Comments on: OWS protestor doesn’t own his tweets, judge rules

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:34:27 +0000

“The widely believed … notion” – isn’t that pretty much the definition of “reasonable expectation”?

“While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet. ” The judge needs to read the amendment – it says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” Physical homes is only one of those four.

By: Bryan Hayes

Bryan Hayes — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:20:24 +0000

I bet if someone went on twitter and started making “terroristic threats” the court wouldn’t be claiming that the person posting the tweets was not the owner. On the contrary…they would be INSISTING that that person MUST take ownership and responsibility for what they posted.

So, the moral of the story here is that a person only owns their tweets when it is convenient for the government to take that position.

By: Jeff John Roberts

Jeff John Roberts — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:41:57 +0000

No, the defendant would still have copyright in his tweets.. He can assert it against you or me (but not against the judge or prosecutors)

By: Saran Sahaj

Saran Sahaj — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:36:24 +0000

Doesn’t this mean there are no intellectual property rights online?

By: pmiddy

pmiddy — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:23:35 +0000

tweets aren’t entirely public. I have my twitter account locked down and only allow people I actually know to follow me. Granted, it’s still going through a 3rd-party, so they are public-y, but I have control over who gets them.

By: djx

djx — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:46:16 +0000

This is a strange ruling. I can understand the lack of 4th Amendment protections against reading the tweets, but it seems the judge has overreached in saying the tweets are not owned by the defendant.

By: Jeff John Roberts

Jeff John Roberts — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:44:50 +0000

Good point, Derrick. The ruling didn’t state what exactly the prosecutors wanted — DM’s or location are a good guess.

I agree that subpoenaing tweets are a waste of time/money. There is also a case that there shouldn’t be a privacy right in them as they are public to begin with. (but what about deleted tweets? which twitter probably keeps..)

By: Derrick

Derrick — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:28:26 +0000

I like how a state judge used hashtags to be cute. That’s not unprofessional. Of course not.

The article is unclear. Are they trying to use his twitter account to track his physical locations at the time tweets were sent? Or they want to read is DM inbox?

These are important questions of privacy. But it seems to me that using these kinds of rulings to search TWEETS is a waste of everyone’s time and money. Tweets are already public.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:37:13 +0000

I’m wondering if the OWS protestor has in anyway copyright over his Tweets? Would he then be able to prevent others from using the Tweets without his permission?