Federal Agents Quietly Using Social Media

SpuriousLogic passes along this excerpt from the ChiTrib: "The Feds are on Facebook. And MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter, too. US law enforcement agents are following the rest of the Internet world into popular social-networking services, going undercover with false online profiles to communicate with suspects and gather private information, according to an internal Justice Department document that offers a tantalizing glimpse of issues related to privacy and crime-fighting. ... The document... makes clear that US agents are already logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target's friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs, and video clips. Among other purposes: Investigators can check suspects' alibis by comparing stories told to police with tweets sent at the same time about their whereabouts. Online photos from a suspicious spending spree... can link suspects or their friends to robberies or burglaries." The FoIA lawsuit was filed by the EFF, which has posted two documents obtained from the action, from the DoJ and Internal Revenue (more will be coming later). The rights group praises the IRS for spelling out limitations and prohibitions on deceptive use of social media by its agents — unlike the DoJ. The US Marshalls and the BATFE could not find any documents related to the FoIA request, so presumably they have no guidelines or prohibitions in this area.

Comments

Is anyone surprised?

[calibre-not-output]

If you need a leaked document to know that spies are spying, you fail at life. Obviously information-gathering agencies will deploy personnel wherever there are large amounts of potentially useful information to be gathered.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[interkin3tic]

If you need a leaked document to know that spies are spying, you fail at espionage.

I think it was an overstatement to say "life" especially since, to me, facebook and other social networking sites are quite the opposite of life.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[Chyeld]

If you need a leaked document to know that spies are spying, you fail at espionage.

I think it was an overstatement to say "life" especially since, to me, facebook and other social networking sites are quite the opposite of life.

Ipso Facto...

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[DJRumpy]

You joke on this, but what is the difference between an agent questioning you in real life and online? They are required to identify themselves in person, are they not? Why should online be any different?

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[amicusNYCL]

They are required to identify themselves in person, are they not?

No, they're not.

Why should online be any different?

It shouldn't.

source

Are Police Allowed to Lie?
The question of whether or not the police may lie during the course of their work goes hand in hand with the question of entrapment.

It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else, without breaking the law or compromising their case. Conversely, it is illegal for an ordinary citizen to lie to the police in many jurisdictions.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[KahabutDieDrake]

They may lie, but they aren't supposed to forge documents. They also aren't granted carte blanche to break TOS and therefore "hack" into any website they like. Does Facebook grant a TOS exception for law enforcement? It is still against the law to gain access to a computer through fraud isn't it? Yeah... how about that, it turns out written law isn't the only law. I'm shocked, how about you?

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[HiThere]

Actually, this seems reasonable.

N.B.: That *DOESN'T* mean I think that it's reasonable for them to be able to snoop on my e-mail, or anything I didn't intentionally make public. But for them to look at publicly posted information is quite reasonable, even if they are pretending to be someone else.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[amicusNYCL]

They may lie, but they aren't supposed to forge documents.

Prove it.

It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else

They also aren't granted carte blanche to break TOS and therefore "hack" into any website they like.

If you're referring to these sections in the Facebook TOS:

You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

...

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

.. then I would have a couple counter-arguments. First, I acknowledge that, yes, they would be in violation of the TOS, that's obvious from the above statements. But, if you're saying that misrepresenting yourself on Facebook is a violation of the terms, then there are many, many Facebook users which are in violation of this. I'm not going to say it's "most" or give some arbitrary number, but you've got to admit that a large portion of users misrepresent themselves. In effect, everyone only says what they want other people to know. Therefore, it should be expected that law enforcement would follow the social norms. They aren't breaking any laws by doing so. It's not a crime to breach the Facebook TOS. It might not be usable in court as evidence, but it's not a crime. When they go deep undercover with gangs they need to do a lot worse than breach a TOS in order to get the trust and evidence they need. Read about some of the investigations of the Hell's Angels or Mongols, that's what I'm talking about.

Does Facebook grant a TOS exception for law enforcement?

Not that I can see. But I'm not claiming that I know the whole story.

It is still against the law to gain access to a computer through fraud isn't it?

See above.

Yeah... how about that, it turns out written law isn't the only law.

You're exactly right. Written law is not the only law.

I'm shocked, how about you?

Spare me the sarcasm, please. If you want to discuss this we can, you don't need to be a dick.

I'll also say this: if some criminal out there who posts about their exploits on Twitter, or Facebook, or MySpace, or Slashdot, or whatever, thinks that doing so is a good idea, then they deserve to get caught. This (the internet) is a public forum. Why would law enforcement not be able to use readily-available public information?

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[solferino]

If you need a leaked document to know that spies are spying, you fail at life.

"you fail at life" -- What's with the juvenile hyperbole? The basis of empiricism is confirmation of hypotheses. It's good to get detailed confirmation of (an almost certain) suspicion. And the detail is what is interesting here.

p.s. It wasn't a leaked document. It was two documents released under a FOI request.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[calibre-not-output]

The thing to remember is that nobody is forced to post any information, private or otherwise, on the Internet. And nobody is obliged to be honest when they do. If a pedo spams his child-seducing prowess on your network, you should turn him in, if nothing else because he's an idiot and idiots should not be allowed to spread their idiocy by any means.

And no, trolls, I am not advocating the incarceration of stupid people. Mental health institutions are the ones doing that.

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[calibre-not-output]

If you understand that it's a hyperbole, it's pointless to question it. There is such a thing as a "reasonable assumption", which is necessary in empiricism. how else can you know the sun will rise tomorrow, if not for the facts that (a) it has risen every day in your lifetime and in the historical record you've had access to, and (b) there are no indications in contrary?

By definition, an information-gathering agency will gather information. Like I said in the parent post, it is to be expected that they will deploy personnel where there is potentially useful information to be gathered. Reasonable expectation dictates that it is safer to assume that wide-use public networks like Facebook are under surveillance than to assume the contrary, in just the same way as we don't make plans based on the possibility that gravity will suddenly become a repulsive force instead of an attractive one. The strength of the expectation is obviously very different, but both are large enough to be safely presumed in the lack of evidence for or against.

I'd hope so.

[Mekkah]

If you are making your information publicly available, wouldn't you expect your government to take advantage of it?

Hint: Don't accept friend requests from someone named, Uncle Sam, Uncle Sammy, or that super model that wants to know where you live and were Saturday night between 10pm and 2 am.

Oh and don't tweet if you're gonna lie about it later to police.

Re:I'd hope so.

[lxt]

Exactly. People who are stupid enough to fall for it deserve what they get.

This isn't the government going behind your back, putting you under covert surveillance. It's completely in the open. A friend of mine used to work for the MA state police, in the computer forensics unit. He was amazed at the number of gang members who would just openly accept his friend request on Facebook, which would lead to him quietly beavering away to figure out the social network of the gang, where they met, what they got up to. Sneaky? Perhaps, but not illegal.

Really, people are just plain stupid.

