Slashdot Mirror
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.
""Isn't this the definition of identity theft?""
Nope. It's identity eminent domain.
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.
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.
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.
"Harming the integrity of the community" = "Polluting our data"
The Justice Department prosecuted Aaron Schwarz for violating JSTOR's Terms of Service, so how about prosecuting the DEA agents who violated Facebook's?
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.
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).
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.
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
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?
Their job is fundamentally immoral to begin with.
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.
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.