Slashdot Mirror


NYPD Creates Fake Social Media Profiles To Track Loud Parties, Underage Drinking

v3rgEz writes Is that Facebook friend request from the cute girl in third period, or an undercover officer looking to bust up the next high shool kegger? That's the question more students in New York City might be asking, as newly released documents from the NYPD disclose its process for agents creating undercover social media aliases with the aims of uprooting terrorist plots, tracking "political activity," and other nefarious crimes like underage drinking or pre-meditated loud partying. Fake profiles must be approved by bureau brass, unless it would "seriously impair" an investigation or risk life or property damage.

135 comments

  1. Uh, don't post... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...what you don't want want other people to read?

    This isn't condoning the actions of the NYPD, but I always figured that it was common sense, don't write down or otherwise document what you don't want others to know or find out about...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Even if the police are not acting illegally (which I'm not so sure they are acting lawfully here) this is highly immoral. Presumably these are private affairs and they're committing fraud in order to get into what may or may not be an "illegal" party (whatever that means). I'd presume they aren't advertising "under-age drinking" so any effort to infiltrate by the police is criminal and without probable cause, etc. They are attempting to defraud to find out where and then doing an illegal search that violates peoples rights.

    2. Re:Uh, don't post... by s.petry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fully agree. Further, I don't really see this as a legal issue (rarity for NYPD, really!)

      IMHO, this is like having an undercover agent fake name. Where I do have questions is in their disclosure for the exceptions, and how many exceptions there are (neither of which were published in the article).

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re: Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a fetish for cops posing as teenage girls. Is there a porn site for that?

    4. Re: Uh, don't post... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      I have a fetish for cops posing as teenage girls. Is there a porn site for that?

      Why don't you create one and let us know how it works out in, say 20 years to life?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Uh, don't post... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1, Funny

      1. Get a group of people together to create fake "we're having a party at X's place at YPM", where X is a cop at another precinct.
      2. Post videos of the Swatting on YouTube.
      3. PROFIT!!!

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Uh, don't post... by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Well, so long as it's a fake identity, sure.

      But if they're impersonating a real person that's identity theft, at a minimum.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Uh, don't post... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      while this is the best possible point out there. didnt cops just get in trouble for this not to long ago??? and didnt facebook ban those accts for being against TOS????

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Uh, don't post... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the photo is of a real person I would assume no? even if the name doesnt match the face its wrong, and against TOS (not that that has ever mattered)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:Uh, don't post... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even if the police are not acting illegally (which I'm not so sure they are acting lawfully here)

      They are violating Facebook's TOS, which is illegal. The police generally need a warrant to commit acts that would otherwise be illegal.

      this is highly immoral.

      Expecting the police to act morally is not reasonable. Their behavior should be constrained by laws, not just by their internal sense of right and wrong.

    10. Re:Uh, don't post... by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      How do you to prevent your friends from posting the same information? Ordinarily, I wouldn't mind shouting from the rooftops that I am going to a party. I wouldn't even care if cops heard me. But if the cops are going to survey my friends' casual posts -- "Going to a party at Brent's!" -- and guarantee flashing lights out front once their algorithms pinpoint where it is, that a bit different. It's less like having a cop reading information you have put up on a flyer and more like the cops having wiretaps on all of your associates. Which would be fine, with a good reason and a court order. But I don't like the idea that by sharing our days in a normal way online we are all effectively spying on each other on law enforcement's behalf.

    11. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal?! lol

    12. Re: Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a fetish for cops posing as teenage girls. Is there a porn site for that?

      Why don't you create one and let us know how it works out in, say 20 years to life?

      Anonymous Coward could claim it is part of a social science research study and therefore should be immune from criminal prosecution. Just look at all the sex studies conducted by undergraduate female students as part of their "research thesis" or "required research course" for precedent. Of course AC is likely male so the rules according to the police are different and harsh punishment is necessary to curtail such perversion and "think of the children." ROFLMAO

    13. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Even if the police are not acting illegally (which I'm not so sure they are acting lawfully here) this is highly immoral. Presumably these are private affairs and they're committing fraud in order to get into what may or may not be an "illegal" party (whatever that means). I'd presume they aren't advertising "under-age drinking" so any effort to infiltrate by the police is criminal and without probable cause, etc. They are attempting to defraud to find out where and then doing an illegal search that violates peoples rights.

