British Police Use Facebook to Gather Evidence

Amy Bennett writes "Move over police scanner and most-wanted poster. The Greater Manchester Police force has created a Facebook application to collect leads for investigations. The application delivers a real-time feed of police news and appeals for information. A 'Submit Intelligence' link takes a Facebook user to the police Web site where they can anonymously submit tips. Another link leads to the videos on YouTube featuring information on the police force, ongoing investigations and other advisories." As reader groschke writes, though, "Their access to user data raises significant civil liberties problems. They may be able to see more of your data than your friends or network members can — and you also expose your friends' data when you add the application. All without needing a subpoena or warrant."

Comments

Bu...

[Anonymous Coward]

All the criminals are on myspace... ?

No . . . not really

[OverlordQ]

They may be able to see more of your data than your friends or network members can -- and you also expose your friends' data when you add the application

Unless Facebook has given these people a special little hack into their API they can't get any more then any other facebook app can, and depending on your privacy settings, can turn out to be not much at all.

Re:No . . . not really

[cheater512]

Yeah this is just idiots being paranoid.

Re:No . . . not really

[MrNaz]

Hmm... Facebook will need some new options in a few of their option boxes:

Seargent Smith, please indicate how you know Mr. Badguy:
( ) We went to school together
( ) We hooked up
(x) I arresed him on felony charges

Re:No . . . not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is the British police we're talking about, better include "I shot him without cause" there. Considering the British police are mostly unarmed, that would seem at least as applicable to the American police, though they might also need "I beat him up for being black^WAfrican American" as an option.

And since it's the British police we're talking about, something like "I arrested him and threw him into prison for 20 years for false accusations of membership in IRA, Al-Qaida, or some other shadowy organization" might also be appropriate. Absolutely, because if it was the American police, after "threw him into prison" you'd have to add "in Syria, where he was tortured".

Re:No . . . not really

[Ash Vince]

And no one still mentioned the old favourite:

"He accidentally fell down some stairs over and over again with his hands cuffed behind his back."

They loved that during the 80's.

Re:No . . . not really

[Macthorpe]

Maybe I lived the sheltered life down in Devon, but neither of those things are exactly common occurences.

If you're referring to the fact that the police are actually fallible, meaning they aren't criminal-catching robot people who get it right 100% of the time, then I think you're the one with the problem here, not them.

Mistakes are made, things happen, and sometimes it's really, really shit and someone dies because of it. However, to pretend that the few mistakes they make cancel out the incredible amount of solved crimes they manage, even under the incredible crippling that the Labour government has inflicted on them with their target-based performance system, is disingenuous.

Re:No . . . not really

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not really that mistakes happen, but that when a police officer does something outright illegal on purpose he/she is never brought to justice.

Re:No . . . not really

[TheRaven64]

Since this is the British police we're talking about, better include "I shot him without cause" there It seems that you are referring to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. The fact that this remained headline news for several months should probably serve as an indicator that it's not something that's exactly common.

Re:No . . . not really

[couchslug]

"They may be able to see more of your data than your friends or network members can -- and you also expose your friends' data when you add the application"

They don't see any of MY data, because I don't use Facebook.
It's a simple choice between vanity or privacy.

Re:No . . . not really

[jimicus]

However, to pretend that the few mistakes they make cancel out the incredible amount of solved crimes they manage, even under the incredible crippling that the Labour government has inflicted on them with their target-based performance system, is disingenuous. Erm... Go to your local police force's website and download their annual report. It contains figures for the amount of crime they've solved.

I hate to break it to you, but unless the crime is something pretty serious (think armed robbery, murder), the solving rate is depressingly low. As in no higher than 30% for many forces.

Re:No . . . not really

[bcmm]

I'll second that. US cops accidentally shooting a foreigner wouldn't make the national papers.

Re:No . . . not really

[Macthorpe]

Actually, I do keep a tabs on the rate for my local force, and the figures look far, far better than that.

YMMV of course depending on the area you live in.

Re:No . . . not really

[jimicus]

TBF, last time I looked it up, Devon & Cornwall were one of the better forces.

Most of the forces covering more urban areas had figures more like what I said originally.

Re:No . . . not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is the British police we're talking about, better include "I shot him without cause" there It seems that you are referring to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. The fact that this remained headline news for several months should probably serve as an indicator that it's not something that's exactly common. I think there's some debate as to whether or not he was shot without cause. Most people would say knowingly fraternising with terrorists was a good cause, but most still wouldn't shoot the guy. Perhaps the officer in question had lost a relative in the bus bombings ... we'll never know.

It would seem strange to me that a guy that has chance to shoot people who, by any common-mans term is known to be guilty (murderers, paedophiles, armed-robbers, even terrorists) any day of the week suddenly decided for no apparent reason to shoot a person he believed to be entirely innocent and posing absolutely no threat to anyone.

Could happen but I don't believe everything the press tries to spin our way.

Re:No . . . not really

[krewemaynard]

US cops accidentally shooting a foreigner wouldn't make the national papers. Riiiiight...Amadou Diallo would like a word with you...

Re:No . . . not really

[Angostura]

Those figures have nothing to do with your original post, which appeared to suggest that the police are institutionally corrupt and spend their time shooting and locking people up random people.

Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though.

Re:No . . . not really

[jimicus]

Those figures have nothing to do with your original post, which appeared to suggest that the police are institutionally corrupt and spend their time shooting and locking people up random people.

Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though. Say what?

Go back up and check the comment authors, brains.

Re:No . . . not really

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Maybe I lived the sheltered life down in Devon, but neither of those things are exactly common occurences.

