Slashdot Mirror


EFF Wants To Know If the Feds Are Cyberstalking

rossendryv writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and UC Berkeley's Samuelson Center filed suit in California's Northern District, asking the court to force a number of government agencies to hand over any documents they have concerning the use of social networking sites as part of investigative procedures."

52 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Uh oh by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just poked Osama Bin Laden on his wall.

  2. Mafia wars by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York has announced a RICO case has been filed against all players of the game Mafia Wars. It is clear that these are hardened criminals who not only kill without remorse, but share their results on social networking sites. The US Attorney's Office thanks the social networking site Facebook for their cooperation in bringing these mobsters to justice."

    1. Re:Mafia wars by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While he's at it he should sue Zynga for gross criminal negligence and crimes against programming!

  3. Why wouldn't they? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why wouldn't the feds do this? It would be irresponsible of them to *NOT* look at social networking sites for illegal activities. I'm not saying that there's a treasure trove of information there, but come on, this isn't private data we're talking about here. If the FBI or CIA ir CSIS or NSA or ABC is looking for info on me, they should at the very least be putting "Beardo the Bearded" into Google and following the links.

    If someone is putting things up in public for anyone to see then I can't see any problems with a government agency looking over these records. I'm all for privacy, but once you put it up in public, good luck, Mrs. Streisand.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    1. Re:Why wouldn't they? by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I completely agree with this. I see this as no different from "the Feds" looking at your webpage to see what you post there, or your "personal" blog.

      If you want to put personal information on the web for "the public" to see, I don't see how you think "the Feds" can't look at it ... just like everyone else.

    2. Re:Why wouldn't they? by zmaragdus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many companies also perform such searches whilst screening potential employees. They often get junior (junior as in position, not necessarily age) employees to befriend said candidates in order to dig up any "dirt" they can on you. (Hence a warning to those of you looking for a job: beware what you post online.) The feds would be foolish not to do so as well.

      --
      (((dB)))
    3. Re:Why wouldn't they? by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hence a warning to those of you looking for a job: beware what you post online

      Or in newspapers, magazines, bridges, overpasses...

      I would have thought this would be common-sense. If you want to keep something private, don't tell everyone about it :)

    4. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Onthax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But dont i have a resonable expectation of privacy for my facebook it is not publicly searchable, only certain people on my friends list (Access Control List) can see the information i share this would make it more like an email communication medium, not a public information source?

    5. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Meshach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But dont i have a resonable expectation of privacy for my facebook it is not publicly searchable, only certain people on my friends list (Access Control List) can see the information i share this would make it more like an email communication medium, not a public information source?

      It may not be publicly searchable but I do not think that alone guarantees you it will remain private. If it is requested in certain ways it will be revealed.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    6. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to keep something private, don't tell ANYone about it

      Emphasised that for you ;^)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    7. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Eil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, there is still a problem. I can't speak for any of the other social networking sites, but Facebook in particular puts fairly strong emphasis on the concept of publishing information publicly (viewable by anyone) versus publishing information privately (viewable only by "friends", ostensibly). 90% of their users don't grok the concept that putting anything online at all by definition means that the information they post is now beyond their control. Sure, their terms of service say that they can do this but the public has been trained by corporations to not take such contracts seriously, let alone read them.

      Sites like Facebook should not be allowed to use the word "private," because their definition of the word actually means, "viewable by your friends, every Facebook employee, law enforcement and investigative agencies, and other undisclosed entities that we sell, lease, or give your information to."

      I'm not saying Facebook is doing anything illegal or underhanded, nor am I saying that users shouldn't be bound to the contracts that they agree to no matter how small the print. Just that Facebook and most other online services are seriously misrepresenting their use of the word "private."

    8. Re:Why wouldn't they? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief%2C_INDECT_Work_Package_4%2C_2009
      They get you, the words/terms/jargon you use, your friends and friends of friends.
      Then they track you all and sort your interests.
      When you have something real to do, never do it online ;)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Why wouldn't they? by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see this as no different from "the Feds" looking at your webpage to see what you post there, or your "personal" blog.

