This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
As I understand it, twin tools of McCarthyism were (1) overreach of subpoenas (for which see article main page); (2) 'loyalty' investigations, for which see Presidential Executive Office memorandum advocating the use of psychologists to profile grumpiness as a gauge of trustworthiness (sic). http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/OMB_Wiki_memo.pdf (p.6). If one Googles 'McCarthyism Twitter Subpoena' this connection has been drawn more than once. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
One of these editors and I have a more than healthy and ongoing relationship, with the occasional POV flare-up, but mutual, I think, respect. You are the other editor. Please respond to points raised supra under WP:AGF. Another editor tacitly accepted the point so that's 2 vs 2, with one editor providing reasoning supra. I have reduced my illustrative waffle to make point more succinct. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I also think one of the two editors against inclusion removed the section "The information demanded included names, addresses, telephone numbers, bank account details, credit card numbers, as well as destination email addresses and IP addresses associated with any communications stored for these accounts, thus implicating also all those who follow WikiLeaks' 'so-called tweets'" claiming it was not in the references, which I believe it is (though please let me know otherwise if not), so perhaps he is not yet fully informed of such issues. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand from the WP:See also policy that 'Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question' and that 'Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous.'
I'm therefore proposing to add once again McCarthyism, since Iceland politicians have reacted to alleged overreach re subpoenas, with the annotation '- an instance of the overreach of subpoenas'. Is that acceptable to all? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And there was me thinking I was but feeding the WP:Ducks BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
McCarthyism - current use - 'subverting civil rights in the name of national security' BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 14:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Twitter's decision to notify its users of the subpoena attracted considerable media attention; appears to be original research. None of the cited sources directly make this point. Instead there are "media attention" on the issue. I may have missed the specific cite that support this because they are all fairly lengthy - so if this is correctly cited, sorry. Otherwise it should be removed. -- Errant ( chat!) 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point, thank you, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 12:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Should this be Twitter Subpoena? Or Twitter WikiLeaks Subpoena? Or what? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was Twitter the only company to challenge the secret WikiLeaks subpoena? This article gives some more (speculative) depth in judging why Twitter seems to be setting a precedent: http://www.fastcompany.com/1716100/why-twitter-was-the-only-company-to-challenge-the-secret-wikileaks-subpoena Boud ( talk) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
NYT article on how '1986 Privacy Law is Outrun by the Web' http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/technology/10privacy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/judge-denies-on-twitter-case/
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Judge-Rules-in-Wikileaks-Twitter-Access-117853068.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12720631
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=twitter+subpoena&oq=twitter+su
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
WikiLeaks-related Twitter subpoenas → WikiLeaks-related Twitter court orders – The orders were issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) with corresponding 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) gag orders, and were not subpoenas or national security letters.
18 USC 2703(b)(1)(B) clearly differentiates between (i) "an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena" and (ii) "a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section". The order unsealing the gag order clearly identifies the subject of the gag order as a 18 USC 2703(d) order, and the subsequent appellate decision in the case clearly does as well:
Another court opinion goes into the subject as well, but does not discuss subpoenas or national security letters (other than in passing). Because they are different.
Clearly, it is this order to unseal that the news articles are referring. It is clear that this order to unseal is about a 18 USC 2703(d) order. It is clear there is a difference between these orders, subpoenas and national security letters. Therefore this page should be moved. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) -- Int21h ( talk) 06:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Orin Kerr (in the Volokh Conspiracy) also says as much: "The 'subpoenas' used in this case are actuallly 2703(d) orders, issued under 18 U.S.C. 2703(d), part of the Stored Communications Act." Int21h ( talk) 07:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC) This DOJ document explains that 2703(d) orders are different than subpoenas: they can do more. Int21h ( talk) 07:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There are a bunch of different types of methods that the government can use, and it seems much of the media has confused them. Its understandable, as the law is the set of books that everyone has supposedly memorized, yet very few could afford to buy, and even fewer have actually read. Here is a rundown of what I understand about the types of orders available:
There is a weird commingling of relevant statutes, much of them, in true Orwellian fashion, contained within the so-called Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but suffice to say, up until a few years ago, this was not common knowledge. And suffice to say, it is hard to succinctly identify these orders while not loosing the reader in a web of laws. (Just be lucky this isn't the UK; and unlike the UK, that we have a single, easily referenced legal code, without copyright criminal penalties attached to its distribution!) As such, outside of the initial mention, I think we should think about just leaving the rest of the article to refer to them as subpoenas, as it may not be strictly correct, its likely to be referred to as such is most of the sources, and its easier for the reader to instantly know to which we are referring. Int21h ( talk) 03:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
As I understand it, twin tools of McCarthyism were (1) overreach of subpoenas (for which see article main page); (2) 'loyalty' investigations, for which see Presidential Executive Office memorandum advocating the use of psychologists to profile grumpiness as a gauge of trustworthiness (sic). http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/OMB_Wiki_memo.pdf (p.6). If one Googles 'McCarthyism Twitter Subpoena' this connection has been drawn more than once. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
One of these editors and I have a more than healthy and ongoing relationship, with the occasional POV flare-up, but mutual, I think, respect. You are the other editor. Please respond to points raised supra under WP:AGF. Another editor tacitly accepted the point so that's 2 vs 2, with one editor providing reasoning supra. I have reduced my illustrative waffle to make point more succinct. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I also think one of the two editors against inclusion removed the section "The information demanded included names, addresses, telephone numbers, bank account details, credit card numbers, as well as destination email addresses and IP addresses associated with any communications stored for these accounts, thus implicating also all those who follow WikiLeaks' 'so-called tweets'" claiming it was not in the references, which I believe it is (though please let me know otherwise if not), so perhaps he is not yet fully informed of such issues. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand from the WP:See also policy that 'Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question' and that 'Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous.'
