Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police To Get Facebook Lessons

Posted by samzenpus on from the learn-to-farmville-better dept.

jhernik writes "The police are to receive training on how to use Facebook and Twitter to catch people committing serious crimes. The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) will overhaul its training modules to include sessions on the social networking sites for detectives. 'This programme is a vital part of the career pathway for detectives and the new training covers sensitive areas of policing where limited guidance existed previously,' said deputy chief constable Nick Gargan, acting head of the NPIA, in a statement to the Press Association. 'These improvements are exactly what detectives need to tackle the challenges and complexities of modern policing effectively,' he added. 'The changes underline the importance to having a national agency to provide guidance and train detectives to a single high standard so they can work on investigations in any part of the country and give their colleagues and the public the best quality service in fighting crime.'"

44 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. Be the first of your friends... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    "You LIKE this"

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  2. Discretion by WarJolt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps people will stop posting incriminating evidence, but something tells me those photos of people plastered aren't going away.

    1. Re:Discretion by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Police catch people, because people are dumb. It's not going to change.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Discretion by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dark Helmet? Is that you?

    3. Re:Discretion by sosaited · · Score: 1

      Police catch people, because people are dumb. It's not going to change.

      So that means when Police fail to catch them, they were either the likes of Stephen Hawking, or there have been lots of dumb recruitments in the force.

    4. Re:Discretion by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No it means that they get lucky. Catching criminals is all about a criminal making mistakes so you can follow them. The dumber they are, the easier.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Its a good thing by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    That this method can't be foiled by simply changing the privacy settings or... say... not posting this sort of evidence in there.

    Hey, maybe this'll encourage people to actually take privacy seriously. I'm pretty sure this'll never happen.

    1. Re:Its a good thing by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That this method can't be foiled by simply changing the privacy settings or... say... not posting this sort of evidence in there.

      They should still catch people who take those precautions, it will just require more time and resources.

      But part of the job of police is to catch perps as quickly as possible, and that includes investigating the fruitful types of avenues that are easiest to investigate first. Most criminals are stupid and if joined to a social network will reveal some HINT authorities could use, such as their location at X, so searching FBs raises the bar on the "perfect crime", whatever that is.

      Facebook/social network investigation should be among the easiest, and can easily be automated, especially if the social network provider has a policy of assisting authorities, and especially if they can combine this with info from cell companies -- such as the location of various FB/Twitter users when they posted their tweets.

      Posting something completely innocuous could still flag the perp, if it revealed their location close to the crime scene, for example, at an unusual time. Even if their update didn't discuss their location.... the social network provider knows when the update was posted, and their cell phone company will know where their device was located, when the post was made.

      "private settings" do no good, with the legal burden needed for police to require cooperation as low as it is. The burden of proof is not probable cause, it's much easier to require a third party to cooperate, since no warrant is needed. One of the differences is broad 'fishing expeditions' are legal and allowed, because the information posted "in private" is in the hands of a third party.

  4. Right... by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "serious crimes" like uploading a picture of your friend smoking weed, or your "5 days shy of 18" girlfriend in her underwear.

    1. Re:Right... by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I doubt anyone is going to object to pictures of your 17 year old girlfriend"

      The girlfriend might have a thing or two to say.

    2. Re:Right... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The age of consent is 16 in many places in the US too. It's still illegal to take explicit pictures of anyone under 18. Fuck her all you want, but take a picture and you're going to jail.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Right... by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      Weed really isn't a huge deal in the UK, where this story is from. If a cop catches you with some, they will "arrest and then de-arrest" you at the side of the road/in the pub/wherever you are and give you a street caution for it, then just confiscate the stuff. If you clearly have enough to be a dealer, they will arrest you properly. Having enough for personal use on you is just not all that serious at all - the cops just don't have the time to be dealing with that petty crap.

