Your tweets are no longer yours, but can still be used against you.

[GeorgiaBoy]

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/judge-tweets-permissible-in-court/

On Monday, a New York judge ruled, essentially, that though when you post a "Tweet" (could be carried into Facebook posts as well), it is no longer yours but belongs to Twitter (according to Twitters user agreement.) Since you no longer own the tweet, a deleted tweet can apparently be subpoenaed without a warrant and be used against you.

I had a lengthy debate with this among some friends of mine today. In my opinion, something being used against you that you no longer own is as ridiculous as you being responsible if a car you sell breaks, or a gun you sell is used to kill someone. If you no longer own what you had, and didn't know what could happen from it, you shouldn't be held responsible. This of course goes even deeper, such as whether its right for businesses to review an applicant's Facebook or Twitter during the application process, or schools spying on student's sites for illicit activity, or law enforcement using it to look for illegal activity.

What do you think about using these sights? Is what you put up for public domain? Should you be be held responsible, and can legal action be done from what you post on these sights? Or do you give up some protections in exchange for using the sites?

[ChicagoTex]

While I don't agree with the position that posting something on Twitter or FB constitutes forfeiture of what you posted, I also don't agree with your position that things you no longer own can't be used against you.

If, for example, someone transported a bleeding murder victim in their trunk, disposed of the body and subsequently sold that vehicle to another person before being investigated by police, there's no reason the buyer couldn't be tracked down and the evidence of the original owner's crime in a vehicle that is no longer legally theirs couldn't still be used against them at their murder trial.

Similarly, if something along the lines of a deleted threat, admission of guilt, etc. on Twitter is legally obtained (even though, in this case, it really shouldn't be) there is still no reason it cannot be used against you.

In short, anything you say or do can be used against you in a court of law, regardless of who technically owns it.

[Moose-Knuckle]

I don't have a Twitter account, I don't "Tweet" nor do I ever intend too. This is a broad brush that will cover EVERY facet of one's "wired" life, to include internet firearm forums.

To think people are logged into their FB, Twitter, M4C, et al. all the while keeping connected via their smart phones, pads, and other devices. . .privacy is a by gone concept. :(

[Reagans Rascals]

very easy way to circumvent all of this...

don't have a facebook, don't use twitter, don't let your children have facebook or twitter... problem solved...

there is no reason for children to be on those sites to begin with

I have a cousin who has a fb page for each of his individual children, all of which are under 8, and each one has over 200 "friends".... some of them adults, with no monitoring by the parents

my friends wife, being the dumb cunt she is, posted an ass ton of negative comments about her boss and her work place on her myspace page, because its obviously a diary right? Well guess who is one of her myspace friends?... you guessed it, her boss... and what did her boss do then?.. she printed out the comments and posted them in the break room.... and who got the shit schedules from then on and had her hours cut back?... bingo... and who wonders why the world is just beating her down and not realizing how god damn stupid her own ass is... right again.. you win a prize

don't have any of it and you wont have any problems... if you want to update your friends, or tell them you like their pictures, try calling them on the phone or seeing them in person.

my opinion is... if you are stupid enough to do something bad and then post about it on twitter or fb... you deserve to get caught... and employers asking potential hires for their FB can go to hell... I'm gonna start asking mine for their credit card numbers, bank account information and the number of previous sexual partners in chronological order with names and contact information so I can check references and make sure they weren't throwing it to any hogs

[PA PATRIOT]

Its really simple,

Don't say dumb crap on the Internet that can bite you in the butt later on.

Many people still think just because they use a screen name that no one can ever find out who they really are and they run their mouths making problems for them selfs both civilly and criminally.

Hell the government is paying millions to private companies to monitor the Internet every second of every day so if your stupid enough to draw attention to yourself out of the billions who use the net then its shame on you.

[GeorgiaBoy]

While I don't agree with the position that posting something on Twitter or FB constitutes forfeiture of what you posted, I also don't agree with your position that things you no longer own can't be used against you.

If, for example, someone transported a bleeding murder victim in their trunk, disposed of the body and subsequently sold that vehicle to another person before being investigated by police, there's no reason the buyer couldn't be tracked down and the evidence of the original owner's crime in a vehicle that is no longer legally theirs couldn't still be used against them at their murder trial.

Similarly, if something along the lines of a deleted threat, admission of guilt, etc. on Twitter is legally obtained (even though, in this case, it really shouldn't be) there is still no reason it cannot be used against you.

In short, anything you say or do can be used against you in a court of law, regardless of who technically owns it.

I don't disagree with you, but I am referring more to non-intentional malicious intent situations. Purposely selling a car with a body in the trunk is one thing, selling a car with a unknown defect is another.

I'm talking about tweeting or posting things you think are innocent that one day comes back to bite you somehow, despite the fact you may have deleted it.

But like has been said, if you dont want trouble just don't use them.

