WikiLeaks-related Twitter court orders

The WikiLeaks-related Twitter court orders were United States Department of Justice 2703(d) orders (called so because they are authorized by USC 18 2703(d)) accompanied by gag orders (authorized by USC 18 2705(b), both as differentiated from subpoenas and national security letters) issued to Twitter in relation to ongoing investigations of WikiLeaks issued on 14 December 2010.[1][2][3][4] The U.S. government sent Twitter a subpoena for information about Julian Assange and several other WikiLeaks-related persons, including Chelsea Manning. Twitter appealed against the accompanying gag order in order to be able to disclose its existence to its users, and was ultimately successful in its appeal.[5][6]

While only five people were individually named within the subpoena, according to lawyer Mark Stephens the order effectively entailed the collection of personal identifying information of over six hundred thousand Twitter users, principally those who were followers of WikiLeaks.[1][2][7][8] Subsequent reactions included the discussion of secret subpoenas in the U.S.,[9] criticism of the particular subpoena issued,[9][10][11] and calls for the recognition and emulation of Twitter's stance.[12]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bloomberg_subpoena was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b "Twitter Subpoena" (PDF). Salon. 17 January 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 January 2011. Retrieved 10 January 2011.
  3. ^ Kerr, Orin (11 January 2011). "2703(d) Orders in the News — No, Really". Volokh Conspiracy. Retrieved 21 May 2014.
  4. ^ McCullagh, Declan (7 January 2014). "DOJ sends order to Twitter for WikiLeaks-related account info". CNET.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference wsj_twitterappeals was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference gonggrijp_unsealing_pdf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Whittaker, Zack (8 January 2011). "US Subpoenas Wikileaks Tweets, and Why This Could Affect You". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 12 January 2011. Retrieved 12 January 2011.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference smh_tw_subpoena was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NYT NM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference dw_iceland_reacts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference guardian_iceland_reacts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference wired_twitter_rulez was invoked but never defined (see the help page).