Social Media a Threat To Undercover Cops

angry tapir writes "Facebook has proven to be one of the biggest dangers in keeping undercover police officers safe, due to applications such as facial recognition and photo tagging, according to an adjunct professor at ANU and Charles Sturt University. Mick Keelty, a former Australian Federal Police commissioner, told the audience at Security 2011 in Sydney that because of the convergence of a number of technologies undercover policing may be 'impossible' in the future."

Comments

Here's an idea.

[ryanmcdonough]

Don't have a public profile and don't go out with friends and have them publicly tag your photos. Just an idea.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

No social interaction whatsoever, then..

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have a public profile and don't go out with friends and have them publicly tag your photos. Just an idea.

But that takes actual communication with your friends, something social networking replaced.
Nowadays it's not hip to have common sense, basic reasoning skills or actually interact with friends any further than surface banter aimed to make you look cool to nobodies.

Re:Here's an idea.

[pyrosine]

Would be easier if facebook just offered an opt-out option (even better - make it default) for facial recognition

Re:Here's an idea.

[hardtofindanick]

From the article:

the 16-year-olds of today who might become officers in the future have already been exposed.

and

Of the people surveyed, 85 per cent had their photos uploaded on to the internet by another person.

Combine that with the problem of data retention, then this is really an issue.

But you win some you lose some. I did not hear the police complaining when they were allowed access to private profiles of people on facebook. Now it is the other way around, and the criminals dont even have to break law doing it.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have a public profile and don't go out with friends and have them publicly tag your photos. Just an idea.

"If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear!"

If you try to hide from facebook and similar services that itself may be enough to warrant suspicion in the future.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Gideon Wells]

What is the process of becoming an undercover cop? Your strategy works now if a person is becoming or is an undercover, but hasn't used social media before. The flaw in your logic is why "'impossible' in the future" is stated.

Give it ten, twenty years and you'll have a whole crop of people raised with social media. With there now being FaceBook Phones (well, phones with a hard button that links right to the facebook app), Twitter being tied more strongly into iOS 5, the day is coming fast if not here that most people won't think of social media as new but mundane.

You logic works only if this person grows up effectively never using a computer at all. Doesn't have any friends who upload photos of him to their social media. No newspaper has his photo on their websites for doing something newsworthy on their own or just being part of a group that does. Heck, joining the force and having his/her picture taken by the local press could occur.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Amish start getting recruitment drives for this sort of work.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Nirvelli]

They already do. It is, however, a bit hard to get to.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Social interaction is not a problem, but a requirement for the officer is to not have had a facebook login, ever.
One could also require that the cops actually does a real and useful job. In those case it sould not be a problem to cooperate with facebook and ask dem to make sure that ther face recognition software checks doesn't match the officer in question, this will also solve the same problem with witness protection programs.
Even better would be a law that forbids face recognition without the possibility to opt out. This would make it possible for everyone and not just the police to avoid being tracked by facebook.

Re:Here's an idea.

[ciderbrew]

They'll change the law.

Re:Here's an idea.

[bombastinator]

If an undercover cop gets killed though it wouldn't be hard to sue facebook for wrongful death.

The thing about facebook is that what they do is sell identities. They sell information about you to people who can make money off that information. As such they want to gather as much information as possible and give you as little choice in the matter as they possibly can. It's wrong. But until companies get their noses rubbed in it they won't stop. They have the most hidden system they can legally get away with because they don't want people opting out, and they don;t care who gets hurt as long as it isn't them.

  I avoid facebook like the plague, but they probably have data on me anyway simply because people I know use it.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and the "criminals" your undercover work involves dealing with never use facebook, right?

Undercover operations may be necessary sometimes, but they are at best a necessary evil. Police get the monopoly of violence in return for abiding by and enforcing the law; and transparency is needed to "guard the guardians". Undercover work is by definition not transparent. Moreover, undercover cops (like informants and secret police in less happy times and places) undermine public trust in general and in the authorities. If the police lie about their identity and have elaborate schemes to fake their id and cover their tracks, how do we know that they won't lie about their intentions/actions and have elaborate schemes to fake evidence and cover their tracks?

Undercover work is ultimately a mean hopefully justified by a goal, but the whole point of the rule of law is that the means have to be justified in and of themselves.

Re:Here's an idea.

[nospam007]

"What is the process of becoming an undercover cop?"

Instructor: Welcome do the undercover test. Did you ever have a Facebook account?
cop: Yes.
Instructor: Next!

Re:Here's an idea.

[somersault]

What if the criminals bribe a Facebook employee to acquire a copy of the database, or even just get a list of all the people on the list, etc? It's safer just to not have the profile at all if you are going to do serious undercover work.

Re:Here's an idea.

[mcgrew]

We've been trying to get them to chage the law for 40 years. Without victimless activities being illegal you don't need secret police.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Captain Hook]

It's not just about face recognition. If I was in a group which was likely to attracted undercover police attention without the organisation being outright illegal, such as the various environmental groups that the police have been targetting here in the UK.

I would be asking to see the facebook profile of anyone trying to get into the group and if they don't have one or their profile only goes back a few months I would be extremely suspicious.

The police don't just need the ability to stop facial recognition, they need to be allowed to craft entire profiles, with back dated statuses, relationships which can withstand superficial checking etc.

You break the cover of spy by catching the little lies, and facebook gives you a lot of small pieces of information which must all tie to together to avoid suspicion.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

If an undercover cop gets killed though it wouldn't be hard to sue facebook for wrongful death.

You must be a lawyer... Please, please take my money, all of it

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

What if a malevolent individual clones the facebook database? If a profile has been added retroactively a simple diff will show. No, what must be done by the police is to make fake profiles, and wait for them to mature

Re:Here's an idea.

[PhilHibbs]

Yes, but who thinks of that when they're 14? Not sure if Facebook can match up a picture of a 25 year old to their 14-year-old self though.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Lumpy]

no reckless social interaction? yes.

Being a drunken idiot and having friend that think every moment of their life must be on the internet? that's not social interaction. I know plenty of people that go out and have a lot of social interaction and do NOT get their face plastered all over the internet.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Opportunist]

You needn't be part of Facebook to suddenly be profiled. All you need is a friend who's insensitive enough to tag you on their photo gallery.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Lumpy]

Criminals are stupid. ragingly stupid.

They will check facebook only to find their buddies. they will not go searching for "dan the new guy"

Re:Here's an idea.

[Opportunist]

Old hacker's law dictates that any backdoor the police may have to any system will be abused, not only by the police but also by people who are smarter than the average cop who has to use the backdoor.

In other words, if you offer this service to the police, it will soon be abused by people who craft identities for other, even worse, purposes.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Serious Callers Only]

I would be asking to see the facebook profile of anyone trying to get into the group and if they don't have one or their profile only goes back a few months I would be extremely suspicious.

So you'd only recruit idiots who have a Facebook profile - smart move for a clandestine organisation!

Re:Here's an idea.

[Opportunist]

Well, a German court (the Bundesverfassungsgericht, no less) recently ruled that alcohol (unlike, say, MJ) isn't consumed for its intoxicating quality, and hence alcohol is legal and MJ illegal.

I pondered this in the presence of ten beers yesterday and, yes, they're right. People sure do it for the great feeling the next day.

Don't look for sensibility in laws concerning drugs, sex or religion. It wastes your time and doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, get a good blowjob from a girl in a nun outfit while smoking a joint.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Captain Hook]

I specifically said organisations which weren't illegal, and therefore have no need to be clandestine. Political protest groups for example are not illegal, although they organise public protests, here in the UK the police seem to spend a lot of time infiltrating such organisations and acting as agent provocateurs from within, enabling (if not being the outright drive force towards) illegal activity.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Attila Dimedici]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Amish start getting recruitment drives for this sort of work.

The problem with that is that Amish teens are encouraged (well, not quite, but pretty close to) to go out and explore the world of the "English" before they join the Church. I would not be surprised if the percentage of Amish youth with Facebook profiles is even higher than that of the general public.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that someone who doesn't have a Facebook account will likely not get into your group? What if they're boycotting it for good reason?

Personally, if someone DOES have a Facebook account, i would be suspicious. It's too easy to name as a reference, one that people often take for granted and for reliable in one way or another, as you yourself prove.

Re:Here's an idea.

[royallthefourth]

Looks like y'all followed our example real well

Re:Here's an idea.

[corbettw]

here in the UK the police seem to spend a lot of time infiltrating such organisations and acting as agent provocateurs from within

Same thing here in the US. Guess that apple didn't fall far from the tree, after all.

Re:Here's an idea.

[DrXym]

No social interaction whatsoever, then..

Not if you're an undercover police officer, no. Or a spy. Or basically anybody where privacy is important to your wellbeing.

Re:Here's an idea.

[delinear]

The point is you don't need to have an account for people to have added your photo, and soon anyone who wants to find out who you are will just be able to create an account, upload your photo and ask it to look for tagged matches and they'll instantly see the photos from the policeman's christmas ball or whatever. Your idea of not matching certain faces is unworkable for one simple reason: I create an account, I upload some guy's face to my wall and tag it, I create another account and upload the same photo as the owner's face. Facebook returns a "no matches found" message. Since I know the photo is there and is identical there's only one reason they'd return that message - you've just created a more reliable method of identifying undercover police that doesn't rely on tagging or matching blurry photos. The law against facial recognition is a nice idea that will never happen for one simple reason, it's potentially more useful to the authorities than the problems it creates.

Re:Here's an idea.

[PhilHibbs]

Victimless crimes are the only crimes that need undercover cops? Where does that logic come from? So the police don't need to infiltrate the Mafia or terrorist groups?

Re:Here's an idea.

[Joce640k]

If "social interaction" means "Facebook", then maybe not.

OTOH people managed to interact socially before Facebook. Weird but true.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Kelbear]

What about the times when the criminals the undercover cop is trying to be buddies with, ask him to friend them on facebook? It's no kiss of death, but not having a facebook page would make them at least think a little harder about the cop's identity. Making up a fake facebook profile be a little difficult since sooner or later it'll have to tie into real people rather than just spam accounts.

Re:Here's an idea.

[he-sk]

How did I miss that ruling? Do you have a link? A quick google search only turned up a ruling regarding a prohibition on alcohol in Baden-Württenberg during the night and another ruling regarding the legality of alcohol testing ordered by the police.