Perhaps not as extreme as the examples given, but the so-called anti-terrorism legislation is widely abused and used far too often for things that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

For example, just a few days ago, there was a story on our local news about how a local council literally had spies watching a family covertly for several days to determine whether they really lived within a school catchment area. They did. The surveillance was apparently triggered by a random tip-off that someone might be abusing the system, and instead of doing something like, say, going around to the house to knock on the door and see if they were home, they used authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to watch the people like something out of a crime movie, keeping logs of their movements and parked discreetly down the road from their house. Don't even ask how much public money was spent on that. The council officials whose organisation did this weren't even repentant after they were caught at it, mumbling some rubbish about the need to make sure the school admissions system isn't being abused. In other words, we have small-time local authority officials invoking anti-terrorism legislation to spy on ordinary families living on ordinary streets at vast expense and with huge invasion of privacy because of some random tip-off that the family might be doing something slightly out of order in applying for a school place. Do you really not see a problem with a legal framework that allows this?

If you really think this sort of thing is rare, just look at the statistics for how many people are arrested or stopped and searched under anti-terrorism legislation and compare that figure with how many people are even charged with (not necessarily convicted of) a terrorism-related offence. Then consider that those little mistakes have a way of completely screwing up someone's life (you try living with the stigma of your friends and family thinking you might be a terrorist for the rest of your days) and consider that the conviction rate is so low that it makes the headlines pretty much any time a couple of people are successfully prosecuted, and it's far from clear that a "greater good" argument applies here either.

Re:No . . . not really

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The fact that this remained headline news for several months should probably serve as an indicator that it's not something that's exactly common.

Well, that's OK then. If systematic failures by the police in co-ordinating their teams, sharing their intelligence, communicating reliably in a fast-moving situation, authorising the use of lethal force using weapons and tactics denied to most of us, not jumping to conclusions based on poor observations of basic facts and applying a little damn common sense only result in the death of an innocent man once in a while, I guess we don't need to worry about how often the same failings, abuses and incompetences result in something less serious or might result in another fatality. He was an illegal anyway, and we still have the death penalty for them, right?

Re:No . . . not really

[manwithmanyquestions]

But I think the bigger problem is that the Facebook app effectively recruits users to become moles for the police. In the US, federal wiretap laws, etc. maintain that, generally, law enforcement cannot use information gathered online w/out a warrant at trial. Yet, courts have carved out an exception to this rule in cases where a third party Internet user obtains incriminating information from a user online and hands it over to authorities. For instance, child pornography found on a user's hard drive by a third party hacker using a P2P client, was deemed admissible at trial. To the extent that the Manchester App denotes a trend towards actively recruiting users to investigate and report on the activities of others, I think the US should seriously reconsider what sort of evidence is permissible under the fourth amendment. And this includes information handed over by foreign authorities - i.e. Manchester Police - who themselves obtained it from a third party.

Re:No . . . not really

[BungaDunga]

d) All of the above

Re:No . . . not really

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an application for you. Optimize crime opportunities by area, based on likely rate of police failure to solve.

Where do you want to burgle today?

Re:No . . . not really

[ahabswhale]

I'll second that. US cops accidentally shooting a foreigner wouldn't make the national papers. Interesting...what evidence do you have to support such an assertion?

Uhhh...so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear god no! You reveal information to a public web site, and the police can read it without a warrant!

I'm as slippery slope as the next guy, but I see a huge difference between information placed on Facebook and limitles wiretaps. Or unreasonable searches. Or your passenger having $10 in pot can lead to the police taking, and selling, your car.

If you're trying to dodge an arrest warrant, well, perhaps you shouldn't be posting on Facebook, or driving erratically, or advertising on TV, or accepting that offer for free (insert whatever tickets/crap the police come up with).

Re:Uhhh...so?

[_Shad0w_]

Dear god no! You reveal information to a public web site, and the police can read it without a warrant!

Well at least somebody gets it.

Re:Uhhh...so?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I thought too. Come on, if you care at all about your privacy, don't even think of using Facebook.

Come on, the sole purpose of Facebook is to make money from your information. It's really not that complicated. You provide information about yourself, your habits, your friends, etc. Facebook mines it and sells it to companies and/or authorities and makes money of it. End of story.

Re:Uhhh...so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I believe that you don't actually get it. Since the advent of Web 2.0, there as been a concept of keeping private data on public web servers; think webmail. I would certainly object if LEO accessed my google hosted, emails without a warrant.

Although I don't use them my understanding of social networking sites, such as Facebook, is that you enter your personally data and then set up a set of rules as to who can have access to it. This almost certainly does not include LEO. Of course, this is the users view of how things work and is almost certainly not how the site owners view it.

Re:Uhhh...so?

[somersault]

It's not 'without a warrant' though. You have to install the app and give them permission which parts of your data that you want them to have access to.

Re:Uhhh...so?

[Evanisincontrol]

You have to install the app and give them permission which parts of your data that you want them to have access to.

Yes and no. Bear it mind that there is a two-part process:

1) You must actively choose to install the program -- that is, you must opt in to get the app. However,
2) once installed, you must opt out of various privacy negations. By default, this app will have FULL access to everything you have posted.

Re:Uhhh...so?

[BungaDunga]

... as well as every other Facebook app you add.

People are making it way too easy

[pembo13]

At least let your wannabe police overloads work for the data they need to rule over you.

Re:People are making it way too easy

[s7uar7]

Exactly. They're getting nothing out of me until they've beaten me at least twice at Scrabble.

and...

[thermian]

If you really object, you could, y'know, not install it in the first place.

I might give it a look, if only to get a handle on what all the knee jerk armchair reactionists are complaining about

Re:and...

