Note: Perhaps the headline of this article is a little sensational, but don’t overlook the “what if” part. I’m not suggesting Google has some plot to kill the web. However, many businesses rely on Google and people are freaking out about backlinks. Some are going so far as to threaten legal action if links are not removed. Links. If such legal action ever resulted in the outlawing of links in any capacity, the web as we know it could be put into great jeopardy. People would be afraid to link. I don’t think Google intends for anything like that to happen, but people don’t always respond to things in the most rational of ways. I don’t believe we will see links outlawed, or that the Penguin update will kill the web. However, reactions to Google penalties are leading to some pretty strong actions from some. Google has said on multiple occasions that it thinks the Penguin update has been a success. Do you agree? Let us know in the comments. PageRank And The Web WWW, as you may know, stands for World Wide Web. It’s a web because it it’s connected by links. Sites all over the web link to one another, creating a path for users to click from page to the next. Often those pages are to different sites. This is the way it has worked for years. Just think what it would be like if sites couldn’t freely link to one another. The web would be broken, and users would suffer. When Google launched with its PageRank algorithm, it was a revolution in search. It seemed to be a better way of doing search. It gave a rhyme and reason to the ranking of search results. Today, Google uses over 200 signals to rank its search results, which are becoming more personalized than ever before. PageRank still matters, but it’s far from the only thing that matters. Yet, it is PageRank that has given links on the web so much power to influence the visibility of web content. Now that just about everyone is on the web, everyone is fighting to have their content seen. Once upon a time, you would have thought: the more links the better. More links can only lead to more chances people will see your content. Now, somewhat ironically, people are finding that that the links they have out there are making their content less visible. In some cases, they’re making it practically non-existent in Google, or at least so buried, it might as well be non-existent. Freak Out Time? Google’s Penguin update has been a major wake up call to webmasters about certain kinds of linking practices. The update was designed to target sites violating Google’s quality guidelines. Among those guidelines are: “Don’t participate in link schemes” and “Avoid hidden text or hidden links.” Some of Google’s guidelines are obvious – avoid obviously unethical practices. But in the link schemes department, things can get a little blurry. Just ask WPMU.org, which got hit by Penguin over a few questionable links (interestingly enough, after seemingly benefiting from Google’s Panda update, designed to reward higher quality sites). A lot of webmasters have taken to the forums and blogs to complain about the Penguin update, but Google has, on more than on occasion, deemed the update a success. We’ll also be seeing it come back around every so often, much like its Panda predecessor. Even before Penguin, Google was sending out tons of messages to webmasters alerting them of questionable links. All of this has gotten webmasters in to a frenzy to clean-up their link profiles, and reduce the number of links Google considers to be of poor quality, in hopes that their content can find its way back into Google search visibility. Legal Action Over Links? Some webmasters have even gone so far as to threaten legal action over sites that are linking to them. We referenced this in another article after Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable mentioned that this was happening. Now, Greg Finn at Search Engine Land has pointed to a specific example where PSKL got a DMCA take down notice from LifeShield, after writing a positive review. Now, to be clear, this DMCA takedown notice is not in reference to any content theft or content use. It’s about links. It threatens legal action. It says: I request you to remove from following website (pskl.us) all links to www.lifeshield.com website as soon as possible. In order to find the links please do the following: 1) If this is an online website directory, use directory’s search system to find “LifeShield” links. 2) If there are hidden links in the source code of website, open website’s main page and view its source code. Search for “lifeshield.com” in the source code and you will see hidden links. It also says: LifeShield, Inc will be perusing legal action if the webmaster does not remove the referenced link within 48 hours. Jeremy at PSKL actually shares the entire conversation around the matter, which did include an apology, indicating that PSKL shouldn’t have been on the list of sites that received a notice. Jeremy, however, took issue that there was a list of sites getting such notices. Throughout the conversation, it is revealed that LifeShield had a site “cloak lifeshield and generate over 700K back links” without LifeShield’s knowledge, and that “Google stepped in and slapped” them with a penalty, which led to layoffs at the company. Jeremy responded with, “So you’re saying that somebody went out and bought 700K back links for you, knowing that it would get you penalized by Google? So does that mean you had (Company name) send out 700K DMCA notices? Talk about throwing good money after bad. Report the linkspam to the spam team at Google, then spend that money on an SEO expert rather than on trying to bully people with intimidation.” The response was actually longer than that, and included the metaphor of putting out a house fire with manure, but that was the main gist. I suggest reading Jeremy’s entire post. It’s pretty interesting. Is This Where The Web Should Go? He does make another important point in this: A party creating large quantities of backlinks to a site in order to generate SEO (or, in this case, destroy SEO) is unethical. It is not illegal. While