Re:Here's an idea.

[zx75]

So, you've completely skipped over the obvious point and made an unfounded supposition.

The Amish are Mennonite which one of the founding tenants is non-resistance. It's like pacifism, except less militant. These days the tenants of mennonism are bent and broken six ways to sunday, but the Amish as a sect are extremely devout and are more likely to hold to them than modern mainstream Mennonites.

As a general rule Mennonites will not own, touch, or allow weaponry into their home that has no legitimate peaceful purpose. Some own rifles specifically for hunting, but in general guns are a big no-no. Mennonites historically refuse to serve as police, in the military, or in ther government as they will take no role where they may as a matter of course cause someone to come to harm, or be responsible for others who would cause someone to come to harm. (Government is responsible for both military and police forces).

A recruitment drive for undercover officers in an Amish community is beyond absurd and would involve the recruiters being forcibly removed from the premisis (figuratively).

Caveat: I am a modern mainstream Mennonite, and we have none of the taboos against technology and serving in police, security, and government is accepted these days. But I for one hold strongly to our roots of non-resistance and reject anything that may put me in contact with violence (or the possibility of it) or weaponry.

Re:Here's an idea.

[1u3hr]

If an undercover cop gets killed though it wouldn't be hard to sue facebook for wrongful death.

No, it wouldn't be hard. It would be impossible.

RTFA: "All respondents aged 26 years or younger had uploaded photos of themselves onto the internet." No one to blame except themselves .

Re:Here's an idea.

[Deep Esophagus]

I also found this article: http://everything2.com/title/The+Cannabis+Decision+%2528German+Federal+Constitutional+Court%2529
... describing a 2003 decision overturning a lower court's ruling that the punishment for marijuana possession was disproportionately harsh compared to the punishment for alcohol abuse. No mention of the user's motives for consumption, BUT it did say that the states are not required to prosecute for possession of small amounts, and it was up to the states to decide how much constitutes a "small amount". Key quote: "Ultimately, the effect of the Court's decision has been to create a system in which cannabis has been de facto decriminalised. While each State has its own rules about what constitutes a "small amount" and is presumed to be for "personal consumption," there is, in reality, very little attempt to prosecute people for cannabis possession, sale, or distribution. In general, if a person has less than 6 g (more in some states) of any cannabis product, the most the police can do is confiscate it. "

I did my search first in English (Bundesverfassungsgericht + alcohol + marijuana | cannabis + intoxicated | intoxicating) and in German (Bundesverfassungsgericht + Spiritus + Marihuana | Cannabis | Hanf + Rausch | Berauschend)

Re:Here's an idea.

[Sloppy]

In other words, if you offer this service to the police, it will soon be abused by people who craft identities..

While that is certainly true..

.. for other, even worse, purposes.

..I'm drawing a total blank on what these purposes could even hypothetically be. Just what are the consequences of Facebook profiles being a hopelessly untrustworthy resource? I think the answer might be "jack shit." To put it another way, Facebook can give you information, but nobody ever relies on Facebook to give them information.

Re:Here's an idea.

[AJH16]

That's just it though, with facial recognition, tagging doesn't really matter. They can identify who your friends are, make a quick call and find out who you really are. Are all of your friends going to know not to mention that you are a cop when someone calls up saying they are your buddy from the precinct?

Re:Here's an idea.

[Attila Dimedici]

I was assuming the recruitment would be of those raised Amish who decided not to join the Amish. I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt guessing that he was aware that practicing Amish would not serve in this capacity. Unfortunately for his idea, it is unlikely that any Amish youth who chose not to join the Amish Church would not have a Facebook profile.
As a born, raised and practicing Mennonite, I am quite familiar with the tenets of the Mennonite Church (and its current shortcomings in living up to those tenets).
Acutally, the idea that guns are a big no-no is part of the twisting of traditional Mennonite tenets. Mennonites have traditionally owned guns for hunting and the control of wild life that interferes with farming/vegetable gardens. It is funny, but my experience is that those congregations that have the largest percentage of "guns are a no-no" attitude are, also, those that have the least problem with members serving in the police, or other gun carrying authority positions.

Re:Here's an idea.

[sesshomaru]

But then you are excluding:

1. Environmental Activists who hate technology and figure it is destroying the planet, and don't want to contribute to it with something so frivolous as a Facebook profile.

2. Environmental Activists who are completely paranoid, ala Jeffrey Goines in 12 Monkeys, and don't have a Facebook profile for that reason.

These are two very dedicated groups... can you really afford to exclude them?

Re:Here's an idea.

[aevan]

It's the Napster defence?

Re:Here's an idea.

[DinDaddy]

Social interaction is not a problem, but a requirement for the officer is to not have had a facebook login, ever.

It doesn't matter if he has. If any friends or family members have and have tagged photos of him, he is still in trouble.

Re:Here's an idea.

[GameboyRMH]

Does it even matter if the officer has a Facebook login? I've never had one but there are pics of me on Facebook tagged with my real name. From that point there's nothing technical keeping Facebook from auto-tagging pics of me wherever I appear on Facebook. It could see my face again and apply the same label people have applied to that face in the past.

I was worried about this happening from around 2005, the technology's here now...

Re:Here's an idea.

[geekoid]

And if someone else takes you photo and tags it?

Re:Here's an idea.

[geekoid]

Yes, it would be hard. Facebook is just a communication means.

Re:Here's an idea.

[1u3hr]

It's the Napster defence?

No idea why you would think that. People are uploading their OWN photos. There is no illegality by any party.

Re:Here's an idea.

[sacridias]

Serious Issue, I don't and already have photos from my childhood that friends or family upload. It is impossible to not be in a photo these days. It just takes one or two photos and your lost.

We live in a world of technology, the government uses it to control the masses, the masses use it to socialize. The criminals use it to detect the government using it against them. Reality is as technology progresses towards the future things will become harder to get away with. Undercover cops are committing fraud of sorts.

There are many negative effects of technology, it will cause social issues, economic issues, and new crimes and tools for criminals. When a street corner drug dealer can snap a shot of a potential buyer and use the app "Cop or not" before showing his stash, we are left with a limitation. We have to decide do we combat this by making the apps illegal to have or perhaps we add 1000s of cameras to the city streets (CCTv), perhaps again we go 1984 and have cameras in every house, then allow a bill like the patriot act to get the feeds of every phone camera, home security camera, phone conversation, or whatever the gestapo wants.

The only real solution, legalize drugs under a controlled environment. It is easier for high school kids to get pot, but if it was regulated instead of illegal it would make it more difficult. We could use the tax money to invest in better technology to deal with the real crimes.

So, In Plain Sight is going to have to create a show now where someone gets tagged on facebook so the criminals all of the sudden know where their target is.

Re:Here's an idea.

[J'raxis]

Considering how many people are using social media nowadays, pretty soon "Odd, this guy doesn't have any social media accounts" will be automatic suspicion he's an undercover cop.

Re:Here's an idea.

[_0xd0ad]

I'm drawing a total blank on what these purposes could even hypothetically be

Replace "undercover cop" with "stalker" and apply all the same ways of detecting their fake account.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Hydian]

To put it another way, Facebook can give you information, but nobody ever relies on Facebook to give them information.

Sure they do. We see stories all the time where people are fired, etc because of something posted on Facebook with no corroborating evidence. Even if it isn't used as a primary source of information, it will be used to verify other sources of information, even if just subconsciously.

As far as what other, worse, purposes this can be used for...any sort of crime or espionage where an identity and/or trust is needed to be established. Having a facebook profile will be necessary to establish a cover ID. Someone who doesn't exist on the net is going to stand out and invite more scrutiny.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Patch86]

There's an excellent opt-out option, available to all Facebook users- don't have a Facebook account. And you can even delete your profile if you've already signed up for one. An unusually high (I imagine) percentage of my social circle aren't users of Facebook or other social networking sites, and we cope- phone calls, text messages and emails all do the trick just fine.

If you're a police officer and your job (and posibly your life) depends on it, I'm sure you could cope without Farmville and poking for the duration.

Re:Here's an idea.

[mabhatter654]

What about the people BEING investigated?

Google and Facebook match your HABITS as much as actual data.. If you make friends with 2-3 different groups to investigate illegal drugs, chances are that Facebook might suggest one of your fake profiles, "follow" one of the people being investigated... Under the "wrong" name...

Combine that with photos from various groups that might tag you and after 2-3 cases you have a good chance of your fake names being linked... Even if YOU didn't post anything!

Re:Here's an idea.

[Eponymous Hero]

you live in a bubble.

To put it another way, Facebook can give you information, but nobody ever relies on Facebook to give them information.

would be nice if that were true. I know someone who only communicates to friends through facebook and if you missed their wedding reception it's because you don't check facebook often enough. you could argue that people like that aren't good friends, but gosh darn it dontcha know we were actually good friends long before facebook showed up and tempted their laziness.

it's a nice bubble you have though, because you are oblivious to things like stalkers, identity theft, fugitives, organized crime and terrorism, or even just having relationships with people you care about ruined because someone else saw fit to forge your communication, or present pictures out of context that have the power to wreck reputations.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me.

Re:Here's an idea.

[mabhatter654]

The problem is that your undercover profile gets "Kevin Bacon'd". If you are investigating crime in Detroit, eventually the busts hit the news, "cousin's boyfriend's" of the current case got pinched last year and there you are in the background... Some clever girl puts your fake name as a tag and "you might know" pops up...

It's the girlfriends and little sisters that accidentally dig you up. "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" style.

Like others have said, you need the profile for street cred.. But Facebook and Google are REALLY good at catching fake profiles.. Even if there was no REAL profile, they'll still link the fakes...

Re:Here's an idea.

[Qzukk]

The law against facial recognition is a nice idea that will never happen for one simple reason, it's potentially more useful to the authorities than the problems it creates.

That just means that the law will make an exception for cops, just like every other law. Like those laws that let cops film whoever they please (if you aren't doing anything wrong...), but if you film a cop, they get to rough you up, drop your camera a few times then accidentally run it over with a squad car.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

but nobody ever relies on Facebook to give them information.

HAW HAW HAW.

Well, we'll see if your boss is "nobody" when he goes to look for someone to fire and the face books show pictures tagged as you enjoying a few lines of white powdery substance.

