Twitter surrenders Occupy protester's details to government

Whether you were up for Occupying Wall Street or not, there were lots of people doing it around this time last year. Twitter was one of the big hubs for occupiers, and the site impressed civil liberties groups by fighting for a protester's privacy.

Malcolm Harris, better known as @destructuremal, is the man the entire story revolves around. Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. twisted Twitter's arm to make them hand over Harris' details, earlier this week. Twitter got to choose between handing over the data in three days, or being fined for contempt of court. Oh, and he'd need their financial results for the last two quarters to decide the fine.

The New York Post suggested Twitter would tweet to the judge's tune, having no other option apart from financial ruination. Malcolm Harris' records will remain sealed until his own legal team appeals next week, so this could go on yet. One of his own tweets indicates a lot.


Some people are likely readying themselves against Twitter for "selling out to The Man, man", but the charges against Harris are surprisingly minor. He's being charged with disorderly conduct, which has a maximum fine of $250. Alongside 700 other people he was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge last October.

Twitter has to be respected for fighting for Harris' rights. Forced into the dictionary definition of "Hobson's choice", the site did the only thing they could. $250 isn't ridiculous but Sciarrino must know the blow financial results would have, ensuring the illusion of choice remained an illusion.

Source: Slate
Image: Public Intelligence

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Bell Mobility releasing two WP8 phones, no Lumia 920

Next Story

Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition delayed to November

14 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Ha! Here I thought they'd never find one dumber than the "wood chopper"! Don't forget who writes the bills, passes the laws, and signs the checks.. Didn't accomplish a dang thing in two years. Now whose fault is that? Mission accomplished, you swallowed it.

Azies said,
Obama Administration, more Bush than Bush ever was.

Riiiight. You really don't understand how our government works, do you? Because if you did, you'd be able to see the difference.

excalpius said,

Riiiight. You really don't understand how our government works, do you? Because if you did, you'd be able to see the difference.

the difference is that Obama is worse

tHaCuBe said,

the difference is that Obama is worse

Worse than standing in front of the world and smirk then say "we'll smoke em out"? Or was it that you liked the fact that the world looked at Americans like absolute tards for electing someone (twice) who couldn't speak eloquently and was despised internationally including our NATO allies? Or maybe you like being lied to and have our boys sent into illegal endless wars that are bankrupting this country in the name of oil? Or perhaps you genuinely believe that giving the richest people the biggest tax cuts will actually "trickle down" to you? No I know, I bet it was taking a budgetary surplus and massive economic prosperity and turning if around to a massive recession to start wars and make your friends rich. Yeah, I bet that was it.

Tim Dawg said,
...into illegal endless wars that are bankrupting this country in the name of oil...

Like Afghanistan? That's full of oil! Or maybe Libya, who was already exporting and the military action dramatically reduced output. Or Iraq, that was great for the economy!

Sorry, but that is one hippy conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Martin5000 said,

Like Afghanistan? That's full of oil! Or maybe Libya, who was already exporting and the military action dramatically reduced output. Or Iraq, that was great for the economy!

Sorry, but that is one hippy conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Too bad you both are generalizing things way too much. Iraq has oil, yes. But that's not all it was about. Oil lines are another. The fact that we sold Saddam the exact same weapons we were 'looking' for. Showing daddy what he could do is another. Believe it or not - Osama hated Saddam as much as he hated us. Saddam was an infidel and occupied a holy land according to the extremists and would have no dealing with Saddam. That's Iraq.

Afghanistan has what? Not oil, but minerals resources. Why in the hell do you think Russia invaded them? Why would a world superpower (Russia at that time) invade such an out-of-the-way country like Afghanistan? What could possibly be there to make them invade? There's a lot in Afghanistan worth fighting over for both sides. However, it's not ours to take. We are failing just as Russia did. It's just taking our idiots in power a lot longer to come to sudden clarity. Furthermore, we're fighting multiple groups there - most of whom are nothing but common drug cartels. Only two factions are actual extremist groups and it's not who you think it is. The Taliban? Drug dealers. There's one off your list - we're turning them into extremists.

Libya? We're not at war there yet so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. Yes, there are 1,500 Marines and a couple ships there but that's it. If you think that's a lot - you need to do something real in this world an strap on some tan boots and a uniform. Call Of Duty isn't real life despite what you may think.

- Veteran, US Army

Good for twitter putting up a fight, not much a corporation (protecting shareholders interests) can do when faced with a fine that depends on your last two quaters

Neowin ought to get someone like Jake Appelbaum to write for this site, I doubt people know much about the privacy side of things unless they are into politics too, hence the reason so many use Chrome.

zikalify said,
Neowin ought to get someone like Jake Appelbaum to write for this site, I doubt people know much about the privacy side of things unless they are into politics too, hence the reason so many use Chrome.
So if I understand your post you're saying using Chrome is dangerous to your privacy? Are you saying that because of Googles legendary data collection used to effectively target advertisements (or so they say) or is it another reason? Chrome has historically shown to be more attack resistant than IE, Safari, and FF so from a hacker/identity theft prospective I'd think it's safer. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your post in which I'll ask you to clarify.

Tim Dawg said,
So if I understand your post you're saying using Chrome is dangerous to your privacy? Are you saying that because of Googles legendary data collection used to effectively target advertisements (or so they say) or is it another reason? Chrome has historically shown to be more attack resistant than IE, Safari, and FF so from a hacker/identity theft prospective I'd think it's safer. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your post in which I'll ask you to clarify.

There are many "claimed" exploits for chrome and a few proven exploits, I don't care if it has 1 exploit or 100 exploits, 1 is all hackers need, therefore I would never call chrome "safer".