Re:I'd hope so.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Probably means that there's a shortage of real crooks like terrorists and spies, so the feds have to do something to justify their elephantine budgets and keep their bust-numbers high.

Hey, ICE? Hi, this is Agent Smith from the FBI and I'm calling to report a MySpace profile featuring a black guy with gold chains and a new car that he probably stole from some hapless old lady. Can you go pick 'him up for me? Warrants? Nah, if the judge asks just say that the guy's an illegal alien or he's downloading music or somethin'. On your way? Thanks.

Re:I'd hope so.

[aztektum]

But Uncle Sams wants ME!... to accept his friend request!

Re:I'd hope so.

[HungryHobo]

If they were going through some kind of back door to read peoples private messages on forums etc then I'm be against this but it looks like they're doing the equivalent of going and reading what you've posted up on the wall of the local community centre.

Re:I'd hope so.

[betterunixthanunix]

However, the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to undermine our rights. It is one thing for an agent to communicate with people who are already under investigation -- such as with your state police friend who communicates with gang members -- but it is an entirely different story when the government starts randomly probing into people's lives. The line is very, very fine here...

Re:I'd hope so.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the right to remain silent. Use it! If you give up that right anything you say can and will be used against you. Nothing you say will help you. Clam up.

Re:I'd hope so.

[causality]

Exactly. People who are stupid enough to fall for it deserve what they get.

This isn't the government going behind your back, putting you under covert surveillance. It's completely in the open. A friend of mine used to work for the MA state police, in the computer forensics unit. He was amazed at the number of gang members who would just openly accept his friend request on Facebook, which would lead to him quietly beavering away to figure out the social network of the gang, where they met, what they got up to. Sneaky? Perhaps, but not illegal.

Really, people are just plain stupid.

With all of the surveillance and wiretap capabilities they possess, the mandatory backdoors built into many telecommunications systems, and the willingness the feds have shown to use these without first obtaining warrants, I am almost surprised they bother doing this. It's old-fashioned policework, of the sort that seems to be going out of style as we keep approaching a surveillance society. It sounds like at least some of them recognize that when real crimes that harm real people are committed, no Orwellian powers are needed to deal with them.

I suppose for those reasons it's like you said: they are going after the dumber criminals. The kind who commit a crime and then brag about it in public because they can't keep their mouths shut are most likely to get nailed by this. I say good riddance to them. Gang members and other violent criminals are exactly what the police should prioritize. If they can do that using publically-available information obtainable at a low cost, so much the better.

I'm also glad that in this case, they are using their finite resources and personnel to go after people who do real harm instead of nonviolent adults who decide to alter their consciousness in unauthorized ways.

Re:I'd hope so.

[PPalmgren]

The criminal "profession" has an intelligence bias. Most intelligent people who contemplate crime realize the profit isn't much better than working a day job if you want to do it in a way that there is a very minimal chance of getting caught. "Well, I could make a living stealing things, but in order to steal x I need to recon for y hours, buy z tools, only do it n times every month per area, and be cautious in every aspect of my life. Shit, why don't I just start my own business instead?"

Re:I'd hope so.

[Dog-Cow]

We're not talking about the police asking Facebook to hand over server storage so they can browse at their leisure. We're talking about government agents using Facebook or Twitter the exact same way that you or I would use it. There's nothing wrong with that.

I suppose that it's possible someone could have an issue with possible entrapment, but I can't see where there's a privacy issue just because you don't think the stranger whose invite you accepted might be a cop.

Re:I'd hope so.

[linzeal]

The difference being that a policeman can make accusations against that will bring legal charges. So when one person on Facebook friends a policeman why should all of his other friends be than subject to the Police investigating them? It would be like someone in a single apartment inviting in a cop so the police claim the right to search the whole building.

Re:I'd hope so.

[FroBugg]

As someone else pointed out, this isn't just the collection of data in aggregate that can be sorted through later.

This kind of data collection is (relative to other digital data gathering, at least) fairly labor-intensive. Nobody from the FBI is going to pretend to be your friend on Facebook unless your name has already come to their attention for some other reason. You're not worth their time otherwise.

Now, whether they're investigating you because you've committed a crime or because you're a communist is another discussion entirely, but this worries me a hell of a lot less than, say, someone selling my info to spammers.

Re:I'd hope so.

[betterunixthanunix]

No, we are talking about government agents create fake profiles for the purpose of extracting information from people and granting access to the profile to other agents, and then calling it an "undercover operation." It is the equivalent of a government agent convincing someone to give the agent a key to their home, so that law enforcement personnel can wander through their house and look through their things.

It is as much of a privacy issue as an FBI agent going undercover as a babysitter would be. If it is just a technique for finding information on people who are already suspects in a crime, it is a prudent method for gathering evidence; but if and when the situation changes and the government starts using these tactics against random people, just to see if crimes are being committed, then it is a serious invasion of privacy.

Re:I'd hope so.

[betterunixthanunix]

What stops this process from being automated or performed en masse? There are chat bots that could carry on a conversation with a person long enough to convince the person to accept a friend request, and the government could then simply download the entire profile that the person posted -- and continue to receive updates, and all done automatically. It would not be trivial, but it is certainly conceivable that such an operation could be carried out by a large agency that employs expert programmers.

Re:I'd hope so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it illegal to violate the TOS?

"You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission."

I don't know; just wonderin'.....

Re:I'd hope so.

[Shotgun]

However, the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to undermine our rights.

Would someone please mod this "+1...World's Dumbest Criminal's Apologist"

Heh, betterunixthanunix, did you know that if you buy a car with $20K in small, unmarked bills, the police will consider you a person of interest and start an investigation on you?

Did you know that if you are in a gang, there might be policeman around you that look like normal people? They call themselves "undercover agents".

Did you know that the "young lady" that is asking you if you "want to party" could actually be an undercover policeman? Yeah, he could actually be in drag, but it might also be a policewoman.

The things that you do in public are not private. You have no right to privacy in public places. If you don't want to tell people that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert, don't publicize on FACEBOOK that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert.

Re:I'd hope so.

[causality]

This kind of data collection is (relative to other digital data gathering, at least) fairly labor-intensive. Nobody from the FBI is going to pretend to be your friend on Facebook unless your name has already come to their attention for some other reason. You're not worth their time otherwise.

That's the way all government investigation should be. Unless they have a good reason to believe you have committed a crime, your name should never come up and data about you should never be gathered. If they do have a good reason to believe you have committed a crime, the reason should be good enough that a judge will grant them a warrant. This is how you deal with crime without the extreme danger to society that unfettered police power represents.

Where this breaks down is when surveillance is so widespread and can be cheaply done on massive scales that the cops can go on fishing expeditions. At that point, it's not so much about whether you have something to hide, it's about what they want to find. This scenario has to take place first before people can easily be targeted and harassed because of their political views, opinions, religion, etc. If you don't want the police to be little more than state-sponsored thugs, then the goal is to prevent them from ever obtaining this capability. The idea that they can have this capability and any regulations about how they use it will be more than temporary speedbumps as we go down the road of the gradual erosion of civil rights is absurd and counter to any good reading of history.

