already have the identities of most of the others.

I'm honestly surprised anyone had to ask this question. Suppression Of Dissent is actually a term. Why do hotels sue guests who post negative reviews on Yelp? Why did the Stasi Police exist? Why is a clown poster of Putin illegal in Russia?

We are being converted into an oligarchy. The administration is backed by a demographic that either doesn't realize this, or doesn't care. They unabashedly silence their opposition on the floors of Congress and the Senate all the time. Can't get your legislation through? Change the rules.

The GOP has no constituents. Nobody with a net worth under $10,000,000 matters to the GOP.

> The GOP has no constituents. Nobody with a net worth under $10,000,000 matters to the GOP.

You might re-examine that belief in light of the last election...

I think the disagreement might be in the distinction between constituents and supporters.

I think there are a lot of people who support the GOP (evidenced by the last election) but very few the GOP actually look out for.

Well, if that's the distinction we're talking about, then I would say that the Democratic Party also has far fewer people that it looks out for than that vote for it. They no longer seem to have the working class as a constituency, for example.

Trump was perceived as the lesser of the two evils. Looking at Hillary's donation list, it was even more pronounced that she was a Corporation puppet. Trump was the wild "fuck you" card who was perceived as the only candidate that would not sell out.

Except Trump is a corporation[1], which now gets federal money funneled into its pockets every time the president golfs at Mar-a-lago.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization

> We are being converted into an oligarchy. The administration is backed by a demographic that either doesn't realize this, or doesn't care

A portion doesn't realize, and another portion is likely actively in favor of this outcome, as oligarchies are pretty good for the oligarchs (at least for a while). Unfortunately the first portion has the votes, and the second has the money; that's just the way things are at the moment.

The issues the GOP are getting those low income votes on are total fabrications (yeah, sure, coal will come back, even though no one's investing in it; it was the environmentalists that cost those mining jobs, not the robots that replaced the miners; "We're Pro Life", unless you've already exited the womb), but it works, apparently.

I'm really not sure what steps we can take to increase the level of rational, critical thought in this discussion. People read a headline, get the endorphin rush of reading something that confirms their own biases, retweet and then stop thinking! I've noticed this bias in my own behavior and have taken steps to correct it - if an article just feels good to read, I must double check that its sources are well cited and its points are correct, otherwise it gets a mark of questionable credibility in my brain.

I don't really know how to convince others to do the same...

Request for refinement. Oligarchy is just rule by a few, perhaps you mean rule by the wealthy, plutocracy, which seems to be more compatible with your argument.

But then the GOP do have constituents, via a continued enhancement of the Southern strategy, to get people to vote against their economic interests. Of course there simply aren't enough plutocrats to win elections, so they have to rile up some masses with various promises, rhetoric, and occasionally throwing them red meat.

My best guess would be that he (or she!) posted something that required information that they do not believe the general public would have.

The lawsuit was probably part of an effort to identify a leak.

According to the news article in the other post, it seems the account author identifies him/herself as a gov employee:

"In the suit, Twitter writes that @ALT_uscis has purported to be a dissenting member of US Citizenship and Immigration Services"

So what? I could claim to be a government official on Twitter; that wouldn't give the government the right to my identity.

Of course it doesn't, I was just talking about why the government may have taken interest in this person, and not on countless other accounts with similar views.

From my understanding its because the account claims to be an employee of USCIS.

They offered their own theory as to why all of a sudden: https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis/status/850186120776306688

For some reason, this post is being flagged off the home page. 106 points in 1 hour and it currently sits in the 16th position. Curious no?

hard to confirm http://hnrankings.info/14053958/

HN hates being reminded of politics, even when the news directly concerns the Silicon Valley.

Too busy to change the world to pay attention to it.

Looking at some of the comments I can see why. Apparently it's hard to stick to facts when emotional politics get involved.

Isn't this exactly what security and privacy experts have been warning about for years?

Meta question here. What, in legal fees, does a company like twitter with high priced counsel pay for this type of action? Initially and let's say over the course that it will run?

