Siding with Wall Street, the New York City lawyers are demanding three months worth of information on Harris, issuing a subpoena to force Twitter to reveal the data.
But, “In a troubling ruling, a New York trial court found that Harris had no legal standing to challenge the subpoena because he didn’t own this data, said the EFF recently.
Harris filed a motionto quash the subpoena, but “ A New York criminal court judge has issued a decision denying Twitter’s motion to quash a court order requiring it to produce information about one of its users pursuant to a subpoena that the District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan issued in connection with the prosecution of an Occupy Wall Street protester,” says the ACLU.
“This decision is disappointingit says,. “But it’s not that surprising given that the court had already ruled on many of these issues when the user, Malcolm Harris, filed his own motion to quash. What is surprising, though, is that the court continued to fail to grapple with one of the key issues underlying this case: do individuals give up their ability to go to court to try to protect their free speech and privacy rights when they use the Internet?
“As we explained in our friend-of-the-court brief last month, the answer has to be no. The United States Supreme Court and courts around the country have repeatedly made clear that individuals whose constitutional rights are implicated by government requests for information to third parties (such as Twitter) have standing to challenge those third-party requests, and there’s no reason for the result to be different when Internet activities are at issue, regardless of whether individuals “own” their Internet speech or whether the Internet companies ‘own’ it.”