many may not have a problem with such practices becoming illegal, it’s the idea that the law could intervene with linking in any form that could lead to greater problems. Just consider all fo the gray area there already is in fair use law. There will always be different interpretations, and that can get dangerous. For the record (granted, I’m no lawyer), I wouldn’t expect any legal action, such as that threatened in LifeShield’s DMCA notice to hold much water in a court of law. Finn also points to two cases (Ford Motor Company v. 2600 Enterprises) and (Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.), where the legality of linking prevailed. But even if things like this have to go to court, it’s going to be a major inconvenience, and legal fees will have to be paid. If sites practicing legitimate, ethical linking habits get caught up in this, where will that leave the web? Is this what linking on the World Wide Web will become? Will you have to worry about getting sued because you linked to a site, and that site may or may not find your site to be a strong enough site to desire a link from? Could you get sued because your page didn’t have a high enough PageRank, and not enough link juice to help the site you’re linking to in its search engine visibility? LifeShield seems to be targeting some very specific webspam, but sending out notices to a whole list of sites. It’s likely that LifeShield isn’t the only company panicing and resorting to such action. It’s unfortunate, for the company if some negative SEO (it’s unclear if this was from a competitor) was able to have such an impact on its business, as Jeremy suggests, this may not be the best way of trying to resolve the issue. Let’s Give Google Some Credit. You can point to Google’s guidelines and its algorithm updates, which clearly do cause some to think this way, but just the same, Google can’t be held entirely to blame for this kind of mentality either. The company has said in the past that people shouldn’t obsess with PageRank, and that it uses over 200 signals to rank content. PageRank is not the only thing that matters. In fact, the company puts out huge lists of signal changes every month. It shows the power over society that Google really holds though. It shows how much businesses rely on Google search that they will go so far as to threaten sites that are simply linking to them with legal action. Should such legal action ever lead to a victory in court, that could mean very bad news for the Web as we know it, and people could be afraid to link. I would imagine that would spawn more issues of sites not getting the credit (and possible referral traffic) they deserve. Do you think Google’s guidelines and penalties can have an influence on the law? Now that would be power, and made even more ironic still, by the fact that Google is constantly under scrutiny of its own. Share your thoughts in the comments. Image: Batman Returns (Warner Bros.)

As technologies have advanced, they have dramatically changed the way that we live and interact. We, as consumers, have become accustomed to the convenience, capabilities, and even the entertainment that they provide. But, should these same advantages be applied to other areas such as law enforcement? This topic has recently come up for debate after the FBI indicated that it is contemplating legislation that would require Internet firms to build backdoors into their services for government surveillance. The bureau is hoping to amend the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in order to require companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook to comply with federal wiretapping orders if the need arises. CALEA, in its current form, applies to telecommunications companies. It was amended in 2004 to also include broadband networks, but if the FBI’s effort works, it could also force Web companies to alter their code to ensure surveillance capabilities. “Basically, the FBI wants to amend CALEA to keep up with the changes in technology that have taken place over the last 18 years since CALEA became law,” Michael Donahue, partner at Marashlian & Donahue, LLC, tells WebProNews. In the past, the FBI has worked to develop independent solutions for these types of companies, explained Donahue. However, due to budget cuts, the funding for them no longer exists. These recent developments are part of the bureau’s mission to resolve, what it calls, its “Going Dark” problem. According to information released by the FBI, “Going Dark” refers to “law enforcement’s limited capability to comprehensively and lawfully collect data and information, conduct electronic surveillance and analyze the raw data due to the rapid evolution of telecommunications and data collection technology and services.” Research shows that the “Going Dark” problem dates back several years. Under this initiative, Donahue told us that the FBI is trying to achieve the following actions: To commit the FCC to regulate technical standards for solutions To require the FCC to approve a standard in order for it to be considered a safe harbor To eliminate or modify the current exemption in CALEA for private networks (i.e., Universities, Colleges, etc.) To eliminate or modify the current exemption for information services To provide stronger enforcement of existing requirements that providers that enable encryption are also able to decrypt the information for law enforcement To require providers to certify their CALEA compliance annually “While this was a small problem a number of years ago,” pointed out Donahue, “it’s becoming an increasingly larger problem as more services are moving to different technologies and more innovative technologies that are not currently covered by CALEA, or they fall into a gray area where CALEA may or may not apply.” The FBI has said that, with this move, it has no intention of gaining more authority. It believes the amendment would be a natural evolution of its current tools and that it would help their agents do their jobs more effectively. “What it’s [FBI] seeking is the ability to go to a provider and obtain the