news Global social networking site Twitter has agreed to closer cooperation with Australian law enforcement authorities, including handing over users’ IP addresses in certain cases, following a concerted campaign by some elements of the media and politicians to pressure the group into dealing with so-called ‘cyber-bullies’.
In an interview on the Today Show this morning (available online in full here), Communications Minister Stephen Conroy noted that his department had successfully held a joint teleconference with the Australian Federal Police and Twitter’s head of global policy regarding the issue, agreeing on several key points regarding the issue.
“What they’ve agreed to do is firstly have a direct line of communication – something which wasn’t there before,” Conroy said. “Secondly, if the AFP gets in touch and says there’s serious threats being made, imminent threats – they’ll preserve the data, they’ll cooperate quickly with the police. They’ve also agreed to preserve data in cases of cyber-bullying, and they’ve also agreed to promote how to block and how to stop the trolls and how to report to Twitter themselves.”
Conroy said if Australians were being targeted by so-called offensive ‘trolls’ on Twitter, they should get in touch with police to deal with the issue. “The police will be able to speak with Twitter immediately, and they will respond,” he said. “They’ve agreed to respond quickly, to preserve the data, to track down IP addresses – imminent danger, cyber-bullying.”
Today host Karl Stefanovic questioned Conroy on how effective such a system would be, given the fact that so-called ‘trolling’ activity was quite prevalent online. “Well the important thing is to send the message and Twitter are now on board to send the message that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable,” responded Conroy. “You can’t hide behind anonymity. Don’t think you can hide. Don’t think you’re not going to be held accountable by Australian laws, courts and processes. People should behave online the same way they would in the real world.”
Not everyone agrees, however, that the so-called “troll” issue is one that should be taken seriously.
On the issue of cyber-bullying, commentators such as Rosemary Purcell, an Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne, have pointed out that current research shows the issue is not a substantial one, and could already be addressing through existing law. “Most Australian states and territories have laws that could be used as a legal remedy to address these forms of online abuse,” Purcell wrote on The Conversation last week.
Writing on the Institute of Public Affairs’ Freedom Watch site last week, one of the organisation’s researchers and commentators, Chris Berg, wrote that the Twitter trolls debate had “spiralled out of control”. “ … there are already a wealth of state and federal laws which protect people against harassment, stalking, intimidation, incitement,” wrote Berg. “What matters to Conroy is how loud he can shout about people being mean to celebrities: the cause of the moment.”
opinion/analysis
To be honest, I am quite surprised at how quickly Twitter appears to have come to the loud and raucous party which the Federal Government and conservative media outlets such as the Daily Telegraph have been hosting. In the US, Twitter has taken a strong stance against simply handing over information to law enforcement authorities, going in to bat for its users’ privacy and its independence as a new form of publishing platform.
For example, the company has recently been engaged in an effort to prevent the Manhattan District Attorney from obtaining information about the online activities of an Occupy Wall Street protester, as the American Civil Liberties Union has detailed in this extensive post here (highlighted by Chris Berg on Freedom Watch last week).
Is it really appropriate for Twitter to simply meekly hand over data to the Australian Federal Police on the activities of its users? Sure, it’s probably OK in cases where extreme acts such as terrorism or organised crime are being organised through the social networking medium. But I certainly don’t think it would be OK for Twitter to bend over backwards for the AFP when it’s a simple case of an unruly protest. As a journalist, I regularly receive confidential information via Twitter’s direct messages function. I would hate to think that law enforcement authorities would be able to access that information – especially considering that reporters’ sources are protected under journalist shield laws.
I’m with Chris Berg on this one. The national Twitter trolls debate has gotten out of hand. Sure, Twitter should, as Facebook already is, be in regular contact with Australian law enforcement authorities about serious cases of crime. But I would also like to feel like the social networking site has a backbone; that it won’t simply open its servers to the AFP on demand. That would have the effect of diminishing user trust in the site greatly. Doesn’t the word “warrant” mean anything to anyone any more?
My interpretation of the quotes you have provided indicates that Twitter isn’t necessarily handing over the information, but more that it is pledging to retain the information once asked.
How I interpret the statement “Preserve the information”. The police don’t *get* the information until Twitter see a warrant. Am I wrong in my interpretation?
Seems right to me. I seriously doubt Twitter would hand over random IP addresses and message information just cause the Police “suspect” something- that’s a breach of privacy. It would still require a warrant.
“I seriously doubt Twitter would hand over random IP addresses and message information just cause the Police “suspect” something”
I didn’t hear any mention of “warrant” or “court order” when Conroy was discussing Twitter’s commitment to the AFP and DBCDE this week.
I didn’t hear any mention of “warrant” or “court order” when Conroy was discussing Twitter’s commitment to the AFP and DBCDE this week.
