Tweet by Tweet: How Twitter Handles Government Requests for Information & Content Removal

Liz Woolery, July 26, 2013

Abstract: Twitter's recent decision to disclose account information for the individuals behind a series of anti-Semitic tweets made headlines around the world. But the move also raises questions about how the social network deals with government requests for information and content removal.

Twitter's recent decision to disclose account information for the individuals behind a series of anti-Semitic tweets made headlines around the world. But the move also raises questions about how the social network deals with government requests for information and content removal.

In July 2012 Twitter began an effort to make information about such requests public. Twitter's Transparency Report contains information about the number of requests it receives, for how many accounts, and how it responded to these requests, all broken down by country. The report offers even more detailed information for content requests within the United States. The report highlights the number of requests the organization has received since January 2012. In that time Twitter has received 48 removal requests, 6,646 copyright notices, and 1,858 requests for information. This last category, requests for information, can be broken down even further so that we can see the data for U.S.-only requests for information. Since January 1, 2012, Twitter has received 816 requests for information covering 1,145 accounts; in 69% of cases Twitter produced some or all of the information requested by U.S. law enforcement.

The U.S.-only data Twitter provides gets even more specific. For those curious about the source or type of request for information, and whether Twitter notified the account holder(s) identified in the request, check out the data below. In certain circumstances (such as when a request is "under seal") Twitter was legally prohibited from notifying affected account holders; in other situations, Twitter was free to notify account holders. In these situations Twitter reports that it notified 24% of users. When the request was not under seal and Twitter declined to notify users, it did so for one of three reasons: The request was withdrawn, the request was defective, or the request was "an exigent emergency disclosure request," meaning that if Twitter believes (based on a law enforcement request ) that turning over information could prevent "danger of death or serious physical injury," they may be more likely to produce the information without notifying the account holder. Twitter requires a valid subpoena, warrant, court order, or similar legal process in order to turn over information about its users to law enforcement.

A check of the Chilling Effects database reveals more information about the types of information requests Twitter receives. Twitter began submitting copyright notices to the database in 2012. At the time Twitter first partnered with Chilling Effects, the social media platform also submitted a backlog of notices, making the earliest Twitter notice in our database from 2010. Using the database search feature, I searched for "Twitter" as the recipient of notices and came up with a total of 10,393 notices dating back a few years. I then searched by topic, coming up with these numbers:

Copyright: 10,366 notices
International: 13 notices
Responses: 2 notices
Trademark: 1 notice
Uncategorized: 11 notices

Given the news about Twitter's decision to turn over account holder information to French authorities, the notices filed under the "International" topic are perhaps the most interesting. What these notices show are the times Twitter received a request for information or removal request from a non-U.S. country since Twitter began submitting these "country-withheld-content" notices to our database in 2012. The "country-withheld-content" notices are sent when a tweet is found to violate a particular country's hate speech or expression laws. Twitter will remove the content so that viewers in that country cannot see the infringing speech. In January 2012 Twitter announced that it had the capability to block tweets on a country-by-country basis and would begin to do so. What this means is that content that violates German law, for example, will not be viewable to individuals in Germany, but will remain viewable by individuals in other countries. Twitter's policy with respect to "country-withheld-content" is pretty straightforward: " . . . if we receive a valid and properly scoped request from an authorized entity, it may be necessary to reactively withhold access to certain content in a particular country from time to time." Twitter notifies affected users and replaces the tweet or Twitter account in question with a box noting that the tweet or account has been withheld in that country.

This search of the Chilling Effects database was pretty simple: I selected "International" from the drop-down topic list, entered "Twitter" as the recipient, and hit "Submit Search." At the bottom of this post you can see the results that were returned, as well as some additional information I've added. Of the 14 results returned, 5 were from Russia, 2 were from Japan, 2 were from France, 3 were from Germany, 1 was from India, and 1 was from the Netherlands. The vast majority were sent directly from some part of the government, such as an executive agency or a court. The 2 notices from France, however, came from private organizations, both of which have been vocal in their fights to have certain tweets removed from Twitter. For more information about the types of notices filed under "International," read our topic page.

Twitter received the majority of the International notices in the Chilling Effects database in 2013. Unfortunately Twitter has not released an updated Transparency Report with data for the first two quarters of this year, so there's no data on Twitter's end to match up with what can be found in the Chilling Effects database. But when Twitter does update its Transparency Report, it may be possible to see how Twitter responded to requests on a request-by-request basis - despite the fact that Twitter makes an effort to report the information in its Transparency Report in aggregate (that way individual accounts cannot be identified).

However, we still can find some information about specific requests. Take this notice, for example. It's from September 2012 and in it, German authorities ask Twitter to ban or close the account of a group called Besseres Hannover with the Twitter handle @hannoverticker. The request notes that the organization is the subject of an "investigation on suspicion of forming a criminal association," and that Besseres Hannover "disbanded, its assets are seized and all its accounts in social networks have to be closed immediately." Checking Twitter's Transparency Report for information on removal requests in the second quarter of 2012, the social media network reports that it received 2 removal requests from Germany. Twitter complied with half of the requests (accounting for one Twitter account).

