PDA

View Full Version : Twitter used to serve injunctions on anonymous twit



t0p
October 2nd, 2009, 11:42 AM
Have you seen this crazy story (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/02/0325223/UK-Court-Order-Served-Over-Twitter-To-Anonymous-User-Posing-As-Another?art_pos=2)? It is now possible to serve an injunction on an anonymous twit via his/her Twitter account.

I think this is crazy. In the good old days, an injunction was served on you by a court officer putting the thing in your hands. Now a litigant can do it by emailing it to Twitter. How can the court consider such a procedure as a proper service? What real proof is there that the anonymous twit actually received the document? I realize Twitter can tell if the message has been accessed - but how do they know it was the anonymous target who read the thing?

This is taking technicalities of English law too far. Especially when both parties to the action don't even live in England!

matthew.ball
October 2nd, 2009, 11:44 AM
An injunction was served over facebook in Australia earlier this year; pretty sure I lost faith in humanity at that point..

Sean Moran
October 2nd, 2009, 11:46 AM
Have you seen this crazy story (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/02/0325223/UK-Court-Order-Served-Over-Twitter-To-Anonymous-User-Posing-As-Another?art_pos=2)? It is now possible to serve an injunction on an anonymous twit via his/her Twitter account.

I think this is crazy. In the good old days, an injunction was served on you by a court officer putting the thing in your hands. Now a litigant can do it by emailing it to Twitter. How can the court consider such a procedure as a proper service? What real proof is there that the anonymous twit actually received the document? I realize Twitter can tell if the message has been accessed - but how do they know it was the anonymous target who read the thing?

This is taking technicalities of English law too far. Especially when both parties to the action don't even live in England!
Another case of 'one bird with two stones' ? :)

blatestbla
October 2nd, 2009, 11:49 AM
An injunction was served over facebook in Australia earlier this year; pretty sure I lost faith in humanity at that point..
The Facebook one was made because authorities were unable to contact the recipient through any other means (no fixed address/contact info), and given the law doesn't specify any particular method of contact so long as contact HAS been made, they decided to serve him via Facebook because they knew he'd read it. Facebook was the last option, not the first

So try not to lose faith in humanity at such things - there's often a reason for everything.

Sean Moran
October 2nd, 2009, 11:58 AM
May we all take a moment now to reflect on CERN?

t0p
October 2nd, 2009, 12:04 PM
The Facebook one was made because authorities were unable to contact the recipient through any other means (no fixed address/contact info), and given the law doesn't specify any particular method of contact so long as contact HAS been made, they decided to serve him via Facebook because they knew he'd read it. Facebook was the last option, not the first


But I dispute whether the court can truthfully say that it knows contact was made. In the case I'm referring to, how does the court know that the anonymous twit in question actually accessed the message? Surely it could hav e been another anonymous twit with access to the account?

The case is clearly progressing with the aim of getting money off the anonymous twit. Donal Blaney (the blogger whom the anonymous twit is impersonating) could have simply made an abuse complaint to Twitter. I'm sure that Twitter, in common with most other online service providers, would close down an account when a complaint is made against that account. Blaney doesn't just want this guy/gal silenced. He wants a payday.

starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 12:11 PM
The order demands the anonymous Twitter user reveal their identity...If the anonymous twit actually reveals his/her identity, then they deserve what ever comes next lol.

Sean Moran
October 2nd, 2009, 12:17 PM
If the anonymous twit actually reveals his/her identity, then they deserve what ever comes next lol.
Are you implying that dishonesty is the key to success?

<apart from the initial anonymity that we all reveeal to strangers>

starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 12:27 PM
I'm implying that if one is already an impostor, one is already being dishonest; if one is then called to reveal oneself, I doubt seriously that would be an opportune moment to find the light of honesty, unless of course, one is hoping to be sued.

For the record, I find the whole matter of deception to be wrong, and I avoid it as much as the current system allows.

Sean Moran
October 2nd, 2009, 01:15 PM
I'm implying that if one is already an impostor, one is already being dishonest; if one is then called to reveal oneself, I doubt seriously that would be an opportune moment to find the light of honesty, unless of course, one is hoping to be sued.

For the record, I find the whole matter of deception to be wrong, and I avoid it as much as the current system allows.
Thanks. That makes perfect sense to me.

What did Gump say? " Stupid is as stupid does". so I get the gist now.