I'm therefore proposing to add once again McCarthyism, since Iceland politicians have reacted to alleged overreach re subpoenas, with the annotation '- an instance of the overreach of subpoenas'. Is that acceptable to all? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And there was me thinking I was but feeding the WP:Ducks BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 05:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
McCarthyism - current use - 'subverting civil rights in the name of national security' BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 14:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Twitter's decision to notify its users of the subpoena attracted considerable media attention; appears to be original research. None of the cited sources directly make this point. Instead there are "media attention" on the issue. I may have missed the specific cite that support this because they are all fairly lengthy - so if this is correctly cited, sorry. Otherwise it should be removed. -- Errant ( chat!) 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point, thank you, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 12:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Should this be Twitter Subpoena? Or Twitter WikiLeaks Subpoena? Or what? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was Twitter the only company to challenge the secret WikiLeaks subpoena? This article gives some more (speculative) depth in judging why Twitter seems to be setting a precedent: http://www.fastcompany.com/1716100/why-twitter-was-the-only-company-to-challenge-the-secret-wikileaks-subpoena Boud ( talk) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
NYT article on how '1986 Privacy Law is Outrun by the Web' http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/technology/10privacy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/judge-denies-on-twitter-case/
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Judge-Rules-in-Wikileaks-Twitter-Access-117853068.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12720631
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=twitter+subpoena&oq=twitter+su
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
WikiLeaks-related Twitter subpoenas → WikiLeaks-related Twitter court orders – The orders were issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) with corresponding 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) gag orders, and were not subpoenas or national security letters.
18 USC 2703(b)(1)(B) clearly differentiates between (i) "an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena" and (ii) "a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section". The order unsealing the gag order clearly identifies the subject of the gag order as a 18 USC 2703(d) order, and the subsequent appellate decision in the case clearly does as well:
Another court opinion goes into the subject as well, but does not discuss subpoenas or national security letters (other than in passing). Because they are different.
Clearly, it is this order to unseal that the news articles are referring. It is clear that this order to unseal is about a 18 USC 2703(d) order. It is clear there is a difference between these orders, subpoenas and national security letters. Therefore this page should be moved. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) -- Int21h ( talk) 06:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Orin Kerr (in the Volokh Conspiracy) also says as much: "The 'subpoenas' used in this case are actuallly 2703(d) orders, issued under 18 U.S.C. 2703(d), part of the Stored Communications Act." Int21h ( talk) 07:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC) This DOJ document explains that 2703(d) orders are different than subpoenas: they can do more. Int21h ( talk) 07:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There are a bunch of different types of methods that the government can use, and it seems much of the media has confused them. Its understandable, as the law is the set of books that everyone has supposedly memorized, yet very few could afford to buy, and even fewer have actually read. Here is a rundown of what I understand about the types of orders available:
There is a weird commingling of relevant statutes, much of them, in true Orwellian fashion, contained within the so-called Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but suffice to say, up until a few years ago, this was not common knowledge. And suffice to say, it is hard to succinctly identify these orders while not loosing the reader in a web of laws. (Just be lucky this isn't the UK; and unlike the UK, that we have a single, easily referenced legal code, without copyright criminal penalties attached to its distribution!) As such, outside of the initial mention, I think we should think about just leaving the rest of the article to refer to them as subpoenas, as it may not be strictly correct, its likely to be referred to as such is most of the sources, and its easier for the reader to instantly know to which we are referring. Int21h ( talk) 03:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)