This is what confuses me. NYPD subpoenaed Twitter. Twitter said "no".
I don't understand why Rabbi Copwatch would be involved in fighting the subpoena.
Rabbi Copwatch should sue NYPD for infringing his civil rights by spying on him.
He has nothing to defend against. Under current law, if he doesn't want NYPD siezing papers and effects about him from Twitter, that is not his papers and effects, he needs to stop giving copies of data about himself to Twitter.
I don't like that law, but I think that's where the law sits today.
My understanding is that the customer of a service (like Twitter or an ISP) can sometimes file a motion to quash a subpoena given to their service provider. It depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case, however.
I don't understand why Rabbi Copwatch would be involved in fighting the subpoena.
Rabbi Copwatch should sue NYPD for infringing his civil rights by spying on him.
He has nothing to defend against. Under current law, if he doesn't want NYPD siezing papers and effects about him from Twitter, that is not his papers and effects, he needs to stop giving copies of data about himself to Twitter. I don't like that law, but I think that's where the law sits today.