Re:I'd hope so.

[techno-vampire]

The criminal "profession" has an intelligence bias. Most intelligent people who contemplate crime realize the profit isn't much better than working a day job if you want to do it in a way that there is a very minimal chance of getting caught.

Tell that to Lucky Luciano, Frank Costello or Meyer Lansky. I'm sure they'd be interested to know that running Organized Crime isn't as profitable as an honest job would have been.

Re:I'd hope so.

[bsDaemon]

yeah, it's all fun and games until someone loses Cuba to Castro.

Re:I'd hope so.

[causality]

However, the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to undermine our rights.

Would someone please mod this "+1...World's Dumbest Criminal's Apologist"

Heh, betterunixthanunix, did you know that if you buy a car with $20K in small, unmarked bills, the police will consider you a person of interest and start an investigation on you?

Did you know that if you are in a gang, there might be policeman around you that look like normal people? They call themselves "undercover agents".

Did you know that the "young lady" that is asking you if you "want to party" could actually be an undercover policeman? Yeah, he could actually be in drag, but it might also be a policewoman.

The things that you do in public are not private. You have no right to privacy in public places. If you don't want to tell people that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert, don't publicize on FACEBOOK that you're dealing drugs at the Grateful Dead Look-a-like concert.

Had the GP said "the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to catch criminals" your comment would make some sense. Since he did not say that, I must regard your comment as a knee-jerk emotional reaction. I saw nothing which indicated that the GP was an apologist for criminals.

In other words, it is possible to catch criminals without undermining civil rights. It is also possible to undermine civil rights without catching criminals. The desire that the police not violate or undermine civil rights is not nearly the same thing as the desire that the police stop trying to catch criminals. Your exasperated statements of the obvious won't change this. In fact, when you feel upset and along with that you feel a need to state the obvious in a debasing tone, that's a good time to stop and see if you might have misinterpreted something.

Re:I'd hope so.

[Dupedupeshakur]

Another way it can go bad is corrupt judges. As they say, who watches the watchers?

Re:I'd hope so.

[DerekLyons]

Friending someone on MyFaceJournal isn't really any different than an undercover officer striking up a conversation with them while they're picking up something at their local convenience store. They're in public with no expectation of privacy.

Re:I'd hope so.

[a whoabot]

"We're talking about government agents using Facebook or Twitter the exact same way that you or I would use it."

When I read the TOS for Facebook it said I was not allowed to supply false information, but this story says that the law enforcement personnel are doing just that. So they are not using Facebook just as you or I would use it.

Re:I'd hope so.

[the eric conspiracy]

Are you saying none of the non-law enforcement users of Facebook are supplying false information?

Seems rather fanciful.

Re:I'd hope so.

[tarball]

Yup

Anyone complaining about this has what we in Garage Logic commonly call a "Moron Chip Problem". In other words, your Moron Chip is broken.

This piece of your personal logic array attempts to keep you from making stupid mistakes. If it's broken you are probably SOL.

tom

Re:I'd hope so.

[drkim]

IANAL but... I would guess it's not illegal to violate a TOS, but it may be a civil breach of contract (implied).

However, most officers would be indemnified if doing something "illegal" while in the lawful performance of their duty. (i.e. they were violating the speed limit to get to a call, although not running code 3[light and siren])

The actual reality would be that a judge would simply throw it out.

Re:I'd hope so.

[lanswitch]

.

Re:I'd hope so.

[OrangeCatholic]

>I am almost surprised they bother doing this. It's old-fashioned policework, of the sort that seems to be going out of style as we keep approaching a surveillance society.

Don't be. Cops love to get statements from the horse's mouth. They love to get multiple witnesses and cross-corroborate things they've heard. So what if you facebook profile has you smoking a blunt? That speaks only vaguely to your willingness to break the law.

I don't know why you think old-fashioned policework is going out of style. The "surveillance society" is nothing without the last mile.

Re:I'd hope so.

[Swaffs]

Or maybe real crooks like terrorists and spies use Facebook? People show off their crimes on Facebook all the time.

-or- Welcome to the internet

[pavon]

Where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents.

Re:-or- Welcome to the internet

[Monkeedude1212]

Hi, I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC. Why don't you take a seat over there.

Re:-or- Welcome to the internet

[metlin]

Funny, I remember reading that quote re: IRC, back in the day.

Re:-or- Welcome to the internet

[halcyon1234]

Funny, I remember reading that quote re: IRC, back in the day.

That wasn't a quote. That was an FBI agent.

Re:-or- Welcome to the internet

[Yvan256]

"In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Aplha Centauri." - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re:-or- Welcome to the internet

[Jurily]

The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

Also..

[e2d2]

They can also meet you at a bar and pretend they want some coke. A fucking travesty of justice I tell you.

Re:Also..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not everyone likes pepsi!

Re:Also..

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that this is different, in that once an agent has "friended" you on Facebook, your profile becomes available to the entire investigative agency. If an agent meets me at the bar and engages me in conversation, they learn only as much as I tell them -- perhaps that is a significant amount, perhaps they can use that conversation to investigate me further, but they are not receiving a profile of my entire life, and they cannot continue questioning me when I am not around. It is the nature of round-the-clock access to a person's profile and life, and the spillover into their friend's lives (now the agent can read wall posts and various other little hints about what your friends are up to) that makes this a more intrusive form of investigation.

Re:Also..

[Thinboy00]

Hint: Don't friend random strangers on Facebook et al.

Re:Also..

[Shotgun]

Unless they become your friend, and then you invite them back to your 'crib' and give them a key to your front door. Maybe they become close enough of a 'friend' that you invite them to your next drug deal, where the other cops that are listening in over the hidden microphone learn the names of the other dealers and start surveillenc on them. Eventually, they map out your entire friend network and arrest everyone in one big bust.

Of course, that cost thousands of dollars to pull off and puts policemen in danger. Facebook, OTOH, allows them to do the same surveillance and avoid the messy "initiation" routines that all the TV cops have to do to get to the inner circle of the gang.

Re:Also..

[Sancho]

I have heard that on Facebook, friends of friends can see your profile. That's why I'm not on Facebook.

Also, I wonder how strongly a court would trust a twitter accounting of your whereabouts. I've been spreading disinformation for years to keep burglars and data miners off of their game.

Re:Also..

[Khashishi]

that's optional, but not default.

Re:Also..

[Sancho]

Good to know, thanks.

Waaaiit.... are you an FBI agent trying to get me to join Facebook?

Re:Also..

[amicusNYCL]

It is the nature of round-the-clock access to a person's profile and life, and the spillover into their friend's lives ... that makes this a more intrusive form of investigation.

Go up to an agent or detective and tell him that you think his investigation into the private life of his murder or drug dealing suspect is too intrusive. See what he says. After he stops laughing, of course, you'll need to wait for that.

