SoylentNews

NotSanguine [soylentnews.org] writes:

Ars Technica is reporting [arstechnica.com] that Twitter has convinced a judge to issue a subpoena to Github, requiring them to provide all personal details in their possession of a user called "FreeSpeechEnthusiast".

From the article:

Twitter has obtained a subpoena compelling GitHub to provide identifying information on a user who posted portions of Twitter's source code.

Twitter on Friday asked the US District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a subpoena to GitHub [arstechnica.com]. A court clerk signed off on the subpoena [courtlistener.com] [PDF] yesterday.

GitHub user "FreeSpeechEnthusiast" posted Twitter source code in early January, shortly after Elon Musk bought Twitter and laid off thousands of workers. Twitter reportedly suspects the code leaker is one of its many ex-employees.

GitHub removed the code repository on Friday shortly after Twitter filed a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown notice. Twitter's takedown notice also requested identifying information on FreeSpeechEnthusiast, but GitHub didn't provide those details to Twitter immediately.

GitHub must produce details by April 3

With the subpoena now issued, GitHub has until April 3 to provide all identifying information, "including the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es), social media profile data, and IP address(es), for the user(s) associated with" the FreeSpeechEnthusiast account. GitHub was also ordered to provide the same type of information on any "users who posted, uploaded, downloaded or modified the data" at the code repository posted by FreeSpeechEnthusiast.
[...]
Getting a DMCA subpoena doesn't seem to be all that difficult if it pertains to someone who directly posted infringing content. The DMCA text [copyright.gov] [PDF] says that if a notification of infringement satisfies the provisions of the law, and if "the proposed subpoena is in proper form, and the accompanying declaration is properly executed, the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena and return it to the requester for delivery to the service provider."

GitHub could theoretically still challenge the subpoena demands. "While DMCA subpoenas are meant to provide a legal fast lane to reveal the identity of an alleged infringer, platforms receiving a subpoena can challenge it in court, especially if they feel that it will implicate the free speech rights of the user," a Bloomberg article [bloomberglaw.com] notes.

N.B: TFA provides several other examples (involving Reddit and Google) of this sort (well, kinda -- in those cases, it seems there's much less in the way of actual infringement and more in the way of advice on how to infringe) as well.

So what say you, Soylentils? Is "FreeSpeechEnthusiast" a criminal? A hero? Some disgruntled ex-employee? Some or all of the above?

Does information (Twitter source code included) want to be free? Should that matter in this particular (or others) case?

Original Submission