Twitter Has Handed Over Details Of Whistleblower Account Holder

[SarahBell]

Fab.

Just what the justice system needs - 75000 people up on charges for tweeting about some footballer's shagging about.

[Tonkers]

Will these names be revealed? How does it work?

[Conrad]

The thought police will be knocking on your door.

welcome to internet 2.0

[stormymonday_2011]

Not quite the same as the Giggs case as no injunction has been breached. In fact this looks like a case of old fashioned libel which will have to be pursued through the UK courts by the Councillors involved. The defence will be whether the claims are true or not. What is so iniquitous about the Giggs injunction is that the law appears to have been used to suppress the truth and maintain a lie. That is the hall mark of all totalitarian legal systems. If Giggs felt the claims about his private life were false he could have taken the same course in pursuing a libel suit. The fact he did not tells its own tale.

Of course given the current economic problems Council Tax payers might wonder whether blowing hundreds of thousands of pounds protecting the sensitivities of councillors is good use of public money.

[Habeas Domus]

Will these names be revealed? How does it work?

twitter can reveal an email address, an ip address and the date/time the account was registered.

If a home account is used then the ip address can be traced to an ISP, you can then subpoena them to find out the person using that ip on the given date.

Of course if you register from an internet cafe while wearing a disguise, then theres sod all they can do.

Nice to see the council have money to burn on this nonesense, I won't be expecting any council tax rises this year then!

[stormymonday_2011]

twitter can reveal an email address, an ip address and the date/time the account was registered.

If a home account is used then the ip address can be traced to an ISP, you can then subpoena them to find out the person using that ip on the given date.

Of course if you register from an internet cafe while wearing a disguise, then theres sod all they can do.

Nice to see the council have money to burn on this nonesense, I won't be expecting any council tax rises this year then!

In this case the twitter posts seem to have originated from another councillor so in this case we have the bizarre situation of the Council using public money to help one group of councillors pursue a civil suit against another Councillor. Googling the names of the persons mentioned in the Telegraph article it seems the mud slinging has been going on for a number of years with accusations and counter claims being traded in the media and on Twitter. Much of this argument was being conducted openly so there was not really much doubt about the identities of the parties involved. Given the matter appears to have already been referred to the Standards Committee for England and Wales you have to wonder why on earth it was being being pursued separately through a civil action that required recourse to a foreign court. I find it very hard to justify the waste of public money in this case as it seems to be a political and personal tiff.

http://curly15.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/bring-it-on-potts/

http://curly15.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/cllr-david-potts-needs-a-moderator/

http://curly15.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/potts-is-a-recovering-alcoholic/

BTW I have been a local councillor and the job does make you a magnet for people who enjoy writing in green ink and crayon or cutting up newspapers. These people naturally have migrated to the web but I can't imagine my small local authority ever wasting a penny pursuing such nutters

[IWantItNow]

twitter can reveal an email address, an ip address and the date/time the account was registered.

If a home account is used then the ip address can be traced to an ISP, you can then subpoena them to find out the person using that ip on the given date.

Of course if you register from an internet cafe while wearing a disguise, then theres sod all they can do.

Nice to see the council have money to burn on this nonesense, I won't be expecting any council tax rises this year then!

They don't, but they think the taxpayers do.

How does it work, I mean who pays? Surely if the litigious f*ckers are suing for personal reasons, they should pay out of their own pocket?

[Guest eight]

twitter can reveal an email address, an ip address and the date/time the account was registered.

If a home account is used then the ip address can be traced to an ISP, you can then subpoena them to find out the person using that ip on the given date.

Of course if you register from an internet cafe while wearing a disguise, then theres sod all they can do.

Nice to see the council have money to burn on this nonesense, I won't be expecting any council tax rises this year then!

How do you then prove which resident of an address typed the offending type?

eight

[Game_Over]

twitter can reveal an email address, an ip address and the date/time the account was registered.

If a home account is used then the ip address can be traced to an ISP, you can then subpoena them to find out the person using that ip on the given date.

Of course if you register from an internet cafe while wearing a disguise, then theres sod all they can do.

