Twitter would not defy court order over users' identities, executive says

Tony Wang told the eG8 internet forum in Paris that Twitter would hand over user information where the law demanded it of the company, the BBC reported.

"Platforms have a responsibility, not to defend that user but to protect that user's right to defend him or herself", Wang told the forum according to the BBC report.

Twitter's guidelines say that it will release information about users under a court order, subpoena or "other valid legal process document". Internet service providers and other content companies operate similar policies.

The BBC reported that Wang said that it was users' responsibility to defend their own actions, not Twitter's.

"Let them exercise their own legal rights under their own jurisdiction, whether that is a motion to quash the order or to oppose it or do a number of other things to defend themselves," Wang said according to the BBC.

Twitter would inform users if they were asked to divulge their information, Wang said, according to the BBC.

Wang said he was "shocked" by the BBC article.

"Electronic liberty panel at [the eG8 forum] described how Twitter values user privacy and protects users right to a defense. Shocked by BBC article," Wang said on his Twitter page.

"To the extent we can, we give users notice of requests so they have opportunity to defend themselves. BBC construed that very irresponsibly," Wang said.

Wang 're-tweeted' messages from a fellow Twitter official who had posted links to Twitter's policy on how it responds to requests for user information.

"Non-public information about Twitter users is not released unless we have received a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process document," Twitter's guidelines for law enforcement said.

"Some information we store is automatically collected, while other information is provided at the user’s discretion. Twitter, Inc. is located in San Francisco, California and will only respond in compliance with U.S. law to valid legal process," the guidelines said.

"Twitter's policy is to notify users of requests for their information prior to disclosure unless we are prohibited from doing so by statute or court order," Twitter's guidelines said.

Wang also 're-tweeted' a link to a Twitter blog from January which refers to the company's policy on divulging user information.

"Our position on freedom of expression carries with it a mandate to protect our users' right to speak freely and preserve their ability to contest having their private information revealed," the blog said.

"While we may need to release information as required by law, we try to notify Twitter users before handing over their information whenever we can so they have a fair chance to fight the request if they so choose," the blog said.

Twitter is under pressure from lawyers in the UK to reveal the identity of users who broke a court order by publishing the name of a footballer in connection with an alleged affair.

In Parliament on Monday Liberal MP John Hemming named Ryan Giggs as holding a court order banning his name being revealed in connection to allegations of an affair. Hemming said he had named Giggs after thousands of Twitter users had used the site to claim he had obtained an order from court preventing his name from being published in association with the allegations.

Media law expert Kim Walker, who works for Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW, recently told this site that it would be difficult for a UK court to force Twitter to give up users' information.

"In the UK an individual would apply to court for a court order called a Norwich Pharmacal Order to require the release of the information. But because Twitter is based in the US a UK court would have no jurisdiction to enforce the order against Twitter," Walker said.

"The UK court would have to write to its US equivalent asking it to impose a request for information. It would then be up to that court whether to issue Twitter with an order to disclose the information," Walker said.

This process is slow and could prove difficult for those behind the super-injunctions to use, which could lead some to question whether super-injunctions can ever fully work, Walker said.

"It is increasingly questionable whether super-injunctions are effective because of the jurisdictional and practical difficulties of enforcing them across the web and where the controversy they bring in fact seems to draw attention to and whet the public's appetite for the very information they are designed to suppress," Walker said.