Will Twitter demand government transparency in court?
Twitter has come out announcing that it is looking into the legal ramifications of divulging more information to the public about the kinds of requests it receives from the government.
February 07, 2014 at 04:30 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Since the leaks concerning the U.S. National Security Agency's data collection practices arrived on the desks of Americans — and eventually on the rest of the world's last June — technology companies have felt the heat from users and investors alike to confront the surveillance tactics of the government and properly disclose requests to users. Various household-name companies have come forth to ask for the allowance to disclose more transparently the requests the government makes for user data, hoping to quell the fears of angry users. But the road towards transparency will be a long one. And Twitter — having just recently launched itself as a public company — is finding no less of an issue at hand considering the legal steps needed to assuage user and investor worries about their data collection.
Twitter has come out announcing that it is looking into the legal ramifications of divulging more information to the public about the kinds of requests it receives from the government. With its latest transparency report — showing a 66 percent increase in requests according to The Guardian – it has declared that the allowances currently allotted by the U.S. Department of Justice are not sufficient for providing the public with an accurate picture of the government's data collection practices, nor does it reinforce the effort to be transparent with users.
Jeremy Kessel, Twitter's global legal policy manager wrote in a blog post: “We think the government's restriction on our speech not only unfairly impacts our users' privacy, but also violates our First Amendment right to free expression and open discussion of government affairs…We have pressed the US Department of Justice to allow greater transparency, and proposed future disclosures concerning national security requests that would be more meaningful to Twitter's users…We are also considering legal options we may have to seek to defend our First Amendment rights.”
These are some of the most aggressive words that have been officially issued by a technology company in such a public spotlight. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Microsoft have also all asked for more transparency allowances from the government, but none have threatened legal action. Whether or not Twitter is blowing smoke remains to be seen.
Further reading:
Since the leaks concerning the U.S. National Security Agency's data collection practices arrived on the desks of Americans — and eventually on the rest of the world's last June — technology companies have felt the heat from users and investors alike to confront the surveillance tactics of the government and properly disclose requests to users. Various household-name companies have come forth to ask for the allowance to disclose more transparently the requests the government makes for user data, hoping to quell the fears of angry users. But the road towards transparency will be a long one. And Twitter — having just recently launched itself as a public company — is finding no less of an issue at hand considering the legal steps needed to assuage user and investor worries about their data collection.
Twitter has come out announcing that it is looking into the legal ramifications of divulging more information to the public about the kinds of requests it receives from the government. With its latest transparency report — showing a 66 percent increase in requests according to The Guardian – it has declared that the allowances currently allotted by the U.S. Department of Justice are not sufficient for providing the public with an accurate picture of the government's data collection practices, nor does it reinforce the effort to be transparent with users.
Jeremy Kessel, Twitter's global legal policy manager wrote in a blog post: “We think the government's restriction on our speech not only unfairly impacts our users' privacy, but also violates our First Amendment right to free expression and open discussion of government affairs…We have pressed the US Department of Justice to allow greater transparency, and proposed future disclosures concerning national security requests that would be more meaningful to Twitter's users…We are also considering legal options we may have to seek to defend our First Amendment rights.”
These are some of the most aggressive words that have been officially issued by a technology company in such a public spotlight.
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute readEx-Twitter Exec Sues for $20M, Says Musk Fired Her as 'Petty Retribution'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250