Comments on: Twitterers: Don’t Expect Privacy When You Squat a Brand Name.

By: Dave Zatz

Dave Zatz — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:32:16 +0000

There could be many trademark holders of many names and variations, plus regional-specific registrations. Twitter should not disclose the identity of the person behind any account with some sort of legal entity getting involved. Of course, they should feel free to kill the account or transfer ownership in obvious cases.

What’s unique thing about this case, as you pointed out, is that they had a (former) Skype employee in their database and assumed a breakdown in that company’s communication chain. I can see it now. “It’s registered under your colleague’s name, so check with so-and-so.”

By: Ed Oswald

Ed Oswald — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:00:50 +0000

thanks lloyd, nah I’ll leave it. We don’t like to coverup our screwups.

Med – i dunno.. brand names are a special case.. otherwise I can see where there would be a problem.

By: [TechBlogWatch] Best of Blogs für den 8. April 2009 | TechFieber | Hot Gadget Blog. Smart Tech News.

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:58:22 +0000

[...] Twitter Squatter: Twitterers: Don’t Expect Privacy When You Squat a Brand Name. [...]

By: medienfieber

medienfieber — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:54:49 +0000

sounds a bit like in the very early days of the WWW, when companies requested regular folks to turn over domain names …

By: Lloyd Budd

Lloyd Budd — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:20:10 +0000

I think you meant to write “Twitter had released her contact information” instead of “Skype had released her contact information, which included an @skype.net email address,”

(feel free to correct to delete this comment)