Hell, maybe just you drinking an unidentified fluid from a cup at a halloween party.

Re:Here's an idea.

[kevinNCSU]

Without victimless activities being illegal you don't need secret police.

How do you figure sports-fan? Are gun runners committing victim-less crimes? Gangs? Triads? terrorist organizations? Right wing religious fanatics? Crazy militias? Do you suppose without drugs all the MS-13 and other gangs will just give up their territory and protection/extortion schemes and go home?

Re:Here's an idea.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

"Accidentally" running over your camera with a squad car is still a crime if a cop does it. It's just very hard to convict the criminal, resulting in a de facto exception to the law.

A de jure exception is what you would expect in a law like this, and possibly fourth amendment issues. One example of another law with de jure exceptions for police officers in performance of their duties--in most jurisdictions--is identity theft.

Re:Here's an idea.

[he-sk]

That's old news. Small amounts of cannabis for personal use have been decriminalized since the 90s. What usually happens is that the police start an investigation which is subsequently dropped by the state attorney. (The latter have leeway in what to prosecute, the former don't.) The Everything2 article is from 2003, but court decision is from 1994: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis-Urteil

No, I am interested in a quote that alcohol is not consumed for intoxication. Sure, they may be other reasons (socializing, addiction), but intoxication most definitely plays a part.

Re:Here's an idea.

[31eq]

Thing is, if I were running a clandestine organization, I'd want my recruits to stay off social networking sites. I don't want the authorities to find our network mirrored on Facebook. So my ideal recruit would have the social networking trail of . . . an undercover policeman.

Re:Here's an idea.

[aevan]

Because with Napster the users were the ones doing the actions, while all Napster did was index and enable the transaction. Facebook would be indexing and sorting out pics regardless of who took what (and you can't say every photo was uploaded by the picture taker, or with permission of the taker, or with permission of the subjects in said picture (important in some countries)). If they could blame Napster, they could (try to) blame Facebook.

Not necessarily saying they could or should win, since it does seem stretching things (unless 'suddenly' it's under some data protection/state secret/patriot act thing)... but it does amuse me to picture some mafioso with a Facebook gallery of witnesses for the prosecution, hoping for Facebook to recommend people in witness protection caught photographed at a picnic or such

Re:Here's an idea.

[Rix]

If you're vetting people for the goal of finding narcs, what are you going to think of someone who has no social media footprint at all?

Re:Here's an idea.

[Luckyo]

Stalker that would provide proof of his/her stalking via logs (any sane company always maintains full logs of law enforcement access, and it's usually legally mandated to keep such logs), and has resources to exploit police-designed measure?

That would imply either extreme amount of resources, or stalker being a police officer. In both cases, we have a problem that would cause a whole lot of bigger issues then this particular abuse.

Re:Here's an idea.

[_0xd0ad]

No, just stalker that manages to crack/socially engineer his way in to the "create your profile's past history" back-door that only LEO are supposed to be able to use.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Anonymus]

It would be quite easy for Facebook to have an option to make you untaggable, and also require all tagging to point to an actual account (no text-only tagging).

Re:Here's an idea.

[Luckyo]

Which falls well into "exteme amount of resources" part.

You don't just "crack/socially engineer" your way into massively logged and controlled police-only access areas telecoms/large communications companies. Even if you do, your actions will be logged and checked.

Re:Here's an idea.

[steelfood]

That's not sufficient. Even though I lack a facebook account, I know for certain my picture is there. And I'm positive people have talked about or referenced me in some way, shape or form.

All it would take is one leak for an undercover cop to be blown. And in organized crime, I can't imagine that they won't use social engineering techniques to get those friends to say something "incriminating."

Cops will just have to go back to using informants, plea deals, and their normal tools to catch their crooks.

Re:Here's an idea.

[gknoy]

... yet.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Opportunist]

Yes. Yes it would. But they'd have a hard time explaining why it would only apply to undercover cops. More, as soon as it's known that it only applies to undercover cops, it serves basically as an identification mechanism.

Re:Here's an idea.

[_0xd0ad]

You hope, anyway. Cause it's not like any one has ever "crack/socially engineer"-ed his way into massively logged and controlled police-only access areas before. Especially not anyone with autobiograpies that have recently been reviewed on sites like Slashdot.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Luckyo]

There are exceptions to every rule of course. But in general, if stalking is your thing, there are far easier venues of pursuing it then putting your ass into the line of fire by messing with police-related systems.

Re:Here's an idea.

[mcgrew]

The mafia (and "gangsa" gangs) make their money from drugs, prostitution, and gambling. You don't need the secret police to solve a robbery or murder.

Re:Here's an idea.

[mcgrew]

Who are the gun runners' victims? Gangs get their income from drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Extortion and protection rackets have victims to testify. You don't need spies to solve violent crimes.

Re:Here's an idea.

[Sloppy]

you live in a bubble.

You're probably right.

But..

I know someone who only communicates to friends through facebook and if you missed their wedding reception it's because you don't check facebook often enough.

..if 99% of Facebook's profiles were fictional people, how would it impact this type of usage? The worst thing I see is that your friends would be initially hard to find and connect to, amongst all the chaff, and then either nobody would show up at their parties, or people would have to meet first and exchange facebook uids so that they could establish connections.

The "What's your facebook uid?" problem becomes identical to the "what's your email address?" problem. The fact that there are an infinite number of email addresses, completely unsearchable without building extra infrastructure (e.g. the pgp wot), and that joeschmoe@example.com may very well might not be the Joe Schmoe that you know, never collapsed civilization.

stalkers, identity theft, fugitives, organized crime and terrorism, or even just having relationships with people you care about ruined because someone else saw fit to forge your communication, or present pictures out of context that have the power to wreck reputations

I'm not sure that these things aren't already possible, and just as easy with facebook's current system where it's inconvenient to build fake profiles.

Take that copper

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a bad thing. All undercover cops are either going to plant evidence to ensure you are guilty, steal all your money and arrest you, or shoot you and dump a untraceable weapon. Seems to me this is correcting the behavior of the corrupt.

Re:Take that copper

[Z00L00K]

Not all cops do that. And in some cases undercover cops can very well be providing an alibi for you too, so it cuts both ways.

In any case - undercover cops aren't cost effective for catching small time criminals.

Best is to not commit any crimes.

Re:Take that copper

[Stormthirst]

You have a very jaded view of your police force.

Re:Take that copper

[rollingcalf]

"In any case - undercover cops aren't cost effective for catching small time criminals."

Ever watch Cops, or Police Women of Broward County? They use undercover cops all the time to catch small time drug dealers and buyers, and guys looking for prostitutes. Although social media probably won't hurt them, given that they often expose the undercover cops faces on TV but they're still able to fool people for more than 1 season.

Re:Take that copper

[Trepidity]

Best is to not commit any crimes.

This particular strategy doesn't help you if the cops plant evidence to close out a case.

Re:Take that copper

[drinkypoo]

Most cops are corrupt. Here in Lake County, California we finally got a Sheriff who actually wants to change things. Here is an article on him being cleared of certain wrongdoings. Because our police force is so very corrupt (with ties to meth production and such) he did not inform them of a bust the sheriff's department was conducting. The cops found out anyway and showed up to point guns at them just to fuck up the whole operation, because the bust was against one of their cronies.

Why do I say most cops are corrupt? Because if you're a cop and you cover for a bad cop, you are precisely as bad as he is. You are precisely as responsible for his actions, because it is your job to attempt to prevent and to help bring people to justice for these actions. You are instead a traitor to the American people, and I hope you die of ball cancer.

Re:Take that copper

[mcgrew]

Not all cops do that.

True, but far too many do. As we found in the 1920s, prohibition of intoxicants breeds corruption.

In any case - undercover cops aren't cost effective for catching small time criminals.

Half of all arrests in the US are for misdemeanor marijuana possession. THAT's what the secret police are for -- to catch pot smokers. You can't catch armed robbers with secret police.

Re:Take that copper

[mcgrew]

Reading the newspaper or living in a bad neighborhood will do that to you. Ironically, in the place where you're in most danger of criminals, even the law-abiding residents fear the police more than they fear criminals.

Re:Take that copper

[DarwinSurvivor]

So one screwed up city proves that most cops everywhere are corrupt? That is pretty much the definition of anecdotal evidence.

I personally know at least a half-dozen cops (through various organizations I am involved in) and I can't see a single one of them doing anything like that.

It's amazing that "cops are evil" is about the only FUD that is not only accepted by slashdot, but actively PROMOTED. You people either need to stop getting your information about cops from Fox News or stop peddling meth through your mail slot!

Re:Take that copper

[drinkypoo]

It's amazing that "cops are evil" is about the only FUD that is not only accepted by slashdot, but actively PROMOTED.

There is a forest of anecdotes. I was pointing out endemic corruption.

I personally know at least a half-dozen cops (through various organizations I am involved in) and I can't see a single one of them doing anything like that.

Like what?

Re:Take that copper

[Opportunist]

What if the law becomes a tool to criminalize those that dare to stand up against an unjust regime?

People who follow the law, no matter what this law may be like, is what makes dictatorships possible in the first place. There were not many people who liked that Nazi ideology. Or the Commie one, for that matter. There were rather few who were die-hard supporters. There were just many who don't give a shit how they're governed and who just follow the rules, without questioning whether those rules are just and 'right'.

Not questioning laws is dangerous. Question them! Test them against your moral code and see if they hold up against it. And please note that I do not say "to hell with the laws, laws are evil". I do not ask you to break the law, no matter what (it's about as bad as following the law, no matter what), I do expect people to be willing and able to see if the laws stand the test of their personal morals. Because that's what laws generally (should) codify: The common consensus what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Re:Take that copper

[Anonymous Coward]

seems that the Secret Whoremonger Society needs to better brief their members.

Re:Take that copper

[delinear]

I personally know at least a half-dozen cops (through various organizations I am involved in) and I can't see a single one of them doing anything like that.

You can't see them showing up at a bust to disrupt it or you can't see them covering for their friends and colleagues or turning a blind eye?

Re:Take that copper

[drinkypoo]

Here's another entertaining story. My ex-girlfriend had a minibike in her yard in Kelseyville and this cop stopped by to ask after the price. Thought it was too much. Got stolen that night. The next day, without any police report being filed et cetera, got a call from that cop saying he didn't steal the bike. Really? At minimum, he knows who did.