    4. Re:Right... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      From some of the articles I've read the cops in the UK don't seem to have the time to much of anything because all crimes seem to be fairly petty including armed robbery and mugging, etc. Although, they do seem to have time to arrest those defending themselves from such as serious criminals. The UK view of "Crime and Punishment" is as ridiculous as anywhere else; just for different reasons.

    5. Re:Right... by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      Was that in the British press?

      That well known source of objective coverage of UK events.

      It's really not as bad as the Daily Fail and others like to make out.

  5. I can see it now by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    @Criminal ur nicked

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  6. News at 11 by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    People are stupid and the law uses that against them. News at 11.
     

  7. Don't worry about that. by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    She'll calm down once he sends her some shit for her farm.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  8. A picture doesn't prove anything... by moxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless it's clearly child porn -

    But it's total bullshit if any cops anywhere think they can arrest people for looking drunk, or being seen in a photo with a bottle of booze even if they're underage - or a photo of someone smoking something out of a bong or pipe - there is no way they could prove what the substance was, and while I am not sure about the UK, in the US our legal system hasn't eroded to that point yet, I am sure it probably will as we continue our descent into fascism and away from the rule of law.

    it's bad enough that people think that the system works how it oes on TV and it's a hell of a rude awakening when you find out just how ridiculously fucked up it really is as it stands now.

    1. Re:A picture doesn't prove anything... by Shimbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's more to being a detective than finding evidence that would be admissible in court. Social networking is likely a good place to find useful leads, or might be solid enough to obtain a search warrant.

    2. Re:A picture doesn't prove anything... by sunderland56 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try googling for "suspended for picture on facebook". You'll be surprised.

    3. Re:A picture doesn't prove anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it's total bullshit if any cops anywhere think they can arrest people for looking drunk, or being seen in a photo with a bottle of booze even if they're underage - or a photo of someone smoking something out of a bong or pipe - there is no way they could prove what the substance was, and while I am not sure about the UK, in the US our legal system hasn't eroded to that point yet, I am sure it probably will as we continue our descent into fascism and away from the rule of law.

      Wow. All this is a story about how cops are going to be taught about what Facebook is and how it works (and in another country, no less!) - and that's enough to make you wax paranoid about "our descent into fascism"? Dude, you really need to take a chill pill, and perhaps see a doctor.

    4. Re:A picture doesn't prove anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think people are getting the wrong end of the stick. This isn't to catch people for petty offences, it'll be used to do things like check alibis, see who people are in contact with "I don't know the bloke!" "But you're a friend on Facebook, sir", etc.

      People have been arrested here in the UK for showing guns in their Facebook profiles, stupid things like that. There's even the guy who famously escaped from prison (or while on bail or somesuch) and brazenly posted on Facebook for a good week or two.

      Social engineering is a seriously powerful tool, anyone who has done a bit of Facebook stalking should know just how much you can get from someone just by flicking through their profile (even if much of it is stealthed). The only real protection is to have a non-searchable, friends-only profile page and limit what you put on it. That doesn't stop your friends (who have considerably laxer security on their pages) posting pictures of you at a party where someone got stabbed and you claimed to be nowhere near it.

      Same with Twitter. People commonly post things like "train is late, as usual" - but the defendant says he was at home in his living room at that time?

      So no, getting people for drinking underage (let's be honest, hard to prove given that ages can be faked on there) or smoking week (again, prove it's pot? pretty hard). This is for building up bigger pictures surrounding serious crimes.

    5. Re:A picture doesn't prove anything... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that someone can always frame you with some clever hacking.

      If someone can plant kiddie porn on your PC, imagine how easy it will be to plant it on your FB account.

  9. I thought /. was fast... by thaddeusthudpucker · · Score: 1

    ...but I heard this on the RADIO two days ago. But anyway, if you're stupid enough to rob a bank or whatever and then update your facebook or twitter status "i just robbed a bank lol" then you deserve whats coming. I only bother with facebook about once every two weeks, and I find twitter to be absolutely useless.

  10. Well... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    This new development should have some effect on the reduction of free-roaming individuals mentioned in your sig.