kind of information that it’s authorized to get under the law in a cooperative manner,” said Donahue. He went on to say that law enforcement currently runs into the problem of, after obtaining the court order, finding the company doesn’t have a solution in place for letting it get the information it needs. Another issue that law enforcement is facing is dealing with a company that has a solution but finding that it hasn’t been maintained, thus making it unusable. Since these problems have persisted for several years without a solution, the FBI has reported the non-compliant parties to the FCC. Based on current processes, the commission, in turn, investigates the companies to see if they are in compliance with CALEA and its own rules. The FCC then has the authority to fine or require the companies to comply. Although the commission has not issued any notices of liability yet, Donahue told us that he wouldn’t be surprised if it does in the near future. The current form of CALEA is careful to include protections for the privacy and security of users, but there are concerns being raised over these areas in light of a potential amendment the FBI is pushing. The FBI has yet to release an official proposal, but tech companies, privacy advocates, and consumer groups are not likely going to be supportive of such a measure. The monitoring of users’ online activities has become increasingly controversial in recent years, and it has sparked the introduction of numerous bills in Congress. However, given the reactions to SOPA and CISPA, it is not likely that the FBI’s amendment proposal will pass without a fight. “There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think what’s important is that both sides recognize there are privacy issues, there are issues with network security and cybersecurity and the ability of third parties to obtain access to systems,” said Donahue. “The key is to have a framework in place that addresses those issues to balance those with law enforcement’s concerns,” he added. This week FBI Director Robert Mueller criticized the press regarding its informal proposition saying that the media had presented a “distortion of what our needs are.” “What we are seeking is the ability to enforce that order, and be able to obtain those communications,” Mueller said. “And what we’re looking at is some form of legislation that will assure that when we get the appropriate court order, those individual companies that are served with that order do have the capability and the capacity to respond to that order.” 
Since it is an election year, Donahue told us that it was unlikely that we would see any type of proposal from the FBI this year.

You may recall the story of Joel Tenenbaum, the young man who chose to fight the RIAA when the group began to go after individual file sharers during the last decade. He has been caught in a legal hell for the latter half of the decade going from court to court and it looks like it will never end. Enough is enough or says Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Charles Nesson, in a petition to the Supreme Court. The document obtained by Ars Technica shows a passionate argument against the RIAA and its tactics of threatening users unless they settle outside of court for a few thousand dollars. The first part of the petition points out that the DOJ is in cahoots with the RIAA by pursuing the remittitur procedure against Tenenbaum to keep him in “endless litigation.” He calls it an “unnecessary and unwarranted extension of power” to the RIAA that only gives them more reason to attack people who have no knowledge or power to fight against copyright claims. Remittitur is good thing though, right? It allows the judge to overturn the damages awarded by the jury because the amount awarded was too high. That’s where you’re wrong says Nesson as he points out that remittitur in this case only subjects Tenenbaum to more trials instead of being able to fight against the unconstitutionality of what the RIAA is doing. He says that the RIAA is using remittitur over and over agains until the defendant is forced to settle. All of this is a ploy by the RIAA and the DOJ to force people into settling without ever reaching the constitutional question. As proven time and time again, groups like the RIAA don’t want to take these things to court. Instead of being forced to answer questions about the constitutionality of their absurd claims that a single song costs them thousands in damages, they want to force defendants to settle in the lower courts. The RIAA has stopped targeting individuals though, so maybe Tenenbaum should just settle. Nothing like this will happen again, right? Wrong says Nesson as he points out that other groups, especially porn studios, have taken up the RIAA’s old tactics. It would be in the nation’s best interest if the Supreme Court were to offer an opinion so that all current litigation can be laid to rest. Nesson also points out that every copyright case that the RIAA uses to defend their right to sue citizens for absurd amounts of damages comes from the old 1909 copyright law. The updated law from 1976 makes it so that plaintiffs are only awarded what they truly lost instead of the ridiculous statutory damages. The true crux of Nesson’s argument is in the third section though. Here is where he lays down the true motive behind the RIAA’s assault on individuals: RIAA’s litigation assault on individual file-sharers, Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset among them, is procedurally unfair and profoundly unethical. It pits an industry against an individual and punishes the individual for what others have done and will do. It seeks to punish him beyond any rational measure of the damage he conceivably caused, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by him, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using the internet, and so frightening to parents and teachers of students using the internet, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future. The individual is to be grievously punished as an act of public education. He also makes