Re:Also..

[natophonic]

I've been spreading disinformation for years to keep burglars and data miners off of their game.
That's great, but while there are many 'Jeff's in the world, and many 'Tom's as well, you are Sancho. Frank Gifford is not Sancho, neither is Scott Baio Sancho. You are Sancho. And really, that's all we need to know... you're hired!
 

Re:Also..

[Sancho]

That put a real smile on my face, thanks!

Re:Also..

[Anachragnome]

"Hint: Don't friend random strangers on Facebook et al."

While that is good advice, it can be refined some...

Hint: Don't use Facebook at all.

Re:Also..

[countertrolling]

The first bit of info you will glean, even without seeing their profile, is that they are very lonely and/or some kind of pervert, or a fellow agent.. or all three. Let's get them to "shoot" at each other..

Re:Also..

[drkim]

No... it's just a totally weird coincidence that my sig is "Winners Don't Do Drugs!"

OK, friend me now....

Re:Also..

[e2d2]

I would put forward that it's within their rights, as they are charged with the safety of society, to use any tools necessary to investigate crime. The fact that the suspect has to engage the agent and interact with them means it's fair play. It's when they are not privy to it that judicial oversight is needed to ensure that it warrants investigation.

"Private" Information?

[The Angry Mick]

The document... makes clear that US agents are already logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target's friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs, and video clips.

Is this private data that they've "hacked" into (a la Zuckerberg), or is this a case of the feds reading whatever they found posted on the dude's wall or open Twitter page?

Re:"Private" Information?

[betterunixthanunix]

Some of it concerns "public" information -- that is, information that the user expects to be public -- but some of the techniques described involve "friending" a person under investigation, and then having access to their entire profile. It is not "hacking," but it has a similar effect.

Re:"Private" Information?

[Thinboy00]

It's social engineering (a la phising, but assumes that the reader is competent (knows how to use the system) but dumb (can't tell a good idea from a bad idea)).

Re:"Private" Information?

[Eric52902]

This is not hacking any more than someone walking up to you on the street, asking you for your keys, then taking your car for a joyride is theft. Sure, you may not want the person driving your car, but then, why did you give them your keys? It's the same concept here, your public information is just that and anything else, you need to give the person permission to see. If said person ends up being a government agent and you get nailed, maybe you should have taken the friend request under more careful consideration.

Re:"Private" Information?

[DragonWriter]

This is not hacking any more than someone walking up to you on the street, asking you for your keys, then taking your car for a joyride is theft.

If someone asks for my keys under pretenses other than "I intend to take your car for a joyride", and then uses the keys to take my car for a joyride, it is theft (larceny) of the car. (It's also, in many jurisdictions, theft [false pretenses] with respect to the keys.)

So this probably isn't the analogy you want to use to make your argument.

Why is this different?

[captaindomon]

How is this different than what the FBI does offline? It's just an online version of an offline undercover sting, right?

Re:Why is this different?

[Monkeedude1212]

You are correct. They aren't doing anything that you nor I couldn't do - besides having access to police records and placing people under arrest. The actual information gathering is pretty standard stuff.

Re:Why is this different?

[linzeal]

The question is, are they investigating outside their purview when they start looking into people's friends and organizations they belong to? To my knowledge this is very much a grey area and if a judge is asked to examine the legality of evidence involved in something like this, the lines had better be pretty bold and black or he will throw the case out. You can't start with one person on Facebook and start putting all his friends under surveillance willy nilly.

Re:Why is this different?

[Monkeedude1212]

Why not?

I may have gone to highschool with someone who is now a known drug dealer. Now they can look at my profile and stuff if I have it public, they aren't stepping over any boundaries. If I don't have it public, they can't see it. They literally would have to imposter someone I know to get on my friends list (which is in fact illegal) - so I don't have to worry about that.

On the chance that they do look into it - it will be very obvious I have not associated with the person after investigating MY events and other information. .

Re:Why is this different?

[linzeal]

Where does it end? That has not been made clear.

Re:Why is this different?

[Monkeedude1212]

There is nothing illegal against me investigating you or your friends.

Are you not concerned about that?

Law Enforcement Agencies are not going to waste their time creeping out on facebook unless they have some sort of lead. If you have an issue with keeping stuff Private your issue is with Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc - not with the feds.

Re:Why is this different?

[causality]

I may have gone to highschool with someone who is now a known drug dealer. Now they can look at my profile and stuff if I have it public, they aren't stepping over any boundaries.

There are state compulsory education laws. There's also the fact that you have little or no selection of high schools when you reside in a particular geographical area. Then there's the notion that you did not force that person to become a drug dealer, probably did not even know he was doing that, and in either case are not responsible for his actions. Now they get to examine your life and investigate you, and you don't think boundaries have been crossed?

On the chance that they do look into it - it will be very obvious I have not associated with the person after investigating MY events and other information. .

There's no reason to believe anything about you or obtain any information on you, until and unless they have probable cause to believe you have committed a crime. That's not a matter of opinion, taste, or personal preference. It's sound policy for a free country, for law-abiding citizens who don't want to fear their government, and it's exactly why the Fourth Amendment was written.

Re:Why is this different?

[linzeal]

That is not the point, the question is not what they care about or will or will not " waste their time " with, it is a question of privacy. Why should a cop who is being deceptive while investigating one suspect suddenly be allowed to access people, perhaps 100's or 1000's who may or may not be involved in any way? Do they then have the right to investigate the friends of his friends etc? Are we all suspects?

Re:Why is this different?

[Monkeedude1212]

Now they get to examine your life and investigate you, and you don't think boundaries have been crossed?

Considering that either

A) The information is public, like putting it on a billboard
or
B) I have to accept their friend request in order for them to access any information

How is this any different than giving consent to let them investigate you?

There's no reason to believe anything about you or obtain any information on you, until and unless they have probable cause to believe you have committed a crime

Right - which is why police go undercover in the first place, right? I don't see how this is any different.

Re:Why is this different?

[Monkeedude1212]

Why should a cop who is being deceptive while investigating one suspect suddenly be allowed to access people, perhaps 100's or 1000's who may or may not be involved in any way?

Are you saying an offline undercover cop should be a blind idiot and focus ONLY on the ONE person associated with selling drugs, and not the supplier of the drugs, or the purchasers? Then whats the point of going undercover?

This is no different. If you know a Drug Dealer, everyone the drug dealer associates with is suspect, that is just the way it works. Hey, the dealers wife might not know he deals drugs, she might be completely innocent, or she could be the brain behind the whole operation, regardless, the cops have to look into it, otherwise they'll get nowhere.

Re:Why is this different?

[linzeal]

A wife is justified, 100's or 1000's of online friends are not.