    On the other hand, according to mine, actual effects will be purely cosmetic.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Well... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny but it seems that a good portion of those stupid people are either writing laws or enforcing them.

    2. Re:Well... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Did you just question authority figures? Everyone (except for terrorists and juvenile delinquents, of course) knows that authority figures are always right and should never be questioned!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Well... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Nah, just their puppets.

  11. dumb people call radio shows and say they rob bank by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some dumb people have called radio shows and say they robed a bank. So you can want to be able to use that in court and not have the case drooped as the cop did not do things right in getting the evidence.

  12. Re:dumb people call radio shows and say they rob b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some dumb people have called radio shows and say they robed a bank.

    I'd like to see that - it'd have to be a pretty big robe. Was there a wizard hat too?

    So you can want to be able to use that in court and not have the case drooped as the cop did not do things right in getting the evidence.

    Yeah, it's always embarrasing when your case starts to droop.

  13. Uh oh. by Interoperable · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope they don't find the bodies that I buried on my Farmville.

    --
    So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    1. Re:Uh oh. by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      I hope they don't find the bodies that I buried on my Farmville.

      "Yes, your honor, we not only have a confession from Mr. Interoperable about his multiple murders, but we have conclusive proof of his Wars with the Mafia."

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  14. Hmmm... by hahn · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I read this summary, why does it read like a description of a South Park episode?

    --
    "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
  15. Re:Are They Really That Stupid by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe its more like How to use FB without destroying your case or How to use the special police interfaces into FB.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  16. lazy cops by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Dang, the cops are so lazy in the UK they don't even walk a beat

    or

    Damn, the cops are so cool in the UK because they like to surf.

    okay, sorry, i would be funnier, but i got arrested for a pic of me smoking weed on facebook and the cops came over and "confiscated" my stash.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:lazy cops by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      UK cops really don't care about personal use of weed. They'll take it off you if they find it on you during the course of a search for another offence (a weapons check, for example), but they aren't going to specifically go after you for it. Just not worth the time.

  17. Re:Are They Really That Stupid by RobertLTux · · Score: 4, Informative

    covering such things as
    1 beginning a chain of evidence (and keeping it intact)
    2 creating a useable record of the page(s)
    3 how to get the info you need without blowing your cover or tripping the entrapment trap
    4 properly citing the pages in reports

    ect

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  18. I'd beg to differ... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    IMHO, those writing "stupid" laws rarely posses the necessary level of stupidity required for creating SUCH levels of fuckup.
    Laws like that are more often the result of naivete and incompetence/ignorance than stupidity or malice.
    And it would be rather difficult for a person with such qualities to single-handedly come into position where he/she would be able to create laws.

    ALSO, laws tend not to be written or passed by a single person.
    So, the "stupidity" doesn't have to be the product of one person or even a small group.
    In the long run, the responsibility for such laws lies with that group of people we refer to as "citizens".
    Particularly the ones on the right side of the IQ curve. You know... the "smart" and educated ones.
    Either for letting such laws pass or for not challenging them later - they are the ones responsible.

    As for those who enforce such laws, you can't really suggest that they should pick and choose which laws they should enforce and which not, right?
    Cause it is not just their job to enforce them, but a LEGAL OBLIGATION as well.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:I'd beg to differ... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, ok. Let me amend my statement.

      Funny but it seems that a good portion of those stupid people are either in charge of creating laws or enforcing them.

      Ok, yeah, that still doesn't quite get it.

      Laws like that are more often the result of naivete and incompetence/ignorance than stupidity or malice.

      I don't think it's naivete or incompetence but definitely ignorance, greed, or maliciousness.

      Consider this: It's naive to think DRM won't negatively affect legitimate purchasers and will stop piracy but it's incompetent to outlaw breaking DRM and malicious to shut down internet connections based on mere accusations of piracy.