When I was a kid I mock-punched a big hardwood sign in Library Park in Lakeport. The sign is 2-3" thick and covered with acrylic. When I got through the park I encountered this cop McGraw who was always broadly known to be poking some underage girl. He's been up and down the ranks over the years for one thing and another. He accused me of breaking the sign, then handcuffed me and put me in the front of his little crappy patrol car... with my face basically against the dash because my hands were behind me and I'm big. Unless perhaps you're the reincarnation of Bruce Lee, there's no way to break the sign (which was split from weather... probably because the plastic they put over the sign to protect it from graffiti trapped moisture beneath it — everything is done incompetently in Lake county) without breaking the acrylic over it, which was intact. And I couldn't have broken it even without the plastic at that age; I was a big puss with no muscle worth mentioning. My dad ended up fixing the sign because he has a history in this town — but I didn't, and still don't, almost 20 years later.

All these idiots who think that cops aren't/can't be corrupt are just that, idiots. Further, they are actually complicit in this culture of police corruption, as they make it more difficult to have a frank and open discussion of the subject.

This little bumfuck town is utterly corrupt anyway. My dad's Italian ex-boss used to own a 3,500 acre parcel on the way out of town towards Hopland. The county or perhaps city acquired it in some kind of special deal and now it's owned by the government but you can't go there. Actually, this used to be a major Mafia town, studded with airstrips and home of a great deal of their activity. And I'm at something of a loss to explain otherwise how the same company keeps getting paid to resurface roads around the county even though every time they touch a road it gets bumper. The same pronounced bumps have been on Main Street in Lakeport since time immemorial and every time they resurface they get taller.

Corruption is the status quo everywhere, the local high mucky mucks are just too poor at covering their tracks to hide their malfeasance. I assume that every place has the same kind of dark underbelly as here, but that in most places there has been enough journalistic or other pressure to drive it underground, whereas here they are just flagrant.

It doesn't help that this region is rich in minerals. The local cinnabar mine responsible for most of the local pollution (they say don't eat fish over a certain number of inches or over so many pounds a year, but the law of averages says that there will be lucky winners... and if you look at the populace on the most polluted side of the lake, it shows) was closed only because state and national regulations made it too expensive to continue operation. And it stopped pouring mercury into the local water system only because it closed.

Re:Take that copper

[BlueStrat]

You have a very jaded view of your police force.

Maybe there is some cause for mistrust?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Vp32WeGHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_SBnZXCaGI

Just sayin'

Strat

Re:Take that copper

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare you to not break a single law for 72 hours.

Re:Take that copper

[Z00L00K]

Isn't that what NSA, TSA, FBI, CIA and DHS are doing?

Re:Take that copper

[J'raxis]

What if the law becomes a tool to criminalize those that dare to stand up against an unjust regime?

It already has. Just look around Slashdot for all the stories of cops using wiretapping laws against people videotaping them.

And in reply to the rest of your comment: This article from CopBlock is highly relevant.

Re:Take that copper

[c6gunner]

You have a very jaded view of your police force.

Welcome to slashdot. I'm pretty sure half the reader base took part in the London riots, and another quarter were looting in Vancouver.

Re:Take that copper

[ULTRAJOE]

Half of all arrests in the US are for misdemeanor marijuana possession. THAT's what the secret police are for -- to catch pot smokers. You can't catch armed robbers with secret police.

You have a citation for this, Steve? i'm not giving you shit, a quick Google is not turning this up for me and I'd like to read what you're quoting.

Re:Take that copper

[mcgrew]

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/20-marijuana-arrests-set-new-record/

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T USE FACEBOOK.

Duh... cops are so dumb.

and corrupt..

and evil...

but that's another story.

Lets start by trying to fix the dumb.

Re:Solution

[Khyber]

You aren't fixing the dumb when dumb is a requirement for the police force.

Re:Solution

[Opportunist]

Could we start with the others. Dumb, corrupt and evil cops sounds a lot better than smart, corrupt and evil cops.

Like they always say

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Wait.

Technology will make under cover police redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

"because of the convergence of a number of technologies" governments won't need undercover police in the future.

Don't use the new "aol.com"

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution seems simple, just don't use the latest "aol.com" of the internet. Facebook, for those who don't get the reference, is essentially nothing more than what aol.com was during its heyday. A secluded, walled garden, where nothing gets in or out unless you have drank the kook-aid and become a member.

Also, never be photographed.

[denzacar]

As in, never during your lifetime. You see a camera - duck, turn around, and run in the opposite direction.
You should make two whole steps before you run into another camera, if you're in an urban area.

Cause, you know... I can go and tag both Jesus, Elvis AND Mohammed on the photo of an empty wall - regardless if they have a Facebook account or not.
As for face recognition bit - the idea would be that you take a photo of a person, open an account with it and just let Facebook's face-recognizing algorithms do their thing.

Re:Also, never be photographed.

[somersault]

That leaves people with facial reconstruction then. If the situation is serious enough, that would be warranted, and solves the problem..

Re:Also, never be photographed.

[bytesex]

Nah. Just grow and dye your hair. Grow a mustache and beard. Get coloured contacts. Fake a limp. Wear a hat and something very noticeable in another place (a red chest pocket kerchief).

Re:Also, never be photographed.

[delinear]

So long as the surgeon didn't get lazy and start giving all the undercover police the same face. It would be too ironic to change your face so nobody knew you were a cop only for Facebook to then identify you as a different cop who was no longer working undercover.

Re:Also, never be photographed.

[Anonymous Coward]

You see a camera - duck, turn around, and run in the opposite direction

You obviously don't have the Faceback app.

Re:Also, never be photographed.

[FatLittleMonkey]

Mask, costume and cape. It's the only way to be sure.

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they deserve to die and i hope they burn in hell.

Here's a better idea.

[mcgrew]

Don't have secret police in the first place. "Undercover" cops have no place in a free society. Only police states have or need secret police. If social media makes the secret police impossible, GOOD!

As to the cop's safety, being a cop is nowhere near the top ten list of dangerous jobs. A taxi driver or construction worker is in far more danger than a cop.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because criminals only wear black turtle-necks and balaclavas all the time...

Undercover cops exist to infiltrate criminal organisations with their web-of-trust style group membership.

Political Secret Police, however, should not need to exist.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about a secret police to weed out people who aren't breaking the law but are still annoying to the powers that be, or imposing secret laws. This is about your regular cops, who are trying to infiltrate criminal organizations (such as ones organizing prostitution, extortion, smuggling, etc). Without undercover operatives, the best you can do against such a group is take out a few grunts, and watch more kids fill their places. You need to take out the leadership to make a real impact, and you need to infiltrate the organization to get close to them. Those are the officers that the article is talking about, and as long as there's organized crime, there will be a need for them in a free (but not anarchist ! ) society.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Vintermann]

Criminal organizations with web-of-trust style group membership?

Well, if they're stupid enough to be on facebook, I don't think infiltration will be very necessary.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Vintermann]

If you have the apparatus to infiltrate criminal organizations, you have the apparatus to infiltrate political organizations too.

You CAN do a lot to criminal organizations without infiltration. Infiltration has a high cost, in the form of increased paranoia, tribality and possibly brutality in the infiltrated groups. This worsens crime, and lessens defection.

Also, infiltration has a cost in the other direction - what it does to police departments and infiltrators themselves. When the police get used to betraying people's trust as part of their job, they start doing that in other ways, too. Adopting such means really is a slippery slope.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Syberz]

The day that the "free" society will stop committing crimes is the day that undercover police will not be needed to gather information in criminal organizations.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

But undercover cops make sense when catching real criminals, not all cops are against us "average nerd citizens", waiting until we get charged with piracy or some "modern/thought crime" bullshit to bust our skulls with gusto. Blame the politicians giving the bad orders.
When harmed by a weapon you don't blame the weapon, you blame the one wielding it.

And anyway, I have had my life saved by cops. That's more I can say of any civilian.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about your regular cops, who are trying to infiltrate criminal organizations (such as ones organizing prostitution, extortion, smuggling, etc).

Funny, all the regular cops seem to use undercover operations for around here is to bust kids buying an eighth sack of weed...

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

That view is a bit simplistic, isn't it?

How about police officers working undercover inside human traffiking rings, arms smuggling operations, the mafia, etc? Lots of criminal activity has been stopped and those responsible brought to justice because of the work of undercover police officers.

Still think those cops have no place in a free society?

I say you're wrong on this one.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Fred Ferrigno]

If you have the apparatus to infiltrate criminal organizations, you have the apparatus to infiltrate political organizations too [guardian.co.uk].

If you have a hammer, you have an apparatus to bash someone's brains in. We don't ban hammers, we prosecute people who use or try to use them to bash someone's brains in.

I think anyone sensible would agree that infiltrating a nonviolent political organization is a bad thing and shouldn't happen. We should have laws against that and those laws should have teeth. There should be oversight and review to prevent abuse as much as possible and to expose it when it happens.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that undercover/secret police should be carefully monitored, but I don't buy that "only police states have or need secret police". Organized crime is almost impossible to penetrate without the use of undercover officers. Can you give an example of any country that has no undercover police? Most of the most open and free countries I have lived in have them.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

As with so many things in life, this idea only works if everyone involved (that'd be the whole society in this case) plays fair - meaning they abide by both the letter AND the intent or spirit of the law. Just takes one person to break that for their own personal advantage, and the whole thing crumbles. Doesn't matter if that one person is a politician, a thief, a teacher, a thug, or just an overbearing "helicopter parent"... one person abusing the system at the expense of the rest, and your "free society" is broken. (Because it will NEVER stop at just one... all it takes is one to show the rest that they too can get away with it.)

Perfect capitalism, communism, libertarianism, socialism, zombieism - none is ever really possible because you can never get 100% of a population to play fair.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[nomadic]

"Funny, all the regular cops seem to use undercover operations for around here is to bust kids buying an eighth sack of weed..."