I don’t see how under current laws they CAN ask for the IP address without a warrant?
Does anyone know if identifying information (beyond what is put out publicly) can be requested and seconded WITHOUT a warrant?
Hmmm, now that I think about it though, Facebook does give the AFP info if someone has been producing particularly derogatory remarks. Perhaps this simply brings Twitter in line with Facebook?
That’s the thing, they can ask and it is up to Twitter to follow its guidelines and any relevant privacy laws it is subject to.
Warrants on the other hand are not negotiable.
Theoretically (I don’t believe this is the case) Twitter could have agreed to exactly what Renai has written about.
Personally I think this is just Conroy overstating this agreement. It is probably just a pledge not to destroy, while waiting on a warrant (or other evidence that triggers their hand-over-information action). I don’t think anything of substance has changed on Twitters end, just political word games.
People should behave online the same way they would in the real world.”
Oh Conroy. You’re so good on the NBN, but you’re a nutcase on privacy. This was the POINT of the internet for many people. They can be free from discrimination and persecution because of the anonymity of the web. Sure, if you are talking business or to friends, you want to be recognisable. But the anonymity of the web is part of its’ beauty.
This man still has alot to learn….
“This was the POINT of the internet for many people. They can be free from discrimination and persecution because of the anonymity of the web. Sure, if you are talking business or to friends, you want to be recognisable. But the anonymity of the web is part of its’ beauty.”
+1
I find that line hilarious. Online I am considered by some as a troll in the “real world” I am exactly the same. Too much effort maintaining two different personalities imo. People I know in the “real world” consider me abrasive but they also appreciate my honesty. I dont care what people think if they cant handle facts then they shouldn’t be talking to me in the “real world” or online. Fuck off Conroy.
This was a thought I’ve been trying to put into words for a long time, and you’ve nailed it.
I would prefer a court order rather than just a request from the AFP. This is the red herring al la kiddie porn and terrorism, and US experiences show how badly this can be abused.
@Darryl.
The request is only to retain the data. A warrant still has to be issued to retrieve it.
So really since Twitter would have been recording this information (at least for a finate amount of time) anyway, nothing has changed.
I suppose now all they have to do is define what is threatening and what is cyber-bullying, so should the tweets Robbie Farah received (morbid things about sleeping with his death mother, not threatening but maybe classified as cyber-bullying) received a harsher penalty then saying the PM should get a noose for her birthday (ie. threatening), like what Farah tweeted.
“So really since Twitter would have been recording this information (at least for a finate amount of time) anyway, nothing has changed.”
Exactly my thoughts. Seems to me like Conroy and Mr Twitter walked into a room under the false impression that your average person gives half a toss about trolling, and agreed to try and score some points on it by ‘agreeing’ to the status quo.
You would like to “feel” like your website had a backbone, erode users trust? I would like to “feel” like my fellow citizens can have a calm and rational debate without being told to kill themselves by people who don’t agree with them, I would like to be able to have an online conversation with like minded people without being told I’m sick in the head for having different views than other people. Just what sort of activity are people doing when they need they need to trust that the website they are using won’t go to the police. Are you serious?
“I would like to be able to have an online conversation with like minded people without being told I’m sick in the head for having different views than other people”
You are obviously new to the Internet ;)
Or been on it a long time. Before it became commercial the internet was a lovely place :) 95 onward it turned into the sewer it is :)
Nope… even in 95 you could find the sewerage. There was just less out there across the board, so it wasn’t as noticeable.
If somebody said these things to you in the street would you phone the police?
You’re sick in the head!
“Just what sort of activity are people doing when they need they need to trust that the website they are using won’t go to the police. Are you serious?”
Planning an uprising against the incumbent government of a country in the middle-east.
I don’t see twitter actually changing anything here. Conroy and the Telegraph are quick to spin this as a win, but the AFP already had the capability to request data from Twitter… they just rarely used it.
See e.g. Twitter’s transparency report from July. <10 requests for user data in 6 months, 33% granted.
http://blog.twitter.com/2012/07/twitter-transparency-report.html
Kermit arms indeed.
So, how do the police feel about this I wonder?
They are already stretched to the limit trying to perform their duties whilst being under-staffed and under-funded, and now they are expected to respond to people complaining when someone ‘trolls’ them on Twitter?
Pathetic, knee-jerk reactions from people that seem to think that just because something happens on the internet, it is a magical new category that requires new laws and guidelines.
Politicians are always willing to give power to the people.
People like themselves, that is…
The major isps caved in to Conroy and introduced the voluntary/involuntary filter, par for the course, they and the twit are in it for the bucks, stuff the morality…
Comments are closed.