I've been on the offensive side in a lawsuit a couple of times and have spent between 50K and 100K each time, but this was in Europe, and with weaker defendants so I expect it to be easily a multiple in these cases.

So was the user(s) of the account leaking information illegally or not? May not have any bearing on this, but it seems everyone is glossing over that question for some reason. It's either a dissenter of which there are many, or someone breaking the law and we should probably establish which.

The request for the user's details from the government doesn't allege illegal leaking of information, so why is that relevant?

It's relevant because many are jumping on the Twitter is right bandwagon so I'm wondering what information they have that I don't yet.

If it's not a legal matter, is it the DHS trying to find and discipline the employee(s) for the alleged deeds?

If they had any such information logically they would have presented it to a court of law. The inference that we the citizenry and indeed that a court of law ought to draw is that no such evidence exists.

Certainly the governments lawyers aren't morons. Had they had such an easy route to take they wouldn't be attempting to misuse the law this way.

If you're so concerned that the Trump administration is actually doing the right thing here and they are being inappropriately maligned, you can certainly go look at the legal request and check for yourself on what grounds it was made. You don't need to wildly cast about searching for/inventing some reason the government is right -- they are supposed to do that themselves and write it up in a public legal document, it's called the rule of law.

That still doesn't explain how whether or not the user was illegally leaking documents is relevant. The request has nothing to do with that. You can read it yourself.

I'm truly tempted to claim that I'm the suspect. Thinking if it's worth creating more accounts.

Does anyone have valid counter arguments to the plaintiff's?

I would imagine the government's case will center around a small number of tweets which they will claim "leaked" confidential information.

If they can show probable cause that the owner of the account broke federal law, they have legal grounds to demand Twitter release his information.

But unless he has released classified information via the account, I'm not sure what law they'll be able to allege he violated.

Except this isn't supposed to be investigating a leak, they're using a tool designed to ensure proper tax on imports.

19 USC 1509 has a catchall that extends the SHS's authority to compel documents to "insuring compliance with the laws of the United States administered by the United States Customs Service." [1]

It's definitely a stretch.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509

> If they can show probable cause that the owner of the account broke federal law, they have legal grounds to demand Twitter release his information.

They have a legal mechanism, too. It's called a subpoena. If I understand correctly, they didn't use that here.

Subpoenas are only available for investigations pertaining to an open court case.

Then file one.

Look, I care about limiting the power of the Federal government to the parameters outlined in the law and the Constitution. I do not care how hard that makes their lives. I do not care that it crimps their ability to go get any information that they want. They have rules that their supposed to follow. If they want the information, they should go follow them.

It isn't that hard to open a court case with a TBD defendant. If the USG thought they could get a subpoena, I have every faith that they could have figured it out.

If they could show probable cause, then they'd already have a warrant. They don't.

Does anyone have a source (article) that states whether these Twitter accounts were created via Tor?

I could have sworn I read that they were, but can't seem to find a reference anymore.

Who would know besides twitter and the account owner?

The Streisand effect at work.

They should have been doing this long before Trump and the "Red Scare." Twitter has been around since the Patriot Act, and they never once backed down from Obama's administration which saw massive overreach by the Federal Govt that would make Bush Jr. blush.

Where was Twitter then?

This isn't some generic political stance Twitter is taking, it is challenging a specific CBP order directed at Twitter. So which specific incident(s) relating to Twitter during Obama's administration are you referring to? Otherwise this seems like the typical "but Obama" handwaving.

Side note, I think you're using "backing down" in the opposite sense of how it's meant to be used. Saying they "never backed down" means they took a strong stand.

There is a difference between national security (even if its bs) and citizens exercising their right to complain about government policy?

The claim of national security can't hold any weight if its bs else any matter you can imagine could become a matter of national security.

> The claim of national security can't hold any weight if its bs else any matter you can imagine could become a matter of national security.

Good luck convincing the government of that. We are past that event horizon. xD

This is flat out wrong, see https://blog.twitter.com/2014/taking-the-fight-for-transpare... and also Twitter v. Lynch (http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020151015883/TWITT...).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com