Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI's Facebook Monitoring Leads To Arrest In England

Posted by timothy on from the bomb-president-motorcade-rutabaga dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that armed police were called to a UK school earlier today after being advised of a potential threat by the FBI. The school stated that the FBI 'raised the alarm after Internet scanning software picked up a suspicious combination of words,' strongly implying that they are carrying out routine, automated surveillance of social networking sites. While in this case it does appear that there may have been a genuine threat, the story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns."

22 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. Surveillance laws by bcmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like the "special relationship" means that passing laws against excessive surveillance by our own police will never achieve anything - they can just have the FBI spy on us instead. I wonder if they conduct questionable surveillance of American citizens in return?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Surveillance laws by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only there was some sort of agreement that you had to make before using the FB service that says that they have the rights to exactly this sort of thing...

  2. Privacy? Really? by kid_wonder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does someone out there thinks there is an expectation of privacy for data they post on the internet?

    I thought that was exactly what you should NOT expect.

    --

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
    1. Re:Privacy? Really? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the issue is that he might have been arrested without having actually done anything.

      I mean, if he writes a note theatening bullies so that they don't ruin the last day of school for him, so that he can eat his lunch in peace, is it necessary for the police to step in?

      I think it's a good thing the police were notified, this is a potential threat, and it's good that they acted upon it.

      But - I mean, if you see the kid outside of school, and he didn't have a weapon on him, you've essentially got anecdotal evidence of what essentially boils down to a thought crime, which he shouldn't be ARRESTED for. Keep an eye on the kid, but no need to arrest him.

    2. Re:Privacy? Really? by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would think that something like this alone isn't enough to arrest the kid for, but enough to do a little investigation. After that, the decision on whether or not to arrest should come up.

    3. Re:Privacy? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From timothy and other bat shit insane malcontents:

      story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns

      Bullshit. Facebook posting is not private. There is no 'privacy' involved here. No mail was opened. No phone tapped. No email account rifled through. There may be other issues to address regarding whatever wholesale analysis the cops are performing, but there are no 'privacy' issues here. The kid put it out there for the world to pick up on, automated word-eater or otherwise. End of 'privacy' issues.

      if he writes a note theatening (sic) bullies so that they don't ruin the last day of school for him

      Since we're talking hypotheticals; If such a note is presented to police and they fail to follow up and/or arrest the author and he then carries out the act do we then condemn the police or defer to your finely tuned sense of justice and celebrate our civil liberties?

      essentially boils down to a thought crime

      Bullshit. Public threats are not thoughts. Here's a big fat clue in case you're confused about the legalities.

    4. Re:Privacy? Really? by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have no fucking idea what "privacy" is anymore. They've given up so much of it with Facebook, Twitter, loyalty programs, etc that no one seems to care about losing more or taking that of someone else. And if you try to explain things to them, they just look at you like you have two heads and give you that good old line: "What do you have to hide?" Any attempt to reason it out with them results in indifference: "You're just paranoid." Privacy is taking it's final few breaths because the collective fat, lazy ass of western culture has sat on it and doesn't even realize what's being smothered to death beneath its cellulite inflated cheeks. Too fucking bad for those of us who cared, we just saw it too late to make a difference. /rant of a guy now labeled "paranoid" and "suspicious" by various acquaintances because he blew up when his cellphone was temporarily "borrowed" by an (ex) friend so they could rifle through my text message history "for fun".
      *Grumble*

    5. Re:Privacy? Really? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too fucking bad for those of us who cared, we just saw it too late to make a difference.

      So, what, you think you need to protect all those poor, ignorant pleebs from themselves? Gee wiz, how nice of you.

      Hey, here's an idea: Why don't you worry about your own privacy, and let everyone else worry about there's. If someone wants to post every little piece of minutiae of their lives on the internet, who the fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't? Are they curtailing your ability to preserve your own privacy? No. So fuck off. What they do with their personal information is their own god damned business, just as what you do with your personal information is yours.

    6. Re:Privacy? Really? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The internet/facebook are a public commons. Just like the street in front of the school. If a police officer was parked in his car outside of a school and a kid came walking down the middle of the street screaming "I'm going to kill every mother fucker in that school" I don't think we would question the police officers judgment if he stop the kid questioned him. We don't know what the arrest was for, nor do we know what the laws in that particular area are. The police may have gone to question him and found his room full of pipe bombs and sawed off shotguns... or it may just be illegal in that area to threaten to massacre a school. Remember, this kid publicly posted his name, his school, and his intent to harm those in the school. It's not like the government went out of their way to decipher the boys identity. Now if the kid sent an email to his friend and the FBI intercepted the email via packet sniffing and what-not, maybe I'd have a problem with it.

    7. Re:Privacy? Really? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surely you recognise the difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "unknown; but likely substantial, levels of automated surveillance by the feds"?

