Slashdot Mirror
Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts
An anonymous reader writes with a ruling that seems obvious in a case about police making a fake Instagram account. A federal judge in New Jersey has signed off on the practice of law enforcement using a fake Instagram account in order to become "friends" with a suspect — thus obtaining photos and other information that a person posts to their account. "No search warrant is required for the consensual sharing of this type of information," United States District Judge William Martini wrote in an opinion published last Tuesday. In other news, an undercover officer still doesn't need to tell you that he or she is a member of law enforcement if you ask.
Is anyone confused by the fact that cops can lie in the course of their work? Because thats something everyone should be crystal clear on: they can.
Or maybe people dont understand that things you share with a cop, even "off the record", can be on the record. That, too, is a myth that should be dispelled.
As long as the character they create is entirely fictional and not based on impersonating someone they know is a friend of the suspect, I'm fine with it. Cops running around trying to "friend" people in my name is not.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Let's say I own an internet business. I notice that a profile is fake and delete it off the system. Suddenly, I'm told by the police it was theirs. And, if I don't put it back up it's obstruction of justice. Note: Told to do so, not "here's a court order." Does the ruling make this scenario feasible? And if so, what is the liability for the company if they do or don't make the account viable again.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Because it's identity fraud which is illegal and it's violating the ToS, which is contract fraud, which is illegal. Well, illegal for the plantation workers, anyhow.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'll try explaining it the other way around, with a real-life case. There have been several cases that fit this pattern.
A cop wants to bust a bad guy. That cop gets his wife, a teacher, to pretend to be the DA and tell the bad guy he's authorized to do $crime. Cop busts the bad guy.
In court, bad guy says "the DA said I could ... at least, I thought she was the DA. The real DA replies "I never said a word to the guy. Some teacher said it was authorized, but she has no authority to authorize anything."
In such case, the courts have consistently held that the defendant is not guilty, because they THOUGHT that their actions were authorized and therefore lawful.*
So you see it doesn't matter if the person "authorizing" it is really a cop, a teacher, or a DA. What matters is what the defendant BELIEVES - whether they are trying to commit an act that is criminal or they are trying to aid law enforcement. The legal term is "mens rea", which means "guilty mind",'also known as "criminal intent ".
You are free to think that the courts should have done the opposite and found the person guilty when the "DA" actually isn't a DA. You can think it's wrong or right, but what actually sends people to prison or not in such cases is their actual belief - did they believe their act was authorized or not. The actual identity of the authorizing party does not matter under law.
* This mention of mistaken belief reminds some people of the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Ignorance of the LAW generally isn't an excuse, but mistake of FACT IS an excuse. "I didn't know poisoning my husband counts as murder" is no good. "The bottle said 'blueberry syrup', so I thought it really was blueberry syrup that I put on his food" is a valid defense. Here we're talking about mistake of fact - the defendant thought the person was (or was not) a proper authority.