Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

HughPickens.com writes: CNNMoney reports that Facebook has sent a letter to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration demanding that agents stop impersonating users on the social network. "The DEA's deceptive actions... threaten the integrity of our community," Facebook chief security officer Joe Sullivan wrote to DEA head Michele Leonhart. "Using Facebook to impersonate others abuses that trust and makes people feel less safe and secure when using our service." Facebook's letter comes on the heels of reports that the DEA 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. Facebook contends that their terms and Community Standards — which the DEA agent had to acknowledge and agree to when registering for a Facebook account — expressly prohibit the creation and use of fake accounts. "Isn't this the definition of identity theft?" says privacy researcher Runa Sandvik. The DEA has declined to comment and referred all questions to the Justice Department, which has not returned CNNMoney's calls.

Comments

First

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt impersonation a crime? Oh wait, I forgot the pigs are above the law.

Re:First

[The Ickle Jones]

Their job is fundamentally immoral to begin with.

Re:First

[ShaunC]

Don't DEA agents impersonate other people in real life?

No, they fabricate personas out of thin air ("Hi, I'm Donnie Brasco"), they don't go around assuming the identities of other actual people. Well, not until now.

Re:First

[The Ickle Jones]

Government thugs have no business deciding what recreational drugs people put into their own bodies. The federal government has no actual constitutional basis to do this (despite insane interpretations of the commerce clause), either. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' so freedom should take priority over safety (false or otherwise); bodily freedom, especially.

Re:First

[Antique Geekmeister]

They certainly have the right when "in loco parentis" to make medical and lifestyle choices for children or for those incarcerated. There's also a great deal of long established political and legal right to prevent fraud. So please, do not throw around absolutes so carelessly when discussing law and custom.

Re:First

[The Ickle Jones]

So please, do not throw around absolutes so carelessly when discussing law and custom.

Laws and customs are irrelevant, as I criticize those frequently. I think a lot of people miss the point; I'm not really referring to how things are, but how I think they should be.

So yes, the status quo is that government thugs infringe upon people's individual liberties. I'm aware.

Re:First

[cold fjord]

Their job is fundamentally immoral to begin with.

Drug dealers are fundamentally immoral.

But you think that preventing drug dealers from addicting people, selling tainted drugs, or drugs to adolescents is immoral?

You don't really seem to have a useful moral sense.

Re:First

[cold fjord]

Government thugs have no business deciding what recreational drugs people put into their own bodies.

If the government is going to have to pick up the pieces from your bad choices that leave you a drooling vegetable, insane, a criminal addict, or dead, the public is probably going to want something done about it since you seem to lack the capacity for sound decisions.

We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' so freedom should take priority over safety (false or otherwise); bodily freedom, especially.

America is the land of the free and home of the brave, but that isn't a synonym for land of the fool and home of the debouched. Your nonsense ideas about how things should be are mainly a collection of bad ideas contrary to the philosophical underpinnings of the country, ... threadbare as they appear at times.

Re:First

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Laws and customs are irrelevant, as I criticize those frequently

This is precisely what I referred to. If they were irrelevant, there'd be nothing for you to criticize.

If you want to draw legal or political conclusions based on your personal utopic ideal, please make that clear. Because in the real legal and political world, it doesn't work. There is _no_ human society where those in power do not set boundaries on the use of recreational chemicals.

Re:First

[The Ickle Jones]

This is precisely what I referred to. If they were irrelevant, there'd be nothing for you to criticize.

They are irrelevant in the sense that I'm not going to be persuaded by people telling me that the laws and customs relevant to the conversation do not currently conform to my views.

If you want to draw legal or political conclusions based on your personal utopic ideal

Even if we legalized all drugs, that still wouldn't be a utopia, since there would still be plenty of problems.

There is _no_ human society where those in power do not set boundaries on the use of recreational chemicals.

There is no human society where the government doesn't unjustly infringe upon people's liberties in at least one way. Therefore... something. Where are you going with this? "It hasn't happened yet, so it can't/shouldn't happen."? Are you attempting to appeal to popularity? What is it that you're doing? In case you haven't noticed, change is possible, and society can change for the better.

You don't seem to have an actual point of any value to me.

Re:First

[beastofburdon]

What someone does to themselves is none of the governments business, nor is it any of yours. If smoking weed or using cocaine were against the philosophical underpinnings of the country they would have been illegal from the beginning. They did not become illegal until the 20th century. In fact they were not illegal anywhere in the world until then. The only exception was whey China made opium illegal.

You are merely a self righteous bitch who loves to impose your baseless morality on others.

Government Dictionary

[SJHillman]

""Isn't this the definition of identity theft?""

Nope. It's identity eminent domain.

Re:Government Dictionary

[XxtraLarGe]

Nope. It's identity eminent domain.

Much in the same way regular theft by the government is called civil asset forfeiture...

Re:Government Dictionary

[TheRealMindChild]

I'm sick of folks saying "entrapment" when a criminal is nabbed by any sort of deception. That isn't what entrapment is. It is when you convince an entity to commit a crime they wouldn't normally commit, such as, telling a Nun if she didn't buy drugs from that guy over there on the street corner, her church probably will burn down due to an "unfortunate accident"

Re:Government Dictionary

[i kan reed]

And even that's not clear enough a definition to get past the people who keep throwing around the term. There has to be a false appearance of official sanction for the action. Either directly on the part of a cop, as in your example, or through the implication that there would be no prosecution of whatever crime they were entrapping you into.

If, to a regular citizen, there's no reason to believe that the person suggesting the crime has any official power whatsoever, it's not entrapment.

Re:Government Dictionary

[bill_mcgonigle]

Nope. It's identity eminent domain

haha, only they might actually argue along those lines (no shame). They're also appropriating Facebook's computer resources to make these profiles operate - it's no different than seizing property or money on a small scale, and the 5th Amendment has something to say about that (n.b. I'm playing the game that the Constitution is still in effect, rather than used to paper over "trouble").

Federated systems like Tonika can provide authentication of friends - Facebook makes authentication nearly impossible.

Re:Government Dictionary

[TheCarp]

Of course, perhaps the fact that so many people throw around the term entrapment is indicitive of a general feeling of unfairness at these actions and that they should be illegal actions for the police.

It reminds me of an incident a couple of years back where a man was found not guilty on a technicality after taking some upskirt shots with his phone. Everyone thought it was illegal, even the police and prosecutor, in the end, the law was flawed and the state legislature lept into action and had it fixed within a couple of days.

Thing is, this seems to be more a general public thought this was covered under the law, and feel its wrong but, nobody in power has any impetus at all to fix it or correct people's perceptions, not at all.

Re:Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I'm sick of folks saying "entrapment" when a criminal is nabbed by any sort of deception. That isn't what entrapment is.

Indeed. In our society, it is perfectly acceptable for law enforcement to engage in deception to do their job. Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by, or FBI agents convincing borderline-retards that they want to blow things up in an effort to get more terrorism arrests, it's all totally legal.

