Slashdot Mirror
Toronto Police Use Facebook Picture in Online Lineup
An anonymous reader writes "A 28-year-old woman was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from her profile pic on Facebook. Artist Lizz Aston was identified in a lineup after police used a picture from her Facebook profile. From the article: 'In an interview she said, "I told the officer I was at an art opening for a friend, then went home with my boyfriend because he injured his knee. We stayed in for the rest of the night and I did research on the computer for an art installation I was working on. The officer didn't care ... I don't think the police looked into it further." Aston said, the officer "read me my rights. I was searched, finger printed and processed."'"
You talked to the police officer.
Use Myspace! You could throw someone off a bridge and nobody would ever look there!
I am Jacks complete lack of Windows
You put your pics online
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I think you're missing the point.
The headline's trying to beat-up the Facebook connection, to tie into the anti-Facebook zeitgeist that pervades Slashdot. The actual story is that police didn't actually investigate thoroughly, and ignored all other evidence. That would have been a problem even if they'd used, say, a photo from a school yearbook, or from a publicity shot from her art exhibition.
In short, the summary's trying to turn the story into a "OH NOES! Facebook is the end of privacy!" when really it's a "OH NOES! Police are sloppy and lazy" story.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Mistaken eyewitness identification is one of the leading causes of false arrests and convictions. The average civilian is absolutely terrible with memorizing and correctly identifying the actual guilty suspect.
Even worse is that most police lineups and photo arrays (or photo lineups) are presented as a "multiple choice" test. Where the victim or accuser feels like they must choose someone rather than admit that they don't recognize anyone or are unsure. They'll just pick the closest person that they think fits the person that they saw earlier. And earlier might be hours, days, or even weeks or longer. Academic studies have shown that if you give the average person a lineup of random innocent people that most people will finger one of them for the crime.
And of course we have police that coach someone going into a lineup. "Here we have suspects one, two, three *cough* FOUR, and five. Please identify which suspect you think robbed the convenience store". "Uh....it was person number four".
And lastly, one of my best friends is a cop,and he says as a joke that they put cops into lineups all of the time. Then they bet if the civilian will identify the cop as the shooter or rapist or whatever. I know one department even had a jackpot where if you went into a lineup and got chosen as the criminal you got a free golf club.
You're missing the point of the article. She claims she wasn't in the bar that night.
No, that's the point of the summary. The article makes things less clear. In the article a victim identifies her using a photo. The accused shows the cops some text messages to suggest she was somewhere else. Given these unequal pieces of evidence, informing a person in such a situation that they are a suspect, reading them their rights and fingerprinting them seems a pretty normal thing for police to do. People get arrested and processed when they are mere suspects. The fact that the photo came from facebook isn't really relevant.
"Police are sloppy and lazy" is not a story, or news of any kind. I respect police officers in general because I know they have a shitty job where they see the worst of everyone, all the time-- but I also know when invesitgating a crime they will always look for the easiest explanation that requires the least amount of paperwork, and preferably does not require them to get out of a squad car.
Oh, and... don't ever talk to cops. They sent this person an email and she voluntarily went down to the station to "help" with the investigation? Silly rabbit. The only way you'll get me down to the station is if I'm served a warrant, or bailing a buddy out of jail.
In this case, they apparently showed the victim a bunch of pictures of people who had "friended" the bar, got an ID based on that
Please read the article more carefully. It says no such thing. What the article says is " 'I was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from my profile pic on Facebook,' she wrote on the very same Facebook page. 'Please let this be an eye opener.' " Nowhere does it say the police were the ones that used Facebook to identify her. It could well have been the victim that did so. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that she friended the bar, as you assert.
Further on, the article says "She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division 'asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011).' " Now this is just bizarre. Since when did the police e-mail suspects inviting them to come in and be arrested? And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation? I think there must be more to this story than we're seeing.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Yes, the actual story is that the police didn't do their jobs, but that's certainly not anything new and it's certainly not the only story.
Another underlying story here is that given a big enough sample size, it's highly probable to find someone who's going to be a doppelgänger of the person you're looking for. This goes for a search on looks, partial fingerprints, or even partial dna.
Historically, this hasn't been much of a problem, but as technology advances -- getting larger and larger samples sizes of data is becoming easier and easier even for the average police man, so this kind of problem is only going to grow and grow as time goes on.
visual identification is pretty strong evidence.
Go read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
Then come back and apologize for making shit up.
But since I know you wont here's a snippet. A quote from a Supreme Court Justice.
Justice Brennan also observed that "At least since United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), the Court has recognized the inherently suspect qualities of eyewitness identification evidence, and described the evidence as "notoriously unreliable"
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.