Well perhaps they're not allowed speakers at work

[Orga]

I wouldn't be surprised if they're all using headphones to listen to youtube videos and peoples favorites songs on myspace. I believe their latex gloves also make typing quieter

Good

[SoupGuru]

If they weren't doing something like this, I'd wonder what the hell was wrong with them.

alibis

[bsDaemon]

Because, you know, people twitter "going downtown to cap off @bigjimmy then getting stromboli" or whatever... and like tweets really establish an alibi anyway. Maybe with geo-tagging, but even then that's suspect, for there is no reason to believe that the perp didn't give his phone to someone to go tweet something from somewhere else.

Re:alibis

[Nos.]

No, the tweet (or whatever) likely isn't proof, but it does given the authorities reason to investigate further. If you're a suspect, and answered questions one way, and posted to facebook that you were doing something completely different, its worth investigating the discrepancy. ie: You told the police you were home in bed, but you're friends' facebook pages all say you were out partying... well, its worth going to talk to your friends.

Re:alibis

[Shotgun]

You're not thinking on the level of a criminal, bsDaemon. Face it, we're not talking the fairest and brightest of society here. We're talking about that species of human that has barely above being an evolutionary kickback. They're STUPID. We're talking about the sort of people that would kill Michael Jordan's father on the side of a lonely NC highway, hear and see the ensuing hoopla spread through the news, and THEN go around showing off his NBA championship ring.

Collecting Tweets and Facebook entries is just picking the low hanging fruit for law enforcement.

Possible good things...

[Darkness404]

However, sometimes social media can work for the greater good. Take this instance http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/facebook.alibi/index.html where police were able to verify a status update to prove that someone was falsely accused of a crime.

Turn it against them

[MSRedfox]

So if they want to use my tweets to break alibis, does this mean I can make tweets to reinforce them? '8:00 in bed and going to sleep' '9:00 woke up to the sound of a gun shot in the distance, I hope Bob the snitch is okay' '9:15 Going downtown with Officers for a cup of coffee, they are so nice' '9:30 after officers read my tweets, they apologized for wasting my time and drove me home'

Re:Turn it against them

[Shotgun]

Yes. It is reinforcement. Not completely foundational reinforcement, but in an investigation everything counts (until it doesn't).

"Publicly available"

[betterunixthanunix]

Facebook is popular because its users believe that their information is not publicly available. Yes, it is a complete falsehood, but the reality of life is that most people do not realize just how public the information on Facebook really is, and that is why these sorts of activities are so problematic. We are supposed to live in a country where the government does not arbitrarily spy on its citizens, even for the purposes of law enforcement.

Re:"Publicly available"

[drkim]

Your use of the word 'spy' is interesting.

The classic "cop on the beat" an officer, or constable, wandering through town, aware of everything in plain sight, knowing who belongs, and who does not isn't 'spying' it's call "law enforcement."

The thought of officers perusing a public forum - hosted on a network built by the Department of Defense - where people have been given no expectation of privacy simply brings that model to the modern age.

Facebook is popular because its users believe that their information is not publicly available...
I doubt if any Facebook user thinks that anything on Facebook is private.

Re:"Publicly available"

[betterunixthanunix]

"I doubt if any Facebook user thinks that anything on Facebook is private."

Why do you doubt this? Look at the way people react when Facebook changes its "privacy settings." People have an expectation, even if they do not explicitly state it, that when they set some part of their profile as "private" or "for friends only," that it will remain "private" or "for friends only." Most people really do not stay informed on these issues, or even understand what a web server is or how it works.

"The thought of officers perusing a public forum - hosted on a network built by the Department of Defense - where people have been given no expectation of privacy simply brings that model to the modern age."

No, it is different, because it gives the police much greater access, more constant access, more automated access, and access that is not limited to a small group of officers. It is one thing for the police to read a fugitive's Facebook profile to try and figure out where that person is, but there is little to prevent mass spying on the general population. Facebook frowns on the practice, but the police could program a computer to trawl through Facebook profiles, collecting data not just on suspects but also on their families, friends, neighbors, etc., or even just collecting data on random people.

Look, I used to assign blame to individuals, with the standard, "We keep warning them, and if they ignore us, too bad" philosophy. Really though, the government should not be using the stupidity of the general population in order to subvert the rights of the people, even if the general public fails to understand that they have rights or why those rights are important.

typical inflammatory wording

[sribe]

How exactly are they gathering "private" information from public web sites? Hint: if you post it to a public web site, it is not private any more!

No privileged access == no problem

[surmak]

I don't see a problem as long as they are not doing anything that any other user can do. If they lie to you to get you to accept them as a friend, or browse public data, that is perfectly OK.

On the other hand, I would have problem if they get access to the database, or otherwise bypass the user-managed access control/privacy features. I would also have a problem if they developed a Facebook app and tricked a suspect into running it. (apps can have more access to your profile than friends do.)

Re:Is this what EFF should be doing with ACTA abou

[MrTripps]

You mean stuff like this: http://www.eff.org/issues/acta ?

As a member of SDS

[linzeal]

We are not the baby boomer's SDS run by Marxist dogma by the way. Just wanted to get that out there before people start yelling commie. Mostly we act as a guard against the insane grabs of power and money by academic institutions that have been occurring at an alarming rate since the late 1990's. We are about as socialist on average as the socialist democrats are in Europe, even though we have some outliers.

We have had an online presence for years and the one thing we set out at the start was to be open so if infiltration happened it would be well documented. There are no closed email lists, no secret societies and no calls to violence or overthrowing of the government. However, that does not mean that we have not been spied upon and we do take threats to our civil rights to assembly, speech and liberty seriously. What we worry about mostly is the threat of the government running counter intelligence programs against us like COUNTELPRO in the 70's since the FBI and the US DOD have been linked to some instances of agent provocateur activity during the Bush years. So the question that any investigation of these acts by the government is when they stop being surveillance and start being about collecting data on honest citizens who surround a suspect and via police misconduct and prosecutorial witchhunts.

Re:Is this what EFF should be doing with ACTA abou

[unity100]

their latest blog entry on acta is from January 29th, 2010, for fuck's sakes.

Heavens to Betsy!

[hargrand]

This is just terrible! Next thing you know they'll be looking at Craigslist, or Angieslist, or, or, or, newspapers and the White Pages. What ever are we to do?!

Re:I'm a federal employee

[boarder8925]

You want to be our friends on Facebook?

And this is news how?

[kriston]

And this is news how?
How could anyone not know this immediately?

Re:And this is news how?

[hargrand]

It's news ... but it belongs on Idle.

It's not private

[Trailer Trash]

browse private information such as postings, personal photographs, and video clips.

No. What you're referring to is *public information* if they can get to it through the normal user interface. Now, if they call up facebook and say "I want to see so and so's non-public photos", fine, it's a problem, they need a warrant.

But I'm tired of this nonsense where someone posts all kinds of crap on their facebook account, make it public (or allow "friends" to see it), and then act like it's not supposed to be viewed by law enforcement.

If you don't want the cops to see it, don't post it to facebook. Why is this so hard?

Re:It's not private

[benjamindees]

Why is this so hard?

