Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
July 4, 2012
Two Twitter Tidbits
Monique Chartier
Firstly, a Manhatten judge has ruled that Twitter must release three months of tweets of a man charged with disorderly conduct. The D.A. had supboenaed the tweets to establish that the defendant knew that he was breaking the law when he marched on the Brooklyn Bridge
during a mass demonstration related to the Occupy Wall Street protests.
The reasoning of Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. strikes me as interesting and sound.
Twitter had moved to quash the request from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, arguing that like email, Twitter users have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment. The judge disagreed, saying “if you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.”
And, paging Woonsocket's John Ward, City Council president and member of the Budget Commission. Can we please get some background/explanation of this enigmatic tweet from a couple of days ago?
John Ward @jfward55How many mole hills does it take to make a mountain? One, I think, in the right forum.
1:54 PM
| TrackBack (0)
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
When the city council spent 30 minutes discussing a proposal to lease space for a fiber-optic service box on the site of a city water tank, after having tabled the matter so they could get more information and not asking any questions in the interim, then voting no; well, I then posted the tweet.
BTW, Verizon already has the same piece of equipment for their connections on the same site and it appears that they may have been granted an easement by the city council several years ago, at no cost.
Posted by: John at July 5, 2012 2:43 PMThank you!
(... "lease", as in a potential revenue stream??? Feel free not to answer, especially if the answer is "yes".)
Posted by: Monique at July 5, 2012 9:34 PMYes, lease is a revenue stream. Some see this in the same light as the tower antennas that bring in substantial revenue. Some acted as though Cox should be paying us many thousands of dollars, one mentioned $25,000 or nothing! This is not that, but noone wanted to listen to that. You can't be a political hero by having a rational conversation and doing something positive.
When I asked the Cox representative what would happen if we did not approv this request, he said they would mount the equipment on a pole nearby, AT NO COST!
Aren't we smart?
Cox is appealing to the budget commission to reconsider the decision of the city council.
Posted by: John at July 6, 2012 8:20 AMJohn,
When I lived in Woon. and Cox had just moved into the city, they just came into my property and installed the cable trunk to the telephone pole that provided electric power and telephone service to my house without asking permission.
After checking real pole location I discovered the pole was squarely 100% on my property and not on property line per surveyor drawings.
I called Cox and told them I was not a Cox customer and they had no permission to install their bulk feed cable on my property. They had 10-days to remove it or I would cut it down.
They told me under law I could not do that. I replied try me for Cox trespassed onto my personal property without permission.
They cut back the cable 250 ft. to the previous pole and terminated it there before my 10 day ultimatum expired.
Posted by: KenW at July 8, 2012 3:00 AM