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

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

[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.

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: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.

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.

"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.

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: 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.