Then you must live in a very safe area. Unfortunately, slashdot skews upper class and upper middle class white suburban; those types have no problem railing against the police because they rarely need their services.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. When those i-beams started packing heat it was game over for construction workers. Seriously though, don't only consider physical threats. Being an officer or prison gaurd is more than physically risky. Spend even a day in a big jail and you get to experience what they are surrounded by everyday... pain, sadness, anger, despair and desperation. If that's not dangerous to you I don't know what is.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Hatta]

Anyone sensible would realize that we can't trust the police to act sensibly. Police regularly shoot civilians in cold blood, and get paid vacation for it. Look how well police oversight works in practice and rethink your post.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also never accept anyone into your gang who doesn't have a facebook profile (at least several years old).

Re:Here's a better idea.

[mosb1000]

Poor people tend to be more afraid of the police than anybody else. I don't know where you get your information, but "upper middle class white suburban" people are the most likely to support the police. Most people see any interaction with a police officer as a cause for concern, and this fear is based on previous interactions. The only upper middle class white suburban-ites that fear police are kids who are out getting into trouble. All poor people need fear them every day. In a lot of ways, police consider poverty as probable cause, and in any case, they know they can hassle poor people without fear of being sued, especially if they are illegal immigrants.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing "undercover" with "secret" police. I'm pretty sure one is meant to infiltrate secretive criminal organizations for evidence that will be given to them as part of their membership, and the other makes your organization secretive by putting it at the bottom of a ditch.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have secret police in the first place. "Undercover" cops have no place in a free society. Only police states have or need secret police. If social media makes the secret police impossible, GOOD!

As to the cop's safety, being a cop is nowhere near the top ten list of dangerous jobs. A taxi driver or construction worker is in far more danger than a cop.

You're an idiot.

Even in a free utopian society where drugs are legal, there are no speed limits, and money doesn't exist... There's still those willing to hurt and kill others. They gather in their secret societies, in clubs, online, set up meetings and trade 9 year old boys for favors. They don't tell you who they are, or when they'll be free to be arrested. You'll always need someone undercover to expose and destroy these things. Even in a free society, which this is NOWHERE near to being.

As for job safety -- taxi drivers aren't put at risk when they're "made" on facebook.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have secret police in the first place. "Undercover" cops have no place in a free society. Only police states have or need secret police. If social media makes the secret police impossible, GOOD!

The undercover cops that are in danger aren't the ladies you tried to hire for a "date" on a street corner last night. They're the people who go undercover long term to try to bring down organized crime rings, people who steal and terrorize and murder for profit. These groups are too good at intimidating or murdering witnesses to bring down without inside information, and undercover police officers are the best way to get it.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[nomadic]

I get my information from experience and observation. While upper middle class white suburban people may support the police in general, the subset that are slashdot posters tend to be anti-authoritarian but also have a lifelong experience of being insulated from crime. Poorer communities distrust the police, but they would not want them completely absent; since they are most at risk for being crime victims, they do want them there at some level.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[mabhatter654]

It's not the "organization" it's the girlfriends that get together and social all day. They tag you in some party pics... Then 6 months later a girl in a different case tags you... Facebook "you might be friends with" does the rest and the boyfriend looking over her shoulder connects the dots...

Next up concrete shoes!

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Pyrosz]

So your saying that when police use undercover agents to bust kiddie porn rings, dangerous drug production labs, terrorist type groups and other similar things that are bad for society that you would rather they didn't bust them using a method that allows them to potentially find a larger number of members than those they would have caught by doing a single raid on a facility?

And to the point about police safety, I think anything that keeps anyone safe is a good thing. There is no need to point out there are more dangerous jobs. Its like saying that the taxi driver doesn't need a seat belt because the construction worker has a more dangerous job.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[mythandros]

So your saying that when police use undercover agents to bust kiddie porn rings, dangerous drug production labs, terrorist type groups and other similar things that are bad for society that you would rather they didn't bust them using a method that allows them to potentially find a larger number of members than those they would have caught by doing a single raid on a facility?

And to the point about police safety, I think anything that keeps anyone safe is a good thing. There is no need to point out there are more dangerous jobs. Its like saying that the taxi driver doesn't need a seat belt because the construction worker has a more dangerous job.

You know, if the government burned the constitution, the bill of rights, and all the amendments, our police officers would have much more latitude to identify and arrest both the root cause of these crimes and it's whole support network. The logic you put forth supports this action. Yeah, yeah. I can see your response now: "I didn't mean what you're implying". Maybe, "Now you're just being stupid. No one wants that."

If you honestly think that's a justification for what you said, you're not worth the air you consume. Here's a suggestion: pull your head out of your ass and say what you mean instead of making vague references. If it's too hard to do, stay off the internet, idiot. I hope it's not an issue of motivation. How worthlessly lazy you would be if you couldn't be bothered to think a complete thought before vomiting it onto slashdot.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Bucky24]

The second paragraph of parent is stupid, yes, but the first has some merit.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Pyrosz]

Did you reply to the correct thread? Since your reply makes no sense when applied to my thread response.

The logic I put forth does not support giving the police more power. I simply state that having undercover officers has some good to it. Any power can be abused and thus needs checks and balances. If there was a better way then I would support it... And don't think I believe in the whole: if you don't do anything wrong then you have nothing to hide crap either. I believe in privacy of public citizens.

Name calling tells me your young and you will learn in time what it takes to keep a civilized world together.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[physicsphairy]

Don't have secret police in the first place. "Undercover" cops have no place in a free society. Only police states have or need secret police. If social media makes the secret police impossible, GOOD!

In America, you need undercover cops because the standards for conviction are so high. Organized crime itself operates undercover, the members talk in 'code' so as to avoid offering anything legally substantive, etc., and cops somehow have to lure them off their guard in a setting where they feel completely comfortable. Would you rather live in a society where we lower the standard for conviction to 'acting suspicious'? Or where criminal organizations are simply untouchable? I'm no fan of big government, but giving power to the mafia just sets you up for a much more ruthless version of the same.

There's a big difference between a secret police force designed to spy out political enemies from the ranks of the public, and a guy who pretends he is a drug dealer so he can catch other drug dealers.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the? I almost thought you were joking, until the second paragraph. Let me revise your statement: "Only states that have crime that is kept secret have or need secret police." See the difference?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[lgarner]

First, "undercover officer" is not the same as "secret police." I can understand how the similar words might confuse you.

Second, the relative danger in being a cop isn't the issue; keeping it from increasing is. Deliberately increasing the danger of being a taxi driver or construction worker would be equally stupid.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Rutgers disagrees with you regarding how dangerous it is to be a Cop

Oh, looky there... Taxi driver is third most dangerous job for workplace violence... after police officer (1st) and private security (2nd)

Oh and this article on Forbes says Mining and Police/security are about tied as most dangerous jobs with 13 deaths per 100,000 workers

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Sabriel]

If you have a hammer, you have an apparatus to bash someone's brains in. We don't ban hammers, we prosecute people who use or try to use them to bash someone's brains in.

Trouble is, when you're undercover you're both hammer and user.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Fred Ferrigno]

I didn't use the word "trust" once. I did, however, use the words "oversight", "review", "expose", and "prosecute", though.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

!!! IDIOT !!!

Re:Here's a better idea.

[mcgrew]

End prohibitions on victimless activities and you end organized crime.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a criminal of some kind, maybe a child molester or drug dealer . . . otherwise you would not make such a stupid statement!

Re:Here's a better idea.

[AK Marc]

I just live in the ideal that if the cops have to break the law to enforce the law, then we are better off without them. There can't be order if there are dual standards. The government getting special powers against the people is the opposite of how things should work.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[AK Marc]

Having any legal deception is wrong. It leads to a culture of lies. Cops lie to suspects all the time, giving false legal device in order to trick out confessions (false are as good as real ones). It shouldn't be "easy" to catch criminals. We should be making the hard choices and legalizing more things to cut the funding of the organized crime. Organized crime is mainly funded by vice crimes, so the war on drugs funds criminals and terrorists. Nothing could hurt powerful criminals more than ending prohibition, but the government would never do that because of the private prison lobby and all the others financially vested in continuing all the wars. And it would result in cops having safer jobs and not having to go under-cover, rendering all this moot. But anything like that suggested in politics will result in assertions of "weak on crime" despite that move being the worst possible one for so many criminal organizations, so it'll not happen for at least another 20 years. The '60s hippies are in charge and still think all drugs should be illegal.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[mcgrew]

Secret police forces are accountable only to the executive branch of the government, sometimes only to a dictator. They operate entirely or partially in secrecy, that is, most or all of their operations are obscure and hidden from the general public and government except for the topmost executive officials. This semi-official capacity allows the secret police to bolster the government's control over their citizens while also allowing the government to deny prior knowledge of any violations of civil liberties.

With CIA help, NYPD moves covertly in Muslim areas

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the New York Police Department has become one of the nation's most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies, targeting ethnic communities in ways that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if practiced by the federal government, an Associated Press investigation has found.

These operations have benefited from unprecedented help from the CIA, a partnership that has blurred the line between foreign and domestic spying.

The department has dispatched undercover officers, known as "rakers," into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They've monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as "mosque crawlers," to monitor sermons, even when there's no evidence of wrongdoing.

Wake up, you live in a police state.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[mcgrew]

Can you cite an instance of a kiddie porn ring being broken by spies? If Bayer sold crack over the counter my house probably wouldn't have been broken into. Terrorists? You're afraid of terrorists? I'm not. I'm far more afraid of idiot drivers, cancer, and heart disease (and burglars and tornados) than I am of terrorists.

No, I refuse to give up privacy and freedom for the illusion of safety. There is no such thing as safety.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[mcgrew]

Legalize victimless activities and the mafia has no revenue. If the standards for conviction are so high, then why were half the men on Illiniois death row found to be innocent?

As to drug dealers, half of all drug arrests arefor marijuana, and nine out of ten pot busts are for possession.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Walter Carver]

Police is a temporary solution. The way to solve crime is through social policy.

The more you invade our privacy

[Khyber]

The less you have in return. Especially for the government, it seems.

Pretty soon, the people you track will know where all of you are, and then it's their game, not yours.

Re:The more you invade our privacy

[delinear]

And then sometimes they do something like this that's really not helping their cause at all...

Re:The more you invade our privacy

[geekoid]

Wrong. then there is no game, the book is filled.

Because they won't be able to do anything either.

but Facebook works for them too!

[kubitus]

they can identify dealers etc easily.

and their image sources will include surveillance cams

so social active criminals will face a tough time.

