Elon Musk’s X Withholds User Data from UK Authorities Amid Riots

[Social Media]

 

Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, formerly known as Twitter, refused to hand over hundreds of user account details to British authorities during and after last summer’s riots. This decision comes as the billionaire has been vocal in criticizing the UK Government for imprisoning individuals over social media posts.  

 

According to newly published transparency figures from X, the company rejected more than half of the information requests submitted by UK authorities in the second half of 2024. Out of 806 requests, X provided data in just 379 cases, representing a compliance rate of 47 percent. This rate is significantly lower than the disclosure levels reported by other major technology companies, including Google, Meta, TikTok, and LinkedIn.  

 

The requests from UK law enforcement agencies sought access to various types of data, including email addresses, IP addresses, and private messages associated with certain accounts. The period covered by the data coincides with the riots that took place in July and August, which led to dozens of arrests for social media activity. Some individuals faced prison sentences as a result of their online statements.  

 

During this time, Musk was outspoken in his criticism of the UK’s response. He compared Britain to the Soviet Union and accused the recently elected Labour Government of suppressing free speech. In January, he went even further, writing, “At this rate, the UK Government will pretty soon be executing people for liking a meme!”  

 

Law enforcement agencies regularly request social media companies to provide user data in aid of criminal investigations, often to identify anonymous accounts or determine communication patterns. These requests are assessed by legal teams within the companies, which have the authority to deny them if they are deemed too broad or legally questionable. Some requests, classified as emergencies, are made when authorities perceive an immediate threat.  

 

X’s legal policy states that the company “may seek to narrow requests that are overly broad, request additional context if the nature of the investigation is not clear, or push back on the request for other reasons.” The platform saw an increase in the number of government data requests during the second half of 2024, rising to 806 from 635 in the first half of the year.  

 

The company’s 47 percent compliance rate with UK authorities is in line with its rate across the European Union but falls far below its disclosure rate in the United States, where it provided information in 78.5 percent of cases. By contrast, other major tech companies were significantly more cooperative with UK law enforcement. In the first half of 2024, Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, provided data in 84 percent of cases. Google complied with 88 percent of requests, TikTok with 62 percent, and LinkedIn with 61 percent.  

 

These statistics do not yet include the second half of 2024, a period that saw widespread riots across the UK following the killing of three girls in Southport by 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana. The violence led to a surge in online communications offenses, with The Telegraph recently revealing that 292 individuals have been charged under the Online Safety Act since October 2023. Among them, 67 people have been convicted.  

 

Some of those sentenced for social media posts made during the riots include Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, who was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for writing on X: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government politicians with them.” Another individual, 53-year-old Julie Sweeney, was sentenced to 15 months after advocating for the bombing of a mosque.  

 

The latest disclosure figures also emerge as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper faces legal resistance from Apple regarding the government’s push for access to encrypted communications. Apple has launched a legal challenge against a Home Office directive that would require the company to install a backdoor in its iCloud encryption system.  

 

Musk has publicly backed Apple’s stance, responding to the news with a simple “good.”

 

Based on a report by The Independent  2025-03-10

 

 

[hotsun]

The left can try to silence dissent, Elons got their back though. All non socialist british people are welcome in the US, you can criticize our government all you want

[SLOWHAND225]

Good

[Harrisfan]

UK is now fascist. Disgraceful. 

[Purdey]

Another nail in the coffin of the UK.

[josephbloggs]

41 minutes ago, hotsun said:

The left can try to silence dissent, Elons got their back though. All non socialist british people are welcome in the US, you can criticize our government all you want

Anyone can criticise the government in the UK just as much as they like. What are you talking about??

But if you're offering to take in the racist rioters then thank you.

[hotsun]

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Anyone can criticise the government in the UK just as much as they like. What are you talking about??

But if you're offering to take in the racist rioters then thank you.

Why does Elon need to protect their citizens from their own government? Freedom is declining worldwide, mostly in Europe though

[Harrisfan]

2 minutes ago, hotsun said:

Why does Elon need to protect their citizens from their own government? Freedom is declining worldwide, mostly in Europe though

Fascist lefties again 1930s all over again

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, hotsun said:

Why does Elon need to protect their citizens from their own government? Freedom is declining worldwide, mostly in Europe though

He doesn’t, he just needs to obey the law.

 

[Harrisfan]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He doesn’t, he just needs to obey the law.

 

Fascist laws. 

[josephbloggs]

3 minutes ago, hotsun said:

Why does Elon need to protect their citizens from their own government? 

He doesn't. 

And he gives up the info pretty easily in the US - in 78.5 percent of cases, maybe you guys need protecting?

 

Quote

Freedom is declining worldwide, mostly in Europe though

Absolute nonsense.

[hotsun]

Just now, josephbloggs said:

He doesn't. 

And he gives up the info pretty easily in the US - in 78.5 percent of cases, maybe you guys need protecting?

 

Absolute nonsense.

Nobody in the US is going to jail for posting anything right wing or islamophobic. Thats just the UK. Are you british? How would you know

[sungod]

32 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Anyone can criticise the government in the UK just as much as they like. What are you talking about??

But if you're offering to take in the racist rioters then thank you.

Racist rioters my a**.

 

Fed up normal people more like- mind you the left sees anyone who doesn't agree with them as racist or extreme right.

[mikeymike100]

19 minutes ago, hotsun said:

Nobody in the US is going to jail for posting anything right wing or islamophobic. Thats just the UK. Are you british? How would you know

Yes in the US it would be practically unheard to do such thing, they have the First Amendment, the UK sadly does not!

[mikeymike100]

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He doesn’t, he just needs to obey the law.

 

He is obeying the law!