First of all, I'm going to assume that we're only talking about this because it involves warrantless snooping. And it's not like the feds have actually bothered to get warrants for years now anyways, so that's a pretty safe assumption.

So then the question is, at what point does "lying in order to gain access" become indistinguishable from "picking the locks to gain access". Because what we're talking about here is really no different from, say, an officer pretending to be an inspector from your insurance company in order to snoop around your house, or pretending to be your landlord in order to enter your apartment. You would probably let someone in to check your house for gas leaks. You probably wouldn't let someone in to check your ashtray for joints.

And those are legitimate issues in and of themselves, completely aside from the repugnant fact that Americans are now being forced to pay a disgustingly large portion of their incomes in order to support a bloated incompetent soviet-era spy apparatus fishing through their personal lives trolling for petty crimes.

Re:It's not private

[Macgrrl]

Over recent years people, especially young people, have gradually become accoustomed to posting more and more information about themselve on teh interwebs. Teenagers in particular have become aclimatised to this lesser expectation of privacy - it's almost as if they need to post about an event to validate that they have experienced it (SS or it didn't happen).

Whether intentional or not, these poeple are being trained not to expect privacy for themselves or anyone else - aided by the media and modern celebraties for whom there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Andy Warhol said everyone would get their 15 minutes of fame, these kids have somehow been convinced that privacy = being a nobody, and everybody should be a somebody (famous).

In other news...

[ls671]

In other news, intelligence gathering agencies read newspapers, listen to news, read blogs, read Usenet posting, read Slashdot and other forum and news sites. They sometimes post to the newspapers, usenet and web sites to deceive potential suspects.

How is them reading/posting on Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter any different?

I heard sometime ago that one of the most effective way to gather intelligence was to read newspapers if you knew how to correlate things. I do not see why this principle couldn't apply to electronic media.

And guess what ? You are allowed to do it too ! Many journalists have done just the same thing to find out stuff ;-)

I tip my hat to you, sir.

[ClioCJS]

That was hilarious.

Re:Serously...

[ls671]

> Have any murder suspects really tweeted their crime? This will happen one day.

tweet:
Guys, it's done... ;-)

well, there is this... *Content Facebook © 20

[robnator]

This agreement was written in English (US). Please note that Section 16 contains certain changes to the general terms for users outside the United States.

Date of Last Revision: December 21, 2009
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ("Statement") derives from the Facebook Principles, and governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement. ...
Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

      1. You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

end quote

but then who would expect our law enforcement officials to obey the law? Oh, wait... we do. :(

Well, yes, but it's not that clear cut .....

[King_TJ]

Why do people get so upset when they find out that H.R. departments are trying to comb MySpace or Facebook before hiring a candidate? Same idea, but simply a group trying to glean the data for a different purpose.

The thing is, yes - I fully realize law enforcement is going to make use of the tools available to them. If they can see my info on Facebook and they're interested in me, obviously they'll take a peek at it.

BUT, there's a danger here that comes by misinterpreting the data, too. For starters, who's to say someone's profile on a social networking site is an accurate depiction of who they *really* are, vs. a persona they like to project?

EG. I once dated a gal who had a MySpace account that gave a VERY different idea of who she was from reality. It's not that her photos weren't really her, or that she *lied* about anything. It's more that she was trying to be as "hip" and "trendy" as possible on her page. So, despite the fact she was basically an "A" student and spent most of her time studying in grad. school, all of that was conveniently left out, and things that in reality were only minor footnotes in her daily life were accentuated instead. Her photo gallery? Pretty sparse in the way of photos showing her typical clothing and "look", or of pictures of the family. Instead? A whole collection of photos she asked a friend to take one time when she was all "made up" in clothes she didn't usually wear, and trying to do a "photo shoot" type of thing with it. Even her listed "favorite books" and "favorite music" were carefully picked and chosen. Once I knew her a while, I realized she listened to quite a bit of classic rock ... yet she didn't seem to think that was part of the image she wanted to portray on her profile, so it was ignored in favor of the latest alternative and dance bands she also happened to like.

And that's all really just harmless, "fun" stuff. But what about people who are thinking along those same lines when they post the set of 50 crazy, drunk party photos they've got from one of the ONLY times they really went out and partied? What about the people who take an interest in something like computer hacking, so they post a lot of links related to the subject and list those types of books as their favorites? Does that mean they're actually INVOLVED in hacking, or does it mean they're actively trying to STOP hacking (a "white hat" type)?

You have to remember that whether or not people go to the effort to lock their FB or MySpace profiles down as "private" -- they often only have a certain audience in mind. They're not building the whole page thinking "This is what I'd want law enforcement to know about me, in case they come looking." They're not generally thinking, "I'm putting this here because I'm job hunting." either. It's a *social* network, meaning friends, family and like-minded individuals they consider "brethren" in some fashion. I think anyone trying to use the info from OTHER angles than that need to be very cautious how they interpret what they see.

Re:Well, yes, but it's not that clear cut .....

[stonewallred]

The simplest way, and one I have yet to see, is to not "friend" anyone that you don't know personally. I use FB as a way to keep in touch with friends I don't see often due to distance and because we have problems synchronizing with family, school, work and other interests. I also keep my privacy setting high, so that your friend can't see what I post on my friend's page. Of course it is funny when I see friends of mine with over 1k friends. Like how many of these people do they know or even speak to? I have one friend, that another friend in a different state "friended". Out of curiosity I asked why she did so. She told me that she always sent friend requests to people with Greek last names. So, only communicate with people you know and trust, keep privacy settings high and refrain from posting your latest plan for blowing up the world, robbing a bank or dealing massive amounts of drugs off your social networking pages, and you should be fine.

Re:Well, yes, but it's not that clear cut .....

[Moridin42]

I'd hazard a guess that law enforcement wouldn't move on people like that former girlfriend of yours based on what they found on her social networking. Like any interaction with the police, anything said can be used against you. It will not be used for you. If there is evidence of criminal action on your social network's of choice page, it will be used against you. If there is only shady, but not illegal, content they will keep investigating you. But it obviously isn't going to exonerate you.

Web filters

[craash420]

I'd guess this is just a scheme to have their IT department unblock their favorite networking site. Maybe I can convince my boss to let us do tech support via Facebook...

Warrant

[Agarax]

As long as the requirements for this observation include a warrant from a Judge similar to that needed for a wiretap, I don't see the issues with this. Good police work needs to keep in pace with the technology of the times. Cellphones, emails, and now social networks.

The critical issue is always judicial oversight and periodic independent review to prevent abuse.

And before anyone flames me for warrant-less wiretapping by the NSA, that was an illegal act and they got burned hard for it. Strong checks and balances in the system help prevent such acts, and if they do occur someone will blow the whistle on it.

Re:Warrant

[NotBornYesterday]

Why should they need a warrant to see your publicly available profile? Why shouldn't they be able to invent a virtual identity to facilitate talking to a suspect or their friends online? How is that different from undercover work in the real world?