Re:but Facebook works for them too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Isn't it in Minority Report that everyone goes through iris scan (and facial scan?) upon exiting a subway or any public place? Sounds like that would pin-point any criminal you're looking for (unless, they...amm...tear their eyes out), and if you ever catch someone on suspicion of something, you can dig up a lot more details about their whereabouts forever into the past---their associations (other suspects they talked to or sat next to in the park, etc.).

If anything, being an "illegal" type mobster would become really difficult---so all of them will have to legitimately run for office and steal/cheat via legal means.

Re:but Facebook works for them too!

[Greyfox]

I wonder how many "My Dealer Selling me a Bag of Weed" tags there are on facebook. As stupid as people are, I suspect that number is non-zero. I'd go check, but then I'd have to trawl facebook heh heh heh.

It cuts both ways...

[gr8_phk]

Facebook has helped the police get dirt on people in many cases. Don't be surprised when it works the other way too.

Re:It cuts both ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned after the fact how usefully looking up a manager would have been. I had a choice to work for a couple of different managers in a company I worked. The one I choose turned out to be the bottom of the barrel there. After a day of being very frustrated with him, I started to look online to see if he stupidly had put something up anywhere. If I had seen before, I wouldn't had even considered his group. A lot of details, but he himself said he has issues.

Re:It cuts both ways...

[doug]

I don't know about helping the cops, but I've heard that Facebook is a divorce lawyer's best friend.

Best news I've heard all year...

[bistromath007]

Everything we lose in security will be gained tenfold in liberty if undercover policing shits the bed.

NOT very good cops

[Anonymous Coward]

does anyone else see quality of cop going into a toilet also since 9/11 and they complain OH WE got ya we know your a narc .....
haha everything works both ways. THERE is a saying....Don't be good, be good at what you do.....

Gee wonder what that means....

Re:NOT very good cops

[Hatta]

No, the police have always been universally abhorrent.

Mis-Tag, False ID

[retroworks]

You create a fake Facebook profile and mistag-yourself everywhere. You have a police department staff scan photos and mistag you. With a little more effort, Facebook could become the best thing that ever happened for people setting up false identities. But Facebook has to let you mis-tag yourself. I started a Facebook Group "Data Camouflage Anonymous" for the purpose of mis-tagging and mis-identifying photos (to water down the facial recognition database) and within a day found my "tagging" ability turned off by Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/groups/151915044879668/ Facebook should be no more reliable at facial data than they are at birthday records (which are a joke).

Re:Mis-Tag, False ID

[Sockatume]

You're trying to poison the well, which is an effective answer to datamining but given the size of Facebook's userbase you're going to need homeopathy for it to be effective.

Re:Mis-Tag, False ID

[Sloppy]

Spread it out among many people working together. Join Friends of Privacy. :-)

Re:Mis-Tag, False ID

[Anonymous Coward]

FaceBook will get a visit from some very nice people who will explain with very nice words that they _will_ have re- and mis-tagging privileges. Undercover agents will end up with more believable profiles, not less. Any "hard to explain" parts in the fake identity you'll just leave out of the profile, and cover by a "spent time in jail" story. Furthermore, anyone viewing such a profile will become subject of the relevant investigation.

You don't even need to have real persons for such fake accounts. As an investigator, it would be very intersting to create a set of somewhat fake profiles and then from one of them attempt to befriend a suspect. Just see what that fishing attempt turns up. Will your suspect try to verify your identity by checking your network? In which order?

Re:Mis-Tag, False ID

[Anonymous Coward]

But people that don't know him can't tag him correctly.
That leaves mis-tagging enough to cover people he knows and tag him correctly.

Re:Mis-Tag, False ID

[Bucky24]

One of my friends already does this.... To other people. So far I've been tagged as a picture of a giant ugly baby statue, an earthworm, a shark, a pair of dice... I wonder what Facebook thinks when it tries to auto-tag me?

Re:Mis-Tag, False ID

[Carewolf]

I wonder what you friend thinks when he has to identify you and other similarly tagged people, next time he changes browser or logs in from a new machine. (I admit that mistake is facebook's too. It just an unbelievably flawed mechanism)

Viginantes are the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, look @ the bright side. When a crime is committed, the same technology that puts cops @ risk will put criminals @ risks, assuming that the cops won't do anything to them. The answer, then, would be for lone vigilantes to track down these criminals using those surveillance pictures, do an ID check on them - the capability of which would no longer be limited to law enforcement agencies - and then stalk the criminals in question and do whatever the vigilante thinks is appropriate.

Mark my words - the same namby-pamby defender of criminals and police-haters out there will be yelping like yorkers for the cops to be out, once such vigilantes take the law into their own hands and start hunting down such criminals. In fact, make such a line of work something that specialized contractors do for a fee - something like collection agencies. And if you do have criminal advocates, such as the ACLU, try and file cases against them, since they are vigilantes and not police, have them hunt down any lawyers who would pursue them for their vigilante actions, so that anybody in civil society would be scared to confront them. Oh, and they won't be accountable to the executives of any city, state or federal, as police always are, so nobody can even go after the government for them being loose.

Enough such activity, say for a year or two, and you'll see all defense lawyers and advocates in the country begging for normal police surveillance, and promising all sorts of checks & balances to ensure that normal law-enforcement activity is not hindered.

Image processing keeps getting cheaper

[drinkypoo]

I note that these days you can just get a library to do stuff like find elements of a face... it's only a matter of time before recognizing cops from biometrics is feasible. ID them with a webcam at the door. Get someone to grab some photos of the photos of graduating classes for data to stock it with, should be easy since future cops are edumacated at our finest public institutions. Er, I mean, our crappy community colleges.

7 years into a known criminal gang????

[gl4ss]

7 years into a known criminal gang? what the fuck kind of policing is this, assist & switch? they would have to know that it's a criminal gang to have ethical reasoning for infiltrating - and in that case they certainly wouldn't have good reasons to let it keep going on for seven friggin' years. that's not infiltration, that's living a lifestyle - that's being fabric of the criminal gang, that's giving motivation to the criminal gang if you hang around with them for seven frigging years while they don't get busted, so they're having a part in spurring the crime they're supposed to prevent while messing with peoples lives.

because, suppose that they don't even bust them. they made an artificial, constructed impact on the people they interacted with and that's messed up, peoples political etc motives depend on the people they know so government invented shill persons shouldn't be on the list unless you want to copy STASI.

""If you have someone in the service who is trying to remain anonymous for whatever reason, it is still possible through other relationships to find them," Keelty said. " no shit, it always was. and anonymous isn't the right word here, FAKE person is the right word. but this issue is just highlighting issues that existed in their covert police operations long before this - and that they seemed to prefer guys who never appeared in a yearbook. actually they could fix this by hiring immigrants to police their kids, as they want people who had been invisible and never appeared anywhere.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Legal.Troll]

"they would have to know that it's a criminal gang to have ethical reasoning for infiltrating - and in that case they certainly wouldn't have good reasons to let it keep going on for seven friggin' years."

Bullshit. You're a moron.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[rwv]

7 years into a known criminal gang?

Spying and espionage is a long game. People get the best information by building trust. If the cops can get 1 or 2 moles into every major criminal group in the world they can blow the whistle when any single one of those groups decides it's time to commit a major crime. Small crimes like drug dealing and minor intra-gang warfare are an easy pill to swallow when law-abiding citizens safety is maintained.

what the fuck kind of policing is this, assist & switch?

A mole in The Taliban / Al Qaeda in 1999-2001 would have been a true blessing. You don't get there by starting in 1999, though. You start in 1993-1995. Like I said, it's a long game. For some people, the potential of silently and unceremoniously saving thousands of their countrymen's lives is enough motivating factor to expose themselves to this lifestyle.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of infiltrating a criminal organization is to bust the head honcho or at least the ones closest to him, not the little fish. I'd like to see you try to work yourself up to the boss' circle of trust when you're given a deadline of, let's say 2 years?

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot, you how long it takes for an arms dealer to reveal its sources?

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Anonymous Coward]

Gangs typically have membership hierarchies in place that are highly dependent on length of service. New members of the gang won't have anything to do with higher levels until they prove themselves through both time and criminal accomplishments. These measures make it near impossible for the gang to be infiltrated by police. The reason is that the police have to justify expenses and salaries beyond 10 years - with the risk of achieving nothing as a result. As if that wasn't hard enough - undercover officers cannot participate in all the criminal activities conducted by these gangs and thus are at great risk of ending up in a ditch with a bullet wound, or in the best case, not progressing through the ranks and thus achieving nothing.

National Geographic had some interesting documentaries on the motorcycle gangs of America as part of their "Inside Outlaw Bikers" series. These documentaries are well worth hunting down if you're interested in a deeper understanding of what FBI undercover officers are up against with biker gangs. The documentaries cover:

• "becoming the fabric" (from ethical and legal standpoints with respect to successful convictions)
• the need to setup fake murder scenes to give the appearance of their undercover officers carrying out murders
• psychological problems with their undercover officers getting stuck in a terrible long term lifestyle
• the continuous pressure to achieve results in order to justify the long term and high risk investment in these operations

As such, your STASI fears are grossly unfounded, possibly absurd. The reality of the situation is closer to the police not standing a chance against criminal gangs.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[iteyoidar]

The US has been openly giving weapons to the Taliban since the 80s, if they can't work with that I don't think a few spies are going to help.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you've mentioned the STASI:

A few years ago, one of Germany's national police agencies tried to outlaw a right-wing, neo-nazi party. They failed not because of lack of illegal activities or evidence thereof but because of the role their moles played in it. They were part of the group for so long, that most if not all relevant illegal activities traced back to them. The court threw the case out on the grounds that without the moles, nothing would have happened.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[geekoid]

Yes they would. Because the spies are, and get this, undercover. So they find out what is being said behind closed doors among a trusted group.

Had the money President Bush* listened to the people in the CIA who want money to get a better network around bin laden instead of use it to buy off voters(remember the 300 dollars?) 9/11 might just be an emergency number. Maybe not, we don't know. Still, even if it did happen, having people in place might have meant an earlier execution.

