Tag: social media

California Appeals Court Limits Privacy Rights of Online Messages

A legal battle, seen as a major privacy rights issue, came down to the extent to which the Stored Communications Act (SCA) protects user data, and is now headed to the Supreme Court of California.

This comes after the California Court of Appeal ruled in the Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court case that the majority of remotely stored messages are not covered by the Act’s law designed to prevent unlawful access to stored communications – Section 2702.

The CSA is there to stop platforms that provide online communications and storage from sharing contents of users’ online accounts (messages, emails, photos…). There are some exceptions in the legislation itself, e.g., unless the government obtains a warrant, that sets the bar relatively high.

But now, it looks like Big Tech’s “standard” business model – exploiting user data for massive profits – is coming back to haunt those users in yet another way.

Namely, the California Court of Appeal has found that if providers of that stored user data already have access to it, in order to monetize this content, then that content is effectively already disclosed and CSA has no business trying to protect it.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

And if this ruling stands, then tech companies can be asked to turn over user data without a warrant – a subpoena, the civil variety included – could potentially suffice.

Keep reading

UK Man Arrested For Social Media Posts Containing “Anti-Establishment Rhetoric”

The BBC reports that a 40-year-old man has been arrested and criminally charged for social media posts that contained “anti-establishment rhetoric.”

Yes, really.

Wayne O’Rourke becomes the latest example of the wave of authoritarian hysteria to impact free speech in the UK following the recent anti-mass migration riots.

O’Rourke was arrested on Sunday in connection with “posts made from a social media account,” according to Lincolnshire Police.

“Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard the posts were alleged to contain anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric,” reports the BBC.

O’Rourke had nearly 100,000 followers on X and predicted his own arrest days beforehand.

So now apparently posting “anti-establishment rhetoric” in the United Kingdom is enough to get you locked up.

The report does not give any specifics of what the thought criminal actually posted, but he had “allegedly expressed support for the recent riots and offered advice on how to remain anonymous to his 90,000 followers.”

Keep reading

US Court Reimposes “Disinformation” Device Monitoring on January 6 Defendant

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has issued an order in the United States v. Daniel Goodwyn case reimposing the computer monitoring measure against Goodwyn, a January 6 defendant.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

Goodwyn was charged and convicted for briefly entering the US Capitol during the January 6 events, and although he stayed inside the building for just over half a minute, left when he was asked to, was not involved in violence nor did he cause any damage – it was his social media posts (among others, screenshot of public documents that show names of government employees) that were seen as a threat.

In initial proceedings in 2023, Goodwyn pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of trespassing. As legal experts noted, normally a first-time offender isn’t sent to jail for this, but the US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Reggie Walton sentenced him to two months in prison.

This was accompanied by probation conditions that included unusually harsh and ongoing restrictions on Goodwyn’s online speech and access to information. Walton – a vocal critic of Donald Trump decided that Goodwyn’s computer must be “monitored and inspected” to make sure he was not “spreading disinformation.”

The appellate court then found that the district court “plainly erred” by imposing these surveillance measures. Judge Walton next decided that now, “on the heels of [sic] another election,” he was worried Goodwyn was spreading “false narratives” and therefore affirmed his original sentencing.

Keep reading

Secret Service Agent Partly Responsible for Security Planning at Butler Rally Under Internal Investigation for Leaking ‘Videos and Photos from Her Protective Assignments’ to Social Media: Report

A Secret Service special agent, who was partially responsible for planning security at the Butler, Pennsylvania rally where President Trump was nearly assassinated, is under internal investigation for allegedly leaking sensitive videos and photos from her protective assignments to social media.

According to RealClearPolitics (RCP) correspondent Susan Crabtree, the female agent served as the official site agent for the July 13 event in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a rallygoer, Corey Comperatore, was tragically murdered in front of his family.

An analysis of the agent’s Facebook account revealed a photo seemingly taken from Mar-a-Lago, captioned with a cheery message: “A sunset to be grateful for …” accompanied by heart and sunset emojis and hashtags like “#nofilter #southflorida #thankful #workmode.”

“Sources familiar with the videos said most appeared on the agent’s Instagram account, which is marked private,” Crabtree wrote on X.