[Anonymous Coward]

As other slashdot articles about Facebook app privacy issues have pointed out, when a user adds an application, that application gets access (by default) to all of that user's *friends'* personal information, not just their own. They have to go digging through the privacy settings to opt out of a bunch of things to limit access to their own private information when one of their friends adds an application.

Re:and...

[Khaed]

Or you could not put private information up on a website.

Seriously, people. It's a social website, a public website, and it doesn't need any of that information -- it's not like you have to use facebook to make internet purchases. I've never understood people who put information at places like that. Of course your privacy is going to be invaded. That's the damn point of the site... if you don't want the world to know it, don't transmit it over an unsecured connection to a website with a crummy privacy policy...

Re:and...

[stewbacca]

That's slashdot for you -- take an imaginary or self-created "privacy" issue and blow it out of proportion!

Anonymous?

[daliman]

Somehow I have my doubts that any "anonymous" tips would really be all that anonymous...

someone please distill what facebook actually does

[Anonymous Coward]

they get people to enter information about themselves and then record everything they can think to record, analyze the data, and .. what? sell the results to advertisers?

The problem is with facebook, not the police

[explodingspleen]

"Their access to user data raises significant civil liberties problems. They may be able to see more of your data than your friends or network members can â" and you also expose your friends' data when you add the application. All without needing a subpoena or warrant."

Alright, we obviously don't understand what either of these are.

A subpoena is a court order for information. If you are able to provide it and don't, there will be trouble. This doesn't mean such information can't be handed over voluntarily at any time.

A warrant grants a privilege to the police to forcibly obtain information they would otherwise not be allowed to obtain through force. But you don't need a warrant when you have cooperation.

The best example I could give probably is this: you need a warrant to tap someone's phone line. You *don't* need a warrant to put a microphone on an undercover agent and try to cajole the information out of the guy, or to bug a hotel room and arrange a meeting there, or to go knocking door to door at the guy's neighbors' houses making inquiries.

Your problem should be with "Facebook" who is currently selling out its homies to cash in as an informant.

Re:The problem is with facebook, not the police

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem should be with "Facebook" who is currently selling out its homies to cash in as an informant. Facebook is "selling out" on this somehow? They don't get a nickel (directly*) from app developers when an app is written or launched or used. If this is selling out, then where's the money? Sheesh, if people free develop an app and other people willingly install it, how's facebook to blame?

* Ok, they get some more page views from a popular app, but that's not tied to any particular app developer, so they don't really care who develops the app.

Re:The problem is with facebook, not the police

[somersault]

Yeah, perhaps the article could have been better titled "British Police use web-enabled phones, PS3s and George Foreman Grills to Gather Evidence"

Re:The problem is with facebook, not the police

[Jarjarthejedi]

While you're technically true, one line "You *don't* need a warrant to put a microphone on an undercover agent and try to cajole the information out of the guy" is false in certain areas. Some states require both people to know that they're being recorded, others require only one person, and others, like mine, only require that someone along the way, be it you, the other guy, or some telephone company, know.

Re:The problem is with facebook, not the police

[hacker]

A warrant grants a privilege to the police to forcibly obtain information they would otherwise not be allowed to obtain through force. But you don't need a warrant when you have cooperation.

...or live in the USA.

This article is about the UK, where these things called "warrants" actually have some sort of meaning or value. Here in the US, they no longer do. We have "retroactive warrants" and "FISA" to get around that.

Basically in the USA in today's administration, we have two approaches:

They raid your house/phone/work/car/laptop/pda/whatever, and if they:

1. a. ..find something they can use against you in court, they obtain a retroactive warrant to make the prosecution legal. If they do NOT find anything against you, they..
2. b. ..use the information obtained to pursue the investigatory path through your friends, coworkers, job history, credit rating, etc. to implicate you in some way for whatever it is they're trying to find you guilty of.

Let's not forget the credo here: "Innocent UNTIL proven guilty.." not "unless proven guilty", but "until".

Also, remember that stopping crimes here isn't about finding the guilty, it's about cherryp-picking the evidence to fit the prosecution's theory of the crime. Leaving a purse on a park bench and waiting for someone to grab it so you can nail them for purse-snatching, for example... or setting up a disabled car on the side of the road with a speed camera in the dash, to catch people speeding past.

It hasn't been about the crime for many years now.

Taken way out of context

[LingNoi]

Since this is obviously suppose to be about helping the police catch criminals, I fail to see the problem here..

Re:Taken way out of context

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, *everything* is always supposed to be about helping the police catch criminals. Have you ever seen a politician say "we want to limit your freedoms for no particular reason other than that we can"?

I'm not sure whether this particular story is big or not, but to say that it isn't because the police claim it's only about catching criminals... that's breathtakingly naive.

Re:Taken way out of context

[stewbacca]

D but to say that it isn't because the police claim it's only about catching criminals... that's breathtakingly naive. Call me naive, but why else would a cop care about ANYTHING on my social networking site, other than how to find me and arrest me? Are you suggesting that bored cops just pick random Facebook users to go find and arrest (I know the answer is no, but what in the hell is naive about reality?)

Pretty simple here people.

[Ethan Allison]

You add the application, and you give it a bunch of permissions. You don't like that? Don't add it. End of story, now shut up.

Re:Pretty simple here people.

[Sique]

... and you have to forbid all your friends to add that application too.

Re:Pretty simple here people.

[jimicus]

Alternatively, don't put something on the web that you wouldn't be happy showing to a room full of strangers, regardless of so-called "privacy" options (which have been shown time and again to be broadly meaningless).

