Slashdot Mirror
Cops Walking the MySpace Beat
theodp writes "Meet the point-and-click police. Newsweek reports that a growing number of ordinary officers are working a new beat, turning to MySpace to collect clues and crack offline cases. Most of the nabbed wrongdoers have been victims of their own hubris, like the two boys who uploaded video of themselves firebombing an abandoned airplane hangar earlier this month."
Most of the nabbed wrongdoers have been victims of their own hubris, like the two boys who uploaded video of themselves firebombing an abandoned airplane hangar earlier this month.
I was thoroughly disappointed when I clicked that link and saw that there was no video after the site had loaded.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
Only a dumb ass would post things on the internet.
I behave as though anything I do on the internet will be recorded and saved forever. I'd rather not have to explain something I posted today to a potential employer twenty years from now. Ditto for some nutcase prosecuter with a creative theory about how I caused the war in Viet Nam (I'm exagerating for emphasis).
By now everyone should be wise enough not to post every single piece of information about them anywhere online, let alone in one place. Parents should be more diligent not with monitoring every single thing their kids do on the computer, but educating them what's ok and not ok to do on the Internet. Am I the only one getting tired of all this MySpace business? On the bright side I was amused reading TFA and seeing how these people were done in by their own sheer stupidity.
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
This has been going on for awhile, but primarily on Facebook to my knowledge. According to Wikipedia, Facebook has been used in numerous investigations, including one last year at my university to catch students who rushed the field. Students had set up groups saying that they had rushed the field, and the police matched pictures from security cameras to student pictures. At least several of them were kicked out of school. Needless to say, this caused quite a scene on campus, but really, what do you expect when you put the information online yourself?
If they were installing hidden cameras, taping phones, or installing keyloggers without cause, I really don't see the problems. If you can get a heads up about someone robbing a house tomorrow night because they were stupid enough to post it on MySpace, why should that be considered protected?
If someone painted a sign saying "I've stolen three cars from this street!" and wore it on said street, is there any reason the cops can't at least stop and question him (even if he denies anything vocally) and check up on him later?
As far as legal requirements for police goes, there's a "Plain View" clause (I'm sure there's a Latin term for it.) For the few who may not understand, it basically says that if the item is in plain view, it can be used. If the cops respond to a noise complaint at your house, look past you into the home, and see a meth lab, they can use that. They may not be able to bust in right away to arrest you (varies by state and circumstance), but they can call up a warrant PDQ. If they pushed their way into the house without cause, or just shoved you to the side to see it, it would most likely be inadmissable.
In the case of the meth lab and the robbery, both are due to horrible stupidity on the perpetrator's part, and there really is no reason they should be protected because of it. If the cop is stalking someone on their MySpace page because s/he doesn't like their choice in music, and wants to make sure they don't decide to steal a CD of it or something, then we might have cause for worry, but this is more likely something done by the common public than by the police, who hopefully are out catching badies and don't have enough time to track every movement on MySpace.
Now, as far as some smaller things go, like stealing CDs or smoking MJ, they can't just take the MySpace page and present that as conclusive evidence; they'd have to get other evidence (like the CD or MJ itself) to prosecute. Could it be enough for a warrant for the other evidence? Maybe. I think that's a legal battle that will come up, because you can't be sure if they actually did it or they're (erronously) trying to look cool for their interweb friends by posting it.
As with much of the internet (which has brought on a lot of problems really fast,) the law is still trying to catch up, and things like MySpace, LiveJournal, and perhaps even sites like Slashdot and Fark could play a role in some big trials in the next 5 or 10 years, especially how global information is received and used in criminal cases.
So you're suggesting that my recent investment in the social networking sites BankHeistSpace.com and WillTradeKiddiePornVids.net is a bad move?
Maybe forgotten, but that's part of what police work is about. You walk the beat, get to know the population, learn the patterns, and when something happens you probably have some idea already of where to look or who to talk to. It's the whole idea behind having regular community / school / campus officers rather than having patrols by whatever unit happens to be around.