      There's nothing private about an activity that you post to a social media site.

      "Hey everybody, look at this!"

      "Ooops, I was too stupid to realize the police are part of everybody"

    14. Re:Uh, don't post... by aitikin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's less like having a cop reading information you have put up on a flyer and more like the cops having wiretaps on all of your associates. Which would be fine, with a good reason and a court order.

      Since when does facebook offer a reasonable expectation of privacy? If you don't want it to be public, it shouldn't be on facebook.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    15. Re:Uh, don't post... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Well, ToS are a whole different ball of wax of questionable legal significance even to normal users. And if the person in the photo gives their permission, or is a complete fiction (CG, sculpture, whatever), then you're probably in the clear. But if they don't... well *then* they have a problem.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal for both them and you, yes. But mostly just you.

    17. Re:Uh, don't post... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      They are violating Facebook's TOS, which is illegal. The police generally need a warrant to commit acts that would otherwise be illegal.

      I thought on Slashdot TOS, EULAs etc. are not the law and violating them isn't illegal.

    18. Re:Uh, don't post... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Facebook can claim that it's against their ToS all they want, but if they don't have a real mechanism to put a stop to it then all of the claims of ToS violations are meaningless.

      Think about it another way, if a person is banned from a retail store because of inappropriate but not necessarily illegal behavior, there's not a whole lot that the retail chain can do to enforce that ban, especially if they're huge and compartmentalized. It's difficult to enforce a ban even at the store that an infraction(s) occurred at, let alone the next nearest stores and the rest of the stores in the municipal area. It's even harder when those stores are open extended hours with more than one shift as all big-box stores are now, and staff turnover means that keeping the staff aware of the issue is itself difficult.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    19. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Violating TOS is only "illegal" if the company complains about it. NYPD might have an agreement with Facebook, or Facebook might just not care about it, and in both cases it's entierly fine.

    20. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, if they do keep doing it, and facebook finds out that they keep doing it, facebook could sue them.

    21. Re: Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a fetish for cops posing as teenage girls. Is there a porn site for that?

      Why don't you create one and let us know how it works out in, say 20 years to life?

      Do you promise? Locked up in a cage with sadistic thugs and animal smells. Hit me with some police brutality beau peep!

    22. Re:Uh, don't post... by jonwil · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you post and set it to "show only to certain people" (or whatever the settings are on your social media outlet of choice) then yes there IS an expectation that people outside the group can't see it.

      If a cop is posing as as a teenager or college kid online so they can hang out in chat-rooms and hook pedophiles that's one thing (pedophiles are scum who deserve to be locked away in one of those nasty jails they show on various TV documentaries) but if they are doing it to bust up a few kids having some beers (and presumably harming no-one except themselves) then that's different and shouldn't be allowed.

    23. Re: Uh, don't post... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I have a fetish for cops posing as teenage girls. Is there a porn site for that?

      Why don't you create one and let us know how it works out in, say 20 years to life?

      You know how they have those TV shows where they lure perverts? Well, they lure those people to the houses with promises of underage sex, or at least promises of a minor home alone. If they lured someone to the house with promises of overage sex, and they got there and found a kid and said "uh no" and turned around, the cop dressed as a tree might still tackle them but they'd actually have a worthy defense in court.

      Having a fetish for any kind of cop seems deviant enough to qualify for therapy, though

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Uh, don't post... by diamondmagic · · Score: 2

      It's called contract law. A contract is enforceable in a civil court. EULAs generally tend to not be very enforceable, but where they are, you'd be liable for damages. Which wouldn't be very much since you're not promising Facebook anything in return, they'd just get to terminate your account at worst.

    25. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boot licker.

    26. Re:Uh, don't post... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 3, Funny

      The NYPD does this to islamic prayer groups, why wouldn't they do it to teenagers?

      "First the came for the Socialists, but I was not a Socialist..."

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    27. Re:Uh, don't post... by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      You mean like swatting?