Personally, I find deceptive law enforcement undesirable, if not downright frightening, but the law is what the law is. If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.

Re:Government Dictionary

[buckfeta2014]

Easy to cure, when making new friends just ask: Are you a cop?

The police (or feds) don't have to answer that truthfully.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Imagix]

Of course, perhaps the fact that so many people throw around the term entrapment is indicitive of a general feeling of unfairness at these actions and that they should be illegal actions for the police.

Or, this is the griping of people who figured that they were going to "get away" with something and are now looking for any justification to escape the responsibility for their actions that they knew were wrong to begin with.

Re:Government Dictionary

[i kan reed]

Or, you know, its whiny legalism that doesn't understand the intent, meaning, or purpose of the law.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think that the majority of people who misapply the word "entrapment" were caught in the act of felonies, and are trying to get off? I didn't think Slashdot was such a rough neighborhood.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Golddess]

Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by

I'm not sure that counts as deceptive. Dangerous sure. There have been a few times where, if I would have needed to swerve to avoid something, I would not have known to not swerve left. But deceptive?

Re:Government Dictionary

[jythie]

Well, yes and no. The problem with entrapment is it hinges on if the person would have committed the crime if not for the agent's actions, which is an inherently subjective test.

Re:Government Dictionary

[jratcliffe]

In order for entrapment by estoppel to take place, then the entrapee needs to know that the person is a government agent, and be told that the conduct won't be prosecuted. As an example, if you're at a red light, and a traffic cop waves you forward through the intersection, and you proceed, only to be ticketed for running a red light, that's entrapment by estoppel (i.e. you were instructed by a law enforcement officer, who you knew to be one, to break the law, and then prosecuted anyway). That's a subset of entrapment, however.

Entrapment can still occur even if the "entrapee" doesn't know/believe that the person doing the entrapping is a government agent. Look at Jacobson v. US. The Supreme Court overturned a man's conviction for receiving child porn, as the evidence indicated that he wouldn't have ordered the material, had it not been for repeated efforts by undercover agents to get him to do so. The key element here is predisposition to commit the crime - if a person wouldn't have been inclined to do something, absent the agents' efforts, it constitutes entrapment. There's no requirement for an entrapment defense that the person know that the persons pressuring him are gov't agents. Quite the contrary.

Re:Government Dictionary

[DarkOx]

The trouble is the law isn't the law. Law enforcement is not supposed to break the law. Facebook has a terms of use agreement, your right to access their systems and post anything there exists entirely from your agreement to abide by the terms there. Facebook does not allow pseudonyms and other characterizations of ones identity.

Doing so constitutes violation of the CFAA, the court even held that in US v Drew ( a case about pseudonyms on myspace), although the verdict was vacated because the District court judge believed that while violating the terms of service on a web site could constitute unauthorized access, placing site operators in control of criminality would likely result in the law being over turned for being vague ( does not define the act, other than to say violation of a certain type of contract is a criminal offense ) rather than letting that be tested the government chose not appeal so they could keep their law on the books. Presumably so they can continue to threaten and harass anyone who does anything on line they don't like with it ( remember is really vague ).

Facebook does not belong to them, but they use it anyway in violation of the terms and their own law. If you or I setup dozens of fake Facebook acounts and use it to harass someone you can bet at the very least they would waive the CFAA in our faces to try and get us to plea to something else. Rules don't apply to them though!

If they set up their own site they would be perfectly within their rights to do this kind of pretexting; but then who is going to sign up and start posting on NARKBook?

Re:Government Dictionary

[The Ickle Jones]

He's a fan of guilt by association, I think.

Re:Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.

FTFY.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

That isn't what entrapment is. It is when you convince an entity to commit a crime they wouldn't normally commit, such as, telling a Nun if she didn't buy drugs from that guy over there on the street corner, her church probably will burn down due to an "unfortunate accident"

What you are describing is not entrapment, but coercion. I'm not claiming that a corrupt judicial branch has not required entrapment to include coercion for deciding when a law enforcement agent can be breaking the law, but this is a very new phenomenon (3-4 decades roughly). Not very long ago, police could not perform any illegal activities in order to get a prosecution and "entrapment" in legal proceedings used the dictionary definition. The "War on Drugs" started a trend towards our current dual justice system, where the "State" has a different form of justice than the citizens.

I provided the Websters and Oxford definition for "entrapment" in the thread, no need to be redundant. You can read them yourself.

Re:Government Dictionary

[gl4ss]

well... it's definitely inciting to crime(or other similar).

and well.. it just happens, it's illegal in most countries, doesn't matter if you're a cop or not.

"do you want to buy some pot? here's some pot. please buy some pot! please go to your friend who sells pot and buy it and sell it to me!" shit you know. it's illegal in most countries and they manage just fine.

now, perhaps the DEA is worried that the prison population in USA is in decline.. perhaps...

"oh but judge I had to rape her to keep up appearances to get her to knife me, I knew she was a potential murderer all the time and now she should go to prison for attempted manslaughter!"

I mean fuck, there's martial law dictatorships where the officials use less power.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Jodka]

Civil asset foreiture as well as eminent domain follow a legal process with appeals routes and so on.

Not true. The cops can pull you over and help themselves to you cash. There is no "legal process" involved whatsoever.

Re:Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

One of the main reasons we have law enforcement is for deterrence. One reason why people don't break laws is because of the perception that laws are enforced. One of the consequences of law enforcement having a visible presence is deterrence. People are less likely to break laws when they feel they are more likely to suffer consequences for doing so. If a goal of traffic cops was to, for example, prevent people from exceeding posted speed limits, a highly visible presence would accomplish this goal. However, if a goal of traffics is instead to generate revenue, then a highly visible presence would compromise this goal. The actual tactics used by traffic cops would suggest that they value citation revenue over road safety, as they prefer to try to catch people breaking the law rather than prevent them from breaking the law to begin with. While this itself is not deceptive, claims that traffic cops have promotion of road safety as a goal are.

Re:Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Things will change to address this issue.

Either law enforcement will get an exemption from the CFAA or as a society we'll decide that we don't feel comfortable with increasing levels of government power with decreasing levels of oversight.

Unfortunately, I think it will be the former.

Re:Government Dictionary

[SJHillman]

Many words have a separate legal definition. For example, insanity means something completely different in legal, medical and colloquial contexts. When talking about a legal matter, assume the legal definition is what is meant. And you won't find a legal definition in the Webster or Oxford dictionaries unless it's a word with no alternative meanings.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions. Using the definition of Justice and it's purpose in a Republic as defined by Socrates there is supposed to be no separation. Where we have separate judicial rules and definitions depending on whether it's the State or Citizen is in other forms of Government (Oligarchy, Monarchy, Tyranny, Despotism, etc...).

Where it seems like we differ is what appears to be an attempt to normalize the separation. I don't accept it as normal, dictionaries and definitions exist for a reason.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Obfuscant]

As an example, if you're at a red light, and a traffic cop waves you forward through the intersection, and you proceed, only to be ticketed for running a red light, that's entrapment by estoppel (i.e. you were instructed by a law enforcement officer, who you knew to be one, to break the law, and then prosecuted anyway).