      You don't have an expectation of privacy when walking around town; but if there were a plainclothes G-man following everybody around, that would be a Bad Sign(tm)....

    8. Re:Privacy? Really? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless you're muslim, those fuckers do it all the time.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad
      There is one example with 1.0 seconds of google, I will leave it as an exercise for karma whores to find other notable examples.

    9. Re:Privacy? Really? by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, I am fully capable of protecting my privacy on my own... if I want to live in a mud hut on a desert island.

      I get your point, but the simple fact is if anyone wants to take part in "modern society" they have to abide by it's rules and norms; even if those very rules and norms require your photo, fingerprints, DNA, fetishes, psych profile, and rectal bacteria cultures just so the we can make sure you aren't a "terrer'ist" or some weirdo who doesn't like having their entire personal life on display like some fucking monkey in a zoo.

      So to answer your question: yes, the other ignorant plebs ARE curtailing my ability to protect my privacy. Their ignorance is societies ignorance. And while I can ignore an ignorant person, unfortunately I still have to bow to an ignorant society.

    10. Re:Privacy? Really? by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but if there were a plainclothes G-man following everybody around, that would be a Bad Sign(tm)....

      But there aren't, and the analogy doesn't hold up. You can't reasonably function without leaving your house, but what you post on Facebook is entirely within your own discretion. It's not at all like being followed around; it's like having one particular space monitored vigilantly, like a stadium, or the streets around the J. Edgar Hoover building. It's entirely up to you whether you wish to visit such places, let alone what you do when you're there. FFS, if your only guard against invasion of privacy is assuming that nobody's paying attention, then you're doing it wrong.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    11. Re:Privacy? Really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (as an example read Blind Faith by Ben Elton, it is set in a community where people are expected to live video blog every aspect of their lives, borderline public nudity is normal because modesty = secretive = devious = actively seditious).

      if this happened, then you wouldn't care. well, it wouldn't be you, so let me rephrase; if this had happened, you wouldn't care. You'd have lived with it all your life and you'd be used to it. That's how slowly it'll happen (if at all) and your values would be different if it had happened.

      Further, if privacy is devalued then a lot of the reasons to be private go away. For example if your name, address, and social weren't enough to get credit in your name, then the fact that a lot of people besides you probably know your SSN would be a minor issue at most.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Concerns? by microbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns

    Like "OMG my public postings can be read by others"?

  4. Significant privacy concerns? by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Significant privacy concerns? You mean like, "Don't talk about private shit in public?"

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  5. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time some idiot goes and posts somewhere "I'm gonna kill people" and it isn't caught, the news is "They were posting it for all the world to see, why didn't somebody stop them!?"
    Then some idiot is caught from his posting, and the new is "How dare the police read posts!?"

    While I don't believe in prior restraint and so I worry about arresting people based on things they said they might do, Facebook is the new equivalent of painting signs on the water tower. If ever anything didn't qualify for 'expectation of privacy', a service where the express purpose is to tell other people what you're doing should be it. As long as some additional police work goes into verifying that the threat is real, I think this is a good thing.

    1. Re:They're damned if they do, damned if they don't by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every time some idiot goes and posts somewhere "I'm gonna kill people" and it isn't caught, the news is "They were posting it for all the world to see, why didn't somebody stop them!?"
      Then some idiot is caught from his posting, and the new is "How dare the police read posts!?"

      One problem with a surveillance society is that it forces the police to intervene in every event that anyone could interpret as the least bit suspicious, or else face the "Why didn't you do something!" rage whenever something does happen.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Trolling, trolling by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tomorrow - last day of school. I'm glad because I'm tired of being bullied by the assholes in this place. I will at last be leaving this world. TGI summer break.

    This isn't a Facebook threat Mr. FBI.
    This is just me circa 1986 typing into a BBS.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. Privacy? How? by Triv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "the story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns."

    ...How? The kid made threats of violence on a public forum, somebody called the FBI, the FBI called Scotland Yard and they apprehended the kid before he made it to school. Sounds to me like the system worked for once.

    I know it's all the rage right now to automatically link Facebook with "Privacy Concerns," but in this case it's just asinine.

  8. Re:Facebook and privacy is an oxymoron by rainmouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only person here who thinks its great that the FBI are doing this? The kid clearly needs help and waiting until he blows away a few of his classmates before doing anything about it is so last decade.

  9. Re:FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So it's wrong for the FBI, or anyone else for that matter, to look at all the crap you publicly and deliberately post for the whole world to see on a website that is very well known for not giving a crap about anyone's privacy?

    The article isn't about the FBI listening in on phone calls. It's not about them peeping into your windows or installing cameras in your car. It's about them looking at the graffiti you spray painted on the outside of your house.