      And, I will say outright that malicious (or at least sociopathic greed) is at play in Arizona where private prison companies helped draft Senate Bill 1070. Link

      Oh, and there's red light cameras, too. Those in charge of enforcing the law shortened the yellow lights which resulted in an increase of rear end accidents and they did just to make a buck.

      The law feels (or at least appears) to be written in black&white terms but it's a colorful world. There should be room for discretion and leniency as well as shame and punishment. You might say that that's already a problem as people on the bottom of the financial totem pole get hammered by the law while people on top have their lawyers apologize and they go about their merry ways and I would agree with you. And, frankly, I don't really have a solution short of bringing back 1950's tax rates since those with wealth and power use that wealth and power to influence elections and lawmakers to gain ever more.

      Cause it is not just their job to enforce them, but a LEGAL OBLIGATION as well.

      Talk about trying hard to keep people from doing any thinking on their own. They can just keep that in mind every time they need to decide how moral it is to bust a college kid for smoking pot and getting his federal aid revoked.

    2. Re:I'd beg to differ... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Consider this: It's naive to think DRM won't negatively affect legitimate purchasers and will stop piracy but it's incompetent to outlaw breaking DRM and malicious to shut down internet connections based on mere accusations of piracy.

      Please.
      If anyone, RIAA and its cohorts have shown us how truly malicious they can actually be - when they REALLY get into it.
      Every single one of their acts reeks with incompetence first and foremost.
      Sure, their final motives can be perceived as malicious when you take any point of view other than "making money for people who employ them" but they are so bad at even sticking to that.

      There should be room for discretion and leniency as well as shame and punishment.
      You might say that that's already a problem as people on the bottom of the financial totem pole get hammered by the law while people on top have their lawyers apologize and they go about their merry ways and I would agree with you.

      Oh, the problem's been brewing for a long time now and it is only now that stories about rich people "getting away with it" spread so quickly that the public is getting SOME idea of how all that legal-mumbo-jumbo deal REALLY works.
      Just as you are now practically illiterate if you don't know your way at least around a word processor and a web browser - it is finally becoming obvious that "legal rights" only apply to those with knowledge of those rights i.e. have money for legal representation or are educated in legal matters AND have the resources to pursue those "rights".
      And still they are likely to lose unless they have money - as money can pay for more than just lawyers.
      I.e. You have no rights unless you are willing to fight for them AND KNOW HOW TO DO IT. Anyway, Carlin said it nicely...

      Again, fault lies with the people/citizens/voters.
      They are the ones voting in and keeping voting in people who come up with such laws, and not raising up against such laws to have them overturned.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  19. List them as a friend by sempir · · Score: 1

    Wonder how that would work!

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  20. We know what you did, we read about it on Facebook by joelville · · Score: 1

    This summer I was working in Yellowstone National Park as a waiter. After my boss was sacked he left his car behind in the parking lot where it sat for weeks. Spotting an opportunity to improve my truck's antiquated radio player I asked former boss, on Facebook, if I could have his car's cd player. He said sure!. Actually he said, "Awesome, Go Mengele on the old girl!" Two weeks later I'm called into my employers office and met by two Park Police Officers, who say, "We know what you did, we read about it on Facebook." I had no clue what they were talking about, as it turns out they were trying to scare me with a vandalism charge as leverage to give them my former boss's contact information, so they could charge him with abandoning his car.

  21. YHGTBFKM by almitchell · · Score: 1

    Someone please help me here, are people really so dumb? They're having to be taught how to use Facebook? Hell, an *un*trained monkey could use it! Oh, wait...these are probably people who proudly trumpet "I'm so not technical!" when faced with a modem that needs to be reset or "the internet is broken". How do these people drive cars or work ATM machines? How have they not died in household accidents? And these are *POLICE*!?

    --
    Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.
  22. A criminal's Journal in Facebook by ovette_pta · · Score: 1

    Just a funny thought, maybe they also need learn about Mafia Wars too. But seriously I think this is actually a good idea. Some crimes are even commited right inside Facebook like blackmailing.

    Like

    Added as friend

    =)

    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/employment for details.