Re:Pretty simple here people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, don't put something on the web that you wouldn't be happy showing to a room full of strangers, regardless of so-called "privacy" options (which have been shown time and again to be broadly meaningless). That's not the problem. The problem is making sure that everyone else you know has the same privacy ethic and will not post anything implicating your involvement. Otherwise, there's not much of anything you can do to protect yourself from this.

If you don't have at least one friend who's not as obsessive about privacy as they should be, you probably don't have very many friends.

Re:Pretty simple here people.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about what others put up there about you.....

Re:Pretty simple here people.

[ADRA]

... or find said application which you detest out of principle and hit 'block application'. Its not rocket science.

Re:Pretty simple here people.

[Sique]

I choosed to be not on Facebook at all. Problem solved.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

[timmarhy]

Your free to not install the app. your free to not even be on facebook. this might end up catching crooks.

i'm not seeing how this is a privacy or civil rights issue. how about these people put their efforts to a better cause.

The obvious recursion is ...

[moteyalpha]

So now children on Facebook will assume that it is safe to give information to a person who poses as a policeman or someone who has a similar logo. Children should not be asked to defend themselves. Let the police do their own work. I guess it gives them an excuse to browse the internet while they are having a donut. Yep Sarge, this pron site has lots of leads.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long until the first scammer starts posting with a police logo to blackmail children into paying cash money to the scammer or else they will reveal to their parents that they smoke weed or whatever.

I mean, #1 is don't post anything publicly that you wouldn't say to your own mother (says the AC, ha ha).

But I'll bet this can be exploited, and will be in the future.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[ultranova]

So now children on Facebook will assume that it is safe to give information to a person who poses as a policeman or someone who has a similar logo.

If a policeman is asking you questions, the chances are he's investigating either you or someone you know. Consequently, it is never safe to give information to a policeman, unless you know that they aren't trying to get you or anyone you care about.

The same, of course, goes to anyone and anything that can be rasonably expected to be trying to "catch" people: all intelligence agencies, insurance companies, private investigators, people in the middle of a nasty divorce, etc.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[somersault]

If your hasn't been trained to 'defend themself' online, they shouldn't be online. The same as you wouldn't let your kid wander around some shady area of town alone unless they had .. well.. I can't think of any training or weaponry that would be sufficient for me to be happy with any kid I know wandering around alone.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[pbhj]

So now children on Facebook will assume that it is safe to give information to a person who poses as a policeman or someone who has a similar logo. Those kids are already giving their details away to anyone who creates a "send a monkey/whatever to your friends" app.. I trust the police more than I trust a randomly chosen web programmer.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[Angostura]

Yeh, right. Two weeks ago, the police came around and asked me whether I had heard any shouting from next door, because a woman had been beaten up. Clearly I should have told them nothing. I didn'tknow it was part of a ruse to get at me.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[Scrameustache]

If a policeman is asking you questions, the chances are he's investigating either you or someone you know. Consequently, it is never safe to give information to a policeman, unless you know that they aren't trying to get you or anyone you care about. Yeh, right. Two weeks ago, the police came around and asked me whether I had heard any shouting from next door, because a woman had been beaten up. Clearly I should have told them nothing. I didn'tknow it was part of a ruse to get at me. Do you know if you care about the people next door?

And do you know if the law requires you to lend assistance to people in distress? If you heard shouts and did nothing, you might have been criminally negligent in your duty to intervene.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[Angostura]

I don't know the people next door - they only moved in two weeks ago and I haven't seen them since. I didn't hear any shouting, since the incident happened when I was away. But yes I do intervene to help people in distress, irrespective of what the law says. By your rules I should have refused to tell the police anything since, with my tinfoil hat on it could have been a ruse.

Luckily for society, neither I nor many others work by your rules.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[Snowmit]

Luckily for society, neither I nor many others work by your rules. What would make a great t-shirt slogan. The best part is that people of all political stripes would think that it applied to them and buy it. You'd have to make different fonts for the different groups though. Distressed font for teens and anarchists, wavy flag stripes n stars for Republicans and action movie heroes.

Maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all...

[Greyor]

...we could always have the Manchester police force try to help us locate Karl Pilkington! They might even be willing to help put up posters to help catch him if Facebook users are willing to help. Sorry, I couldn't resist naming that famous Mancunian, given the fact that we're discussing Manchester.

Quick everyone

[Devv]

remove the mob wars application!

And There's a Civil Liberties Issue How?

[OakLEE]

I'm as much a civil libertarian as the next guy, but let's get one thing straight:

Nobody has any expectation of privacy (reasonable or otherwise) in information they put on a website that is publicly accessible to other people.

If you write on a friend's facebook wall about how you got this "killer deal on pot" or how you "got this totally awesome handjob from a local hooker" and police find out and charge you, it's your own damn fault for being an idiot.

Furthermore, if you buddy wants to play confidential informant and sell you out to the government, that's a problem between you and your buddy, not between you and the government.

If you don't want police (or anyone) prying into your business, don't make information about said business publicly accessible.

Re:And There's a Civil Liberties Issue How?

[jez9999]

If you write on a friend's facebook wall about how you got this "killer deal on pot" or how you "got this totally awesome handjob from a local hooker" and police find out and charge you, it's your own damn fault for being an idiot.

Actually, it's the law's fault for making these harmless actions crimes.

Re:And There's a Civil Liberties Issue How?

[OakLEE]

You're totally missing the point.

What if the message was "I totally fingered this passed out chick behind the Chi Omega house," or "I seriously jacked up this bum who asked me for change." That better for ya?

Re:And There's a Civil Liberties Issue How?

