As discussed in our previous post, authentication of social media evidence can present significant challenges when you collect by screen shots, printouts or raw html feeds from an archive tool. This is just one reason why social media data must be properly collected, preserved, searched and produced in a manner consistent with best practices. When social media is collected with a proper chain of custody and all associated metadata is preserved, authenticity can be much easier to establish. As an example, the following are key metadata fields for individual Twitter items that provide important information to establish authenticity of the tweet, if properly collected and preserved:
| Metadata Field | Description | ||||||||
| created_at | UTC timestamp for tweet creation | ||||||||
| user_id | The ID of the poster of a tweet | ||||||||
| handle | User’s screen name (different from user name) | ||||||||
| retweet_id | The post ID of a retweet | ||||||||
| retweet_user | The username of the user who retweeted | ||||||||
| Reply | Indicates if this tweet is a reply | ||||||||
| direct_message | Indicates if this tweet is a direct message | ||||||||
| Hashtags | List of all hashtags in the tweet | ||||||||
| Description | Up to 160 characters describing the tweet | ||||||||
| geo_enabled | If the user has enabled geo-location (optional) | ||||||||
| Place | Geo-location from where user tweeted from | ||||||||
| Coordinates | Geo-location coordinates where tweet sent | ||||||||
| in_reply_to_user_id | unique id for the user that replied | ||||||||
| profile_image_url | location to a user’s avatar file | ||||||||
| recipient_id | unique id of direct message recipient | ||||||||
| recipient_screen_name | display name of direct message sender | ||||||||
| screen_name | display name for a user | ||||||||
| sender_id | unique id of direct message sender | ||||||||
| Source | application used to Tweet or direct message(i.e., from an iPhone or specific Twitter app) | ||||||||
| time_zone | a user’s time zone | ||||||||
| utc_offset | time between user’s time zone and UTC time | ||||||||
| follow_request_sent | Indicates request to follow the user | ||||||||
| Truncated | If the post is truncated due to excessive length | ||||||||
Any one or combination of these fields can be key circumstantial data to authenticate a single or group of social media items. US Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) provides that a party can authenticate electronically stored information (“ESI”) with circumstantial evidence that reflects the “contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics” of the evidence. As outlined in our white paper, many cases have applied Rule 901(b)(4) to metadata associated with emails and other ESI. But you will not get all this key metadata from a printout, screen capture, or even most compliance archive tools. Best practices technology specifically designed to collect, preserve, search and produce social media for eDiscovery is required.
Facebook and Linkedin items have their own unique, but generally comparable, metadata. Stay tuned for our posting of key Facebook metadata in a few days.
Next Gen eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog 
Hi ,
Really nice blog. your post Key Twitter Metadata Fields Lawyers and eDiscovery Professionals … is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Pingback: Metadata is Key to Getting the "Whole Truth" from Social Media
Pingback: Top eDiscovery Trends for 2012: Tough to Find a List without Social Media - X1