Having been on the inside of digital police work, we should be damn happy that people leak information and hubris, and are generally clueless as far as digital security is concerned. People get caught through their own sloppyness and boasting, and hours of hard work from officers, rather than from the police being particularly technologically advanced. The referenced article is another example of this: regular officers spending time going through lots of potential evidence rather than advanced technoly.
Back in 1999 or 2000, Audi brought back the S-series of cars in the USA with a performance version of the A4 sedan- the S4. It was a twin-turbocharged V6, and it was faster than the BMW M3- the yardstick at the time. As with many turbocharged cars, manufacturers don't push the limits of these engines for a lot of different reasons; insurance categories, "gentleman's agreements" on speeds or horsepower levels, reliability, stepping on other model lines, room for "improvement" in next year's model, etc. There's plenty of room for a "tuner" to release revised "chips" (tables used for fuel, timing, and boost pressure levels stored in [E/EE/P]ROM memory) that increase horsepower levels. The S4 biturbo reliably makes slightly over 300HP with a chip (from 250); my '91 Audi makes almost 280 (from 217. And it has done so for about 100,000 miles with no problems. It was chipped at 110,000 miles, so yes, some chips are perfectly fine.)
Chip makers pushed the limits to offer the "best" chips- or did shoddy testing, rushing development, to be first-to-market. A few of the chips could overspin the turbos, and a couple people grenaded them.
Dealers were wise to "chips" and would look for them if a car with damaged turbos came in (and Audi implemented various controls to make ECU-swapping much more difficult, but they've all been circumvented.) US warranty law prohibits them from blaming a failure on an aftermarket component unless they can prove reasonably that the changed component caused the failure; a chip is a pretty damn clear-cut case. So these kids (and many of them were in fact kids- rich off internet dot-coms, or mummy and daddy) would borrow a friend's stock ECU, put it in the car, and have it towed to the dealer and say "gee, I dunno what happened."
Then the geniuses would go on Audiworld and brag about how they "tricked the dealer", complete with thumbs-up and grinning smiley icons, people congradulating them, etc. Someone at Audi Client Relations noticed (or was tipped off by people pissed at the scam), and ACR started surfing the forum regularly looking for fraud, and -completely- voiding the warranties of those they could find and in some cases going after owners for the cost of repairs, and postings in forums were cited as evidence. I don't remember if anyone was sued or not- I believe a few were.
That wasn't shocking; what was shocking was the reaction from the Audiworld users. They were absolutely livid that Audi Client Relations DARED to "snoop" on "their" forum.
It's not just the Internet- it has been my personal experience that few people take responsibility for their actions and many are infuriated when someone catches them doing something wrong, instead of being ashamed.
Please help metamoderate.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Well, crap. Now I gotta go change my MySpace profile. Are the cops checking Blogger, too? I hope not. What's the usual sentence for third-degree yoinking and aggravated shenanigans?
He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
If you confess to a crime in a public place, then yes, the cops have every right to open a case against you.
This isn't rocket science, nor an infringment of your rights. It's simply common sense.
Myspace is like walmart ( only I'd rather visit a walmart than myspace ). If you walk into walmart, and say in a loud voice over and over again how you had sex with an underage child, you can bet your ass you will be investigated. To do anything otherwise would be incomptence on the part of the cops.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I do not feel the least bit threatened by this at all.
This is just yet another reason why I refuse to get a MySpace account. People need to learn their lesson that whatever they post on the Internet is public. Even if it's labelled "private", it's still public. MySpacers have the "look at my page now" attitude whenever it comes to their friends, but when it's someone they don't like, it's a "get away from me, you're trespassing on my privacy" attitude.
As for police investigations, I'm all for it. Personally I'm sick of people posting illegal material on their MySpace, glorifying it, and getting the respect of every other junkie who is lucky enough to see it. Illegal things should be investigated and prosecuted.