      You're joking, right? I'm pretty sure it's very different, if I set facebook to let only my friends see my stuff. I never saw a friend request from the FBI, so why should they be allowed to probe my facebook stuff? That seems like a digital analogue to the feds just storming someone's house without first getting the owner's permission to enter the home.

      In other words, they better have a darn good reason and a written warrant with that reason if they want to see my facebook without first being my facebook friend.

      If you want to put personal information on the web for "the public" to see, I don't see how you think "the Feds" can't look at it ... just like everyone else.

      And if I set up my settings such that only certain people have explicit permission to view such information, then it ain't exactly "for the public to see", is it?

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    10. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the feds want to know about you, they can talk to your friends, and ask questions. They can talk to your business associates, and ask question. They can question your mom, dad, sisters, cousins, etc. If they get enough trash on you, they can get a warrant to search your house, your car, your home, computer, and your person. If they think your friends or family has good dirty evidence, they can get warrants to search THEIR homes, cars, persons.

      So. Given all of that - just exactly how much privacy is expected with an online social networking thing? Far less privacy than your home, for which a warrant is required before searching it. Maybe - just maybe - a little more privacy than a conversation with a job associate, for which no warrant is required before talking to him. Considerably less privacy than a conversation with your spouse, for which no warrant is required before speaking to him/her.

      I really do think that SOME DEGREE of privacy is appropriate for Facebook, etc. But, the question is, "How private should Facebook be?"

      Obviously, those pages that are publicly accessible to any bot, any viewer, are most definitely NOT private. If you've set your page so that it is publicly viewable, by all means, any law enforcement agent in the world can look at it, and use the data. But, if you set all your pages with maximum privacy and security, then maybe the cop should be required to get a warrant before gaining access.

      I can't really decide where a social networking account sits in the scale of privacy. I can't agree that they should all be off-limits to the law, nor can I agree that the law should be able to peruse everything ever put onto any page either. Much depends on those privacy and security settings.

      Bottom line, though - if you have something that you DO NOT want the law to find out about you, DO NOT put it online!! Don't tell your job associate, don't tell your best friend, don't tell your drinking buddy, don't tell the busybody across the street, and DON'T PUT IT ONLINE!!! If more than one person shares a secret, it is no longer a secret.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Why wouldn't they? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want to put personal information on the web for "the public" to see, I don't see how you think "the Feds" can't look at it ... just like everyone else.

      Well, if you use a name that isn't yours on a web site, you can be prosecuted for hacking (see the case of the woman that got a myspace account just to harrass a child into suicide), so if the feds access your account without friending you under the name "FBI_Narc21" then they broke hacking laws, right? Shouldn't they have to follow the laws everyone else does? If not, they need a warrant.

    12. Re:Why wouldn't they? by some_guy_88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this modded troll? He has a good point. The difference between your public webpage and your facebook page is that only your friends are meant to be able to see your facebook page whereas your webpage is on the public web for anyone.

    13. Re:Why wouldn't they? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True. Now we have the question about "friends."

      I submit a request to be your Facebook friend as "CuteBlonde362436" and you accept, thinking that I might be a cute blonde with measurements 36-24-36. At this point, I have access to your information including the fact that you like to molest small woodland creatures. Of course, I'm neither cute, blonde, nor do I have those measurements. However, I am part of an FBI task force charged with protecting small woodland creatures from molestation and the reason I approached you on Facebook is due to an anonymous tip that said you were into that sort of thing.

      I now have all the evidence I need to have you locked up for a very long time.

      Entrapment?

    14. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I submit a request to be your Facebook friend as "CuteBlonde362436" and you accept, thinking that I might be a cute blonde with measurements 36-24-36. At this point, I have access to your information including the fact that you like to molest small woodland creatures. Of course, I'm neither cute, blonde, nor do I have those measurements. However, I am part of an FBI task force charged with protecting small woodland creatures from molestation and the reason I approached you on Facebook is due to an anonymous tip that said you were into that sort of thing. I now have all the evidence I need to have you locked up for a very long time. Entrapment?

      No. Entrapment would be if "CuteBlonde362436"* _enticed_ him to molest small woodland creatures and then arrested him for such. BTW, the government is probably everyone's friend on facebook. Private fraud investigators apparently are. * (who would be a disabled account anyway, since fake names aren't allowed)

    15. Re:Why wouldn't they? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're joking, right? I'm pretty sure it's very different, if I set facebook to let only my friends see my stuff. I never saw a friend request from the FBI, so why should they be allowed to probe my facebook stuff? That seems like a digital analogue to the feds just storming someone's house without first getting the owner's permission to enter the home.

