Three associates of WikiLeaks challenging a government demand for records of their Twitter use have no right to information about similar demands that may have been issued to other internet companies, the Justice Department told a federal judge Thursday.

"[T]he subscribers’ demand for more itemized information about other sealed matters demonstrates their overriding purpose to obtain a roadmap of the government’s investigation, and to determine whether other electronic service providers have received and complied with lawful ... orders," U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride wrote in a court filing (.pdf).

"But the subscribers have no right to notice regarding any such developments in this confidential criminal investigation – any more than they have a right to notice of tax records requests, wiretap orders, or other confidential investigative steps as to which this Court’s approval might be obtained," MacBride continued.

The controversy is part of an ongoing grand jury investigation in Alexandria, Virginia probing WikiLeaks for its high-profile leaks of classified U.S. material. The government secretly demanded the Twitter records on December 14 under 18 USC 2703(d), which allows law enforcement access to non-content internet records, such as transaction information, without demonstrating the "probable cause" needed for a full-blown search warrant. The people targeted in the records demand don't themselves have to be suspected of criminal wrongdoing.

The court later unsealed the demand so that Twitter could notify the three subscribers, who have have been opposing the demand with the legal assistance of the ACLU and the EFF. The three are Seattle coder and activist Jacob Appelbaum; Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland’s parliament; and Dutch businessman Rop Gonggrijp. Jonsdottir and Gonggrijp helped WikiLeaks prepare the release of a classified U.S. Army video published last year as "Collateral Murder," and Appelbaum is the group's U.S. representative.

Thursday's 20-page filing by the Justice Department was in response to an ACLU motion filed last month, which asks U.S. District Court Judge Liam O'Grady to make public four additional court dockets that the ACLU believes are 2703(d) orders directed to additional internet companies. Without confirming that other records demands have been filed, prosecutor MacBride argued that there is no legal basis to make any information on other orders available, and that doing so could lead to companies being pressured to fight those demands, if they exist. MacBride makes it clear that he thinks that would be a bad thing.

"At least two of the subscribers have publicly called for other electronic service providers to oppose requests for users’ information," MacBride wrote in a footnote, citing separate online essays by Jonsdottir, and Gonggrijp.

A hearing on the issue is tentatively set for June 24, though MacBride argues that no hearing is necessary.