As for the legality of searching on MySpace, I pull up this quote from my government textbook (Government By The People, by Burns). I hope it's relevant: "Police may make warrantless searches in public places if the offers have probable cause, or at least a reasonable suspicion, that the persons in question have committed or are about to committ crimes. No later than two days after making such an arrest the police must take the arrested person to a magistrate so that the magistrate, not just the police, can decide whether probable cause existed to justify the warrantless arrest. Probable cause however does not except in extreme emergencies justify a warrantless arrest of people in their own homes...Not every time the police stop a person to ask questions or to seek that person's consent to search is there seizure or detention requiring probable cause or warrant. If the police just ask questions or even seek consent to search an individuals person or possessions in a noncoercive atmoshpere, there is no detention".
Once the average person realizes that everyone watches everything on the Internet, then we won't have problems like this. The amount of information one can glean on someone or about a certain event through MySpace and through various search engines is astounding. But most people don't have the common sense to know that.
Do not mark in this space. For official office use only.
You can't have it both ways - either the cops can follow up on evidence found on the 'beat' (public space, [MySpace|street]), or they can't.
If that was what they were doing - you'd have a point. But it's not. In the case of the TFA, they merely did in virtual space what they'd do in meatspace - examine the evidence and look for clues and/or holes in people's stories. In the instance of scanning MySpace for pedophiles (or idiots who firebomb buildings and brag of it), that's the internet equivalent of pulling over the driver who is weaving all over the road.In my case, absolutely none. Not because I haven't posted anything - but because I haven't done anything.It's called investigation and evidence - something the cops and educated people are aware of, and fearmongering slashdot posters seem not to be.It only fails to be different to the fearmongers."Hey, you're supposed to be working, what are you doing browsing profiles of 16 year old girls on MySpace?"
"I...er...I'm...um...I'm looking into possible crimes that these teenagers may have committed. Right. That's what I'm doing."
I have talked publicly about doing unususal things. My friends and I used to talk about the best way to dispose of a body while looking around the sporting goods section of Wally World. Does that mean a cop can begin an investigation?
If he has reason to think you are actualy looking to dispose of a body, yes.
What if he finds a body nearby that was disposed of in a creative manner with no other evidence? What would the trial be like? Just because they heard me talking about body disposal and they found a body, does that mean I'm guilty?
That's what investigations and trials are all about. Why is it that any time there is discussion about anything law enforcement does people assume they're going to be convicted and sentenced to life on one piece of circumstancial evidence.
BTW, if you do ever get convicted on one piece of circumstancial evidence, sue your lawyer.
Here's another example: Lets say I'm unpopular in school. To boost my reputation, I decide to blog about how I burned down a house. I got most of the details from $local_news and just made the rest up.
Now, they always leave out details. Let'say I fill in $accelerant from last month's CSI. Just so happens that the real criminal got the idea from the same place.
They have your claim, they have you knowing an unpublished detail. Will I be convicted?
Again, please see investigation and trial by jury for more information as to how the criminal justice system works.
What if I have a pic of me testing a gravity bong with tobacco. Should my school (assuming I'm at least 18) be able to suspend me?
Again see investigation and trial by jury.
What about if I post a chat log of me talking about BSDM with a 14yo girl? Just because there is text containing the claim that she is 14 does not, in fact, mean that she is 14...or even a girl. Should that open the door for a child-sex investigation?
Um yes.
Who is to say that my blog is not a work of fiction?
If it is, that would be revealed in the investigation.
Do cops troll Hollywood movies looking for people discharging firearms within city limits?
Then why should they troll MySpace looking for, and opening investigations on, stuff that may or may not be true?
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here but if you're saying what I think you're saying, you realize that movies have to get permits for that right? As for the investiations thing, it's because it may be true. Isn't that the job of cops, to investigate?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
You're then assuming that the proxy server isn't operated by a CIA front company.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.