[vuffi_raa]

sending it right now... O-a-k-L-E-E.... they have been looking for that bum-jacker for a while

licence to goof around at work?

[petes_PoV]

Ahhh, right. So now all the Manchester police can claim to be following up leads when they're caught playing around in facebook at work. No wonder the general public is so hacked off - when police stats. show that they spend less than 13% of their time actually out of the police station, catching criminals.

I wonder what the quality of the "leads" they get will be. I would expect it's more likely to be from disaffected children using facebook who are annoyed with something their friends have done and report them out of spite.

Personally I think this looks like one of those great ideas that was dreamed up to make them look trendy and "in touch". I'd give it 6 months before it's quietly dropped under an initial tide of spam, false leads and time wasters, followed by complete and utter apathy.

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[timmarhy]

So do you manage by spreadsheet as well? because 13% of the time "catching criminals" is pretty meaningless.

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[Macthorpe]

No wonder the general public is so hacked off - when police stats. show that they spend less than 13% of their time actually out of the police station, catching criminals. This isn't really the police's fault. Government 'targets' are set in the most meaningless fashion possible to ensure that real crimes remain unsolved and less policeman have time to actually go out and arrest criminals. When they do, it's worth just as much to them to give a guy a caution for having weed on them, as it is to stop a pub brawl or prevent a murder.

The damage needs to be repaired at the source before the police can finally prioritise to doing real work.

And yes, I agree this idea is useless and shortlived, but it is certainly not an invasion of privacy.

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[somersault]

13% of who's time? Patrolmen on the beat, or the receptionist's or chief constable? How does being outside help them get their mounds of paperwork filed as well (which is a lot of the reason that I cba to be a policeman even though I then get to 'legally' drive fast and double park - well.. that and the pay sucks)?

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[somersault]

I don't think it's any more useless than facebook itself. You don't always know if something's gonna be a flop or not until it all pans out. If I lived in Manchester I'd have a better informed opinion of whether it will in fact be useful or not. To some citizens (nosy people and busybodies) it will probably be quite fun.

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[petes_PoV]

> 13% of who's time

Consider this:

Police officer: person who is difficult to recruit, needs training to be responsible for special powers (arrest, driving too fast etc.) expensive to run due to equipment needs.

Administrator: very common, easy to recruit, no special training needed, cheap to employ.

It makes no economic sense to use police officers to do menial administration tasks. An efficient organisation would have people using their specialisations and leaving the unqualified work to cheaper, lower grade staff.

There's no great secret here, it's called comparative advantage and has been the mainstay of all successful commercial enterprises for over 100 years. The thing is that since the police have neither any competition, nor incentive to improve efficiency they can afford to waste people's talents by having the wrong people doing the easy tasks while very few to the actual policing.

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[Angostura]

Consider this, you said "13% of time out of the station" are you claiming that any time inside the station must be "menial administration"?

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[kraut]

I think the rank and file police are equally hacked off about the situation...I don't think many coppers took the job because they like paperwork. This http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wasting-Police-Time-Crazy-World/dp/0955285410/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208716095&sr=8-1 is an amusing read.

Blame our New Labour overlords, not the coppers

Re:licence to goof around at work?

[somersault]

It's a PITA, but they do have to record everything they do in case it comes up in court or whatever. Personal cameras as part of the uniform could be a better way of doing that though.. it sure would cut down a lot on corruption in the Police and that kind of thing, and save time writing up reports!

Little extra problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it strike you as rather critical that they prove it was you who posted the information in the first place? I can see some nice juicy court cases come up otherwise..

Hear our Voices

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the feeling this anonymous tip site will soon be getting a visit from another "Anonymous". Spamming their system in protest, anyone?

Re:someone please distill what facebook actually d

[somersault]

I'd assume the adverts are targeted yes, but I don't actually know because I have an ad-blocker installed. You can install 'applications' and then choose how much information you wan the application to install, and then you get asked (or sometimes required, which is a pain in the ass) to invite a bunch of friends to install the app. Bebo does the same thing.

other sites...

[owlnation]

The police already tried this on MySpace. All they found were glittery ponies.

Re:other sites...

[mei_mei_mei]

LOL!

Re:other sites...

[ksd1337]

And if they tried it on Slashdot, they would find pink ponies.

Dear everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

We hope you take this as a sign that you should stop using Facebook.

Sincerely, Internet users who don't care for circlejerks.

The Fifth

[Dr. Cody]

Don't worry, it's not self-incrimination until the court forces you to friend the detectives.

Re:someone please distill what facebook actually d

[Evanisincontrol]

I'd assume the adverts are targeted yes, but I don't actually know because I have an ad-blocker installed. You can install 'applications' and then choose how much information you wan the application to install, and then you get asked (or sometimes required, which is a pain in the ass) to invite a bunch of friends to install the app. Bebo does the same thing. I also have adblock installed, but when I occasionally browse facebook from other computers, I noticed something interesting: after changing my Relationship Status to "In a Relationship" (from the previous "Single"), I suddenly stopped seeing adds for "meet a woman" websites. They vanished completely, whereas before it was all I ever saw.

Could be a coincidence. Could be.

The Future of Policing

[mrbluze]

TELEPHONE TRANSCRIPT:

Victim: Burglars have been at my house and it's been ransacked and my five year old daughter has been kidnapped!

Police officer: Hold on, how do you spell your name again *tap tap tap tap* .. oh wait, Google's working now.. whew!...

Victim: There's blood on the kitchen floor and..

Police officer: Yeah yeah.. whatever.. oh, I found pictures of your daughter, she was on facebook.

Victim: Facebook?