      In other words, they better have a darn good reason and a written warrant with that reason if they want to see my facebook without first being my facebook friend.

      On any site, even if it's marked "private", once it's posted, it's public. Those privacy settings are probably a lot shallower than you think, and "friends only" can include a lot more. For example, didn't some group release a quiz that revealed that it not only had access to your complete profile, but the profiles of your friends?

      And what about that Manulife case where an insurance recipient was denied after posting pics to their "private" profile?

      Truth is, your profile may be marked as private, but it may be more public than you expect. All it would take is someone finding a vulnerability in facebook that unlocks private pfofiles. Or just do a quiz or app that one of your friends do that'll scrape your profile. Or maybe one of your friends is a friend of the FBI and is re-posting your pics?

      "Private" means zip. It may imply that only your friends can see stuff in your profile, but it's effectively public.

    16. Re:Why wouldn't they? by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For example, didn't some group release a quiz that revealed that it not only had access to your complete profile, but the profiles of your friends?

      That was a while ago, wasn't it? I don't do apps/quizzes/etc that often, but IIRC, such things explicitly warn you in a dialog that you must confirm that it will pull info from your profile and from your friends. My guess would be that it's using the permissions of your account, since your account is the one that explicitly allowed the information-ripping. Because you can see all of your own profile and all of your friends' profiles, it makes sense that the quiz would have all that info, too.

      And what about that Manulife case where an insurance recipient was denied after posting pics to their "private" profile?

      Oh yeah. I forget, how did those pics come to light? Did one of her fb friends send something in? Or did someone abuse higher privileges to access such info? Again, if it was one of those applications, permission was granted to access this stuff. But if Manulife got escalated privileges somehow (that is, greater than the privs you or I generally have on fb) and artificially bypassed the privacy settings, then at the very least, it's a case of extremely unethical admin abuse.

      Likewise, if the FBI worms their way into my friend list or I take one of their quizzes, and they get the info they want, then I explicitly allowed it. But if the FBI is not part of a group to which I gave explicit permission to view my profile, then I expect that my profile is safe from their eyes, barring an appropriately-issued warrant.

      "Private" means zip. It may imply that only your friends can see stuff in your profile, but it's effectively public.

      You're implying that facebook's privacy settings don't work as they are described. In that case, we may want to think about filing a class action against the organization for blatantly lying about the security details of our data and defrauding users into posting information publicly that they expected would be private.

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    17. Re:Why wouldn't they? by number11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone who thinks that any law enforcement agency will hand over any information at all concerning ongoing investigations is living on Fantasy Island.

      This is true. Likewise anyone who thinks that any law enforcement agency can be counted on to obey the law.

    18. Re:Why wouldn't they? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If more than one person shares a secret, it is no longer a secret.

      Adi Shamir would disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_sharing

      (Yes, I'm a crypto geek. Yes, you meant something different.)

    19. Re:Why wouldn't they? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are. They're just not allowed to entice you into breaking the law in order to arrest you.

      All those lines of "I'm not a cop!" in the movies are for the benefit of idiots who think that by saying they're not police officers that they can admit / do anything in their presence. Bear in mind that citizens have powers of arrest, too.

      They should properly identify themselves at the time of arrest, though. All police officers carry identification.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    20. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Paradigma11 · · Score: 5, Funny

      True. Now we have the question about "friends."

      I submit a request to be your Facebook friend as "CuteBlonde362436" and you accept, thinking that I might be a cute blonde with measurements 36-24-36. At this point, I have access to your information including the fact that you like to molest small woodland creatures. Of course, I'm neither cute, blonde, nor do I have those measurements. However, I am part of an FBI task force charged with protecting small woodland creatures from molestation and the reason I approached you on Facebook is due to an anonymous tip that said you were into that sort of thing.

      I now have all the evidence I need to have you locked up for a very long time.

      Entrapment?

