The ongoing saga over the Twitter subpoenas in the Occupy New York criminal case just entered another round as Twitter appealed the previous court’s ruling regarding turning over Malcolm Harris’ tweets. I’ve written about the story before (here and here) but this latest round of papers has some interesting arguments.
There are two main parts of Twitter appeal: one deals with the ability of Twitter or the user to respond to the subpoena, an issue I discussed earlier and not as interesting as the other; the second issue deals with the reasonable expectation of privacy in tweets. If you want to read all of Twitter’s appeal, here’s the full document. But I’ll be going over the most interesting part about expectations of privacy.
First, a quick primer. Harris was arrested as part of the Occupy New York march that ended up obstructing traffic on a bridge. He…
View original post 956 more words