Twitter reveals secrets: Details of British users handed over in
landmark case that could help Ryan Giggs
Twitter has handed over the confidential details of British users in a
landmark legal case.
There is quite a big difference between asking Twitter to release user
information in
On 29/05/2011 14:54, Chris Keating wrote:
Twitter reveals secrets: Details of British users handed over in
landmark case that could help Ryan Giggs
Twitter has handed over the confidential details of British users in a
landmark legal case.
There is quite a big difference
On 25 May 2011 23:05, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On a converse note; a society that is so enthralled with the idea of a
footballer having an affair is so unimaginably pathetic that they probably
deserve any restrictions they end up with. Those of us fighting for free
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter
exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege)
deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Note that 75,000 are alleged to have tweeted the name. Where as the
Wikipedia entry was edited by a
Suggestion: modify the living people rules. since you cannot libel
the dead.
What modification did you have in mind, out of interest?
I'm also quite glad it's turned out to be a Twitter story rather than a
Wikipedia story.
Chris
___
Wikimedia
On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter
exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege)
deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Although the original Telegraph
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 22:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter
exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege)
deflected interest away from
of them.But, I do feel obliged to point out a tiny risk does remain.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org;
Date: Wed, May 25, 2011 10:39 pm
, there are softer targets south of the border - thousands
of them.
But, I do feel obliged to point out a tiny risk does remain.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: Brian McNeil brian.mcn
on that. Expect further correspondance once all can be revealed later this year - and, conceivably, newspapers in court.Also, Ryan Giggs.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: Brian McNeil
On 22/05/2011 12:50, iain.macdon...@wikinewsie.org wrote:
The AG be damned; I have legal advice on this already. I am a Scot in
Scotland, and the English and Welsh High Court has no jurisdiction over
what I say here.
That only matter if the lawyers was stupid enough to forget to apply for
an
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 4:46 pm
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 23 May 2011 16:40, iain.macdon...@wikinewsie.org; wrote
On 21/05/2011 09:30, Andrew West wrote:
Which footballer would that be? Aaah, Wikipedia finally comes to the rescue:
The affair is outed!
Gordo
--
Gordon Joly
gordon.j...@pobox.com
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 19:49 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
I heard an except from an interview with Jimbo on BBC London radio
this afternoon; paraphrasing, his attitude was because the name has
been named in reliable US sources, US editors will ensure it stays in
enwiki.
Something I stumbled
I believe the applicable case law is Arkell v. Pressdram.
On 21 May 2011 20:10, Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org wrote:
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 19:49 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
I heard an except from an interview with Jimbo on BBC London radio
this afternoon; paraphrasing, his attitude
On 21 May 2011 20:10, Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Something I stumbled across today:
http://www.city-law.net/news/2010/Wikipedia_article.htm
So, it'll stay in - sure. However, someone in the US may well have to
ask for legal assistance (EFF, ACLU?) in - via the Foundation
This story has run in several newspapers today (Thursday) and shows
that Wikipedia has processes that can protect articles (which most of
the public would be unaware of) and that prompt action is taken when
verifiability or legal issues are outstanding.
*
17 matches
Mail list logo