Police officer: But I'm afraid we have no leads. She hasn't used her facebook account for a while.. oh well, sorry about that.

Victim: So when am I going to see a police officer?

Police officer: Well you can chat to me online.. do you have Yahoo?

*CLICK*

If it's on the web...

[Tastecicles]

...then it's public information. Electronic publishing by its very nature precludes any rights, real or imagined, to privacy. But, like any other information on the internet, it's to be taken with a pinch of salt. I for one wouldn't trust for evidence.

The Evil Empire ..The Axis of Evil ..

[Anonymous Coward]

the claiming of .. the seizing of .. the power .. the Authority .. the RIGHT ..

to enact legislation .. to pass laws .. to the setting of the social standard .. to the setting of the moral standard .. by a so-called democratic process of representational governance ..

established by a simple majority .. which in most cases is far less than 50% of the populous .. especially when close to 7% of the living population of america have been incarcerated .. and were Blacks constitute only 12.9 percent of america's total population, but black prisoners account for 46 percent of the total in jail in the nation .. especially with regard to the function of establishing and controlling acceptable social standards by the threat and use of punishment .. with the act of enforcement by the use of overwhelming force and detention .. it is totally arbitrary .. it is elitist ..it is a lie .. it is pure EVIL ..

outlawing naturally occurring and predisposed human behaviours is the cause of crime .. with the creation of criminals the effect .. they are not naturally occurring .. they are made .. with the result being just another form of taxation .. and employment for those who with a predilection and liking for the dominating others ..

it is purely a legal issue .. NOT a moral issue ..

a so called free and healthy society .. needs/requires a certain level of tolerance for non-violent crime .. zero tolerance is not freedom .. non-violent criminals must have a reasonable/fair chance of getting away with the crime .. especially if a society is going to claims any degree of personal freedom .. individual autonomy .. individual freewill .. individual liberty .. the RIGHT of self determination ..

without an organized religious/moral framework or construct .. all concepts of ownership .. of a desired standard or level of social behaviour .. is purely a legal/conceptual issue .. it is not a moral issue .. is purely abstract .. if the criminals do not have a fighting chance to succeed .. if the odds are to great on side of enforcement by the use of overwhelming force and detention ..

then we are/have become completely and totally enslaved to and by an arbitrary standard of social behavior and have left behind any ability and or RIGHT to claim any degree or capacity for individuals to exercise their freewill ..

zombies in the truest sense of the word .. not mindless hunger for violence and blood lust .. but total intellectual slavery ..

only an intellectual claim too freedom .. when in fact there is none ..

Re:Which is why...

[vertinox]

...I make shit up on my personal pages and use doctored images for alibis. Also, I make fake pages of people I don't like and make up incriminating evidence.

Actually I don't because I don't have an online social site anymore blog or Facebook, but my point is that if people were smart, they'd not post incriminating information and if they were really smart they'd make shit up. Back in the day before Myspace and even Livejournal I had an E/N blog which I realized family and friends were reading so I would make up impossible crazy stuff to throw them off or I'd write babbling posts that make no sense.

Ergo, using online sites to collect evidence might not be the best idea due to misinformation or self delusions.

What are we really policing here?

[HangingChad]

Since it seems unlikely people on Facebook are going to confess to be being a major drug trafficker, or show video clips of their last home invasion rape and robbery, I can't really see the value to society of wasting law enforcement resources clogging up the criminal justice system with the parade of Facebook petty crimes.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the states our criminal justice system is full. We have enough people in jail, more than enough people getting tagged with arrest records over fairly minor infractions. We need law enforcement to focus on the big problems and not be looking for reasons to dump some otherwise law-abiding person into the criminal justice meat grinder because they copped to some petty crime in Facebook.

And we need to de-criminalize a wide swath of drug possession crimes. We're spending billions keeping people in jail for a few oz's of pot. It's really quite insane.

Re:What are we really policing here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not for policing facebook, it's for allowing Manchester facebook users to report crimes.

Re:What are we really policing here?

[pbhj]

And we need to de-criminalize a wide swath of drug possession crimes. We're spending billions keeping people in jail for a few oz's of pot. It's really quite insane. Got any evidence to back up those vague assertions?

As my home was burgled by kids looking for stuff to sell so they could get their personal few oz's of pot (great for when you're chilling out in someone's car you've stolen, vandalising the local shops, trashing peoples homes, etc..) I say lock them up, if we don't pay now we pay more later.

Their punishment? Well they got told off and had to do a few hours community service. My experience may be randomly skewed, but I don't think anyone is going to jail for small time possession in the UK.

We do however spend too much on prisons but we have to bite the bullet and spend a heap more to fix that. Letting people off just removes the deterrent and you might as well just have anarchy.

Now get off my lawn, I'm off to buy a shotgun!

Re:What are we really policing here?

[Attila Dimedici]

Since it seems unlikely people on Facebook are going to confess to be being a major drug trafficker, or show video clips of their last home invasion rape and robbery, I can't really see the value to society of wasting law enforcement resources clogging up the criminal justice system with the parade of Facebook petty crimes.

I know of at least one case in the U.S. that was solved because the perpetrators posted a video of them committing a crime. I believe it was a murder case (although it may have been a gangrape). I think I read about a second case, but I'm not as sure of that.

Re:What are we really policing here?

[alshithead]

"Got any evidence to back up those vague assertions?"

You can easily find the evidence yourself. You are the one who seems not to believe it. Try using Google with a search term like; "U.S. state criminal penalties marijuana".

"My experience may be randomly skewed, but I don't think anyone is going to jail for small time possession in the UK."