Bad example. The traffic laws I am familiar with all put the instructions of a uniformed police officer above an automated traffic signal. It is assumed the officer is acting in an official capacity to correct a malfunctioning signal, or to manage traffic that the signal is not dealing with.

That means it is actually against the law to ignore the police officer in this situation, and not a violation of law to ignore the signal. A better example would be if the meter maid tells you that it is ok to park in that handicapped space (without a handicapped permit) for just a few minutes so you can run in to buy a six-pack. Another meter maid comes along and tickets you ... because the first one didn't have the authority to override the parking laws.

Re:Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You don't give a shit that you deliberately misrepresented what I said?

Also, it's unclear how I'm an apologist, as I don't believe I ever offered any support to the idea that the government ought to engage in deception to enforce laws. Recognizing the facts of reality is not the same as supporting them.

Indeed, I do think the US Constitution is meaningless. Because it is. It explicitly says one thing, and yet the SCOTUS reads something else entirely. We've long since moved away from the US Constitution meaning anything. Regardless of how you feel about "gun control", we should all be capable of recognizing that instead of repealing the second amendment, we've instead decided to pretend that it doesn't exist, as our rights to bear arms have literally been infringed. This is but one example in a nearly endless list of instances where the US Constitution is indeed meaningless.

I suppose you'll take my observation of reality and somehow infer from it that I hate the US Constitution. You're still incapable of rational thought. Please respond with more personal attacks while implicitly acknowledging the validity of my argument.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

It's entrapment because of how people act in those situations.

Suppose one of your family members (We will call "Bob") was minding his own business with no intention of performing any crime at all. Then a police officer pretends to be a gang member because he thinks Bob is a criminal. So the police officer says "hey, help me steal this stuff over here". The police officer didin't actually threaten Bob in any way, but Bob felt he would be in real danger if he refused. Or maybe Bob has some children near by and he feels in order to protect them, he needs to destract the gangster, or make the gangster like him so Bobs children will be safe.

However subtle it was, Bob did something he would normally not do, but because police tried to get him to do it he had to make a decision based on the current situation. Now, if Bob had entered a neighborhood known for such criminal activity, or Bob would have suggested it, then one could argue that Bob no longer had plausible deniability.

There are thousands of situations like this, and that is why it's called Entrapment by the general public. In order to know for sure if that is what happens on Facebook, we would have to see the details of what DEA or others are doing.

But we don't want to live in a police state where we get threatened or harassed by police just because they want to. There is a reason we have 3 branches of government, and it's run by civilians.

Re:Government Dictionary

[jratcliffe]

You're right, that's definitely a better example.

Re:Government Dictionary

[almitydave]

Civil asset foreiture as well as eminent domain follow a legal process with appeals routes and so on.

Not true. The cops can pull you over and help themselves to you cash. There is no "legal process" involved whatsoever.

Sure there is! What the cops do is legal, and here's the process:
1) Stop motorist.
2) Take motorist's cash.
3) Profit!

Although I think the "legal process" the GP was referring to was the basic justification for forfeiture spelled out in law, and the appeals process you can go through after the seizure to reclaim your property. Now, the law is certainly abused, but there's something the cops can point to and claim "we're doing that." Not so with impersonating someone else on Facebook.

I wonder, could you charge the agent under the CFAA? Clearly, he's exceeding the level of access to a computer system to which he's authorized.

Re: Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

What gun control? The U.S. is the most armed country in the world.

The second amendment has nothing to do with how armed the US is compared against the rest of the world. It states that the right to bear arms (such as, for example, nuclear warheads) shall not be infringed. Since private ownership of nuclear warheads is prohibited, the right to bear arms is being infringed. Instead of repealing the amendment that guarantees people the right to bear nuclear warheads, our government has chosen a more expedient approach: to simply ignore the law as it is written and instead choose to interpret it to mean the opposite of what it states.

Your rhetoric is disconnected from reality.

I'm not sure how you went from "shall not be infringed" to "shall be the most armed country in the world", but consider that I might not be the one whose rhetoric is disconnected from reality.

Re:Government Dictionary

[jthill]

Erm, no.

Theft, when conducted in person while carrying a firearm, is felony armed robbery. In every state in the union.

It's hard to imagine being a police officer ordered to do this. Their choice is between facing homelessness and turning vicious, amoral thug.

Re:Government Dictionary

[amRadioHed]

Or maybe the goal is to prevent people from exceeding the posted speed limit all the time, instead of just when a patrol car is visible up ahead.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Gr8Apes]

Sounds more like highway robbery.

Re:Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Are you saying a hidden patrol car is a better deterrent than a visible patrol car?

Some people, myself included, regularly exceed posted speed limits. I'll speak for myself: I do this fully aware that sometimes, I'll be caught off guard and ticketed. I go to great lengths to minimize the chances of this, but I admit that it's still going to happen from time to time. Now, when I'm driving down the road, exceeding the speed limit (as I regularly do), a visible patrol car will cause me to decrease my speed to remain within the posted speed limit. A hidden patrol car will not. The only way hidden patrol cars would cause me to moderate my speed is if they were truly ubiquitous. However, visible patrol cars would also accomplish this if they were ubiquitous, and even if they weren't. Consequently, when it comes to my own personal driving, I can conceive of no situation in which a hidden patrol car is more effective than a visible patrol car at causing me to slow down.

Open to hearing the other side of the argument.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking prescriptivist.

Re:Government Dictionary

[TheCarp]

Ok man, I am handing it over, but if I had one more swamp to tap you would be in a world of hurt.

Re:Government Dictionary

[ihtoit]

entrapment can only be proven when there is no intent on the perps part to commit the crime in the absence of the honeypot. If the perp could have committed the crime and had actually shown intent to do so in the absence of the honeypot, then any entrapment claim is invalid.

Re:Government Dictionary

[ihtoit]

slap that Black Lotus down, you know you want to.

Re:Government Dictionary

[ihtoit]

Legal definition - complete with precedent:

An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).

Re:Government Dictionary

[ihtoit]

would you have slowed down upon seeing the red and blues off in the distance? I sure shit bet you would, now shut the fuck up and pay the fine. You not only got caught breaking the law, you're on the dashcam breaking the law.

If you're intent on doing 90 in a 60 zone, a cop cruiser on silent running isn't going to put you off until he flashes you to the shoulder. You're going to have to take a big bite of that shit sandwich.

Re:Government Dictionary

[ihtoit]

Assume that every vehicle you pass is a police officer ready to issue a citation for a moving violation. Call me paranoid, and I will laugh in your smug fucking face when you get a ticket tucked into your shirt pocket while the real cop's partner goes back up the road to retrieve your other foot. Meanwhile I'll be the safe driver.

Paranoid... is very often a very healthy state of mind.

