Ok so first of all - Twitter/GDPR/what to do! So firstly, the court needs to make the order for Twitter to disclose the data, which they may not do as it’s a) disproportionate b) a waste of time c) complex involving international law d) ridiculous….

In addition, AH has already been told she cannot pursue this in the VA trial, so it’s a pointless exercise! I feel this approach re twitter is v much an “AH” idea; not advice from a lawyer… as it’s not going to accomplish anything and is a waste of time.
In any event; re GDPR - while the laws around GDPR are v strict, where it comes to information being disclosed in the course of legal proceedings, it is more tricky. The issue has been argued in other cases - esp re disclosure of UK/EU citizens’s info in US legal proceedings.
And in simple terms, the bottom line is, if the court orders it, it can be disclosed. The question then is, what to do about it. Well, you could kick up a stink, file a motion to quash it etc.. etc… but I’m not here to give any individuals legal advice.
However, while it might be tempting to create almighty hell over it, here’s a thought… you all know you are real people right? So you could all give AH what she wants & simply let her look utterly ridiculous! So she gets the info - then what?
The purpose of this fishing exercise is to determine if the people on the list are bots created by JD/AW. You all know you’re not. So she gets the info & it’s game over for her. If she then uses that data for another purpose, THEN you can unleash hell!
If you seek to quash/obstruct her getting it, that actually plays into her hands because she’ll claim it’s trying to cover stuff up. It’s of course up to you what you do; you absolutely have a right to your privacy & I don’t blame anyone for protecting that right.
Personally, if it were me on that list, I’d say “fine, knock yourself out!”...knowing she’s just going to look ridiculous. Play JD’s game; give her what she wants & watch it backfire. I mean what’s she gonna do?
She’s not going to subpoena 200 JD fans to turn up & confirm they’re real people! Or get them to say JD made them post stuff!Firstly it’s absurd & wouldn’t be allowed & secondly can you imagine how that would go?!
But on a serious note; as I say, if she gets the data & then uses it for a purpose OTHER than proving/disproving her legal claim (which has already been dismissed!), THEN data protection legislation could come into play & you could have legal recourse against her.
If she passes that data onto others, uses it to target people, discloses personal data publicly etc… then you can go to town, probably with greater weight behind your arguments.
Anyway; that’s my thoughts on it; personally I’d let her crack on & look even more ridiculous, but that's just me. In fact, I’m just gutted I’m not on the list, I’d have a laugh picturing her dastardly plan falling apart before her eyes!
I get there are bigger implications but y’know - think carefully… sometimes it’s better to let someone keep on digging that big hole for themselves… and wait for the opportune moment! #thinklikejack

More from Law

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)