the excellent point that one man’s actions can not be made tantamount to the actions of million of file sharers around the world. It’s almost like the RIAA is punishing Tenenbaum for the millions of shared files going around the world at this very minute when in fact he only downloaded 23 songs. Plaintiffs attempt to substitute the action of one individual for the actions of millions. They seek to leverage the damage attributable to all file sharing tojustify heinous punishments for one. Tenenbaum, acting as one individual, did not (and could not) cause the injuries the RIAA describes. Nor is he answerable for the amount of damages that they seek to collect from him. File sharing as a whole caused the injuries about which the RIAA complains. Had Tenenbaum never shared, the songs would have been shared and available nonetheless. Tenenbaum did not create filesharing and he was not in any way critical to its spread or its effects. It cannot be that he, individually, caused the destruction of the complete value of each of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. It was not Tenenbaum alone who reduced income and profits for the recording industry; it was not Tenenbaum who cost employees their jobs — it was the global millions engaged in filesharing that did all this It’s a valid question that the Supreme Court needs to address. Of course, the RIAA has already found their solution – trying to block access to, or shutting down, sites that they see as a threat to their monopoly over creative works. It’s already proven that it doesn’t work so it’s only a matter of time before the RIAA starts going after dead people and grandmothers with settlement letters.

Facebook is really into the open source movement. Just looking at their developer’s page should tell you that they care about developers and aim to provide them with the best in open source development tools. Yahoo has open sourced some of their technologies, but now claim to own the patents to more open source technologies in the latest round of their lawsuit against Facebook. Pandodaily reports that Yahoo recently updated its court filings to include open source technologies that Facebook uses within its infrastructure. In total, Yahoo is bringing an extra 16 patents into the fray that they claim to be relevant to the case at hand. So what technologies are we talking about here? According to Pandodaily, Yahoo claims patents to memcached which they point out was actually created by LiveJournal and has been in use by every other Internet company since. Yahoo also claims patents on Open Computer, which was created by Facebook; Tornado, a python-based Web server’; and HPHP, software that converts PHP into C++. Facebook isn’t one to take this lightly and points out that Yahoo has now become the ultimate patent troll. They’re not only targeting Facebook, but the open source movement as well. They say that the patents they are trying to defend are used by other “innovative, forward-thinking companies.” There might be something in there that alludes to a Yahoo that should start innovating instead of just suing. Yahoo’s attempt at extorting money from Facebook through patent trolling is reminiscent of the patent troll in Texas who claimed to own the interactive Web. It’s a desperate attempt at a cash grab and doesn’t serve to protect IP or the software that is created. Here’s hoping the judge understands how ridiculous Yahoo’s latest patent claims are. Facebook is not the only one at risk anymore. Yahoo has become an enemy of the Web development community, a community they claim to cater, by attacking these latest technologies.

17 Righthaven copyrights are being auctioned off on eBay today. I’m not going to rehash the entire Righthaven saga here, but if you’re unfamiliar with the story, Righthaven with the business model of purchasing copyrights and suing people. They have become commonly known as a “copyright troll”. Properties previously acquired by the “company” have been turned over to lawyers, as Righthaven’s debt in legal fees mounted. You can read about the events here. Rimon Law Group has issued a press release about the auctions, which Partner and Chief Sustainability Officer Lara Pearson tipped us off to. The release says: This is the third auction of Righthaven property to satisfy court judgments against the Las Vegas company. The RIGHTHAVEN service mark was sold for $1025.00 in an auction that closed this morning. The auctions are being conducted by the court-appointed receiver for Righthaven, Lara Pearson, Esq., operating under the eBay seller name courtappointedreceiver. It’s mostly sports titles, with a little bit of porn sprinkled in. I’ve linked all the listings below. The porn descriptions are pretty funny (don’t worry, there’s no NSFW imagery or anything, though the language is as strong as you’d probably imagine). The listings include: “Ebony Princess #3.” – Copyright “Browns Damn right I’m backing Cleveland 11-14-10.” – Copyright “UTAH The pointspread took a big plunge on Tuesday 12-22-10.” – Copyright “Ebony Amateurs Vegas Edition #10.” – Copyright “Rockets 11-10-10.” – Copyright “OREGON Let’s go over some undisputed facts. 01-10-11.” – Copyright “Ravens If you haven’t heard it by now 11-11-10.” – Copyright “Analysis Thank Ohio University for this play 11-17-10.” – Copyright “Over the total Michigan is going to score points 11-13-10.” – Copyright “Hawks 11-10-10.” – Copyright “Tonight’s top play 01-15-11.” – Copyright “Temple How can a team 11-16-10.” – Copyright “Ravens These two very good teams meet 11-11-10.” – Copyright “ROCKETS (plus the points and money-line) 7-0 That’s the Rockets’ record 01-21-11.” – Copyright “Suns Absolutely ridiculous pointspread 11-17-10.” – Copyright “TENNESSEE How do you lay points 01-05-11.” – Copyright “RAVENS 80-116. You know what that is? 01-09-11.” – Copyright Mother’s Day is coming up, so…something to think about if she likes copyrights. Starting bids are at $50! The auctions end at 8:00 p.m. PDT on Saturday May 5, 2012. Earlier this year, we saw Righthaven.com taken over by a new entity with a sense of humor.