More from RealClearPolitics:

Sources within the Secret Service say the site agent was inexperienced for such a critical security role but noted that the position is rotated throughout the Trump detail, not routinely assigned based on merit or experience.

There is now concern within the agency that the site agent for the Butler rally will take the fall for the event’s egregious layers of security failures – that Rowe will fire her over her social media posts, but not for any security failures at the July 13 event.

In contrast, the lead agent had decades of experience within the Secret Service but did not have experience on a protective detail, the innermost ring of security for presidents, first ladies, former presidents, and their families, according to sources in the Secret Service community familiar with her background.

While the months of rancor and recriminations leading up to the assassination attempt against Trump undoubtedly distracted the Trump detail from its ultimate mission, the Butler rally served as a wake -up call and a reset, according to sources close to Curran.

“Sone agents have referred to it as their 9/11 moment where people are opting back onto the detail,” remarked a source in the Secret Service community. “Morale is high, people are motivated. These agents [protecting Trump] are stiff-jawed with steel in their spine.”

This incident is not an isolated case but rather part of a broader pattern of dysfunction within the Secret Service detail assigned to Trump, according to Crabtree.

Keep reading

Musk Says Massive Cyberattack Delayed Trump Interview

Elon Musk’s planned Aug. 12 interview with Former President Donald Trump hit a roadblock after the owner said the site was facing a distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attack, preventing the X Space from going live.

“There appears to be a massive DDOS attack on X. Working on shutting it down,” Musk, the owner of X, said in a post.

“Worst case, we will proceed with a smaller number of live listeners and post the conversation later.”

Nearly 40 minutes past the planned start time, Musk’s voice finally broadcast in the Spaces room dedicated to the interview with more than a million users listening live.

Musk said the attack demonstrated that there are those who want to prevent the public hearing from Trump.

Twitter tested its Spaces platform with 8 million concurrent users earlier in the day, according to Musk.

Keep reading

Starmer’s Push to Police “Fake News” Sparks Major Censorship Concerns

Under proposals currently being considered, the Labour Party, led by the new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, plans to compel tech companies to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms. These measures, initiated in response to recent riots, have sparked controversy over potential infringements on free speech.

Keir Starmer, addressing these concerns last Friday, indicated that the government would reassess social media regulations to deter future disturbances. The Telegraph has reported that part of this reevaluation involves imposing obligations on social media entities to curb “legal but harmful” content. This would obligate platforms to limit or remove content spreading false information about various sensitive subjects, including asylum seekers and self-harm, irrespective of its legality.

Critics, however, have voiced apprehensions that these measures could suppress free expression. They argue that this demonstrates a more authoritarian inclination within Sir Keir’s Labour Party, potentially undermining foundational free speech principles by extensively policing speech that does not necessarily violate laws.

The discord has also touched upon interactions between the Prime Minister and Elon Musk, owner of X, especially regarding the handling of the riots. This proposed regulatory push would likely be incorporated into a broader review of the Online Safety Act enacted last year.

Originally, the Act included provisions to address “legal but harmful” content but was amended due to free speech concerns, eliminating such clauses after pushback. Critics had worried that these provisions might enable future governments to censor contentious viewpoints.

Keep reading

Free Speech is Under Siege in Starmer’s UK

The UK is currently experiencing a massive attack on free speech, spearheaded by new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is encouraging police to use the full force of controversial British laws to crack down on social media posts.

The push for more online censorship has spanned many years, and different governments in the UK have gained new momentum with the recent protests and riots.

Emboldened by the crisis, officials seem to be using it to step up the already existing, multi-year effort to get social media companies to “cooperate” with the authorities.

It has now emerged that the government in London has started flagging content it deems to be “misinformation” – but also something referred to as “concerning content.”

X is among those who have been asked to remove posts which British officials consider to threaten the country’s national security; and while reports say Google, Meta, and TikTok are complying with these demands, X is said to be resisting them.

The accusations that social sites are “providing a platform for hate” while allegedly unaccountable for that is coming from cabinet members and MPs alike.

Science, Innovation, and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has revealed that he and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper are working to get content they consider “harmful” removed from the internet.

