Slashdot Mirror
DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook
An anonymous reader sends news that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency impersonated a young woman on Facebook to communicate with suspected criminals, and the Department of Justice argued that they had the right to do so. The woman was charged with being part of a drug ring and sentenced to probation, after which a DEA agent set up a Facebook page in her name, uploaded images to it (including pictures of her son and niece), and used it without her consent. She recently sued the agent in federal district court, and the government argued that she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]." Facebook has now removed the account, and the DoJ is "reviewing" the case.
why not just take out a po box, credit card and bank account in her name, Wow.
Sounds like she has a solid case for copyright infringment.
I am fairly certain I would be in jail if I committed the same crime.
The US government constantly abuses the law by ignoring it until a test case comes up and a judge says a particular method is illegal. The real harm is the creeping loss of rights as abuses become normalized by the time they make it to trial leading to more lenient judgements over time as judges try to match interpretation to "society's standards".
I urge you to write your congress-critter today and tell him or her that the constitution is too important to ignore in the name of safety and that "hard on crime" is an insult to your intelligence.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
LOL! What a farce this shithole called USA has become.
So this is exactly why Apple would encrypt their entire phone and did not leave a way for them to decrypt their own devices... so that they can avoid situations like this...
Just because a dude works for the DOJ... that doesn't give him the right to invade and abuse the person's privacy... regardless if he/she is a criminal or not... Just because he was authorized to view the contents of her phone, it doesn't mean he can freely use it out in the open any way he wants....
And it makes me laugh so hard that now the DOJ is saying they have the right to do it... that's just plain ignorant...
This makes me wonder if they impersonated terrorists....
Seems like a clear case of violation of FaceBooks TOS
FB should just delete their accounts
What happens if the fake account pisses off some criminal (specifically targeted by the FBI) who then kidnaps/kills her son or niece (who are featured on that fake page)?
Someone needs to be fired over this.
Are they insane? Wasn't there a run on creating laws in many states just to stop high school students from making fake facebook pages to harass? This act not only could result in job loss, public humiliation, harassment & other life changing events but in threats and even death if an angry drug dealer/user came after her. This officer even misused private information collected for the limited purposes of serving as evidence in a trial. This officer and anyone associated with this heinous act should be charged with identity theft, property theft, libel, unauthorized access to a computer system (remember violating a TOS is now considered to be a crime) and fraud.
Stuff like this is exactly why strong cryptographic solutions should be woven into the fabric of the internet ASAP (e.g. content signing in this case). Agencies globally have become extremely abusive - spying, manipulating, defrauding,denying - and work against the basic infrastructure elements that would prevent this at every turn. They really bring it on themselves with crap like this.
although i know i cannot totally erase my FB account, i have done what i know how to do. fini.
To hell with copyright infringement and her unauthorized use... what about facebook's rights?
The agent in question almost certainly engaged in unauthorized access to facebook servers, in excess of his granted, authenticated authority, while impersonating another user -- on a protected, commerce impacting system (there's ads on those servers). Including hosts with financial impacts crossing state boundaries. Whereas
That is to say -- the agent knowingly broke 8 U.S.C. 1030.
The process of getting the report, following up, revoking access, and reputational harm alone easily exceeds $5,000. C'mon facebook... bring charges to bear. The least you can do is demand that if the DEA impersonates a user, they do it through YOUR authorized processes, or get a damned court order for it.
US v Morris alone is enough to get this happening on "federal interest" computers. Given facebook's a CIA front... well...enough said.
They failed on all counts. Think of the precedent it sets if you don't go after them... you've failed to protect your ad revenue.
I thought that law enforcement had always been allowed to do this in sting operations and the like. The police are under no obligation to tell the truth when confronting a potential suspect. Yes, their wording to her may have been deceptive, but, frankly, I don't have much faith in someone saying, "Yes I gave them consent to use my photos, but not like this!" It sounds a good deal like buyer's remorse.
If the officer in question were reasonable, he would have used images that are in public record of her, so I can see the outrage to that portion as reasonable, but, frankly, I don't see how this is terribly surprising and front page news.
PS...since when is BuzzFeed considered to be even remotely a reputable news source?
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
The key here is that if someone is involved in a criminal enterprise, Facebook is just a BAD IDEA. There's no shortage of examples of this, so wise up and keep your communications out of the public forum.
Except the person was still alive, and not a fictional character. Of course, the stupid and illegal actions of the police might have gotten her killed without any warning to her of any possible threat, so there's that too.
She should also be suing them on behalf of her child for endangerment. In drug transactions family members can be targets of violence. The DOJ was putting a minor in harms way.
That would go really well for the DOJ in court. I would love to be in the courtroom and watch some lawyer from the DOJ defend a practice that puts a child at risk. I'm sure that the jury would hear that testimony and decide there and then that the DOJ should loose the case very painfully.
