Be careful what you tweet

[xoggoth]

Don't copyright laws apply here?

[SueEllen]

Journalists get lots of their news nowadays by social networking sites.

In fact with social media and blogs the power of newspapers, tv and other sources of official media have diminished. (Which is a good thing )

Look at what steps they took in Egypt to stop people using the internet and tweeting by text to communicate about the demonstrations. Unfortunately for that government Google and Twitter worked out a way around it.

[TykeMerc]

Yeah, that was funny. Doesn't get the point. Though, could twitter itself restrict the publication by means of T&Cs?

Alternatively people could refrain from posting their every trivial feeling and thought on these pathetic "social networking" sites and if they want to communicate something which might be embarrassing to a friend or two use private communications.

Frankly people who post their every thought and feeling deserve what they get, they're just attention seeking sad muppets.

[amcdonald]

Quite, like Freddie Flintoff and Darren Gough tweeting they were off to a gay bar

Like no one would notice that

[lilelvis2000]

Yeah, that was funny. Doesn't get the point. Though, could twitter itself restrict the publication by means of T&Cs?

[thunderlizard]

I pity the poor journalists who trolled through that turgid crap.

And how's about the 1884 people subscribing to it? Are they all pissed too?

[Jog On]

I pity the poor journalists who trolled through that turgid crap. ( Well, not really, given the crap they usually produce )

I don't - turgid crap's too good for 'em!

[NickFitz]

If she wanted to restrict the visibility of her tweets to people she approved, she could have done so. It's a perfectly obvious option both when you sign up and when you look at your account settings. She made everything publicly visible, so she can hardly complain if it's made public

[NotAllThere]

I would have thought that's pretty straightforward. Twitter's public anyway, unless you do the "lock" thingy.

...and anyone who can type Sarah Baskerville (Baskers) on Twitter into an address bar of course.
Pillow talk, really

I pity the poor journalists who trolled through that turgid crap. ( Well, not really, given the crap they usually produce )

[Pondlife]

Why is this surprising? It's what it's designed for, isn't it?

You (well not you obviously) decide to publish a comment on a site designed for people to read these comments and re-publish with your name attached and complain when people read/quote you.

Seems the whole point of it to me.

[thunderlizard]

I would have thought that's pretty straightforward. Twitter's public anyway, unless you do the "lock" thingy.

She complained that this information was private and was only meant to be seen by her 700 followers.

...and anyone who can type http://twitter.com/Baskers into an address bar of course.
Pillow talk, really

[TykeMerc]

It also agreed with the newspapers' argument that Twitter was publicly accessible and that the complainant had not taken steps to restrict access to her messages and was not publishing material anonymously.

As a result, the Commission ruled that the articles did not constitute a breach of privacy.

Seems a perfectly reasonable view.

[Sysman]

BBC News - 'Twitter messages not private' rules PCC

She complained that this information was private and was only meant to be seen by her 700 followers.

[lilelvis2000]

BBC News - 'Twitter messages not private' rules PCC

Material that is published on Twitter should be considered public and can be published, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has ruled.