'@Legal_AIDS' On Twitter

Paully D

Was just reading this in The Guardian earlier:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/31/twitter-user-claims-privacy-injunctions

Another Twitter user has published claims about 14 privacy injunctions allegedly obtained by high-profile performers, sportsmen and politicians.

The new Twitter account launched on Monday and has almost 800 followers at the time of publication.

On Monday evening, the anonymous user began posting a series of hitherto unpublished claims about the alleged gagging orders, including links to news articles and court documents.

Earlier this month, a Twitter user amplified pressure to reveal the identities of celebrities said to have taken out privacy injunctions with a string of claims about the alleged indiscretions of six prominent personalities. The account quickly gained more than 100,000 followers, with many more forwarding the claims across the internet.

Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer named by an MP in the Commons as being behind a gagging order preventing reporting of an alleged affair with a reality TV star, is attempting to unmask Twitter users accused of revealing details of the privacy injunction.

Giggs brought the lawsuit at the high court in London and Twitter is understood to have successfully resisted handing over the users' private information.

However, Twitter was forced to hand over the personal details of a British user earlier this month in a separate case involving south Tyneside council. The local authority brought the legal challenge in a Californian court – a move which could spark a change of tack for UK authorities attempting to unmask anonymous Twitter users.

The original Twitter claims – some of which were rejected as false by their subjects – prompted the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, to describe modern technology as being completely out of control following the publication of Lord Neuberger's report on privacy injunctions.

Judge said: "I'm not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages, very substantial damages, maybe even injunctions to stop them peddling lies. It will take quite an effort for parliament to get a grip on this."

Twitter says it removes "illegal tweets and spam" but that it "strive not to remove tweets on the basis of their content".

There's a few things on there that won't interest most, but certainly a couple that are terrible incidents that have been hidden away that surely the debate should really be about?

Guill

Users Twitter name or GTFO!

Duggy747

No such thing as privacy, I don't give a flying fùck who's cheating on their marriages.

With all the barrage of hacking on major companies lately (The latest being a US defense contractor who stopped the attempt) and people using Twitter to oust other's private lives I can see this being nothing but utterly damaging for the web as a whole.

OutlawPete

Guill wrote: »

Users Twitter name or GTFO!

It's in the thread title.

http://twitter.com/#!/Legal_AIDS

mikemac

The one about Frank Gallagher and Pauline McLynn was on boards a few weeks ago so not breaking news
Well it was alluded to with catchphrases from their most famous charecters.

Yakult

Some nice publicity for Twitter, they must be loving this.

godtabh

Guill wrote: »

Users Twitter name or GTFO!

Its in the title

Frank Spencer

Already been done

Hookah

OutlawPete wrote: »

It's in the thread title.

http://twitter.com/#!/Legal_AIDS

godtabh wrote: »

Its in the title

I'm guessing 'Sue Mae' is a pun on 'Sue me'.

Saila

twitterleaks?..............twittergate?

cosmicfart

they have twitter on computers now????

emy-87

It's the David Tune one that makes me angry. It is for that kind of case that Super-Injunctions should not apply.

Although I do not agree with publishing his home and work addresses.