      Why would he want a cute blond when he is into small woodland creatures :)

  4. More about data retention and usage policies... by Ransak · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary is misleading. The suit is more about what the Feds are doing with that data and the policies surrounding it, not that the Feds are using social networking sites for investigations.

    --
    "Powers. I have them."
  5. oblig by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean the feds aren't following you on facebook/twitter...

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:oblig by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Me and 350M others. They can watch all they want. Add in twitter, myspace, linked-in, and every other gawdforsaken social network. Hey, we do it-- why not them? When they start poking into private space, and none of the aforementioned have a reasonable expectation of privacy as they're public places, then I'll get testy. Until then, I hope they don't waste too much taxpayer money on it.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:oblig by KGIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to doubt nor to detract but what is, online, private space? Do you consider it private if the profile is marked private?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:oblig by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean the feds aren't following you on facebook/twitter...

      I know for a fact that the Hungarian authorities have a "shadow" version of iwiw.hu (the largest social networking site in .hu, with almost 3M members in a 10M country), where they connect your friends to you by hand. What makes anyone think other governments don't?

      All it takes is one bored employee with a spare server, and they'll never let go of the idea.

  6. This isn't a problem by rmushkatblat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you read TFA, you'll notice that in general the EFF doesn't have a problem with these types of practices. It's just FOI requests are getting stalled/ignored.

  7. Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are the Feds watching Facebook and other social networking sites? Did the STASI keep tabs on East German citizens? I find it amusing to see people, especially those who are naïve about the way the world works, shocked that intelligence agencies might actually monitor information which they so graciously posted for all the world to see (gasp). Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.

    1. Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.

      I understand, some people don't liked to be watched (even though they have posted the info on the Intertubes for anyone to see). But I don't particularly care. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and have been associated with many fringe Web sites by virtue of the comments section or forums. On the other hand, I've done nothing illegal, and as a DoD employee, have held a security clearence for over 20 years. Got nuthin' to hide, don't really care if the Three Letter Agencies read my Facebook.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, I've done nothing illegal, and as a DoD employee, have held a security clearence for over 20 years.

      Few things there:

      1) If you get an aggressive investigator, he could make it unpleasant for you on your next re-investigation if you're foolish enough to tie your fringe group views tied to your actual identity. Assuming your Daddy's family name wasn't "Piss", I'll guess you're OK there.

      2) Their level of interest of you depends on the clearance level. For instance, my cell carrier probably put more effort into checking my background than the gov puts into a DoD secret, for instance.

      3) DoD is, I think, less concerned about such things than their brethren. Not sure why exactly.

      4) I'd care a lot more about my employer finding my profile than the gummint. Nobody really interesting in the gummint is legally allowed to collect against you, and the ones that are allowed generally refuse to work with the ones that don't.

    3. Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you get an aggressive investigator...

      Already had some of those. They are more interested in my step brother and sisters from Etheopia, and whether I've visited any of several countries. But it really doesn't matter. There are reasons they can dink with my clearance, and reasons they can't. It's not up to the particular investigator's personal views, nor some nebulous undefined rule set. I'm quite sure that they are well able to connect my Slashdot profile with a real name... I undergo one of these mini-inquisitions every two years, and my views are not inconsistent with Democracy. Apparently, they consider me a "patriot", whatever that is... I am not paranoid.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Funny

      All of my tentical porn involves females over 18. I guess they could Photoshop me into some of those "sticky" situations...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by r7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      people don't liked to be watched (even though they have posted the info on the Intertubes for anyone to see). But I don't particularly care. I'm a bleeding heart liberal

      If you care more about yourself than the greater good then you are, by definition, not a liberal, bleeding heart or otherwise.

      With regards to the greater good, the reason citizens place limits on government investigation is because those investigative powers have been so frequently abused. Richard Nixon's Watergate, Joseph McCarthy's inquisitions and media blacklists, network television firing of the most popular entertainers (Smother's Brothers) for speaking out against Vietnam... the list is a long one, and anyone who does not care is either ignorant, liberatarian, or an anarchist.