[feedramp]

They want it both ways: They want it "no longer yours" so they can get it without subpoena, but they also want it to still be yours when it comes to assessing culpability. I thought the saying was you CAN'T have it both ways. :confused:

[GeorgiaBoy]

They want it both ways: They want it "no longer yours" so they can get it without subpoena, but they also want it to still be yours when it comes to assessing culpability. I thought the saying was you CAN'T have it both ways. :confused:

Exactly.

[Moose-Knuckle]

The way our nation is going one day the thought police will be kicking your door in the middle of the night and give you the black hood treatment for your internet postings that don't "toe the line".

I'm screwed, for years I've been posting I how feel. :suicide2:

[The_War_Wagon]

very easy way to circumvent all of this...

don't have a facebook, don't use twitter, don't let your children have facebook or twitter... problem solved...

don't have any of it and you wont have any problems... if you want to update your friends, or tell them you like their pictures, try calling them on the phone or seeing them in person.

FOR. THE. WIN. :dance3:

[rob_s]

People are idiots if they think that anything, anytime, they say online (even under some fake name like on this forum) is not forever entered into the public record to be used against you in the worst possible way at any time.

Saying "don't have a facebook or twitter" on a public forum has to be one of the funniest things I've read in awhile. It's right up there with the people that post on the internet about how you shouldn't have, or watch, a TV.


I have sat in a deposition across the table from a lawyer that had printouts of my facebook page, a page that is allegedly only viewable by "friends", and read from it when asking me questions. He got this WITHOUT any kind of subpoena as well.

It is 2012 gentlemen. Assume that ANYTHING you put in writing ANYWHERE "can and will be used against you", and that anyone you're speaking to is recording what you say.

Look at Ted Kazinsky. That guy lived in a shack on the woods and they tracked him down from something he wrote 20 years earlier in college.

[Voodoo_Man]

This has been true for a while.

I've been googling peoples names that I've arrested and downloading, printing and providing that info to the ADA's, they love it.

Sort of difficult to say we (the police) are lying or did not see what we saw when there is a twitter post showing you smoking weed or holding a gun (and got caght with the same gun).

Absolute best method is to either not have an account or make everything private so someone has to either register or friend you in order to see your post. In my opinion most forums need to be like this.

[Bolt_Overide]

and people call me lame for not having any of these horseshit accounts like twitter, facebook etc...

[Reagans Rascals]

and people call me lame for not having any of these horseshit accounts like twitter, facebook etc...

those are the same people that base their self-esteem on how many people comment on their new status that they are watching The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 for the 11th time, or how many people join their group called " Fans of Blossom"

I had a facebook page, specifically for talking with deployed friends, I had 11 friends on it, all of which I talk to on the phone or in person when they are home, and the second they all returned I deleted everything from it and then deactivated it.

[SteyrAUG]

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/judge-tweets-permissible-in-court/

On Monday, a New York judge ruled, essentially, that though when you post a "Tweet" (could be carried into Facebook posts as well), it is no longer yours but belongs to Twitter (according to Twitters user agreement.) Since you no longer own the tweet, a deleted tweet can apparently be subpoenaed without a warrant and be used against you.

I had a lengthy debate with this among some friends of mine today. In my opinion, something being used against you that you no longer own is as ridiculous as you being responsible if a car you sell breaks, or a gun you sell is used to kill someone. If you no longer own what you had, and didn't know what could happen from it, you shouldn't be held responsible. This of course goes even deeper, such as whether its right for businesses to review an applicant's Facebook or Twitter during the application process, or schools spying on student's sites for illicit activity, or law enforcement using it to look for illegal activity.

What do you think about using these sights? Is what you put up for public domain? Should you be be held responsible, and can legal action be done from what you post on these sights? Or do you give up some protections in exchange for using the sites?

So what happens when you author a book and sell the rights?

I suppose the new owner of the content assumes liability, but at the same time I think you can still be held accountable for the original authorship.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Saying "don't have a facebook or twitter" on a public forum has to be one of the funniest things I've read in awhile. It's right up there with the people that post on the internet about how you shouldn't have, or watch, a TV.

I don't follow, I have multiple accounts on multiple gun boards due to that being the area of my interest. I'm not on any dirt bike, sail boat, or racing forums as I have no interest in the subject matters. So yes, I'm on a public firearm forum saying that I don't have a Twitter acount. FB and Twitter have the ability to track members via GPS apps through the users smart phone to give "friends" live real time locations you visited (bars/coffee houses, et al.).

To my knowledge M4C doesn't do that, yet. :D


Look at Ted Kazinsky. That guy lived in a shack on the woods and they tracked him down from something he wrote 20 years earlier in college.

The FBI would have never discoverd Ted Kazinksy (aka Unabomber) if it wasn't for a suspicous brother and sister-in-law. The dude was totally off the grid.