Re:Government Dictionary

[sjames]

Or using regular sales techniques on someone who is clearly trying to kick the habit?

Perhaps hoping to trigger an impulse buy?

Cop dresses like dealer, someone asks to buy drugs: not entrapment. Cop dresses like dealer and offers you drugs: entrapment

Re:Government Dictionary

[ihtoit]

and I gave the legal definition with a proper citation. You're welcome.

Re:Government Dictionary

[sjames]

Actually, if the government ignores the Constitution, it ceases to be the government. It's just another pack of thugs. Thus everything they do is illegal, it's just that there's nobody to arrest and prosecute them at this time.

Re:Government Dictionary

[sumdumass]

Did you even read your own link?

Of course there is a legal process, it says right in there -

Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

Here is another humdinger from the article you posted-

Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases â" 4,455 â" where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money.

Now if there was no "legal process", how does that happen? I mean if they can just take it without any legal process involved whatsoever, then there would be absolutely nothing to challenge.

Why you were modded up while I was modded down is beyond me. I'm actually factually correct and you failed to even read the article you posted. Well, this is slashdot after all, the mods likely failed to read it too.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

Check the age of the dictionary word Entrapment and how often it has been used in Judicial capacity in the last 300 years, and then notice the "legal definition" you provided and be amazed that the date of that definition is 1992 based on a court ruling. A ruling which of course was in favor of the law enforcement officer.

You're welcome."

Re: Government Dictionary

[ancientt]

Rarely do I see someone engage with the AC trolls and maintain their position calmly and rationally. Kudos to you sir.

Re:Government Dictionary

[sumdumass]

I was talking about the law and appeals process. However unfair it may seem, a legal process does exist with both and they can be challenged.

As for the CFAA, section F seems to provide exemptions for law enforcement engaged in any "lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity". The interesting thing would be if the LEO somehow did not have anything lawful.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Obfuscant]

That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions.

Oh my God. What a nutter. Of COURSE a word that has multiple common usage definitions should have one clear definition when it comes to the law, simply because common usage changes over time and the law shouldn't, and the law should not cover the unintended common use cases for the word just because they are in the same entry in the dictionary.

The perfect example is the last definition listed which talks about being "entrapped by expectations". Why should it be illegal for someone to be entrapped by their own expectations just because you want the real action of entrapment by police to be illegal? The only definition that should even be considered in law is definition 3 which deals with action by the police.

Using the definition of Justice and it's purpose in a Republic as defined by Socrates there is supposed to be no separation.

Uhhh, ok. Whatever. Laws should always use every possible definition of a word instead of being as precise as possible because Socrates said so. The next time you put out a mouse trap, expect a visit from the police because you were engaging in entrapment of the mouse.

Re:Government Dictionary

[ihtoit]

just because the ruling is a mere speck at 22 years old doesn't diminish its importance in the current legal climate. I've used precedents set before the steam engine was invented.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Obfuscant]

Are you saying a hidden patrol car is a better deterrent than a visible patrol car?

A combination of the two is a better deterrent than either alone.

The latter gets you used to seeing that there is enforcement of the laws. The former gets you used to never knowing where that enforcement may take place. If all that was allowed was visible patrols, then you'd simply obey the law when you saw, or you got notice by any of the existing phone apps that report sightings, a police car. If all that took place were hidden patrols, you'd not realize the extent that the laws were being enforced. With both, you know they will ticket you but you don't know when they'll catch you. Thus you may, or a reasonable person may, obey the law more often.

Now, when I'm driving down the road, exceeding the speed limit (as I regularly do), a visible patrol car will cause me to decrease my speed to remain within the posted speed limit.

Thus you obey the law only when a car is in sight. A very small amount of the time.

The only way hidden patrol cars would cause me to moderate my speed is if they were truly ubiquitous.

You may have such a daredevil attitude towards points on your license and insurance rates, but I think most people wouldn't need the hidden patrols to be ubiquitous for them to be wary that they might get caught and thus should obey the law. The fact that they know they are a good possibility would deter them, at a level well below ubiquitous, but the level needs to be above zero.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

This is such an astounding level of delusion that I must consider you are using number 11 from your officially sponsored trolling handbook.

Re:Government Dictionary

[TapeCutter]

Words have multiple definitions in dictionaries and in ordinary speech, which definition is assigned depends entirely on context. For example "feet smell and noses run". Scientists and lawyers have one thing in common, they are very careful about definitions, they tell others which definition they are using upfront, it doesn't have to be interpreted through context. It's an exacting and fully transparent tradition in Science and Law. Clinton's lawyer debating the definition of "is" for 15min is a fine example. The quantum property of "colour" is another one from the Scientific world.

Using the same rules for a state and a person ignores the basic nature of political power and leaves brute force as the only method of arbitration. The existing state would lose any and all authority and instantaneously collapse (re: looting of Iraq after US sacked entire public service), the power vacuum left behind would very likely be filled by the kind of people you fear most, heavily armed 18-25yo males who have just one rule for everyone - "might is right". Like Humpty Dumpty, they have no use for dictionaries, to them a word means whatever they say it means, and they will execute and torture as many people as it takes to demonstrate their point.

Aside from that the very thing you suggest happened on a smaller scale when I was at HS. The largest internal migration in US history was in the early 70's when hippies left cities in droves and started up communes on shared private land, a similar social phenomena occurred here in Oz. They had the same "no one is in charge" ideology, rules were simply "discussed" by the group rather than defined and enforced by the group. Very few of these communes survived more that 2yrs.

The most common cause of commune collapse was not financial woes or lack of soap, in almost every case the commune collapsed when the "natural leader" in the group filled the power vacuum and basically bullied everyone else out of their legal share of the land. By the mid seventies the migration had gone full circle and the hippies were mostly back in the cities, albeit older, poorer, but a lot wiser about human nature.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

This is so full of fallacy I won't even bother to pick it apart. Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions, and in fact the court ruling did not determine that the definition was wrong. The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society. This is not a first, the same type ruling has happened over and over again in the last 30 years.

If you can not comprehend why two forms of justice are not possible in a "Free" society shame on you. The work was done on that 2,600 years ago and all you would have to do is read and comprehend.

Resorting to ad hominem in your first statement is very telling, and yes we have had brief conversations previously where you demonstrate an adolescent level of dialogue. In other words, I don't expect any rational discussion from you. That said, if you have a real question or statement and can use a fallacy free mode of dialogue I'm happy to respond.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

As stated to someone else above

Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions, and in fact the court ruling did not determine that the definition was wrong. The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society. This is not a first, the same type ruling has happened over and over again in the last 30 years.

Entrapment is a very simple term without much room for negotiating intricate meanings.

Re:Government Dictionary

[NoImNotNineVolt]

All valid points, I agree.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Uberbah]

Of course there is a legal process, it says right in there

That "legal process" is for you to prove your innocence to get your shit back, not for the state to prove your guilt to take it away. It's a complete inversion of the Takings clause and the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty.