    6. Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Funny

      DoD, DIA ect are the areas of the US gov that actually *work*.
      They stand on buildings around anti war protesters and film everything they can zoom in on.
      They record all car plates in the area too.
      If your too bright, articulate, photogenic or charming, they can always stick a cute 20 something on you with more 'direct ideas'.
      Your group will then waste years doing useless busy work or be on domestic terrorism charges.
      They then just drift back into the protest movements.
      Every so often you get a peek of low level police work.
      http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html
      ... "one reason protesters knew the men's true identities was because they were wearing the same boots as other police officers."

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching? by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with "nothing to hide", as Bruce Schneier has noted on his blog, is that is based upon the fallacious assumption that there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity. Now, you say that you are an honest citizen and I believe you, but here is the problem: the laws, as they exist today, are so complex and convoluted that it is practically impossible for ordinary Americans to live their everyday lives without breaking at least some of them. This is a common tool used by many governments, not just the United States, to maintain power over individual citizens. The implicit threat is that any one of us could be selected for "special attention" or "selective enforcement" at any time if the government (or some faction within the government) decides that it doesn't like us or that we are "troublemakers". In light of this truth, what do I gain from making it easier for the government to profile and watch me? You might argue that my efforts to remain anonymous, or at least pseudo-anonymous are futile and perhaps they are, but that doesn't mean that I am going to hand them my privacy on a silver platter.

  8. prove it! by anarking · · Score: 2, Informative

    there was a story recently of police busting someone for underage drinking based on facebook pictures. the problem with arresting someone based not on catching them doing an illegal act, but by heresay or pictures... is that how can it be proven?! "that was apple juice" "i was being facetious" shouldn't those be the only needs of defense against such allegations, true or not? this is the inherant flaw i see in this policing method.

    1. Re:prove it! by Urza9814 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yea, I know exactly what case you're talking about. Got an email from SSDP about it.

      But really that case was just a problem of the kid being stupid. Yes, the cops picked him up for a picture, but the kid then admitted to underage drinking. He didn't even try to fight it. I mean if he had tried to fight it and still gotten charged, then there would be a problem. But if you're a 19 year old kid walking down the street with a bottle in a paper bag and a cop stops you and says 'is that alcohol?' and you say 'yes'....Or if you pull over someone driving the same make and model as a car recently reported stolen, and you ask them if it's stolen and they say yes...well, it's hard to say the cop did anything wrong. And you can hardly call the arrest unreasonable (and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment) when the kid was holding a beer can. If it was a red solo cup or something, sure. But it was a beer can. It was a container that specifically stated that it contained alcohol.

      Of course if you want to question police officers posing as attractive young females (as they did in this case)...then yea, you could make a case for that. But then again, they go undercover all the time, and this isn't really any different.

  9. Now the NSA is involved... by geekmux · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....my wife woke up and found weird crop circles in Farmville. She swears she didn't plant them that way.

  10. They have to. Security Clearance. by NoYob · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you go for a security clearance, they search all you social networking pages and everyone who you are "friends" with. It's a real pain for them but they have to do it.

    So, if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance, you were investigated.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  11. Narrow sighted insights all over this... by nozendo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The issue isn't with, say, getting into facebook and checking out all your stupid farmville posts / drunken photos or etc, the issue is more on the privileged access side of things. Start thinking along the lines of your social graph and the back end of these sites and you have the gist of the real privacy issue here.

    How many times you've viewed a certain profile, the times of day you access the system, the timeline of your creation and deletion of connections with other people, the correlation of your mood from content against these actions etc etc. Base level data mining activity. Volume, frequency, timing. Combine this with X number of social sites and other activity in the cloud and you can get a pretty concise picture of someone's life depending on their volume of online interactions. It doesn't matter what the _actual_ content is, it's the least important part of the picture.

    Most of the responses to this topic online tend to drill down and go "I don't care if X can see my posted Y, I posted it assuming it was public domain". It really indicates that people are only aware of about a third of the real activities that are captured when you interact with social networking sites and the cloud as a whole.

  12. Most people aren't interesting enough by fotbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really.

    Chances are, no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespace. If they did, well, you put it out in public, so quit complaining when they read it.

    Take the tin foil off. You're not that interesting outside your little circle of friends.

    1. Re:Most people aren't interesting enough by nozendo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look further though. You're essentially a part of a neural style network here. You might be dull as a box of hankies but a professional associate, a relative, even at N degrees of separation - you're providing additional information against that person. It's not _you_ or even your N+1 or N+2 relations, its your overall participation in the mesh of interactions.

