Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
You've already saved them quite a bit of work there.
So Facebook provides all the necessary info for Law Enforcement, but doesn't engage in detailed logging, probably because it is too expensive and as the gentleman said, it doesn't yet fit in with FB's business model. Still, they provide peoples' names, emails, and IP addresses for Law Enforcement, so really they cooperate with the fuzz as much as is needed. Nice damage control, making themselves out to be standing up to Big Brother. Then again, IDNRTFA, and with the way sunmaries have been lately, this could be an article about My Little Pony, for all I know...
- elgo
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.
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.
I am John Hurt.
"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 doing that same thing?
What could possibly be so privacy-invading, not-worth-the-disk-space-to-log-it crazy that Facebook doesn't already log it? These people make tons of money selling every minute bit of data and metrics about their suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Husers that they can possibly hoover up. What could it be that even *they* wouldn't want to log?
Just goes to show, there is no boundary that some government agency won't want to cross to invade your privacy.
It seems that you have to piss off the right people, as Megaupload has demonstrated.
How about Facebook's Actual Law Enforcement Contact page with guidelines. It seems facebook does waive these requirements sometimes, such as when "responding to a matter involving imminent harm to a child or risk of death or serious physical injury to any person and requiring disclosure of information without delay."
What was written (p.2) was,
The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.
What was meant (I think) was,
The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders, and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.
The first time through I had to do a re-parse, as I ended with an image of workers carrying a ladder under one arm and a bulldozer under the other.
And how many does say a ISP like comcast have doing that same thing?
For those who had an incredibly hard time parsing that sentence, what with it missing key pronouns and punctuation, here's a translated version:
And how many [staff members] does, say, a[n] ISP like [C]omcast have [responding to law enforcement requests]?
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
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.
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?
CIA's 'Facebook' Program Dramatically Cut Agency's Costs
Why should FB have to pay 25 people a year to do the government's dirty work? Companies should be able to submit a research bill to the government for these kinds of requests. There's no better check on power than a budget.
Ballparking the amount of calls/requests they get, I would say 25 people is more or less the bare minimum needed just to say "not without a warrent" to 99% of requests. Especially if you consider that some of the time, a few of them might actually be busy getting the information for the ones that do.
Paragraph (c)(2) at the following link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703
"(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the—
(A) name;
(B) address;
(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1)."
Paragraph (1) provides for broader disclosure under certain circumstances (but still requires a real warrant for disclosure of contents of communications). This is the same statute that lets the cops get access to your phone records without a warrant. An "administrative subpoena", does not require judicial review. Processes vary, but basically it amounts to getting a superior to sign off that you have a legitimate law enforcement reason to get the info (helps keep people from searching their spouses phone records, but does nothing to keep the cops from looking in anyone's records if they are in any way suspected of a crime).
Except him and the Senior Execs of course. And all Corporate Execs. And all Cops. And all Politicians.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
A recently divorced friend of mine has that kind of issue (needing to weed out problems), as some of his friends are still reporting things back to his ex.
I have to fault you for incorrect use of the word "friend."
The police can illicit a confession with or without evidence ... ; it's amazing how many false confessions a good interrogator can acquire, if given the chance.
... and for misuse of the word "good."
FB got 12.7 mil in second round funding through accel partners, headed by the guy who had previously headed the CIA's venture fund. Now that doesn't mean it's an outright CIA operation but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a room 641A style fiber beam splitter somewhere in the FB server farms.
Below are the definitions (after the reference). Note that because this is federal, there is a qualification that it "affects interstate or foreign commerce". However, the courts have generally interpreted that phrase so broadly that it's inclusion here is effectively meaningless. Facebook definitely falls under the definition.
Also, note that the exclusions -- "wire and oral communication", "tone-only paging device", etc. -- are only excluded because they are handled in other legislation. Similar rules regarding what does/doesn't require a court-approved warrant exist under those separate laws.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2510
“electronic communication service” means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;
“electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;