I wouldn't know if your experience is randomly skewed but you are comparing apples to oranges. The poster stated they are in the US, not the UK. I have a friend in Washington DC who did 30 days in jail for a $10 bag of pot. That seems excessive even though it was his second conviction.

Re:What are we really policing here?

[pbhj]

sorry but as the article was about the Manchester police, I thought it was the Manchester, UK police and hence that the conversation was UK focussed.

I forgot that the US is the centre of the universe for a moment there ;0)> apologies

Re:What are we really policing here?

[alshithead]

I thought he stated pretty clearly that he was referring to the USA. Long before his post the US was brought into the discussion which shouldn't be surprising. I would bet most Slashdot folks are US citizens and most of us here in the US haven't traveled to the UK. There often is an attempt to parse a discussion in a framework we are familiar with as opposed to one we are not.

I thought the Vatican was the center of the universe?

Re:What are we really policing here?

[Reziac]

And on a 3rd conviction in California, thanks to our wondrous "Three Strikes" law, he could find himself doing a mandatory 25 years.

One judge stated that he was strictly enforcing the Three Strikes provisions to demonstrate just how ridiculous such a law is (meant for violent repeat offenders, but technically applies to even the most minor felonies). All well and good for demo purposes. Not so good for the poor bloke whose only "crime" was a 3rd incident of possesion of more than 1 ounce of pot (or whatever the felony-possession level is now).

Re:What are we really policing here?

[kraut]

Since it seems unlikely people on Facebook are going to confess to be being a major drug trafficker, or show video clips of their last home invasion rape and robbery, I can't really see the value to society of wasting law enforcement resources clogging up the criminal justice system with the parade of Facebook petty crimes.

In the UK we seem to have plenty of stupid criminals. A group of people beating someone up while filming it on their mobiles, and posting the evidence on social networking sites seems to be a common habit amongst our more detestable yoofs.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the states our criminal justice system is full. We have enough people in jail, more than enough people getting tagged with arrest records over fairly minor infractions. We need law enforcement to focus on the big problems and not be looking for reasons to dump some otherwise law-abiding person into the criminal justice meat grinder because they copped to some petty crime in Facebook.

And we need to de-criminalize a wide swath of drug possession crimes. We're spending billions keeping people in jail for a few oz's of pot. It's really quite insane.

Yeah and Amen, brother. Good luck getting anyone in power to listen to the evidence though.

Re:What are we really policing here?

[pbhj]

I thought the Vatican was the center of the universe? It is too, lol.

If it was only the police force

[icepick72]

Any third party application you add to Facebook doesn't need a subpoena or warrant to access your personal and friend information back to the organization or company. That's the scary part. I would rather the police get it, however any of my foolish friends who sends the app to 25 friends (including myself) to get their love test results has exposed my information and possibly contextual relevancy about myself to god knows who, possibly even criminal organizations, and no doubt commercial entities who will target and market me to the hilt.

Just one question - ISP caches

[rootpassbird]

ISP caches are probably the place easiest to get information from - controlled by a few, behind-the-scenes, no-public-interactions, probably physically located in dubious lands (no laws, monarchies, like tax-havens).
Then why all the fuss about APIs and popular websites?
The good thing about Facebook is that everyone knows that they can be broken into by sufficiently skilled crackers.
People know. That's important.

anonymous tips

[Udo Schmitz]

link takes a Facebook user to the police Web site where they can anonymously submit tips

What could possibly go wrong?

Ripper!

[Anonymous Coward]

You would not belieeeeeeeeeeve the RIPA hoops the police would have to jump through to even read someone's personal data through a Facebook app, let alone use it in an investigation.

And no, we don't just do it anyway. And randomly harvesting it from any old account just because the technology exists? Fuggedaboudit. Seriously. Doesn't happen.

Re:Which is why...

[Reziac]

Given the hyperbolic nature of so many social-networking-site posts, they'd be more accurately regarded as the fiction section of an online public library, not a factual reference.

However, the cops and the courts don't always care, so long as they can label it "evidence".

An excuse to use facebook in work

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just an excuse for the police to use facebook in work. Oh well, I guess everyone else is doing it.

Re:they do

[Macthorpe]

Well, initially I couldn't get on your link because it crashed Opera when I tried to load it.

So, I switched to Firefox just to humour you and wish I hadn't bothered - why don't you try reading the part that says BRITISH police and come back when you're not a moron.

oh silly me

[ClioCJS]

I forgot that a cop in another country is a completely different entity than a cop here! No resemblance in any way, shape, or form. Please forgive me for my apples and oranges comparison. (More like oranges and mandarin oranges, actually.)

Re:oh silly me

[Macthorpe]

I said come back when you'd stopped being a moron, not keep blabbering away and making yourself look even more stupid.

If you don't understand how two entirely different cultures can have two police forces that react differently to violent situations, especially when the armaments of those forces vary wildly, then I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you at length.

I will give you a hint though - in Britain, they don't give every PC Tom, Dick and WPC Harriet a firearm to wave in the face of criminals, and they're also taught to practise restraint.

If this seems rather rude of me, that's because I haven't been taught to practise restraint, and also I get pissy when I have someone crash my browser to make a largely irrelevant point.

Re:oh silly me

[Anonymous Coward]

That is probably the most ignorant post I've ever read on slashdot.

Slashdot 1937

[RiotingPacifist]

The police now have a phone number meaning people can phone them up and report crimes. And people can give the police your telephone number so that they can phone you up and ask questions!

Time to take the tinfoil hats off this is a tool for people that want it to report stuff to the police, not so different to a telephone number.