      In a very simple case you can be a part of a border analysis against another person. Your professional activities, your actions, combined with a group of people that encapsulate (via common connections) another individual or a subset of individuals is extremely valuable for analysis.

      This boggles me that we have a group of what I can assume are intelligent professionals here that can't see past the most elementary, low level application of information research / analysis. I've done incredibly effective analysis against individuals with a handful of public domain information, none of which was _direct_ content of theirs, let alone what I could do with access to the entire facebook back end.

    2. Re:Most people aren't interesting enough by nozendo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To try and demonstrate this:

      Person X on facebook has a private profile enabled but have allowed for their friends to be visible.

      Say 80% of their friends have public profiles on facebook. You'd then go through the process of mapping percentages for:

      - Their hometown
      - employment
      - common venues
      - level of facebook activity
      - interests, hobbies
      - participation in local events, clubs, universities etc

      Repeat for a couple of iterations down the friends of friends chain and guaranteed you could learn a massive amount about the individual regardless of profile status (eg, their employment, lifestyle, hobbies, timetable etc).

      Scale this up to properly managed automated engines for the task and multiple data sources and there's not much you couldn't pinpoint about an individual, even if for example they didn't use facebook but had a majority of associated who did. Replace facebook with anything, perhaps linked in because of its more "professional" sales pitch. FB is just an easy example.

    3. Re:Most people aren't interesting enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Chances are, no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespace. If they did, well, you put it out in public, so quit complaining when they read it.

      Hard to say. Maybe you've got a friend, one of whose friends had connections (e.g. worked closely) with a terrorist. You might not know that. I do know that, which is why I'm posting as A.C.

      Of course, half the stuff on my facebook page is bogus, anyhow. The people who have reason to know, know which half, mostly.

  13. What does that mean? by vvaduva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What the heck is "cyberstalking?" Doesn't wholesale wiretapping of both voice and data include this cyberstalking notion? EFF already sued over the patriot act and Obama's administration has made it even worse than before. Not even Bush kept email lists of their political enemies (as far as we know), so the question is moot.

  14. Re:Peekaboo! by Thinboy00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Out of idle curiosity, is it safe to click that link, or will doing so get the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc following me? I'd just like to know so that when the feds show up I'll know what to say.

    --
    $ make available
  15. Yes they are by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Next question.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  16. Get a grip by daveime · · Score: 3, Funny

    Look, the guy is holed up in a cave with a couple of goats in the middle of Nowhere, Pakistan (And still the US can't find him, but that's another lol). He has to send a runner with a cassette tape 500km to the Al Jazeera office every time he has a new fatwa to issue.

    It's not like he's going to be updating his Facebook status very often.

    Osama has updated his profile : Today I feel like crushing infidels.
    Fahid commented on Osama's post : lol habibi.
    Ahmed likes this.
    Mohammad pokes Osama.
    Osama has been busy in the kitchen and has cooked too many Kung Pao Chicken. Help him out on Cafe World.
    Osama has been downgraded to level 1 in Habbo Hotel, because he keeps blowing up his buildings (sorry, it slipped out).

    As for the rest of the world, the signal to noise ratio is just too great for the Feebs to glean anything useful. Christ, I only have family and a few close friends on my FB, but the amount of drivel they post is unreal.

    I'm on the bus going to town.
    I'm at town.
    I saw blah blah in town.
    Where ?
    At the coffee shop.
    I nearly said hello, but thought I'd tweet you instead.
    and so on, and so on ...

  17. Investigative style by realsilly · · Score: 2, Informative

    Social Networking sites are the type of tool that the govt. agencies have wanted for years now. It helps them with their investigations into cells of criminal activity. Consider how say the mob works. Vinny the Boss, hires Joe Schmo to do his job but uses cash at a drop zone. Well Joe has to have had some way of knowing to take the job from Vinny. So a Social networking site like application help piece Vinny and Joe to the same coffee shop that they frequent. Now think of the limitless potential power of investigation that can be performed. All legal, the info is public, so no warrants are necessary, the cells of criminals are oblivious as to how they are nabbed.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.