Here’s another sticky legal question that wouldn’t have existed prior to 2004: a Canadian woman has been ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to submit her personal photos from Facebook as evidence to be used in a damages claim. Tamara Fric is seeking compensation for injuries received in a car accident in 2008 that she says has impaired her quality of life and ability to work. According to The Province, Fric’s been asked to share her photos from Facebook because the defendants in the case claim that Fric posted photos or was tagged in photos after the accident that depict her enjoying an active lifestyle, such as wakeboarding and hiking and other activities that could conflict with any claim of impairment and lessened enjoyment of life as a result of the accident. As recently as a month after the car accident, Fric participated in a recreational sports tournament conducted by the law school she attended. She says that her participation was limited due to the injuries sustained in the accident and that requiring her to share the photos of the law school event and her post-accident vacations is a breach of her privacy. However, British Columbia Supreme Court Master Carolyn Bouck ruled that some of the those photos were relevant to her damages claim and that they should therefore be disclosed. “Photographs which show the plaintiff engaging in a sporting or physical recreational activity – from hiking to scuba diving to curling to dancing – are relevant in discovering the plaintiff’s physical capacity since the accident,” Bouck said. “I do not agree with the plaintiff’s submission that such information is only relevant when there is a claim or evidence of total disability.” Bouck found, however, that the order sought by the defendants was overly broad and limited the disclosure to the photos taken of Fric participating in the Law Games and on vacations since the accident. On Fric’s Facebook page, she appears to be out and about enjoying an evening but there’s no indication of when the photo was taken. As you and me and everybody else would do in her situation, the account has a pretty tight lock on it so nobody outside of her approved friends can see her profile. Further, just because she looks like she’s having fun in her sole viewable picture doesn’t mean it’s a recent photo. Additionally, her long-term injuries could come and go, like how a neck injury could lead to migraines over time. Any thoughts on the judge ordering a Facebook user to submit personal photos as evidence in a lawsuit? Yea or nay? Let us know what you think below.

We reported a few months ago that there was a high court ruling currently pending on whether or not The Pirate Bay could be blocked by UK ISPs. It seems that those in the copyright industry got their wish as the UK High Court ruled that the torrent host must be blocked. The BBC is reporting that the ruling makes it so that Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must now block The Pirate Bay from being accessed in the UK. Apparently the High Court isn’t publicizing its decision, but the British Phonographic Industry is happy to speak for them. BPI’s CEO Geoff Taylor said that the High Court agreed with them in that The Pirate Bay “infringes copyright on a massive scale.” He also uses the age old argument that the people who operate the site profit by “commercially exploiting music and other creative works.” The ISPs are taking a more cautious response to the news. Virgin Media told the BBC that they will comply with the court order, but they believe that outright blocking access is not the right move. They feel that instead of blocking piracy, corporations should compete against piracy with better service. Virgin specifically mentions Spotify as a legal alternative that has already proven wildly successful. While the UK will be outright blocking access to The Pirate Bay, ISPs in the U.S. will be utilizing a different method to “punish” those who pirate media. It will be a “graduated response” program that will seek to educate those caught file-sharing then introduce stiffer punishments if the initial scare tactics fail. While the U.S. has a better response to piracy, more and more people may be getting letters from their ISPs. It’s hard to compete with piracy when alternative services like Hulu are now losing their value due to cable companies not willing to evolve and offer a better service. Do you think the UK should block Web site like The Pirate Bay? Or do you agree with Virgin Media in that companies should compete with piracy instead of trying to stamp it out? Let us know in the comments.