So did Twitter comply with the Besseres Hannover request? Well, the final step is to see whether the @hannoverticker account still exists. A quick check on Twitter reveals that the account @hannoverticker is indeed up and running, and identifies itself as "Besseres Hannover." But wait! Remember Twitter's country-withheld-content policy? Twitter has the ability to block tweets from accounts on a country-by-country basis. So if Twitter did comply with the request, only individuals in Germany would not see the Twitter account, while the rest of the world can access the @hannoverticker page. Using a Germany-based proxy server, I attempted to access the @hannoverticker account and was unsuccessful. On the other hand, I was able to access accounts that have not been the subject of Twitter removal requests, such as @ChillingEffects and @BerkmanCenter, with no problem.

Also worth pointing out is that Twitter's Transparency Report for the third and fourth quarters of 2012 notes that "For the first time, this data includes two instances - one request from France, one request from Germany - where we employed our Country Withheld Content policy." That request from Germany? It's the one sent by "Polizeidirektion Hannover" (Hanover Police) regarding @hanonoverticker. Twitter goes on to say that it "received a removal request from German law enforcement, requesting the removal of an account belonging to a banned, white supremacist organization in Germany. We withheld access to the one specified account in Germany."

You can find specifics about content removal and account holder information requests from Germany and France in a recent Weather Report.

Why does this all matter? Some may argue that 140 characters isn't much, but with roughly 200 active users around the world producing 500 million tweets per day, Twitter easily has become an integral part of how many internet users express themselves, learn about breaking news, keep tabs on #TheRoyalBaby, and follow their favorite brands. It's role as a quick and easy vehicle for information dissemination in times of crisis or political upheaval can't be ignored either. With only 140 characters, Twitter yields a lot of power around the world.

Subject	Notice ID	Sender	Sender Translation/More Info	Sender Type	Country	Date
CWC Notice to Twitter- Japanese RE:Business Defamation	1085070	Tokyo District Court Civil Section 9	No additional information.	Court	Japan	07/18/2013
Russian Request to Twitter to Withold Drug-Related Tweets	1072083	Federal Service for Supervision of Communications,	Also known as Roskomnadzor.	Federal Agency	Russia	7/10/2013
Twitter-Country Withheld Content - France: Racist Tweets	1024519	SOS - Homophobie.org	SOS Homophobie is a French LGBTQ organisation that tackles homophobia.	Private Organization.	France	6/16/2013
Notice from MDI	1019852	MDI / Complaints Bureau for Discrimination on the Internet	MDI stands for Meldpunt Discriminatie Internet, which translates to the "Dutch Complaints Bureau for Discrimination on the Internet."	NGO Funded by Dutch Ministry of Justice	Netherlands	6/12/2013
Twitter Implements Country-Specific Withholding For Three Tweets In India	995255	High Court of Judicature at Bombay.	No additional information.	Court	India	5/29/2013
Twitter Notice of Withholding-Single Tweet-Russian User "@vladislaved"	885323	Roskomnadzor	Roskomnadzor is the Federal Service for Supervision in Telecommunications, Information Technology and Mass Communications.	Federal Agency	Russia	3/28/2013
Twitter Country Specific Removal: Russia --"PoroshikiTV"	862485	Bundesminiserium des Innern	"Bundesministerium des Innern," which translates to "Federal Ministry of the Interior."	Federal Agency	Russia	3/13/2013
Germany Requests Shutdown of Organization's and Individuals' Twitter Accounts	1088046	Leipzig Police - STAATSMINISTERIUM OBS INNERN	Leipzig Police; "OBS" is likely a typo, meant to read "des." The full title then translates to "State Ministry of the Interior."	Police Department	Russia	3/18/2013
Twitter Withholds German Account "@dawaffm"	871680	Roskomnadzor	Roskomnadzor is the Federal Service for Supervision in Telecommunications, Information Technology and Mass Communications.	Federal Agency	Russia	3/18/2013
Single Tweet Withheld from user @sult	863049	Rospotrebnadzor	Rospotrebnadzor is the Federal Service for Control in the Sphere of Protection Consumers' Rights and Well-Being of Humans.	Federal Agency	Russia	3/13/2013
Twitter Country Specific Removal: Russia --"PoroshikiTV"	843608	Roskomnadzor	Roskomnadzor is the Federal Service for Supervision in Telecommunications, Information Technology and Mass Communications.	Federal Agency	Russia	3/1/2013
Removal of Various Japanese Twitter Identities	843744	Tokyo District Court	No additional information.	Court	Japan	3/1/2013
UEJF Complains to Twitter of Anti-Semitic Tweets	672250	L'Union des Etudiants Juifs de France (UEJF)	Private Organization.	Union of French Jewish Students	France	10/23/2012
German Police ask Twitter to Close Account	643172	Polizeidirektion Hannover	Hanover Police.	Police Department	Germany	9/25/2012