Facebook Has 25 People Dedicated To Handling Gov't Info Requests

nonprofiteer writes "A profile of Facebook's CSO reveals that his 70-person security team includes 25 people dedicated solely to handling information requests from law enforcement. They get thousands of calls and e-mails from authorities each week, though Facebook requires police to get a warrant for anything beyond a subscriber's name, email and IP address. CSO Joe Sullivan says that some government agency tried to push Facebook to start collecting more information about their users for the benefit of authorities: 'Recently a government agency wanted us to start logging information we don't log. We told them we wouldn't start logging that piece of data because we don't need it to provide a good product. We talked to our general counsel. The law is not black-and-white. That agency thinks they can compel us to. We told them to go to court. They haven't done that yet.'"

Comments

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

anything beyond a subscriber's name, email and IP address

You've already saved them quite a bit of work there.

Re:Wait, what?

[John3]

Exactly right. If they were really interested in protecting the privacy of their users they would require a warrant before providing even that information.

Of course this is Facebook we're talking about, so privacy usually has a different meaning to them.

Re:Wait, what?

[gnick]

No, but it would be nice if FB told ME that a request was being made for my information.

Hell, let's go crazy here and say FB ASKED me if they could release my information to the requester w/o a warrant.

Re:Wait, what?

[gnick]

At the same time, there *are* in fact real pedophiles, scammers, and other criminals that use Facebook, in which case it's probably not really productive (or even legal) to notify a suspect they are investigating.

That's why the gods gave us warrants. But if it's just some guys with a badge, forget it.

Re:Wait, what?

[ColdWetDog]

Facebook can't share anything you don't put on there.

Not exactly true. You show up at a function, someone takes a picture and posts it to Facebook. Now you have a presence there. If someone else posts another picture of you on FB and identifies you, then Facebook's recognition system might tag you in the first picture.

Depending on the function and the timing, it might cause some issues.

Re:Wait, what?

[jc42]

They already sell your info to advertisers. Maybe if the police offered them a few bucks...

Actually, that's not just funny; it's also probably true. The problem is that the cops have a budget, and they want to get the information for free. But, as a couple of lawyer acquaintances have pointed out, the US Constitution has a very clear ban on "involuntary servitude", which they say they've helped clients use to explain to government agents why they won't work for the government for free.

OTOH, if the government agencies want to hire the company to collect and hand over the information, and is willing to pay what it costs the company to do this (+ 10% is the actual traditional price), they'll probably be happy to comply.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the US's government (at all levels) has developed the idea that they can just walk through a door and order people to work for them without paying for the labor. We should perhaps be disabusing them of this idea, by pointing out that the Supreme Court hasn't yet overturned the 13th Amendment.

Window Dressing

[geekmux]

I have a feeling this entire article is nothing more than window dressing to make Facebook users (or the general public) somehow feel better that ANY logging requested by law enforcement isn't automatically done. Laws and rights pretty much went out the window with the advent of things like PATRIOT act.

Re:Yep.

[lightknight]

The open assumption is that the data put on Facebook is entirely valid. Since it cannot be held to be valid, it becomes NP-Hard to sort through all the data for the bits which are true and the bits which are false.

It's entirely possible to setup an identity for someone who doesn't exist (trolls + marketers do this all the time); that's one strike against the data. It's also possible to have a user simply lie, such as saying they were at a party or visiting a cousin when they weren't. Job applicants could maintain an entire account simply for the purposes of appearing social while maintaining a carefully controlled, carefully tailored public image. Finally, other people may post things, or even borrow someone's account, and change the user's profile to something unsavory, as a prank.

Anyone who puts stock in this data as some sort of glimpse into another's thinking should not be allowed to make any kind of lasting decision.

Of course, this is not to say that a portion of that data may not be true, only that it is impossible to know what quantity of it.

Which agency and what information?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Recently a government agency wanted us to start logging information we don't log."

Really? Is that so? Which agency and what information...that would be interesting to know.

And how many does say a ISP like comcast have

[Joe_Dragon]

And how many does say a ISP like comcast have doing that same thing?

Re:Yep.

[El_Muerte_TDS]

It becomes NP-very-hard to prove that you were joking on Facebook, or that you don't really know JohnBlowingThingsUp83 but just befriended him to increase you e-friend-peen.

Government intrusion

[Kohath]

This government intrusion into our Facebook profiles is intolerable. Why can't the government stick to overruling our health care and dietary choices and determining how much of our income we should be allowed to keep?

Oblig. link

[slasho81]

CIA's 'Facebook' Program Dramatically Cut Agency's Costs