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.

24 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. disgusting by mpicpp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why not just take out a po box, credit card and bank account in her name, Wow.

    1. Re:disgusting by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't you just love couch terrorists?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:disgusting by Richy_T · · Score: 4, Funny

      Couch terrorist -> Futon fighter

  2. Copyright Infringment by nbritton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like she has a solid case for copyright infringment.

    1. Re:Copyright Infringment by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better yet: Identity Theft.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Copyright Infringment by nctritech · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. This is textbook identity theft. Law enforcement does not obtain any rights to use someone's cell phone photos or identity outside of the actual prosecutorial process just because that person is being or was successfully prosecuted. The fact that the DOJ argues this is totally okay reflects how absurdly fucked up the US government is.

    3. Re:Copyright Infringment by Yakasha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Better yet: Identity Theft.

      Better yet: two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.

      I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.

    4. Re: Copyright Infringment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      You fucking dumbass.

      The only difference between Obama and Bush is that the former is a better public speaker.

      To the dismay of comedians everywhere.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. mental gymnastics by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:mental gymnastics by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what's really happened is that we've allowed government to convince us that "hard on crime" is only valid when the crime is committed by someone with a disreputable history who isn't connected to the government.

      I think if the same "hard on crime" rules were applied to government employees, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

    2. Re:mental gymnastics by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, isn't amazing that when government agents do something illegal, the courts say "stop doing that". But when private citizens do something illegal, even if it took 200 rounds of appeal because even judges couldn't decide if it was illegal, the citizen is held fully culpable.

  4. Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    LOL! What a farce this shithole called USA has become.

    1. Re:Land of the Free by Mr.CRC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is something very wrong with the moral compass of a society that accepts the premise of luring people to commit crimes so they may be prosecuted while we cheer.

      People who are on the verge of misdeeds, and where this is known to authorities, should be given warnings to change course lest they commit an act that warrants their removal from society.

      Then it should be made a crime to entice people to cross the line.

  5. Yet again government agency abuses privacy by sentiblue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  6. And it could be worse. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:And it could be worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fired??? I would say jail time.

      Nathan

    2. Re:And it could be worse. by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Court mandated identity theft. Too cruel or too unusual?

    3. Re:And it could be worse. by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if not, the child has a right to privacy. As a minor, the decision of what pictures of the child may be posted online falls to the parent or guardian. The DOJ is neither.

  7. Insane by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Insane by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

      You think a fake Facebook account is bad, how about having a cop take over your ID and use it to become a stripper! In 2003, Ohio law enforcement agents "appropriated" a woman's drivers license and SSN, and assigned them to an undercover officer who went to work as a stripper for 3 months as part of a sting operation on strip clubs. And the victim in that case hadn't been arrested for (nor consented to) a damn thing.

      Pointing to a 2002 change in Ohio's law aimed at fighting identity theft, [the prosecutor] said police are allowed to assume anyone's identity as long as it's part of an investigation.

      Fucking outrageous. Law enforcement in the US is out of control and has been so for quite some time.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  8. Put cryptography everywhere by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. And her child? by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So the DOJ also involved her child by posting his picture? As part of a drug investigation?

    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?
  10. This is crime in many states by laughingskeptic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Louisiana: http://www.criminaldefenselawy... Unfortunately in New York http://www.criminaldefenselawy... the intent must be criminal.

  11. Re:No, not "the same" (Re:Land of the Free) by Mr.CRC · · Score: 3, Funny

    But by no means have we reached the global minimum!