Recent actions in the UK regarding the apprehension of individuals for disseminating “incorrect information” highlight a concerning trend that threatens the very core of free speech—a foundational pillar of Western democracies.

These developments suggest an alarming escalation in government and law enforcement involvement in regulating online speech, which traditionally enjoys broad protections under democratic norms.

The use of existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 1986, to arrest individuals for their online speech is deeply troubling to civil liberties groups.

Keep reading

The GARMs Race: The House Moves Forward With its Investigation of Blacklisting Company

We have been discussing media rating systems being used to target advertisers and revenue sources for certain cites and companies. NewsGuard and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) have been criticized as the most sophisticated components of a modern blacklisting system targeting conservative or dissenting voices. I recently had a series of exchanges with NewsGuard after a critical column.  Now, the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is moving forward in demanding documents and records from leading companies utilizing the GARM system, a company that I have previously criticized. It is a welcomed effort for anyone who is concerned over the use of these blacklisting systems to curtail free speech. However, time is of the essence.

The demand to preserve evidence went to various companies, including Adidas, American Express, Bayer, BP, Carhartt, Chanel, CVS and General Motors.

In my new book, I discuss the rating systems as a new and insidious form of blacklisting. Notably, Elon Musk has now filed a lawsuit against GARM and may be able to get more evidence out in discovery on the operations of this outfit.

It is an effort to strangle the financial life out of sites by targeting their donors and advertisers.  This is where the left has excelled beyond anything that has come before in speech crackdowns.

Years ago, I wrote about the Biden administration supporting efforts like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) to discourage advertisers from supporting certain sites. All of the 10 riskiest sites targeted by the index were popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. That included Reason.org and a group of libertarian and conservative law professors who simply write about cases and legal controversies. GDI warned advertisers against “financially supporting disinformation online.” At the same time, HuffPost, a far-left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.

Keep reading

Are we being watched?

Ashadowy state agency with no statutory footing, previously used to monitor perfectly lawful yet dissenting speech during the Covid lockdowns, has been deployed by the Labour Government to monitor social media amid ongoing civil unrest across the UK.

The Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), now rebranded as the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT), has been given the task just months after the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee questioned “the lack of transparency and accountability of [NSOIT] and the appropriateness of its reach”, and recommended that the Government commission an independent review of “the activities and strategy” of the unit to report back within 12 months.

Peter Kyle, Labour’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has tasked NSOIT with monitoring online activity following the outbreak of widespread public disorder in the wake of the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport on 29th July.

David Davis, the Conservative MP who previously called for the CDU to be shut down, told the Telegraph he had no real objection to the unit being used to monitor social media during the riots because “it’s perfectly legitimate for the state to monitor things that might incite violence”. 

That’s true, of course – but the question is whether in doing so NSOIT will also be monitoring and flagging for removal online posts that fall well within the law.

Last year, a report by Big Brother Watch unmasked the scale of the digital surveillance system established during the Covid lockdowns, with the government now able to call upon at least three domestic surveillance units, all of which have previously been tasked with monitoring social media posts in the UK, flagging “misleading” content to their Whitehall paymasters who then urge tech platforms to remove them.

These units are the NSOIT in DCMS, the Intelligence and Communications Unit in the Home Office, the Cabinet Office’s Rapid Response Unit (since disbanded, according to the government) and the 77th Brigade, a combined Regular and Army reserve unit within the Ministry of Defence.

NSOIT was originally established to fight what the government calls “disinformation”. 

Keep reading

World Federation of Advertisers shuts down GARM project after Elon Musk, Rumble sue over ad boycott

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media has decided to “discontinue activities” after a lawsuit filed against them by Elon Musk’s X and the Rumble platform. The group was under fire for antitrust violations after they had orchestrated ad boycotts of both platforms using their monopoly. 

The House Judiciary said this was a “Big win for the First Amendment” and a “Big win for oversight.” The House Committee brought questions about GARM, their monopoly on advertisers, and their use of that monopoly to influence online speech to a hearing. 

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski simply wanted to know “what are they hiding?” He has been forthcoming in discussing the ad boycott of his platform.

Keep reading