*Yes, I would be bashing any president who did this.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing that they're criminals and being able to prove it are two different things.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Military BRATS. My dad was always moving in the Air Force. I went to three different high schools in three states. I have ONE yearbook photo in there, from my freshman year, and it doesn't look much like me. The rest of the time for various reasons, I missed the photos.

There are other people out there that move around a lot and miss out on HS photos. Also the home schooled kids are out.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[PPH]

7 years is exaggerating things in many cases. John Walker Lindh managed to walk into a al Qaida camp early in 2001 (when bin Laden shouold have been getting ready to go to ground). And he got pretty close to Osama as well.

psychological problems with their undercover officers getting stuck in a terrible long term lifestyle

That's the big problem. Its more about the loyalty to the cause and the body language of the undercover people giving themselves away. Lindh got in because he was a believer. And they sensed that.

There's a whole romanticism surrounding undercover work. Everyone wants to get near Gotti, with silk suits, trips to Atlantic City, coke and hookers. Or as James Bond with Pussy Galore. Ask for volunteers to move into a cave in Afghanistan or some little shithole town in Mexico next door to the drug lords and all you'll hear is the sound of crickets. And then there's the psychology of the people involved. Cops and military (from which intelligence services recruit) tend to value camaraderie and loyalty to the team. Oddly enough, so do criminal organizations. The individualism and strength of will needed to maintain a false front in the face of your adversaries would probably get potential candidates excluded from law enforcement in the first place. Gangs or criminals who value team loyalty would most likely sniff them out as well. Not as undercover cops, but just not trustworthy.

In the final analysis, most good intelligence comes from turning weaker individuals already within the organization. Their loyalty was established. They have demonstrated a tendency to be swayed by an offer of membership in a group. Just offer them a new group.

And then, there's the problem of undercover cops being turned over to the criminal lifestyle. Example: In Seattle, there was an infamous strip club, Ricks. The most desirable 'undercover' duty in the Seattle Police department was to be handed a few thousand dollars (of public money) and sent in to get lap dances and whatever else was being offered. The vice arrest rates were low (compared to the activity going on) and the cops were some of the hookers' best customers. There were a few instances where the police department actually had to send in additional people with video recording equipment to document the undercover cops' activities. And ensure that the occasional ticket actually got written. In the end, the club was taken down by the feds, for tax evasion. And that was based, in large part, by informants among the club's employees. Some of whom, having escaped prosecution, are now busy opening up their own clubs. Now that the competition is gone. And I'm sure the Seattle cops are just waiting, $20 bills in hand, to check them out as well.

Re:7 years into a known criminal gang????

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Then you get to quit, become a cook/cop/dentist/bodyguard and when someone murders your niece/dog/wife/sister, you get to go all karate chop on their ass and kill everybody, and you are the good guy.

Nobody actually believe this shit you know. There are no Steven Seagals out there, except for Steven. Because its impossible to become a mole in a fantasy target of our own creation. Who the fuck do you think NAMED "Al Qaeda"? Who the fuck armed and trained the Taliban? Err, and what do they have to do with each other? One was the ruling clique of a destroyed western created "nation", the other a group of revolutionaries whose goal is the overthrow and destruction of the Saudi monarchy? BTW, the IRA also trained in Afghanistan. A destroyed embattled "nation" of cave dwellers with lots of guns and no rules is a great place to train. Lots of folks have done it.

Do you know what CIA "moles" do? Steal trade secrets. Smuggle coke. Sell arms. Get blackmail dirt on foreign leaders.

They don't join terrorist organizations. Because either A: there are no such thing, or B: how you gonna infiltrate a group of friends who want to blow something up?

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good thing.

greed/fear/ego based execrable threat to life

[Anonymous Coward]

the 'mainstream' media can tout, or hide (constantly) anything it wants (eow events, alien invasion rumors etc) to generate fear, compliance etc..., whilst the 'security forces' fire anti-aircraft rounds at those with opposing (reality based) views. the population must not have any recourse to dispel the fatal distraction buybull generated by an obsoletely failed plan to disempower/destroy us? can this even remotely be called 'weather'?

disarm. tell the truth. post the results of your endeavors everywhere. stay out from under the falling gargoyles. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

Re:greed/fear/ego based execrable threat to life

[Kelbear]

Man, I always look forward to your posts. You really can't fake that kind of writing. Do you have a blog or twitter feed where I can see more?

Here's a novel idea...

[MikeRT]

Don't post your pictures and employment info online if you're a cop and ever want to do this work. Cops know that this work is what gets them the big promotions. If they want to advance their careers, being discrete on Facebook will just be de rigeur for them.

Do you see the CIA's clandestine service going "OH NOES WE CANT USE TEH FACEBOOK?" Of course not. If and when they get sent overseas, they don't want to end up in a ditch because they moronically outed themselves on Facebook.

Re:Here's a novel idea...

[gl4ss]

you're missing the point, they can't even associate themselfs with OTHER people using facebook or social media, because if they appear on some wedding photos etc for some family, you know that there's an association there. basically the same sort of stuff that would have gotten them busted before if the bad guys would have hired a private eye to do some digging.

Re:Here's a novel idea...

[geekmux]

you're missing the point, they can't even associate themselfs with OTHER people using facebook or social media, because if they appear on some wedding photos etc for some family, you know that there's an association there. basically the same sort of stuff that would have gotten them busted before if the bad guys would have hired a private eye to do some digging.

In other words, the risk has always been there, and therefore this entire story and hype is pure and utter bullshit.

Facebook hasn't changed a damn thing with regards to undercover officers being exposed, save for making it cheaper to expose them. That's about it. If a criminal is hell-bent on doing harm to an undercover officer, they're going to spend money and effort anyway, just as they have had to do in the past. Facebook doesn't change that hardly at all.

Re:Here's a novel idea...

[black soap]

You've never been to a semi-public event where people asked not to be photographed, or asked that photographs not be published? Sometimes even former agents/officers/employees who did work outside the country will avoid being in the publicity photos, stand aside in group photos, etc., because their face might be recognized. It isn't just abused women and witness-protection-program w/ new names trying to avoid getting their pictures published. I guess people like that can't go in bars/public places any more.

And before long, privacy will be even more impossible - you can be tracked down, and your history at a place can be verified. It will be harder to create a fake identity, (or one that doesn't have obvious holes in it), but it will also be harder to escape some obsessed stalker or crazy ex or jilted 3rd world arms dealer, unless you totally drop out of society.

Re:Here's a novel idea...

[delinear]

How many people are really going to hire private detectives to dig into someone's background? Compare that to being able to take a photo on your phone where an app instantly drops it into Facebook/Google and lets you see what comes up and they are a world apart. That's the story, not that this is possible but that it's reaching the point where it's trivial.

Re:Here's a novel idea...

[Sloppy]

making it cheaper to expose them. That's about it. If a criminal is hell-bent on doing harm to an undercover officer, they're going to spend money and effort anyway

Most problems in life are economic, and criminals are not super-men who have infinite resources. I think the point of TFA is that some countermeasures against infiltration are transitioning from impractical to practical.

Re:Here's a novel idea...

[geekoid]

Why are you people so damn simple minded?

Simple example for simple minds:
You infiltrate a mob outfit.
Someone takes your picture. Say a members girl friend.
She tags it 'Tony Datguy'

You infiltrate a different organization 5 years later, someone takes you picture.
Even though YOU don't have an account, you picture is now associated with other account. as soon as facebook scan the pictures some will see that you are tagged in a different account with a different name.

Re:Here's a novel idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't post your pictures and employment info online if you're a cop and ever want to do this work. Cops know that this work is what gets them the big promotions. If they want to advance their careers, being discrete on Facebook will just be de rigeur for them.

You might have been outed by your teenage self on MySpace long before you ever found out you wanted to be a cop. You might be outed by Great Aunt Ethel's vacation photo she took of you five years ago, now that she's got her first computer and your cousin showed her how to tag photos on Facebook. Did you read the article, how many of the police officers' photos were uploaded by other people?

The future

[Anonymous Coward]

The SockPuppets are taking over for them. The new and ultimate officer of the future will be AI, programmed to seek and destroy dynamic thinking, and uploaded with 666 terabytes of variations of all known bovine memes. It will simply tell you that you don't recognize it, and you'll obey.

Just waiting for a new law with the justification:

[riboch]

But think of the police.

Update your profile

[haploc]

Just remove "Undercover cop" from your profile and you're done.
Nice and easy peasy.

Fuck the police

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the rest of us, you know, real people?

Prohibition

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know exactly what percentage of undercover operations go to supporting the immoral, unjust, and self-serving disaster of prohibition, but I'm willing to bet it's over 50%. In that case, I hope their entire undercover business goes down. (And it certainly is a business -- from the perspective of the elite who built the temple of prohibition, the objective was always the multi billion-dollar budget, not solving "crime").

Sample Bias

[coldfarnorth]

The percentage of criminals who get caught who are "ragingly stupid" is likely higher than in the general criminal population. You just haven't heard about the smart ones. You know; the ones who would do diligent background checks, because they are careful and keep some idiots around to take the fall when things don't work out.

Wrestling Masks !

[DrYak]

I note that these days you can just get a library to do stuff like find elements of a face... it's only a matter of time before recognizing cops from biometrics is feasible.

Or, it's only a matter of time until wearing "Lucha Libre"-style masks on all social occasions, because everybody is just fed up of being publicly outed for anything silly they've done, lose jobs because of party-behaviours while on week-end etc.

That or "programmable tatoo" and/or plastic surgery becoming suddenly infinitely more affordable.

Re:Wrestling Masks !

[GameboyRMH]

Or, it's only a matter of time until wearing "Lucha Libre [wikipedia.org]"-style masks on all social occasions, because everybody is just fed up of being publicly outed for anything silly they've done, lose jobs because of party-behaviours while on week-end etc.

This was already pioneered by frat boy pig masks, that let your friends safely take videos of you fucking some slut in the middle of a room. Just that now you need them for...pretty much everything.

Re:Wrestling Masks !

[mikechant]

An optimistic view is that at some point (say 30-40 years time) nearly everyone will have dubious pics etc. on facebook, (or its rivals and successors) from some stage of their life (posted by 'friends' etc. if not themselves), so employers will have to accept that they can no longer screen people out by this method or find that they can recruit only from about 10% of the population...

Privacy no longer exists.

