Malcolm Harris (inset), an Occupy Wall Street protester, was convicted for trespassing on the Brooklyn Bridge in 2011 based on his tweets. He is continuing his legal fight to keep tweets private. (
)
Twitter user and Occupy Wall Street protester Malcolm Harris is still fighting government’s reach into his Internet habits — even if it means standing trial again in a case he already settled.
Harris was one of hundreds of protesters arrested in October 2011 during an OWS protest on the Brooklyn Bridge.
The self-styled anti-authoritarian pleaded guilty after prosecutors convinced a judge to give them access to his tweets.
After months of legal machinations to quash the evidence, which he, his lawyer and Twitter argued was unjustly grabbed by the Manhattan District Attorney, Harris took a deal that left him with 10 hours of community service.
Harris has done the time, but he is still appealing the rulings that allowed for his tweets to be read — a legal move that takes on new meaning in light of recent revelations of massive government spying in the Internet age.
His appeal is scheduled to be heard in September.
“Just because I’m not surprised doesn’t mean I’m not horrified,” Harris told The Post, referring to programs run by the National Security Agency.
Last week, Edward Snowden, a former staffer for a CIA contractor, leaked the details of top secret programs to sweep up hundreds of millions of phone records, and an Internet surveillance scheme that focuses on foreigners but could uncover US citizens’ tracks on Google, Facebook and other top Web destinations.
After the spying came to light, tech companies scrambled to calm the public, most admitting they comply with government orders for data but insisting there’s no automatic access to their servers.
One firm, Twitter, stood out as a particularly reluctant party to government overreach. Its name was not on leaked documents detailing the firms in the so-called PRISM program.
“I’ve felt supported by Twitter, but I don’t think that necessarily speaks to how they’re interacting with [the] authorities,” Harris said. “Obviously the platform is by nature more public, so it’s a little bit easier for them to protect user privacy if they have less privacy to protect.”
Twitter has fought alongside Harris in his case to kill the DA’s subpoena of his messages. Last month, it lost its appeal — but is backing Harris’ appeal.
At issue is a key piece of the government’s ability to access communication records: the fact that users are not allowed to fight subpoenas for information. Only companies holding the records have standing.
Martin Stolar, Harris’ lawyer, said he hopes this case can eventually change the question of who can fight subpoenas for data.
Ironically, if Harris wins the appeal, he would face another trial — this time without his tweets as evidence.
Stolar has called those tweets problematic, because they do show Harris triumphantly messaging from the bridge. His tweets contradict claims that police led protesters to the span just to arrest them.
“This issue is much more important than one lousy disorderly conduct decision,” Stolar said.