Re:Government Dictionary

[sumdumass]

Yes it is sort of

It should be no different than any other evidence of a crime. If your car was stolen and used to rob a bank- or they just think it was-, similar circumstances would happen.

However, with the cash and asset forfieture it is a little backwards where the only evidence of any crime is the fact that it is in your posession and few times are there any charges filed at all.

But nontheless., there is a legal process no matter how horrid or abstract it may be. This does make it different than a law enforcement officer stealing identities and trying to impersonate people in order to ensnare people they otherwise would have no clue existed.

Oh.. and you do not have to convince me about how evil asset seizure is. I'm just saying at least there is a process.

Re:Government Dictionary

[ToddInSF]

People need to understand that the police can and do, as a matter of course, lie. They're liars. To do their job, they lie, and you have no recourse if you talk to them and respond to a lie with anything that can even remotely be used against you. You can't even be sure you are talking to an officer, they can lie about that too.

Which has the effect of making people have increasing contempt and distrust for law enforcement - because you SHOULD have contempt and distrust for them.

Oh and your little definition of "entrapment" is bullshit, BTW.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Obfuscant]

Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions,

Words change meaning all the time, and you cannot predict which ones will or will not in advance, dude. See what I did there? I used a word which has changed meaning.

But it doesn't matter if "entrapment" WILL change meanings, you've already shown that it has multiple meanings, only one of which should be covered by a law against entrapment. I thought that would have been clear when I used your own list of definitions to show you that.

The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society.

This is a completely different issue than what I replied to, which was your claim that the law should not define the words it uses, it should use common usage definitions. But in any case, no, that's not what the court said. It is not illegal for the police to entrap you, but it is an affirmative defense against the charge they have entrapped you into.

If you can not comprehend why two forms of justice are not possible in a "Free" society shame on you.

Since I wasn't talking about this mythical "two forms of justice", just the part where you claimed that legal definitions should be based on the standard dictionary, you're just resorting to ad hominem when you got caught with your pants down. Yep, I called you a nutter, but that wasn't part of my argument why you were wrong. I went ahead and said explicitly why you are wrong. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend that.

and yes we have had brief conversations previously where you demonstrate an adolescent level of dialogue.

You're projecting, now.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

But it doesn't matter if "entrapment" WILL change meanings, you've already shown that it has multiple meanings, only one of which should be covered by a law against entrapment. I thought that would have been clear when I used your own list of definitions to show you that.

You are arguing everything except the point. (see next)

This is a completely different issue than what I replied to, which was your claim that the law should not define the words it uses,

The law is not redefining a word, clarifying a definition, or even using a different word. The ruling in 1992 stated that other criminal conditions must exist for a State agent to be guilty of entrapment. That is the point I was making from the beginning, because the "State" does not use the definition of entrapment when reviewing a claim that the "State" used entrapment.

Since I wasn't talking about this mythical "two forms of justice",

Mythical? So Bill Clinton, Clapper, and Lerner were all found guilty of perjury? Bank executives who used strong arm robbery to seize property they did not own faced criminal charges? Cops that murder people on the street have all faced fair trials and been incarcerated for their acts of murder?

There is no myth that two forms of justice currently exist in the US, in fact there is an uncountable amount of evidence supporting that there are two forms of justice. I'd fully admit that this is not new, but the extremes we have today for protecting cronies like Lois Lerner are surely new.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Obfuscant]

You are arguing everything except the point. (see next)

No, I am arguing exactly the point I am trying to make, and which is based on a statement you made in response to someone who pointed out that legal terms often have a very specific meaning. It was the first sentence of your first paragraph (which is called the "topic sentence"), which was:

That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions.

You, yourself, pointed out that "entrapment" already has multiple meanings, only one of which should be used in a legal context, and which is why the legal use needs to have a specific limited definition.

So yes, they should have different definitions, because to simply use the dictionary would create laws that are too broad and too open to change as the language changes. That's the point. It's not "two forms of justice", it's one form, well defined.

Re:Government Dictionary

[Obfuscant]

Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions,

Words like "entrapment" change meanings all the time. The specific word "entrapment" already has, by your own admission, at least three meanings, one of which includes the example of someone being entrapped by their emotions. If you think the law should simply use "the dictionary", then you really must think that the law should prohibit people being entrapped by their emotions just as it prohibits the government entrapping them in criminal activity.

Entrapment is a very simple term without much room for negotiating intricate meanings.

In the law, entrapment should be a simple term without room for negotiating intricate meanings, and it can only achieve that by leaving the Webster's or OED behind and defining it in simple terms to mean exactly what is intended.

The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society.

That's nonsense. "Everyone else" cannot be guilty of entrapment because entrapment can only apply to a government agent because that is how it is defined by law. If I convince you to go rob a bank, you can't point at me and say I'm guilty of entrapment, you can only claim I'm a co-conspirator and should go to jail too. Were I to "entrap" you to rob that bank by appealing to your emotions, I may have "entrapped" you according to one dictionary definition, but you aren't going to avoid jail by arguing that there was "entrapment".

Were I a government agent doing that, neither of us would go to jail. Since entrapment is still an affirmative defense, why you think the government can do it without repercussions is a mystery. Entrapment is a concept that applies ONLY to the government, and is prohibited to them, so how you can say that they can do it while others cannot is, well, I don't really care why you think such an obviously silly thing.

Re:Government Dictionary

[s.petry]

Absolutely nonsense. The legal definition, for the 4th time, did not change the definition of a word at all. The ruling declared that the STATE can not be sued for entrapment unless other criteria (such as coercion) exists.

This does not redefine a word in any way, shape or form. If you have doubts, read the ruling. Nowhere do they claim that the definition is wrong, or out of date, or definition 2 was not particular enough for the STATE. What they said is that the STATE can not be guilty without additional crimes.

Children.

[Anonymous Coward]

But but but, think of the CHILDREN.

Re:Children.

[geekmux]

But but but, think of the CHILDREN.

Ah, considering the police used images of this woman's son and niece on the Facebook profile to try and make it authentic, thereby putting very young children in harms way (they were trying to lure in criminals), I'd say someone was actually thinking of the children in this case.

And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.

Re:Children.

[JosKarith]

" the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune."

Is that the "Lessons have been learned" BS rmix by Dr No Statement..?

Re:Children.

[Anonymous Coward]

And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.

They'd book her on a made-up charge and offer her a plea deal if she just kept her trap shut. Or 25 years else. And who'd believe a criminal like her anyway.

Re:Children.

[Technician]

Facebook has been loosing active membership because of the threat to privacy and those who will use your ID in ways against you. Law enforcement is often percieved as another threat, not safety. This hits their revenue stream as chat rooms are replaced with Snapchat and alternatives.

A common perception is a chatroom of 13 year old girls is mostly older guys pretending to be 13 year old girls. This reputation is hurting revenue.

Re:Children.

[ShaunC]

And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.

Yeah, just like the cops who permanently disfigured a baby with a flash-bang grenade. The only tune they wound up singing was "Couple Days Off" by Huey Lewis.