X is a U.S.-based company, so its primary legal obligations stem from American law. The Stored Communications Act (SCA) governs how U.S. tech companies handle government requests for user data. Under the SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2703), X must comply with U.S. court orders, warrants, or subpoenas for user data—but only if properly issued by U.S. authorities. Foreign governments, like the UK, can’t directly compel X to turn over data stored in the U.S. without going through a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) process.

The U.S.-UK MLAT, streamlined by the 2019 CLOUD Act Agreement, allows UK authorities to request data from U.S. companies like X for serious crimes (e.g., terrorism, child exploitation) without routing through the U.S. Department of Justice, as long as the request meets strict criteria:

It must target a specific individual or account.

It must relate to a criminal investigation, not civil or administrative matters.

It must respect U.S. free speech protections (e.g., not criminalizing speech protected under the First Amendment).

[Purdey]

No one thinks it weird that Musk is diving into people's records in the USA while telling others they shouldn't do that? 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes in the US it would be practically unheard to do such thing, they have the First Amendment, the UK sadly does not!

It’s not a ‘first amendment’/ freedom of speech issue.

 

It’s a matter of a business complying with the law by providing the details of accounts on its servers.

 

If there is a freedom of speech issue that is a matter for litigation by the individuals who believe their freedom of speech is being denied.

 

Musk’s duty is obey the law.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

He is obeying the law!

X is a U.S.-based company, so its primary legal obligations stem from American law. The Stored Communications Act (SCA) governs how U.S. tech companies handle government requests for user data. Under the SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2703), X must comply with U.S. court orders, warrants, or subpoenas for user data—but only if properly issued by U.S. authorities. Foreign governments, like the UK, can’t directly compel X to turn over data stored in the U.S. without going through a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) process.

The U.S.-UK MLAT, streamlined by the 2019 CLOUD Act Agreement, allows UK authorities to request data from U.S. companies like X for serious crimes (e.g., terrorism, child exploitation) without routing through the U.S. Department of Justice, as long as the request meets strict criteria:

It must target a specific individual or account.

It must relate to a criminal investigation, not civil or administrative matters.

It must respect U.S. free speech protections (e.g., not criminalizing speech protected under the First Amendment).

He’s conducting business in the UK therefore he is subject to UK law on that portion of the business he conducts in the UK.

 

The Clauses within the Acts you cite facilitate the requests of UK (and other jurisdiction) requests.

 

 

[Callmeishmael]

Although I am usually left-wing (I voted for Bernie), I agree with Musk on this one.  Freedom of speech is really the foundation of a civilized society and imprisoning people for hate speech is just wrong. 

 

To paraphrase some old pundit:  "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will always defend your right to say it."

[Harrisfan]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not a ‘first amendment’/ freedom of speech issue.

 

It’s a matter of a business complying with the law by providing the details of accounts on its servers.

 

If there is a freedom of speech issue that is a matter for litigation by the individuals who believe their freedom of speech is being denied.

 

Musk’s duty is obey the law.

 

 

 

You like fascist laws then.

[Harrisfan]

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

No one thinks it weird that Musk is diving into people's records in the USA while telling others they shouldn't do that? 

Don't use X or Meta.

[Patong2021]

2 hours ago, hotsun said:

The left can try to silence dissent, Elons got their back though. All non socialist british people are welcome in the US, you can criticize our government all you want

Hasn't X shared info with ICE in the usa?

[Patong2021]

Just now, Harrisfan said:

Don't use X or Meta.

I do not. I also  avoid tiktok.

[hotsun]

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Hasn't X shared info with ICE in the usa?

Whats your point?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Don't use X or Meta.

You perhaps don’t know what Purdue was referring to.

 

Maybe not up to date with events and news from the U.S.

[Harrisfan]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You perhaps don’t know what Purdue was referring to.

 

Maybe not up to date with events and news from the U.S.

I don't watch the news.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

I don't watch the news.

That’s self evident.

[Harrisfan]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s self evident.

Only fools watch the news. Intelligent people look up the facts.

[mikeymike100]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not a ‘first amendment’/ freedom of speech issue.

 

It’s a matter of a business complying with the law by providing the details of accounts on its servers.

 

If there is a freedom of speech issue that is a matter for litigation by the individuals who believe their freedom of speech is being denied.

 

Musk’s duty is obey the law.

 

 

 

In the UK, laws like the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 let authorities demand data from companies within UK jurisdiction. But X has no significant legal presence there (its European HQ is in Ireland), so the UK can’t directly enforce this on X’s U.S. servers. Posts on X from March 7, 2025, claim X refused to hand over “hundreds of account details” after the Southport riots last summer, citing Musk’s criticism of the UK jailing people for social media posts. The UK might argue these posts incited violence (illegal under the Public Order Act 1986), but without MLAT compliance, they can’t force X to act.

Right now, there’s no public evidence the UK used MLAT properly for these specific requests. News from March 6, 2025, also shows Musk backing Apple against a UK “secret order” for cloud data, hinting he’d resist informal pressure too. Without a U.S. court order, he’s not legally forced to hand over anything—and he seems ready to fight if pushed.

[josephbloggs]

3 hours ago, sungod said:

Racist rioters my a**.

 

Fed up normal people more like- mind you the left sees anyone who doesn't agree with them as racist or extreme right.

"Fed up normal people" don't coordinate to smash up mosques, they don't set fire to hotels full of asylum seekers with the aim of burning alive those inside.

They were rioters, they were racist. There's really not much question around that.

If "fed up normal people" want to have a street march to protest whatever it is they're normal and fed up about then they are free and welcome to have one, any time. If they don't smash up mosques, throw missiles at police or burn asylum seekers then I will call them protesters and not racist rioters. Easy, right?