[kurt555gs]

Sorry coppers, you started this. We now live in a world where constitutional protections of privacy are nothing more than symbolic and viewed by school kids on field trips on an old parchment document of the past.

I don't feel sorry for the undercover cops one bit. In Chicago, where I live we have a saying, What goes around, comes around!

See ya on Facebook!

Re:Privacy no longer exists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that if a cop uses FB to catch a criminal, the criminal goes to jail. If you're a criminal who catches an undercover cop, that cop dies.

Re:Privacy no longer exists.

[kd5zex]

Booo hooo. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Re:Privacy no longer exists.

[Anonymous Coward]

They only say that in Chicago?

How's that shoe fitting?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...one of the biggest dangers in keeping undercover police officers safe, due to applications such as facial recognition and photo tagging."

Oh, the irony here. Funny how the shoe doesn't fit so well when it's on the other foot, now does it, officer?

Perhaps now you can feel what it's like first hand to have your liberties stripped from you with little regard for you or your privacy.

Don't be stupid.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Facebook has proven to be one of the biggest dangers in keeping undercover police officers safe, due to applications such as facial recognition and photo tagging

You want an undercover cop? Change his face. We /do/ have that technology, you know.

So let's get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Image recognition is good if the cops are doing it and bad if anyone else does it.

Would this be right?

Do you hear that?

[KnownIssues]

It's the sound of the world's smallest violin.

Nothing to hide

[Akita24]

If they're innocent they should have nothing to hide.

Re:Nothing to hide

[c6gunner]

If they're innocent they should have nothing to hide.

The whole point is that they're not innocent, idiot.

Its UBIK now. GL with that.

[DarthVain]

Better just say, don't have friends. Also don't have family either.

I don't think most cops are allowed to have a facebook account, let alone a undercover cop. I'm pretty sure police agencies have a few policies about that.

I know a buddy of mine went to RCMP college and he had to get rid of his account.

Re:Its UBIK now. GL with that.

[DarthVain]

weirdly enough I just noticed the linguistic root connection of police, policies... and just now likely polis. That's odd of me.

Re:Its UBIK now. GL with that.

[canajin56]

Yes, if you trust Commander Vimes, policeman means "man of the city," though of course the actual derivation from "polis" is much less direct ;) Polis as a root came to form the Greek word for "citizen" which came to give rise to the word for "civil" (much how in English civil and citizen come from "city") and so we occasionally have words for things involving civil government that come from "polis" instead of "city".

Re:Its UBIK now. GL with that.

[geekoid]

You know, If I had the money I would send a copy of all the discworld books that involve Vimes to all the chiefs of police and mayors.

Re:Its UBIK now. GL with that.

[OzoneLad]

I don't know about that. Do you really want them to start modeling all of their officers after Detritus, Nobby and Fred Colon?

Technology Giveth and Taketh

[carrier lost]

Will undercover policing be necessary when the government tracks your every move and monitors all communications?

You never heard of Donnie brasco?

[Anonymous Coward]

7 years into a known criminal gang? what the fuck kind of policing is this, assist & switch? they would have to know that it's a criminal gang to have ethical reasoning for infiltrating - and in that case they certainly wouldn't have good reasons to let it keep going on for seven friggin' years.

Have you never seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnie_Brasco about the FBI agent who spent six years infiltrating a mob family? It takes time for criminal gangs to trust you enough for you to get evidence on the bosses.

Not New To Facebook

[assertation]

Undercover agents have harassed vegans and animal rights activists in several countries for years. These people are usually exposed via email lists. There are some good ones who go undetected, but it is amazing how clueless some of them are about blending in.

In regards to the article I'm surprised how clueless/irresponsible a professional undercover agent would be in having a Facebook page in the first place. It seems like a nobrainer that would be one of the things you would give up for the job.

Re:Not New To Facebook

[geekoid]

except the people you are infiltrating will expect you to have one, and even if you create a fake one, with a fake history, facial recognition and links among the varies group you infiltrate will realize you are law enforcement.

Hey, look at that: the world is more complex then you thought.

Re:Not New To Facebook

[assertation]

Hey, look at that: the world is more complex then you thought.

Gratuitous insults are a fast way of telling strangers that you aren't a happy person.

except the people you are infiltrating will expect you to have one,

Mafiosos? Terrorists? Career Criminals? Really?

I guess this means ...

[PPH]

... the cops (plainclothes and otherwise) and border patrol will quit commandeering our local public pistol range for their training exercises. The one with all the security web cams that the locals watch and laugh over how crappy shots the cops are. [Hint: Holding your pistol sideways may earn you some cred. with the local gang bangers. But its shit for accuracy.]

We need Scramble Suits

[Provocateur]

Somebody better give these guys the scramble suits they need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fac6aHFa_k

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405296/faq#.2.1.12

That's a two way street

[geekoid]

crimes will get harder to do.

Nothing new under the sun...

[ei4anb]

Kevin Mitnick was able to get mugshots of police that were investigating him by buying a police yearbook claiming it was a present for a relative who was a police officer.

"At one point, he went to a police station and found a Los Angeles Police Department yearbook for sale. It included photographs and names of the very undercover squads seeking him. He said he wanted to buy a copy as a gift for his police officer uncle. With no questions asked, for $75 he walked away with a photo guide to his pursuers."

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/hacking-the-system-because-he-could/question-2086111/

Time to break out...

[J'raxis]

...a whole orchestra of the world's smallest violins.

Looks like...

[element-o.p.]

...the sword cuts both ways.

Re:Looks like...

[J'raxis]

An earlier comment put it perfectly: "If they're not doing anything wrong, what have they got to hide?"

TRANSPARENCY

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

They want it on everything you do and say?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I say....

[kd5zex]

eff 'em.

That was inevitable

[Animats]

They'll have to go back to informants.

The CIA has few undercover "spies", in the classic sense. Rarely does an intelligence agency have someone on the inside of an enemy. Usually, they have their people ("case workers") on the outside, who recruit people ("assets") on the inside.

During the Cold War, the KGB and CIA station chiefs in many cities knew who their counterpart was.

Yet the New York City Mafia families were broken partly because the FBI and the NYPD were able to get their people into positions of trust within the Mafia.

I had to laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine:

In this picture: Joey 'The Hammer', 'Cheeky' Fellucci, Officer Ryan Alfred Wysmith Jr., and Tony Ducks.

Drug War

[Sir_Eptishous]

I would imagine that in the US the main use for undercover agents is to battle narcotics and/or gangs that get most of their illicit profits from drugs. If anything, social media "outing" undercover police will be another nail in the coffin of the failed Drug War policies of the US.

Incompetent

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless having a Facebook profile is part of the "string", I'd say anybody who is in a profession that requires anonymity and has a Facebook profile is really bad at their job.

Undercover Cops will be an anachronism...

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no need, for undercover police, in the future...everything they police will need to know, will be readily available through the social networks, and the pre-crime detection alogs will sort out the evil doers, before they can do much real harm, in most cases.

Epiphany time

[zonex]

The Police are just realizing that the sword has two edges, to use a figure of speech.

Seems Fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong doers will have a much harder time getting away with crimes as technology makes it faster and easier to catch them so it seems logical that cops also would have trouble keeping anything secret. The balance exists when all parties are free to compile information equally. I am reminded of the postal employee hiding in a homeowners hedge and urinating. Obviously the poor guy needed a toilet and on a foot beat none existed. But if we can catch burglars and arsonists doing their crimes we will also tend to catch postal workers relieving themselves in our shrubbery and wives and husbands doing things they would rather keep secret as well.

A Scanner Darkly

[whatajoke]

"Now, you will notice," the Lions Club host said, "that you can barely see this individual, who is seated directly to my right, because he is wearing what is called a scramble suit, which is the exact same suit he wears--and in fact must wear--during certain parts, in fact most, of his daily activities of law enforcement. Later he will explain why."
The audience, which mirrored the qualities of the host in every possible way, regarded the individual in his scramble suit.
"This man," the host declared, "whom we will call Fred, because this is the code name under which he reports the information he gathers, once within the scramble suit, cannot be identified by voice, or by even technological voiceprint, or by appearance. He looks, does he not, like a vague blur and nothing more? Am I right?" He let loose a great smile. His audience, appreciating that this was indeed funny, did a little smiling on their own.

cops

[Anonymous Coward]

I live long enough for the day 1 or 100 is killed by this.
No mercy for gestapo that has imprisoned more than anyone ever.

No more anonymous

[WeeBit]

Even if you don't tag your photos your mug is still on the net thanks to mom, grandma, your first cousin, best friend, or significant other. Google+ is not even as secure as it claims to be. You can set up a secure user on Google+ and chances are within one or two years or less someone will figure out how to break it. Probably several working on that break now because they want to be the first. Another half dozen want the good stuff you posted, and a few pictures of you in that less than desirable pose that someone took of you. I hope you smiled in that photo instead of hanging over the toilet.

Not really...

[denzacar]

As long as you have ONE stupid friend, coworker, relative, acquaintance, neighbor or anyone else who is willing to tag you the same on your "before" and "after" photos/videos.

Basically... only way to be sure is to cut their ties with everyone they know, kill-off their old identity and appearance, and have all undercover police officers wearing scramble suits.
Or padded ninja suits, dark sunglasses and voice modulators.
Until someone develops an actual scramble suit.

Re:Not really...

[somersault]

I would have thought if they were "undercover" that they'd have to cut all ties off anyway. Letting people know you'd changed your face would kind of spoil the whole purpose of being undercover. If it's only for short term undercover stuff, you might as well use make-up.

On the other hand

[_0xd0ad]

There are exceptions to every rule of course. But in general

...it's not always the greatest idea to build those exceptions into the rule on purpose.

Re:On the other hand

[Luckyo]

You either have some very damning inside information, or are extremely clueless and enjoy spreading FUD.

Re:On the other hand

[_0xd0ad]

You either are very stupid or very naive. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume naive.

Actually... no. You're right. No stalker will ever manage to take advantage of the backdoor that we intentionally design into a system for the sole use of law enforcement.

Assuming you're only naive and not stupid, you should probably figure out that was sarcasm.

No way, tech that helps the police can hurt them?

[Nyder]

Wow, who would of thought that technology that has been helping the police can be used against them?

I'm sorry, who is surprised here? Because I'm sure as fuck not.