Re:Children.

[amRadioHed]

Where are you getting this stuff about chatrooms from? There's no such thing in Facebook.

Re:Children.

[geekmux]

And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.

Yeah, just like the cops who permanently disfigured a baby with a flash-bang grenade. The only tune they wound up singing was "Couple Days Off" by Huey Lewis.

Blame public apathy for that shit. We the People should be standing up and making a HELL of a lot more noise over those kinds of actions taken by law enforcement. When they screw up, they need to be held accountable.

That is the problem. We no longer have control. At all. But a loud enough voice that remains persistent can and will be addressed. Apathy kills persistence.

Re:Children.

[ihtoit]

group chat comes close...

Re:Children.

[sjames]

DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.

We're above the law and you can't sue. Doo-Da, Doo-Da!"

Re:Children.

[amRadioHed]

Not really, since it's not a public forum. I can't imagine it's used to meet new people at all the way chat rooms were.

Re:Children.

[ihtoit]

point. Though, the technology's there...

Ermagherd!

[Ol Olsoc]

Next thing you know, all of those hot 13 year old girls looking for a nice older guy in chat rooms will turn out to be the police

Re:Ermagherd!

[canadiannomad]

What like "The Man Who Was Thursday"?

Re:Ermagherd!

[xfade551]

"The Internet. Where men are men, women are men, and the 13 year old girls are FBI agents."

In related news....

[bickerdyke]

In related news. DEA to facebook: Who cares?

Re:In related news....

[geekmux]

In related news. DEA to facebook: Who cares?

Curious how the DEA would "care" had the very young children they also posted on the fake Facebook profile been targeted or killed by the very criminals they were attempting to lure in.

And what of her identity once she gets out of jail

[roger_that]

I would think that she would have a strong case against the DEA (or the agent(s) using her identity, because very few people will trust that she is who she says she is (online). They are very effectively destroying her status/reputation/life. I believe that the DEA actions are a crime, at multiple levels.

Re:workaround

[CaptainDork]

DEA will just compel the people to create phony profiles...

DEA did not compel me to use a phony profile.

Common sense did that.

As I see this playing out, Facebook's easiest option is to identify phony accounts and take them down. That's all the authority they have.

A more gainful pursuit would be to sue DEA for fucking with Facebook's revenue stream on two (2) counts: 1.) Undermining the trust of the (naive) members and 2.) Inflating eyeball numbers to Facebook's advertisers.

Re:CFAA violation!

[EmagGeek]

The CFAA has an exception for law enforcement operations and criminal investigations.

Paragraph (f):

(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

What integrity?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Facebook has no integrity. It's nothing but a data-mining operation that cons people into giving away their personal data for free.

Re:What integrity?

[biek]

"Harming the integrity of the community" = "Polluting our data"

Integrity?

[smooth wombat]

threaten the integrity of our community,"

Considering Facebook vacuums every tidbit of information about a person (name, location, sites they visit, friends, etc), I don't think claiming the integrity of your community is at stake when law enforcement uses it to catch criminals is the way to go, especially considering the numerous times Facebook has already been caught manipulating results or running secret tests on users.

TOS violations

[John Jorsett]

The Justice Department prosecuted Aaron Schwarz for violating JSTOR's Terms of Service, so how about prosecuting the DEA agents who violated Facebook's?

Re:TOS violations

[gstoddart]

Sadly, it doesn't work that way.

In their view, they're allowed to break any law they need to to do their job. But if anybody else breaks any law, they can and will use that to achieve their goal.

So, when Schwartz does it, they can trump up the charge to make something stick. When the DEA does it, it's business as usual.

In other words, the law as applied to us little people is not the same as applied to law enforcement. Because they, in their minds, are above the law.

Welcome to the dystopian future, where laws exist only at the whim of those who enforce it, and only apply to those who don't.

Law enforcement is above the law. That they'll abuse it all they want is kind of inevitable.

Which means you should assume that all forms of law enforcement will become completely corrupt and out of control -- like happens in every other banana republic in which the police decide what is legal.

Re:TOS violations

[sunderland56]

Wait, you're saying that creating an account on Facebook with a fake identity is a crime???

Excuse me a sec, I'll be right back, need to, uh, delete a few things......

"makes people FEEL less safe and secure"?

[jeffb (2.718)]

I think this was unintentionally revealing. It's the feeling of safety and security that Facebook is frantic to defend. Actual safety and security? Well, that's... complicated.

Re:"makes people FEEL less safe and secure"?

[N1AK]

I noticed the disconnect as well. I use Facebook and I still don't think what it needs is for people to be more blindly trusting on there. It's blind trust that leads to people following links to malicious sites etc.

Re:"makes people FEEL less safe and secure"?

[cold fjord]

I think this was unintentionally revealing. It's the feeling of safety and security that Facebook is frantic to defend. Actual safety and security? Well, that's... complicated.

Dealing with the sensibilities of Facebook seems to be like that.

Facebook Finally Deletes the ‘Kill Kendall Jones’ Page

Background: Facebook pulled down the hunting photos of Kendall Jones citing a violation of the social-media site's "community standards," but they allowed the page titled "Kill Kendall Jones" to remain stating that it did not violate their policies. A tad hypocritical, to say the least.

LMAO

[koan]

"The DEA's deceptive actions... threaten the integrity of our community,"

Integrity... that's rich.

Re:CFAA violation!

[JosKarith]

Of course it does - that's just boilerplate "Of course this law doesn't apply to us" that they have been writing into laws since people started holding them accountable to their own laws.

Lawless land

[bluefoxlucid]

The DEA assert that we live in a lawless land where they can do what they please, as long as it seems easy enough. Can log onto facebook, create a profile or steal someone else's, impersonate people, create fake people? The terms of use contracted to the Facebook business entity says you won't do that, but breach of contract is such an outdated ideal...

Re:Lawless land

[Vokkyt]

Except that's not what they're asserting. Law enforcement has been granted powers by the higher powers in the government to occasionally perform actions that would be considered illegal in order to resolve a larger crime. (e.g., impersonation, possession of drugs, possession of illegal firearms, purchasing illegal substances). The DEA's assertion is that this is merely an branch of those granted powers. You might not like that they have been granted the powers to do this, but that doesn't mean that they "...assert that we live in a lawless land where [the DEA] can do what they please." There are pretty strict rules about what it is they can and cannot do when they do these sorts of operations and judges can and often will throw out entire cases if the law enforcement officers mess up during the operation.

Facebook's contention isn't that the DEA can't do this; they openly acknowledge that there is a review of the process in place, and I have no doubt that if tomorrow the DEA released a statement saying "nah, we totally can", then Facebook wouldn't even pursue the angle. Facebook's argument is that such actions really mess with the business model Facebook has; if people have to live in fear that government agents are routinely posing as users to get information, then users are going to migrate away. Not all, but enough to probably hurt Facebook's reputation.