We brought you word a few months ago that Kim Dotcom, founder of Megaupload, was on his way to getting some of his possessions back. It seems that the news has finally become reality as Dotcom had about $750,000 worth of possessions returned to him. Stuff is reporting that the New Zealand High Court has agreed to return some money to Dotcom and his family in the form of a bank account worth $301,000, a Mercedes Benz worth $250,000 and he retains his $20,000 a month spending budget. Unfortunately, the court mostly sided with the District Court so that Dotcom won’t be seeing the majority of his funds returned to him. His other belongings could be held by the authorities for up to two years as Dotcom’s extradition case is heard. Dotcom’s wife will also see some benefits from the ruling. She will be getting a monthly allowance, money for her medical bills and a car for personal transportation. When Dotcom was waiting to get out on bail, he argued that he wanted to get out to help his wife who was pregnant. The extra money should definitely help in that respect. In other possible good news for Dotcom, the judge in the case said that he could bring further legal action to see more of his belongings returned to him. Dotcom’s lawyers are arguing that New Zealand should investigate whether or not the restraining order against his property should even be honored. While the court said that they don’t have to see if the order from the U.S. is legitimate, the door is open for further legal action. All of this would be for naught, however, if Dotcom is extradited. The current extradition hearing is scheduled for September. At that time, it will be decided if Dotcom actually committed an offense worthy of being extradited over. According to Dotcom’s lawyer, Ira Rothken, he’s confident that they will have a “good result in New Zealand.” This comes on the news that there might not even be a case against Megaupload. The U.S. judge in the case against MegaUpload said that the FBI never properly filed a criminal complaint against the company. If this is the case, the trial might never happen. Of course, Dotcom feels that the damage has already been done and that he’s now fighting to reveal what he feels was a conspiracy against him backed by Hollywood and the U.S. government. I’m sure having the extra money is definitely going to help with that. [h/t: TorrentFreak]

“While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet.” That’s the crux of a decision from New York Criminal Court judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. Not only that, but when you tweet, you’re giving Twitter the right to distribute all of you information however they please. For that reason, prosectors looking to access your tweets (even ones that you’ve deleted) for the purposes of building or bolstering a case against you can snatch them up with a subpoena – and you have no recourse. On January 26th, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office sent a subpoena to Twitter, asking for the user information and tweets (between September 15th and December 31st, 2011) of user @destructuremal, operated by one Malcolm Harris. Harris had been arrested in October 2011 as part of an Occupy Wall Street protest and charged with disorderly conduct. A few days later, Twitter told Harris about the subpoena (as they always do except when ordered not to). Soon, Harris decided that he was going to attempt to quash that subpoena. That motion has been #denied (that’s how it reads in the official document, no joke). The judge acknowledged that there’s no real precedent for a defendant trying to quash a subpoena issued to a third-party social networking service (read, Twitter). Lacking that precedent, he instead likened the situation to subpoenas asking banks for users records, a practice which has been upheld many times. Customers have no legal grounds to quash subpoenas to banks, says Sciarrino. He then calls upon Twitter’s Terms of Service to say that Harris had “no proprietary interests” in his tweets. Here, the defendant has no proprietary interests in the @destructuremal account’s user information and Tweets between September 15, 2011 and December 31, 2011. As briefly mentioned before, in order to use Twitter’s services, the process of registering an account requires a user’s agreement to Twitter’s Terms. Under Twitter’s Terms it states in part: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). In order to register the @destructuremal account, the defendant had to have agreed to those very same terms. Every single time the defendant used Twitter’s services the defendant was granting a license for Twitter to use, display and distribute the defendant’s Tweets to anyone and for any purpose it may have. Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his. The defendant’s inability to preclude Twitter’s use of his Tweets demonstrates a lack of proprietary interests in his Tweets. I added that bold to highlight the main point being made here: his tweets aren’t his. For their part, Twitter makes no secret that they will turn over your info to the authorities if it’s “reasonably necessary to comply with the law”: We may preserve or disclose your information if we believe that it is reasonably necessary to comply with a law, regulation or legal request; to protect the safety of any person; to address fraud, security or technical issues; or to protect Twitter’s rights or property Harris is tweeting about the decision (from a different account): .ditto194527955253338112{background: #131516 url(http://a0.twimg.com/profile_background_images/521279886/Capture.JPG) no-repeat;padding: 20px;} .ditto194527955253338112 a { color: #009999;} p.dittoTweet{background: #fff;padding: 10px 12px 10px 50px;margin: 0;min-height: 48px;color: #000;font-size: 18px !important;line-height: 22px;-moz-border-radius: 5px;-webkit-border-radius: 5px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata {display: block;width: 100%;clear: both;margin-top: 8px;padding-top: 12px;height: 65px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author {line-height: 22px;color: #666;font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} .mainlink {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size: 26px;color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: none;} .mainlink: hover {color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: underline;} .tweet {font-size: 24px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author