Ten years ago, the internet platform X, then known as Twitter, filed a lawsuit against the government in hopes of forcing transparency around abuse-prone surveillance of social media users. However, X’s battle for transparency clashed with the uncomfortable fact that the company itself engages in government surveillance of social media users.
Under the new ownership of Elon Musk, X continued its litigation until its defeat in January. The lawsuit aimed to overturn a governmental ban on disclosing the receipt of requests, known as national security letters, that compel companies to turn over user metadata and private direct messages. Companies receiving these requests are typically bound to keep them secret and can only disclose the number they’ve received in vague numerical ranges.
In a petition to the Supreme Court last September, X’s attorneys championed communications privacy, citing concerns about government abuse of electronic communications surveillance. Despite the court declining to take up the case in January, Musk expressed disappointment on Twitter. The court’s refusal marked the end of X’s legal bid, positioning the company and Musk at the forefront of a battle for greater transparency about government surveillance.
However, emails between the U.S. Secret Service and surveillance firm Dataminr revealed that X was profiting from the sale of user data for government surveillance purposes while fighting secrecy around state surveillance in court. Dataminr provides real-time alerts to clients like police departments by monitoring public activity on social media platforms, including X.
While Dataminr defends its platform as a public safety tool, it has been used by police to monitor online political speech and protests. Privacy advocates have criticized X for selling user data for government surveillance while warning about potential abuses of communications surveillance.
Adam Schwartz from the Electronic Frontier Foundation emphasized the importance of social media platforms protecting user privacy and not providing special services for surveillance vendors. Despite X’s warnings about government surveillance abuses, the company’s continued sale of user data for surveillance purposes raises concerns among privacy advocates.
Following an investigation into Twitter data use for police surveillance, X banned third parties from conducting surveillance or gathering intelligence using firehose data. However, Dataminr continued to use data from X for monitoring protests and other events.
National security scholars highlighted the similarities between national security letters and fire-hose monitoring, both enabling widespread government surveillance with little oversight. The contradiction between X’s objections to government surveillance and its support for similar measures through partnerships like Dataminr has drawn criticism from experts.
In conclusion, while X’s efforts for transparency regarding national security letters are commendable, its support for surveillance measures through partnerships like Dataminr raises concerns about user privacy. The ideological contradictions within X’s ownership and its stance on government surveillance highlight the complexities of balancing transparency and privacy in the digital age.