[5][6] While only five people were individually named within the subpoena, according to lawyer Mark Stephens the order effectively entailed the collection of personal identifying information of over six hundred thousand Twitter users, principally those who were followers of WikiLeaks.
[17] The New York Times observed that the US government issues over fifty thousand such requests for information each year, typically accompanied by the so-called gag order.
[9][18] Nicholas Merrill, the first to file a constitutional challenge against the use of national security letters, describes this as "a perfect example of how the government can use its broad powers to silence people".
[10][11][19] Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said that the subpoena was an attempt to "shake the electronic tree in the hope some kind of criminal charge drops out the bottom of it.
"[13] Juan Cole, a historian of the modern Middle East and South Asia, described the subpoena as "a fishing expedition and legally fishy in that regard" that "is being pursued by the Obama administration out of terror that further massive leaks will be made public.
[22][23] The Electronic Frontier Foundation has since, comparing their law enforcement policies, stressed "how important it is that social media companies do what they can to protect the sensitive data they hold from the prying eyes of the government".