You can argue about what law enforcement should and should not do in the course of an investigation, but there is a long history of precedent which says "hey, this is a-okay", at least the impersonation part. Whether or not the Plaintiff actually "gave consent" as the DEA assumes is a whole different matter, and I suspect their case and all cases from it might get thrown out based on that alone.

Re:Facebook - Do this, DEA will have to stop

[CaptainDork]

Actually, Facebook could kill us all (anonymous) by stipulating in their ToS that using the site in any way other than intended by Facebook is detrimental to Facebook's revenue stream and is, therefore, obstructing commerce and fraudulent and punishable by existing laws.

Good times...

[geogob]

Facebook teaching ethics and rules to the DEA. That's a good one.
Good luck with that anyway, Facebook! If there is any response at all from the DEA side, it will most likely a strong judicial mumbo jumbo meaning "STFU, or... " along a unilateral NDA (you know, because of "or ...")

Maybe the best way to proceed if they do not comply would be to automatically put in parenthesis beside the account name a warning (This account may have been tempered with by authorities).

Modern Democracy: A Prediction

[Jodka]

There is a fascinating and unexpected inversion here: Corporations are now standing up against government to protect the rights of citizens. Of course, most of us expect that relationship to work the other way around.

It is not just Facebook. The first sentence of this article reads: "The FBI director has slammed Apple and Google for offering their customers encryption technology that protects users’ privacy."

Today, a product which includes protection from the government has added value. A prediction: In the future, corporate protection from government intrusion and persecution will become the product. Smart corporations such as Tesla (see Nevada tax deal) or Apple and Google (see double Irish Dutch sandwich) have special rights or have exempted themselves from government rules by using loopholes. Meanwhile, every day there is news of the federal government becoming increasingly insane. Like today. Increasingly, the government is engaging in unethical, illegal activities such as theft. As demand from protection from the federal government increases with the growing abuses, corporations will meet that demand by sheltering customers under their own umbrellas.

Re:Modern Democracy: A Prediction

[Tokolosh]

I have taken to quoting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible retribution.

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

Re:Modern Democracy: A Prediction

[swillden]

They are standing up to government because it effects their income, not because they are being altruistic.

And?

When government leaders act to help the voters you can argue they're doing it only because it affects their chances of staying in power, not because they are being altruistic.

This is called proper alignment of incentives, and it's a very, very good thing. At the end of the day, it's the only thing that keeps us moving forward. And it shouldn't be surprising that corporations like Facebook have an incentive to give users what they want, because in general profit motives are almost always closely aligned to the interests of their customers. Otherwise the customers leave -- and don't give me the crap about users being Facebook's product, not its customers. If users leave Facebook doesn't make money. The details of the mechanism are less important than that core fact.

We're often accustomed to thinking of government as a protection from corporate power, but there's no reason at all that the reverse can't be true. Arguably, government interests are aligned with what the people say they want, while corporate interests are aligned with what people really want, as evidenced by how they spend their money. Neither alignment is perfect because it gets filtered through intermediate mechanisms, and governments and corporations are both ultimately made up of people who have their own goals, beliefs and ideals, which further distorts things.

On that last point, I think it's important to recognize that because decisions are made ultimately by people, organizations -- government and corporate both -- actually can and do at times behave altruistically, sometimes even in opposition to the organization's stated goals(*). We should also keep in mind that organizational dynamics can and do distort or even override the goals of the individuals inside them, often resulting in a group policy which doesn't match any individual's preferences, and which may not even be logically consistent. My core point is that overly-simplified "government good/corps bad", "government bad/corps good", "The Man bad/people good" dichotomies are so inaccurate as to be completely worthless and misleading, as are beliefs that people or organizations can only do good things if they're doing them for the right reasons (or that good reasons justify bad actions, or...).

Reality is complicated. Deal with it as it is, not as you wish it were.

(*) Cue the pseudo-insightful but completely inaccurate post about how corporations have a legal obligation to maximize profit, which (a) isn't true in all cases and (b) doesn't matter in practice anyway because it's not enforced.

Re:Modern Democracy: A Prediction

[erapert]

The exceptions to that opposition usually occur in circumstances where liberals benefit personally from the profits.

Like Solyndra?

DEA to Facebook

[stealth_finger]

No.

Re:workaround

[fulldecent]

Last I checked, Facebook has brought some heavy charges against people using the site against their terms.

in a metal coffin, with spikes inside

[Thud457]

People who use Facebook SHOULD be put in jail.

facebook: situation normal

[ihtoit]

considering the fact that facebook host pages for child traffickers and paedophiles, and will shut down pages exposing such crimes without so much as a cursory investigation when the paedos themselves make a complaint, is this a surprise? No, it's not.

I think the DEA should get on with some other TLA departments and fucking shut facebook down.

Re:CFAA violation!

[ihtoit]

two words: *probable cause*.

Re: CFAA violation!

[Goobermunch]

It's time we all sit back and remember the first rule of dealing with cops. They do not have any obligation to tell you the truth. The courts give them a pass because criminals lie.

Note: if you lie to the police, the odds are good that you will be charged, because lying to the police is a crime.

The honesty street is one way.

--AC

Why worry about CFAA?

[Overzeetop]

If they are violating the TOS, Facebook can simply ban them - no laws required. It's nice they've made a public display of calling them out, and it may suffice as a blanket "first warning" to all operations from the DEA.

And, of course, they could always take affirmative action against them by flagging DEA IP addresses if they should come up, notifying the user of the access violation, suspending the account until it is re-verified, and posting to the persons page that the page may have been accessed by the DEA. That's kicking sand in a bully's face, of course, but it could be done if they were serious about it.

Re:Why worry about CFAA?

[Kjella]

Because Facebook is really interested in their stock value and not kicking the DEA in the teeth? They're not going to win any favors with anybody for actively sabotaging a criminal investigation, even an illegally conducted one. They want to have the public on their side which is why we're hearing about this in the news, Facebook couldn't win an escalating conflict with proxies and whatnot. If this becomes a big enough PR problem for the police though, the practice might go away.

Re:workaround

[Jaysyn]

Apparently you've never head of a little company called IBM.

Too Easy

[some old guy]

I hate the DEA and the rest of the TLA's as much as the next guy, but unfortunately the intertwining of defense and law enforcement via "narco-terrorism" pretty much leaves Facebook and every other social network shit out of luck.

One little NSL to Facebook to the effect of "We're doing a terrorism investigation, we need fake/impersonated accounts, and you will stfu about it" and it's game over.

Re:Too Easy

[Antique Geekmeister]

It used to be the House Committe on Un-American Activities hunting Communists. Before that, the Axis powers. Before that, rum-runners. Before that, the Anarchists.

There is always some group being pursued for political or criminal activity and innocent people crushed in the net used to catch them.

Would the courts accept the "evidence"?

[msobkow]

Would the courts even accept "evidence" gathered in such a manner? Doesn't it constitute entrapment? Isn't that illegal?

Re:Would the courts accept the "evidence"?