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    28. Re: Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule 34, bub. If there is no porn of it, it must be created. I'm off to register lolicops.com, wherein the perverted adventures of Detective Murphy shall be chronicled for all to enjoy.

    29. Re:Uh, don't post... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You'd get more than that. By running these operations, they're driving away real users and making the information that Facebook collects less valuable. There would be some monetary damages as well.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    30. Re:Uh, don't post... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but then you have the whole problem that Facebook is based in a different state than the NYPD, so now you have to figure out where to sue them, and then you get into the whole thing that click-through Terms of Service and End User License Agreements may not entirely be enforceable.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    31. Re:Uh, don't post... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      This might be how you think it should work, but that's not actually how it works.

      I own a house. Name's on the deed and everything. In my house, I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". But nobody who visits my house does, even if I'm not there. And in any case, you vacate your "reasonable expectation of privacy" the moment you tell anyone else about your secret.

    32. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loot picker.

    33. Re:Uh, don't post... by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but then you have the whole problem that Facebook is based in a different state than the NYPD, so now you have to figure out where to sue them, and then you get into the whole thing that click-through Terms of Service and End User License Agreements may not entirely be enforceable.

      No you don't. The Facebook legal terms which all users of the service agree to already address this:

      You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim) you have with us arising out of or relating to this Statement or Facebook exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such claims. The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions.

      This is pretty typical terminology for online services, I recall even AOL having such phrasing (I think setting jurisdiction as being in Virginia) circa 1999.

    34. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boot licker or not, Facebook is public message board.

    35. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you post and set it to "show only to certain people" (or whatever the settings are on your social media outlet of choice) then yes there IS an expectation that people outside the group can't see it.

      If a cop is posing as as a teenager or college kid online so they can hang out in chat-rooms and hook pedophiles that's one thing (pedophiles are scum who deserve to be locked away in one of those nasty jails they show on various TV documentaries) but if they are doing it to bust up a few kids having some beers (and presumably harming no-one except themselves) then that's different and shouldn't be allowed.

      Slippery slope there, guys. If you claim it's legal and moral for them to do this for "child pornographers," then you have to concede that it's legal and moral for them to do this for whatever the hell they want. It either is or it isn't. It's a binary condition.

    36. Re: Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. But were the individual involved female, she could throw herself at anyone she wanted, suck off her teacher when she was 16 after hitting him over the head, and the teacher would somehow still be at fault.

    37. Re: Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is standard terminology for almost all valid contracts. A contract must set jurisdiction as part of the agreement.

      It would be rare for an enforcable contract to not include a jurisdiction clause.

    38. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my house, I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". But nobody who visits my house does

      Try telling that to the judge when you get sued for filming a guest using your bathroom. Since you used "visits", you are clearly talking about people whom you have granted access to.

      I'm also curious how you think it works with renters. Their name is not on the deed. Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

    39. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are violating Facebook's TOS, which is illegal. The police generally need a warrant to commit acts that would otherwise be illegal.

      You might want to read up on the difference between contract law and criminal law.

    40. Re: Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when they start scrapping all text messages that originate from people in a certain age group? Do teens need to start using cold war ciphers now just to have a normal party we all used to be able to go to? Perhaps we should just lock these kids in prison now. We can slide food and textbooks under the door and release them at age 18. I'm sure they will be well rounded individuals as a result.

    41. Re:Uh, don't post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cannot come for the Socialists soon enough brah!

    42. Re:Uh, don't post... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You might want to read up on the DOJ threatening people with prosecution for violating TOS's from commercial sites.

    43. Re:Uh, don't post... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Renters do have a reasonable expectation of privacy within their curtilage, just as owners do - they have paid for exclusive, though time-limited, possession of a piece of property. As for filming guests in the home, ask a local lawyer.

    44. Re:Uh, don't post... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As for filming guests in the home, ask a local lawyer.

      Why, because they can afford a really good camera?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:Uh, don't post... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter. It's okay for police to break the law when enforcing the law. Generally these actions are authorized by the supervising attorney and reviewed. It must not be dangerous, there must be a good reason, and it must be relevant to the investigation underway.