img {float: left; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px;} p.dittoTweet a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp {font-size: 12px;display: block;color: #999;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a {color: #999;text-decoration: none;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a > span {display: inline-block;width: 16px;background-image:url(http://images.ientrymail.com/socialditto/everything-spritev2.png);background-repeat: no-repeat;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply > span {background-position: 0px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply:hover > span {background-position: -16px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet > span {background-position: -80px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet:hover > span {background-position: -96px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite > span {background-position: -32px 2px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite:hover > span {background-position: -48px 2px;} @BigMeanInternetMalcolm HarrisJudge ruled against me on standing, on intervention, and on the subpoena. So uh Twitter is compelled to hand over @destructuremal‘s tweets 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto .ditto194528273143828480{background: #131516 url(http://a0.twimg.com/profile_background_images/521279886/Capture.JPG) no-repeat;padding: 20px;} .ditto194528273143828480 a { color: #009999;} p.dittoTweet{background: #fff;padding: 10px 12px 10px 50px;margin: 0;min-height: 48px;color: #000;font-size: 18px !important;line-height: 22px;-moz-border-radius: 5px;-webkit-border-radius: 5px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata {display: block;width: 100%;clear: both;margin-top: 8px;padding-top: 12px;height: 65px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author {line-height: 22px;color: #666;font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} .mainlink {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size: 26px;color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: none;} .mainlink: hover {color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: underline;} .tweet {font-size: 24px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author img {float: left; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px;} p.dittoTweet a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp {font-size: 12px;display: block;color: #999;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a {color: #999;text-decoration: none;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a > span {display: inline-block;width: 16px;background-image:url(http://images.ientrymail.com/socialditto/everything-spritev2.png);background-repeat: no-repeat;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply > span {background-position: 0px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply:hover > span {background-position: -16px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet > span {background-position: -80px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet:hover > span {background-position: -96px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite > span {background-position: -32px 2px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite:hover > span {background-position: -48px 2px;} @BigMeanInternetMalcolm HarrisSo this gonna get kinda weird because I haven’t operated that account in months. 23 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto .ditto194528573074309123{background: #131516 url(http://a0.twimg.com/profile_background_images/521279886/Capture.JPG) no-repeat;padding: 20px;} .ditto194528573074309123 a { color: #009999;} p.dittoTweet{background: #fff;padding: 10px 12px 10px 50px;margin: 0;min-height: 48px;color: #000;font-size: 18px !important;line-height: 22px;-moz-border-radius: 5px;-webkit-border-radius: 5px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata {display: block;width: 100%;clear: both;margin-top: 8px;padding-top: 12px;height: 65px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author {line-height: 22px;color: #666;font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} .mainlink {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size: 26px;color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: none;} .mainlink: hover {color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: underline;} .tweet {font-size: 24px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author img {float: left; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px;} p.dittoTweet a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp {font-size: 12px;display: block;color: #999;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a {color: #999;text-decoration: none;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a > span {display: inline-block;width: 16px;background-image:url(http://images.ientrymail.com/socialditto/everything-spritev2.png);background-repeat: no-repeat;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply > span {background-position: 0px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply:hover > span {background-position: -16px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet > span {background-position: -80px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet:hover > span {background-position: -96px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite > span {background-position: -32px 2px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite:hover > span {background-position: -48px 2px;} @BigMeanInternetMalcolm HarrisWhat happens if I just make it my policy to change usernames weekly? 23 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto The tweets in question are no longer active on @destructuremal’s feed, obviously. The last tweet is from that account is from February 11th 2012. So according to Sciarrino, you can’t stop prosecutors from obtaining your old, deleted tweets from Twitter. As The Atlantic Wire points out, the judge didn’t say anything about their upcoming admissibility in court, however. Of course, this is just one ruling in one case, but it could set a precedent. Sure, everything you tweet is public to some extent, even if you tweak your privacy settings. To really expect a high level of privacy or protection is unrealistic. But should prosecutors be able to obtain your info and tweets without a warrant? Let us know what you think in the comments.

