Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-that-with-linkedin-like-everyone-else dept.

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.

35 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:First by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their job is fundamentally immoral to begin with.

  2. Government Dictionary by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Nope. It's identity eminent domain.

    1. Re:Government Dictionary by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. It's identity eminent domain.

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

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Government Dictionary by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Informative

      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"

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Government Dictionary by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Government Dictionary by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Government Dictionary by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Government Dictionary by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 2

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

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

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    7. Re:Government Dictionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    8. Re:Government Dictionary by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Government Dictionary by Jodka · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    10. Re:Government Dictionary by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:Government Dictionary by almitydave · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    12. Re:Government Dictionary by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Ermagherd! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  4. And what of her identity once she gets out of jail by roger_that · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Re:Children. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:In related news.... by geekmux · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Re:CFAA violation! by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:What integrity? by biek · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  9. TOS violations by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:TOS violations by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  10. "makes people FEEL less safe and secure"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Good times... by geogob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  13. Modern Democracy: A Prediction by Jodka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Modern Democracy: A Prediction by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  14. Re: CFAA violation! by Goobermunch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  15. Why worry about CFAA? by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  16. Too Easy by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  17. Re:Lawless land by Vokkyt · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Re:Would the courts accept the "evidence"? by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  19. Re:Children. by ShaunC · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  20. Re:Children. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    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.