[DaMattster]

Technically, entrapment is only valid if the person being snared is knowingly, willingly, and recklessly participating in a criminal act. If it is the case of a mistake, i.e. wrong place wrong time, technically charges cannot be brought against the person. It has been ruled legal for police to use a bait car to catch auto thieves. The bait car simply makes it easy for someone looking to steal a car to go ahead and steal it. If the case had been someone running or fearing for their life and can reasonably prove that their intent was not criminal in nature but to get to safety, an argument for entrapment could be made.

Re:Would the courts accept the "evidence"?

[ihtoit]

An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).

Re:workaround

[ShaunC]

Last I checked, Facebook has brought some heavy charges against people using the site against their terms.

What did they do, delete somebody's entire Farmville?

Re:Facebook - Do this, DEA will have to stop

[ShaunC]

Uh, yeah, that's not how it works; every prostitute asks her johns that question and they get arrested anyway. The cops don't have to answer truthfully, and lying about it doesn't constitute entrapment.

PS, I am not affiliated in any way with SADwyw spider.

Re:Facebook - Do this, DEA will have to stop

[pmikell]

"No cops allowed" in the TOS isn't enough to keep cops out; I'm sure pirate websites have tried this and failed.

But the fact that "No cops allowed" can't be the whole of your legal armour doesn't mean that it can't be part of it:

1. 1. Add a clause stating that the new user signing up indemnifies all other users against any harm of which the new user's violation of the TOS is a material cause; falsely claiming that you're not a cop is a violation.
2. 2. Add a clause stating that the new user must insure their liability for that indemnification with company X. No confirmation of cover from company X? Then no new user account for you. Company X will charge the new user a premium of 1 trillion dollars if they admit to being a cop. And like any other insurance company, you have to consent to them ratting on you to the other insurance companies if they catch you lying.

Cops can still penetrate the legal armour, but now they have to lie to an insurance company. And "lied to an insurance company" is something that noone has enough lawyers to wash away.

This has been happening for a very long time...

[Skuld-Chan]

I have a friend who is a private eye who has a bunch of fake profiles and uses them to find the locations of people who are running out on their bills. If he's looking for the whereabouts of an older guy for example, he has a profile that is a 21 year old college girl - and he just friends whoever he's looking for and they usually almost always accept. Then these people tell their friends where they are going, private eye drops a gps tracking device on their car and "follows them home".

Rule 1 - if you are running from someone be weary of whoever just comes along and wants to be your friend.

The DEA's problem is they are using much more complex methods of getting people to friend them - they need to realize people are idiots and will friend whoever friends them.

Re:This has been happening for a very long time...

[The Ickle Jones]

private eye drops a gps tracking device on their car

Is that even legal?

Rule 1 - if you are running from someone be weary of whoever just comes along and wants to be your friend.

Rule 1 - Stop being a fucking moron and don't use social media garbage.

Re:This has been happening for a very long time...

[Skuld-Chan]

Is that even legal?

Probably not, but you'll find most PI's do questionably illegal things all the time.

Facebook, complaining about integrity?

[Anonymous Coward]

BWAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!! Facebook was founded by a serial liar, and has regularly compromised the few shreds of integrity it supposedly began with. That shred of integrity went out the window when Zuckerberg got hold of the code. Facebook is the problem. That entire enterprise could disappear tomorrow and within a few months nobody would care - except for the tards that are addicted to broadcasting their every little thought and action.

Re:Whatever euphemism softens the blow

[kwbauer]

And their is no "theft" involved with an agent using a perp's account when the perp is not in a position to be using it either. Neither is my pretending to be you in any way taking away your ability to be you. As long as all I do is open accounts and defraud other parties, I have taken nothing from you; I took it from them. The fact that yet other third parties see my activity as a reason to not do business with you is still not my fault. It is a misunderstanding between you and them that has nothing to do with me. Identity theft is as real or not real as IP theft.

Re:workaround

[CaptainDork]

Citation.

Since when does the government have "rights"?

[aklinux]

"and the Department of Justice argued that they had the right to do so". People have rights, not governments. I thought the government existed to protect and enforce OUR rights, not the other way around. What they need to figure out is a way to convince us that they have a "duty" to do so in order to protect our rights.

Re:Since when does the government have "rights"?

[ihtoit]

"State Versus..." Who do you think represents the State? That's right, Government.

An individual or collective body cannot represent or be represented in a court of Law unless they have legal personality (in the case of a collective, such representation in the form of a board of Directors or other leadership structure speaking for the Whole Person, either through themselves via public statement or in the case of a legal affair, through lawyers). Thus, the concept of corporate Personhood and the further concept of corporate liability which you cannot have without a legal person (your representation).

We're talking strawmen all over, and legitimately so (for once).

Re:CFAA violation!

[ihtoit]

wait, are we talking about phoney profiles, or are we talking identity theft?

Old saying...

[excelsior_gr]

"Facebook. Where men are men, women are men, and 14-year-old girls are FBI agents."

Nah, it doesn't have the same ring to it...

Re:Old saying...

[RockDoctor]

"Facebook. Where men are men, women are men, and 14-year-old girls are FBI agents."

are small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

it doesn't have the same ring to it..

Still doesn't.

You are backing my position

[s.petry]

I'm not sure it was intentional, but you provide proof to my statement "You are providing the recent "bastardized by US judicial decisions" biased definition which allow for additional prosecutions."

This current "legal" definition does not match what was used in court cases for hundreds of previous years, which matches the Dictionary definition of the word.

Re:You are backing my position

[ihtoit]

yes, I was - specifically, your point #2 (of the Webster's definition). I was merely clarifying. :)

Re:You are backing my position

[s.petry]

Danke!

Re:workaround

[ihtoit]

sick motherfuckers.

Re:workaround

[ihtoit]

in both cases it would be intended to remove any ambiguity or doubt as to quantity. Perfectly cromulent usage, IMHO. No sarcastic tone.

Re:Facebook - Do this, DEA will have to stop

[ihtoit]

prostitution isn't illegal, soliciting is.

It's okay, just sue them...

[JasonGoatcher]

And then the judge will declare it legal even though the judges don't technically have the legal authority to decide what the law says.

For people who say that's the judges job, to interpret the law: No it isn't, if a law is subject to interpretation, it's simply void for vagueness and needs to be sent back to the legislators. Not only that, but when a case is determinted, legally the ruling only applies to the litigants. And, yes, I know that isn't how it works in the actual courtroom, but that's because the judges are BREAKING THE LAW THEY'VE BEEN SWORN TO UPHOLD.

Re:CFAA violation!

[RoknrolZombie]

"Phony" profiles created with real people's information, from what I understand.

Re:CFAA violation!

[ihtoit]

that's a seriously poor method to creating any type of legend.

OMG! There are fake people on Facebook!

[Inka22]

You mean all those 19 year old "girls" with stolen-internet-amature-porn pictures in their profiles are actually promoting trust and non-abusive atmosphere of Facebook?