Facebook, Police and secrecy

[Braindead61]

WHAT is the problem???? If you got nothing to hide, what you scared of? You got a credit card? A driving licence? A blood doner card? A bank account? A post office account? What the hell do you think they DON'T already know about you. Grow up, get into the real world!!!!!

Re:cops in UK have guns now

[Macthorpe]

Wow. For a start, I'm not clicking your link again, I've learned my lesson from last time. Let's make this to the point:

- Getting an idea or two from someone is completely different from acting the same way all the time.

- I didn't say our policeforce is immune to dickery, but they're significantly less dickish than the US police.

- I didn't say no policeman in the UK has guns, I said that they aren't given to every officer.

- You're the moron who pulled this entire fucking thing off-topic, not me.

You are completely unable to distinguish the grey areas between black and white.

Don't ignore the benefits of accountability

[dontmakemethink]

My biggest concern about police investigations isn't that they'll pin a crime on the wrong person, but rather police misconduct messing with the lives of innocent people.

In my town, the police's closure rate is less than 30%. That means over 70% of reported crimes go unpunished. What's worse is that the officers are primarily interested in advancing their careers, so if you need a minor situation remedied, they don't even take a report. Realisticly you have at most a 1-in-8 chance of getting caught for committing a minor crime here, even if your victim identifies you and tries to make a report.

In the past two years I've been the target of a violent con artist and a very malicious landlord, neither of which were considered worthy of a criminal report by the local police. 18 months after leaving the apartment I'm still taking the landlord to court for defamation of character, harassment, malice of intent, and fraud by false pretenses, all of which could have been prevented if a police officer had taken the initial trespassing report and simply warned the landlord that his next criminal act gets him a night on a steel bed.

Instead the landlord conned the officer (also a landlord himself) into believing I was a con man trying to coerce him into free rent. They ambushed me in the apartment while I was sick to gather/manufacture evidence to evict me. At the hearing the officer said I allowed them to enter, and the judge believed him even though he and the landlord had different descriptions of how I indicated that to them.

And guess who handles police misconduct reports? Other officers.

So I whole-heartedly welcome a more accountable approach to criminal investigation, and Facebook is an outstanding tool for gathering and disseminating crucial information for crime prevention. No officer is ever going to harass you or dismiss a legitimate complaint when it's in black and white, subject to review and/or media publication. The same goes for people giving false statements to the police.

I keep tabs on the con artist thanks to Facebook and a few brave friends who pretend to be his allies just to track his movements. He had planned to steal equipment from local musicians and sell it in another city. He now has a nationwide warrant for his arrest for uttering threats and stealing a car, and we can't wait to rat him out.

As for people impersonating police officers, considering how serious a crime that is and how little there is to gain compared to any other form of deception, I can't see it becoming a serious problem. Facebook can and really should take steps to ensure the identity and validity of officers using the network for official purposes. Police pay for tools that stop crime, no reason Facebook shouldn't capitalize on it, even without revealing any more information than normal users can see.

Re:someone please distill what facebook actually d

[somersault]

Probably not a coincidence, and that's a great example of how it should be fine for advertisers to get some of your info. When I was in a long term relationship a coupla years ago I was getting pretty pissed off at all the 'singles' ads on MSN and such like, because they were of no interest to me, and usually just come across as really sleazy.

Re:someone please distill what facebook actually d

[Snowmit]

Not a coincidence. When my status went to "engaged" suddenly every second stupid ad was about wedding photography services in my home city.

The cover-up failed

[soren100]

Since this is the British police we're talking about, better include "I shot him without cause" there

It seems that you are referring to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. The fact that this remained headline news for several months should probably serve as an indicator that it's not something that's exactly common. The only reason that it stayed in the news was that some people in the department were so shocked and disgusted that they risked their jobs and their freedom to leak the images that showed how everything the police were using to justify the killing was a baldface lie . He wasn't wearing bulky clothing as they claimed, and he did not jump the turnstile or run to the train but walked calmly and stopped to get a paper instead.

The cops pinned him to the seat and pumped 7 hollow-point bullets into his brain, until he was unrecognizable, according to a senior police official. It's almost like he knew something that they didn't want him to talk about. If they really thought he was a "terrorist", they would have interrogated / waterboarded him to find out what he knew, not just execute him at close range. If they really thought he had a bomb, they wouldn't have gotten into the same train car with him, let alone get on top of him.

The fact that the police almost got away with their lies and cover-up should show that it's probably a lot more common than you think. They just got a little too arrogant this time, and disgusted even their own people. Bond had a 'license to kill' -- and it looks like these cops thought they did too. If the police don't release the true details, how would you know which killings are justified and which ones are executions?

Ow

[hassanchop]

Please stop posting or learn how to write a sentence.

I'd have read your post but nothing worth a damn could be written by someone who thinks writing like you did is a good idea.

Not a threat and probably useless

[klimb20]

I can't see many people justifiably getting too up in arms about civil liberties being violated here. After all, even if you expect your Facebook content to be "private", it is still voluntarily published on the internet for purely leisurely reasons. The more important issue here is if the police using Facebook as an aid to their job is even worth the time. Most criminals would not post self-incriminating evidence to major crimes on the internet (though I guess it could happen). Anonymous tips being accepted over the internet makes it too easy for the system to be bogged down by false/unimportant "tips" making it difficult to recognize the relevant information. Plus there is the issue that the tips would not be truly anonymous because they could be traced back to the user. Maybe using Facebook will help the police catch the rare criminal every once in a while, but how they do this efficiently is still up in the air.

Re:someone please distill what facebook actually d

[somersault]

Makes you wonder what happens once you get to 'married' status. Ads for earplugs?