Re:Warrant

[PopeRatzo]

And before anyone flames me for warrant-less wiretapping by the NSA, that was an illegal act and they got burned hard for it.

Is that why warrantless wire-tapping continues?

FISA is still the law of the land. The PATRIOT Act is still the law of the land.

If you ever want to be chilled to the bone, read the PATRIOT Act. You can do it in just a few hours.

By the way, it's worth noting that the renewal of the PATRIOT Act was passed using the same type of "deem and pass" legislative maneuver that is now being used by the democrats in the House of Representatives to pass health care. Funny how it wasn't that big a deal back then. The argument is that the PATRIOT Act wasn't as big a deal as health reform.

Considering PATRIOT allows unidentifiable law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain you without identifying themselves or giving you any Miranda rights, I'm inclined to disagree. But that's just me.

Re:Warrant

[PopeRatzo]

Why should they need a warrant to see your publicly available profile?

If they don't need a warrant to enter and search your home, to review your phone records or library records, to listen in on your calls or private conversations, or even to arrest you, it doesn't make sense that they'd need a warrant to look at your profile.

However, not all Facebook profiles are "public".

Re:Warrant

[Pareto Efficient]

"And before anyone flames me for warrant-less wiretapping by the NSA, that was an illegal act and they got burned hard for it."

Thats why they never stopped, because they were punished so much to begin with when caught.

I get it, really I do, You want to believe that justice has prevailed and freedom has won again against the closeted fascists that grab for power, The reality is however that they are still alive and well, doing everything they can to grab "just a little bit more" always and forever, because it is their nature and it always will be. This will never change, The only thing that limits them is the dutiful eye of the public and that has been in short supply these days. Most especially with the current generation who is even more apathetic than my own, which I always thought the idea to be an impossibility, yet here we are.

The best disinfectant is sunshine...

Re:Warrant

[PopeRatzo]

The best disinfectant is sunshine...

I prefer moonshine.

Re:Warrant

[b4dc0d3r]

In short, I ask to be your friend, and allowed to see your profile, you decide to say yes or no. If you don't know me, or don't know you can trust me, you should say no. But you may be an attention whore and enjoy the high friend count, so you allow people you don't know personally to be your friend. You have not made the information public, but at the same time you have given me permission to see it. I don't even have to lie - I just submit a friend request with no explanation and leave it up to you.

If a police officer shows up at my door and I invite him in, he doesn't need a warrant - I opened everything up to him. Your local laws may differ on what can happen as a result of that, but I'd say that the officer can use that information legally for any other enforcement-related purpose. The officer may be allowed to only observe, or video, or audio record, or like a vampire once you invite they can do anything they want to, but they can at least knock on the door, let you decide to open it, and remember anything they see. When you open the door, knowing someone is on the other side, you're removing your expectation of privacy for anything immediately visible or apparent (audible counts too, all the senses do).

How do you see a private profile? Hack something, get the provider to hand over the information, get a warrant and do it right, or undercover detective work. In other words, Bob has a FaceBook "I like Crack" group, with pictures of crack and picture of people doing crack. A normal undercover police person would pretend to be a drug user and get information about the group. Since this is online, the officer asks to join the group and is granted permission because Bob doesn't know any better. Same as opening the door to a cop - if they happen to see something after being invited or allowed in, even under false pretenses like undercover work requires, it is actionable.

A neighbor's child went missing a few years ago and the po-po canvassed the neighborhood. If I had been smoking crack when I answered the door (I have never even been in the same room as crack to my knowledge), I could have been legally arrested, despite the officer not having a warrant and me being in the privacy of my own home. The officer could have ignored it to find the child, or come back later with a warrant (though I probably would have moved out immediately). The child was playing with another neighborhood child, who was noticeably not noticed as being missing, oddly enough, so the situation was resolved.

Apologies, I had typed this a while back and was interrupted and I don't feel like re-checking all replies.

Economics

[Agarax]

Economics watches the watchers.

An FBI agent's career is advanced by catching and successfully prosecuting criminals. The FBI has a limited budget, and by definition this kind of social networking is extremely human intensive. You have to detail a real person to go under cover and gather information. The FBI has a limited number of people, so they won't do something like this that, at best, gets secondary evidence to help tie up a conviction that would rely more heavily on traditional evidence.

An example would be a partial finger print found at a gang crime scene. The partial print might not be enough to convict on it's own, but the print, plus somehow nailing the gang to the crime, an eyewitness (also something not good enough on it's own) AND the social networking link that proves the accused was part of the gang's social circle might seal a conviction.

So FB fans of Defcon are playing "spot the fed"??

[RobertLTux]

Seriously how many folks "here" and have facebook accounts are looking for feds now??

What about EULAs?

[Ashcrow]

I assume some social sites require you to be you by way of their terms or EULA ... I guess they can get around that? I mean, it makes sense they would read public information but if they are using fake profiles without prior approval for a case it seems like something is going wrong ...

Police are allowed to lie.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

IANAL, so don't believe or rely on a word of my post. However:

(1) Police are allowed to lie. The most common example is in interrogations and interviews. One of the most successful techniques for eliciting a confession from a suspect is confronting them with evidence against the suspect. The police will do this with both false and true evidence. The false evidence (pretending they have evidence) may be slightly less effective than true evidence, IIRC, but both are common interrogation techniques. Source: Lao's "Inside the Interrogation Room." Google it. Personally, I think it's one of the main reasons that we have a huge segment of society that really hates the police--it's not because the police are arresting them, it's because to most people, a lie is unprofessional and insulting, and the police use them all the time. It's a problem, because officers do a lot of really good work and are often very professional. I think every time I've encountered a police officer, they've been polite and professional. But many people I've known have had the opposite experience.

(2) You are usually allowed to lie to a cop, but you shouldn't. It IS a crime to lie to a Federal Agent, IIRC, but in most states I don't think it's a crime to lie to a police officer. But if you're arrested for something and you go to trial, you're going to have to explain why you lied to the cop. And a cop can ALWAYS find something to arrest you with. Good luck getting the jury to believe you after you've been caught in a lie. "So you lied to the officer?" "Yes." "But that means you're a liar, doesn't it?" "Er..." "So you're story is you lie sometimes to police officers, but you don't lie to juries?"

(3) Police are also allow to do pretty much anything a member of the public can do, and some things a member of the public can't, to pursue a criminal investigation. For example, in... Wisconsin, I think... police officers can do what would be considered identity theft if someone else did it.

(4) In the South, police can do whatever they want. This isn't true legally, but sometimes it's true in fact. (Although you can always fight them in court, after.) They may be more helpful if you're white (I actually saw them helping a woman change her tire!) but more likely to pull you out of the car and threaten you at shotgun point for being both black and in their town. (Happened to someone I know.) Although these are generalizations; there are really wonderful police officers all over, as there are really horrible ones in many places. You get encounters with good cops and bad cops everywhere.

Re:Police are allowed to lie.