Also, aren't their laws pertaining to the use of images of minors without parental consent? Even if the image was obtained legally (not likely in this case). Sounds like a potential criminal case to me. Of course, considering it's the DOJ, they could have used the image in a pedophilia sting and nothing would happen.
Why is Snark Required?
Of course, the stupid and illegal actions of the police might have gotten her killed without any warning to her of any possible threat, so there's that too.
Of course, simply bringing her in for questioning and then letting her go could have gotten her killed without any warning, too. She got involved with drug dealers, and any one of them could have decided she was let go (or in this case, given just probation) for ratting him out. If they are going to kill her for being a snitch on Facebook, then why would they hesitate to kill her for being a snitch while sitting in the interrogation room?
I don't facebook, and recommend that everyone that does, stop. That being said, since it's a thing that so many people do, I recommend that everyone at least open a facebook account (in your real name), set the password to some really long string that you will not remember, and then close the account. This will stop a lot of ridiculous stuff from happening in your name.
This article makes me scratch my head, for all sorts of reasons.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Oh, yes, what about the children?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Louisiana: http://www.criminaldefenselawy... Unfortunately in New York http://www.criminaldefenselawy... the intent must be criminal.
Never ever let cops unlock your phone.
Or leave it.
Ever.
Meanwhile, in real states with privacy in their State Constitution, like Washington State, stuff like this is still illegal.
Oh, and so is MJ. The "Drug War" is just an excuse to provide cheap non-white labor for the prison industries, started by the South. Just like "confiscation" of your money.
At the very least, set the password on your phone to lock it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When FBI sets up a fake terrorist cell, they don't pretend to be an actual living person without their consent. An exception may be someone already incarcerated, which the woman in TFA is not.
This is a new low...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
"Consented". they keep using that word.
I do not think it means what they want you to think it means. Ever.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The war on drugs has gone too far. for the past 35 years the word "drugs" has been code word for "surrender all liberties, and make exceptions to all rules".
There is nothing so bad to the worst of any drugs that is worth giving up this much freedom for.
When the DEA seizes a cell phone from a drug dealer, are they allowed to call numbers stored in the cell phone, posing as the dealer in question?
If not, then what they did with this Facebook page is also illegal.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The DOJ keeps telling us that identity theft is a crime.
What the Dicks of Justice are doing, this is yet another reason not to be on Facebook.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Breaks.
Brakes are what stops your car.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You can impersonate an officer, just don't get caught.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
.....but shouldn't that be a form of entrapment? I guess the gov't can make whatever rules they want 'til enough United Statesians try a revolution.
"Consent to access" and even merely "display" the pictures, I could see. But to employ them, not so much, they don't have ownership. Isn't this the same country that champions imaginary property? They can view her "privately" written book she uploaded, they can even distribute the contents, but they can't fucking sell the book.
As for false identity and shit, I'm unimpressed that viewers (suspects) actually believed that a facebook account is a reliable anything. I swear, you go around as XxObama999xX and half these facetweets on their phones will buy it. I'm sure facebook's ToS prohibits this shit and there might be something about fraud or falsification, but unlike my first paragraph I have no doubt the powers that be are safely above the pedestrian fences, they'll probably even have "extracircumstantial accommodations" prepared in advance. Or loopholes. Whatever.
She actually agreed to help them, setup the page and got the information. They found the people involved to be potentially dangerous to her so they're covering it up by looking like they did it without her permission publicly so no one goes after her..
By definition, you can only prosecute innocent people, not criminals, as they are not guilty until the judgement says so.
So he must therefore have zero latitude in prosecuting innocents.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Don't ever consent to anything if you are the target of a criminal investigation or anything (like a traffic stop) that might turn into a criminal investigation. What you think they're going to do with your consent and what they intend to do may be two different things. You may be surprised at what the courts *allow* them to do with information you've given them permission to access it.
Be scrupulously cooperative with anything the cop is allowed to demand that you do. Don't argue, lecture or harangue, do everything you can to make an encounter with the police, smooth, courteous and above all, brief. But politely and firmly draw the line if they ask you for information about yourself other than your identity (which in some jurisdictions you are required to provide). Do not resist, because that can get you tased. Cooperate, but make it clear you don't consent, then sort things out later with your lawyer.
Be on your guard especially with a polite cop. Many of them are polite because they were brought up that way, but the smart ones know that courtesy is a powerful way to gain cooperation. They get you into a rhythm by politely asking for a series of reasonable things, then slipping in a request for something they can't compel, like you opening your trunk, granting them access to your cell phone, or letting them search your house.
It would be great if all cops abided by Peelian principles, but the "War on Drugs" has undermined the relationship between the police and the public. Fully ONE PERCENT of all Americans are behind bars, most of them on drug charges. If you, any of your family, or any of your friends have so much as smoked a joint, you can't afford to give the police any personal information at all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
To begin with: I worry what "implicitly" means. Do they mean "she had it on her person when arrested"?
That said. If I "implcitly consent" to you searching my pocket, and my house-keys are in it, did I just consent to a home search and the use of my house? I think not.