Nice to see the council have money to burn on this nonesense, I won't be expecting any council tax rises this year then!

Personally when I 'whistleblow' I do it from my laptop in McDonalds when on a shopping expedition.

So - email address MickeyMouse@hotmail.com

IP Address McDonalds in a city miles from where I live.

[OnlyMe]

Personally when I 'whistleblow' I do it from my laptop in McDonalds when on a shopping expedition.

So - email address MickeyMouse@hotmail.com

IP Address McDonalds in a city miles from where I live.

And the MAC code is the MAC code of the network card in your laptop.

[okaycuckoo]

Not quite the same as the Giggs case as no injunction has been breached. In fact this looks like a case of old fashioned libel which will have to be pursued through the UK courts by the Councillors involved. The defence will be whether the claims are true or not. What is so iniquitous about the Giggs injunction is that the law appears to have been used to suppress the truth and maintain a lie. That is the hall mark of all totalitarian legal systems. If Giggs felt the claims about his private life were false he could have taken the same course in pursuing a libel suit. The fact he did not tells its own tale.

Of course given the current economic problems Council Tax payers might wonder whether blowing hundreds of thousands of pounds protecting the sensitivities of councillors is good use of public money.

The hallmark of a totalitarian legal system is that the individual is prevented from asserting his rights. In Giggs' case the father was seeking to protect the rights of his children as well. He could have gone with the press complaints commission in the first place, but apparently it's useless, which is why these super-injunctions are in demand. If he'd gone with a libel action he would have sought an injunction anyway, but there were no grounds for alleging defamation. Tricky issues.

On the second point, I really can't see how the council is justified stumping up money for a private action between two councillors.

[Game_Over]

And the MAC code is the MAC code of the network card in your laptop.

It's second hand

and It's got a PCMCIA network card not onboard Wifi

Next question

[stormymonday_2011]

And the MAC code is the MAC code of the network card in your laptop.

Very useful if you want to sue the manufacturer of the device but not much use for identifying who is using a particular machine.

They can also be spoofed.

[Solitaire]

The thought police will be knocking on your door.

welcome to internet 2.0

'The red-haired 'leftie, activist, techie, banker' who unmasked Ryan Giggs on Twitter within hours of injunction'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392114/The-red-haired-banker-unmasked-Ryan-Giggs-Twitter-hours-injunction.html

[stormymonday_2011]

This story was picking up press coverage as early as March this year well before the Super Injunction fiasco blew up

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology/2011/03/14/outrage-over-council-s-hunt-for-mr-monkey-political-blogger-in-tyneside-115875-22988010/

One thing worth noting is that the original Mr Monkey blog that seems to have attracted the Councils ire and kicked off the Court case was not on Twitter. It was located on Wordpress which is owned by Google. Therefore I am at a loss to know why Twitter have got involved or how it is supposed to prove who wrote the original blog.

It is also interesting to note that the decision to instigate court action does not appear to have gone before full elected Council as would normally happen and. the Council seem reluctant to make the full details of the costs of the court case public

http://www.suecouncil.com/2011/05/09/council-sue-blogger/

For what the other side thinks you can read it all here

http://achanceforchange.co.uk/?p=1506

Is public money being used to finance court cases for political purposes as claimed ? Have all the decisions been made in secret ?

It all smells pretty rotten

On edit - looking at Private Eye's site this all seems to relate to 'bonuses' paid by the Council to bosses of a local airport so it appears nothing much has changed in the local politics of the North East since the 1960s

[Charlie The Tramp Returns]

Social Networks together with Mobile Phones are the curse of modern day Society.

[stormymonday_2011]

The plaint history can actually be tracked on the US justice system here

http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/CIVIL/civildetails.asp?casenumber=482779&courtcode=A&casetype=CIV&dsn='

The plaint itself is detailed here

http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/getpdf/viewpdf.asp?courtcode=A&imagekey=0000074796

Worth noting again that the document sites WordPress not Twitter as the site of the alleged libels so it looks like the story as it is being spun in the UK press may not be completely accurate. The alternative is that the Council is running more than one civil action in the US. If that is the case then the costs may be much, much higher than they were suggesting on the news tonight