[FutureDomain]

Mod parent up! This situation is more like an undercover agent befriending a suspect to learn information than him wiretapping his phone or searching his house. If they were subpoenaing Facebook or Twitter for private information, than it would require a warrant. But friending them with a fake account (which they could reject) or looking at their public profiles is nothing that a normal person couldn't do.

Re:Police are allowed to lie.

[PopeRatzo]

Police are allowed to lie.

Not only are they allowed to lie, but there are absolutely no penalties, civil or criminal, to prosecutors who knowingly frame you, according to a Supreme Court case last year.

Let that sink in...prosecutors are immune from any penalties for knowingly framing someone.

Thank you, Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.

Re:Police are allowed to lie.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Regarding your hypothetical "caught in a lie" scenario, there's a simple answer:

"Nobody wants to be charged with a crime, let alone convicted. I did everything I could to try and remain without charge. Lying to a police officer is totally without legal repercussions, and as they lie frequently in interview (by their own admission) lying to them is also morally fine with me. In court, however, I am under oath. There's a word for lying under oath, and it doesn't apply when you're not in court."

Ok not so simple, but you get the idea.

Re:Police are allowed to lie.

[PopeRatzo]

The Justices DO NOT write law.

Activist judges like Scalia, Alito and Roberts do.

It happens all the time.

Re:Police are allowed to lie.

[b4dc0d3r]

You're half right - once they hand down a decision, their interpretation of the law as documented in the majority decision is how the law will work, regardless of the intent.

The people vote for representatives to write and maintain laws for the people. This is not a direct democracy, so your representative is not obligated to do anything you ask, even if 100% of the constituents agree. And then the other congress people can oppose it if their constituents are on the other side, or those other congress people can ignore their constituents as well. The only risk to ignoring constituents is being voted out of office, so you can usually do what the voters want shortly after your campaign ends, and just before election, and in the middle do whatever you want. As long as you think you can spin any attacks the right way, you can do the complete opposite of what your voters want 49% of the time and still be "better than the other guy". Some have stretched that way above the 50% mark.

So the people have to wait out the current term, remember which one is the bad guy, and have more votes against than for the bad guy. And then hope the new guy does what he promised, or else you wait it out again and vote someone else in.

The people never fail - the system was designed so the people can't fail. Mostly because they can't work, either. That's why we are a representative democracy, not direct. That's why we have an electoral college rather than majority rule elections. Short of overthrowing the government, the only "failure" is that the people best qualified to represent the people don't want the job. Lawyers and judges and generally intelligent, well-read people typically don't want to engage in (or maybe even have the skills for) popularity contests. When you run for office, every mistake you made or misstatement or misunderstanding comes out in black and white, regardless of whether they are true, and it can be crushing. Didn't a congress person recently talk about resigning because the process was "too political"? Can't remember who, but the story was funny at the time.

It's ignorance, not stupidity.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to undermine our rights.

I agree. The classic example is coming to your door--they always ask "may we come in" instead of just speaking with you there, even if they're just there to ask a very quick question, because if you consent you waive your fourth amendment right to be free from search and seizure.

--

IANAL; don't believe me.

Re:It's ignorance, not stupidity.

[KahabutDieDrake]

Actually, you don't. Inviting an officer or agent into your home doesn't not void your search and seizure rights. All it does is allow them to observe the area of the house you allowed them into. It's "plain site" only at that point. Until they have a warrant, they aren't allowed to snoop in closed off areas. However, once you've allowed them in, they are likely to ask or push for more access. You have your rights still, but you must exercise them.

Re:It's ignorance, not stupidity.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

You don't entirely waive them, it's true--but you do somewhat waive them. They can't, for example, open a closed container, but they can amble about the living area. Having consented to entry into the home makes your case against them significantly harder if they do find something, since you have to start arguing about the scope of consent.

Message to ...

[PPH]

http://www.twitter.com/JoeFBI:
I'll be at the corner of 1st and Main at 1:00AM with the goods. Look for a black SUV, tinted windows. Bring the money.

http://www.twitter.com/BobDEA:
I'll be at the corner of 1st and Main at 1:00AM with the money. Look for a black SUV, tinted windows. Bring the goods.

And now the fun ensues.....

They are also mining facebook photos with tags

[CPE1704TKS]

Who is surprised that the Feds are using Facebook??

Does anyone not realize that they are mining all the photos on Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, etc, for pictures of people, and cross-referencing them based on tags? Talk about a wealth of photos that can be used to definitively identify a person.

If you have been tagged on any photo on Facebook, most likely you are already in the Fed's database, as well as the ability to recognize your face as well. Walk anywhere near a camera, and those cameras can instantly use facial recognition to figure out your name, age, etc, simply based on freely available information from these social networks.

Privacy is dead.

Re:They are also mining facebook photos with tags

[Pecisk]

At that instant second when you pressed that button named "Publish", you waved away your privacy connected with this media/photos/whatever. No, privacy is not dead. You can't keep privacy if you are publishing something on Internet public resources.

Re:They are also mining facebook photos with tags

[CPE1704TKS]

We are not all fucking lawyers. You can't expecting regular citizens to be able to parse a legal document that signs away our rights to privacy. The expectations for photos is that you should be able to share them with your friends, and then when you want to remove them, if ever, you can. This is analogous to the expectations in the real world.

However, in the digital world, things are encapsulated in legalese making it very hard for the average citizen with an IQ of 100 to understand fully the repercussions of what they are signing up for. This is especially the case for children and teenagers, that don't give a fuck that their photos will be on the Internet forever.

So yes, privacy is dead.

Re:Serously...

[drkim]

They didn't even wait for Twitter to be invented to do it, either:

Stanley Mark Rifkin social engineered his way into $10 million dollars back in "78, but bragged about it to his lawyer, who turned him in.

I bet he would have tweeted about it too, if he could have...

Is it a crime to lie to an undercover fed agent?

[elucido]

You say it's a crime to lie to a federal agent, but since nobody knows who the federal agents are. This would make us all criminals wouldn't it?

why keep running these kind of stories?

[circletimessquare]

look: if you make it public, its public. it can be abused. if you don't want it abused, don't make it public. and anything going over a wire to a wide open internet and not encrypted, is public

its really that simple. do you expect corporations or governments to act virtuous? it is YOUR job to protect your privacy. if your privacy is violated, its YOUR fault. no, really. the alternative is that, for whatever reason, you actually trust the sharks and wolves to protect you

why do people not realize this obvious concept? why does slashdot continuously post such stories and then the same tired characters are shocked, SHOCKED i tell you, that sharks act like sharks and wolves act like wolves?

Re:Is it a crime to lie to an undercover fed agent

[gtall]

Wow, you should be a lawyer!

You as lawyer: Objection yer honor, it's a crime to lie to a federal agent. My client doesn't know which people are federal agents. I submit we are all guilty.

Judge: Sheriff, lock that lawyer up.

You: But what did I do?

Judge: Sustaining your objection...and that display of alleged reasoning is beyond incoherent, it is criminal.