It’s fairly common knowledge that former NFL star Deion Sanders is going through a nasty divorce. The Pro Football Hall of Famer filed for divorce in December 2011. In March his estranged wife, Pilar Sanders, sued Sanders for $200 million, claiming the former NFL and major league baseball player and his adult daughter had posted libelous and slanderous comments about her. This was her response to a Tweet sent by Sanders daughter, Deiondra, which said Pilar was a “Gold-digging h*e.” Only adding fuel to the fire, Deion stated that the statement wasn’t defamation because it’s true. Well, things went a step further yesterday, when Sanders tweeted out a picture of him and his two sons filling out police reports, against Pilar. According to TMZ, Pilar busted into there former bedroom and began “kicking, biting, and scratching” Deion in front of his sons. You can see the photo that was tweeted below: Sanders captioned the photo with the message. “filling out police reports now! Thank God for this platform to issue the Truth.” Shortly after he tweeted out the photo, he tweeted the following two messages, the bottom one has since been deleted: .ditto194550073613496320{background: #C0DEED url(http://a0.twimg.com/images/themes/theme1/bg.png) no-repeat;padding: 20px;} .ditto194550073613496320 a { color: #0084B4;} p.dittoTweet{background: #fff;padding: 10px 12px 10px 50px;margin: 0;min-height: 48px;color: #000;font-size: 18px !important;line-height: 22px;-moz-border-radius: 5px;-webkit-border-radius: 5px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata {display: block;width: 100%;clear: both;margin-top: 8px;padding-top: 12px;height: 65px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author {line-height: 22px;color: #666;font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} .mainlink {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size: 26px;color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: none;} .mainlink: hover {color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: underline;} .tweet {font-size: 24px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author img {float: left; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px;} p.dittoTweet a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp {font-size: 12px;display: block;color: #999;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a {color: #999;text-decoration: none;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a > span {display: inline-block;width: 16px;background-image:url(http://images.ientrymail.com/socialditto/everything-spritev2.png);background-repeat: no-repeat;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply > span {background-position: 0px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply:hover > span {background-position: -16px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet > span {background-position: -80px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet:hover > span {background-position: -96px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite > span {background-position: -32px 2px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite:hover > span {background-position: -48px 2px;} @DeionSandersDeionSandersPray for me and my kids now! They just witnessed their mother and a friend jump me in my room. She’s going to jail n I’m pressing charges! 15 hours ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto .ditto194550073613496320{background: #C0DEED url(http://a0.twimg.com/images/themes/theme1/bg.png) no-repeat;padding: 20px;} .ditto194550073613496320 a { color: #0084B4;} p.dittoTweet{background: #fff;padding: 10px 12px 10px 50px;margin: 0;min-height: 48px;color: #000;font-size: 18px !important;line-height: 22px;-moz-border-radius: 5px;-webkit-border-radius: 5px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata {display: block;width: 100%;clear: both;margin-top: 8px;padding-top: 12px;height: 65px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author {line-height: 22px;color: #666;font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;} .mainlink {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size: 26px;color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: none;} .mainlink: hover {color: #1F98C7;text-decoration: underline;} .tweet {font-size: 24px;} p.dittoTweet span.metadata span.author img {float: left; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px;} p.dittoTweet a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp {font-size: 12px;display: block;color: #999;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a {color: #999;text-decoration: none;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a > span {display: inline-block;width: 16px;background-image:url(http://images.ientrymail.com/socialditto/everything-spritev2.png);background-repeat: no-repeat;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply > span {background-position: 0px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.reply:hover > span {background-position: -16px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet > span {background-position: -80px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.retweet:hover > span {background-position: -96px 3px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite > span {background-position: -32px 2px;} p.dittoTweet span.timestamp a.favorite:hover > span {background-position: -48px 2px;} @DeionSandersDeionSandersI’m sad my boys witnessed this mess but I warned the police department here that she was gone try n harm me and my boys. This is on my mama! 15 hours ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto It’s now being reported that Pilar has since been arrested, on a misdemeanor charge of assault. An inmate listing on the Collin County Sheriff’s Office website showed Pilar Sanders was arrested Monday and booked into the county jain on a family violence charge. Deion’s divorce was already an ugly one, but it seems like things are getting more and more out of hand as the days go on.