      There's nothing illegal or unethical about the actions of the police in this case. If you don't like the crimes the police were investigating, well, change the laws. But the police procedure was routine and appropriate.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  2. I draw the line at impersonating real people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Undercover investigation should be possible, and if you're the kind of criminal who boasts to people you don't know, you get what you deserve.

  3. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No DeVry JD has commented that it's entrapment or violating the 5th amendment yet.

    Perhaps this site is looking up.

    1. Re:Wow by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      I think most people who claim entrapment mean that it SHOULD be considered as such, not that it is, legally.

  4. Loud partying is rude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How am I supposed to think with all that loud noise next door?

  5. On the Internet... by SeaFox · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    nobody knows that you're a pig.

  6. They have nothing else more important to do? by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2

    Really?

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by alen · · Score: 0

      some of us don't want concerts next door to us. if you want a legit show, go rent a legit venue and sell tickets

    2. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is super important! They are stopping terrorists* just like they said they would! And, the average teenager definitely qualifies as a terrorist.

      *Remember, you are considered a terrorist if you fall into one of these two categories:
      1) Being an American citizen
      2) Not being an American citizen

    3. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But some people do want to be loud once in a while. I guess it's just too bad that you're some how better - in a higher class of human - and your desires trump those of others.

    4. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by jmcvetta · · Score: 0

      Damn straight - only people with $$ deserve to have fun!

    5. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The difference is that being quiet does not affect anyone else, being loud does.

    6. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want loud music in your apartment, buy headphones. You don't have the right to annoy everyone else in the building and neighbourhood.

    7. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      I guess it's too bad that you think your desires trump those of others.

      Here's a clue: your right to swing your arms ends at my nose.

    8. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a sense you do; the constitution provides the freedom to speak, not freedom *from* speech.

    9. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go be loud somewhere else. Apartments and houses are places where people live and we have the right to peace and quiet when we're home.

    10. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't imagine how amusing it is to insist that an officer fill out a police report including the decibel reading outside your property line. Most city codes give an unsufferable amount of leeway and once the police realize you weren't born to take their shit, will happily go back to the aggreived party and tell them to fuck off. You see, police genuinley don't like getting involved in petty bullshit.

    11. Re: They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless that would conflict with "domestic tranquility."

    12. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      That only really makes sense if you're using loud music to say something. And to my mind what you're saying, very loudly, is: "we should really have some kind of law against annoying people with loud music".

    13. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that. Also we don't want a bunch of drunken imbeciles peeing on our walls and hallways, breaking pieces off of our cars or just running into them, etc. But, if you find some remote venue - you are more than welcome to do all that.

    14. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusing and sad that so many people think loud music is "speech". If you think that's expressing yourself, then my fist in your face is also me expressing myself and it's also protected by the constitution.

    15. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although that is true about the constitution - go look up your local noise ordinance. If you don't have one, you don't live in a place large enough for it to have been a problem.

    16. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      There is also a universal right to property and the enjoyment of that property. Almost all jurisdictions have noise bylaws which support that right.

    17. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us want to pepper a whore's cunt with cocaine and ride her up and
      down that imaginary line between bathroom and bed while listening to Death
      Metal that is so mind-blowingly loud, it is warping the hood of your prius
      that is parked outside. Then we get drunk, then all of our friends come over
      for more of the same. We scream, we fight, we fuck, we get so high from pills
      and powders, snorting and taking a hit off of the mystery pipe until fucking 5am
      in the morning. That's when we're out in front of the house pissing our bladders
      empty and calling you names before we head to a diner for bacon & eggs!

      I am sorry if that somehow takes away from your weekend of smoking weed
      and playing on your playstation followed by spells of intense masturbation.
      But again, some people have lives, even when you don't.

    18. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Freedom to speak, yes. Freedom to shout at all hours of the night, impinging your neighbors' health and peace of mind, no.

      Just in the same way that you have the freedom to write what you want... but only on things you own. You can't just scratch "Obama is a Muslin Satinist" on your neighbor's car and claim "free speech".

    19. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Bob_Who · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some of us want to pepper a whore's cunt with cocaine and ride her up and
      down that imaginary line between bathroom and bed while listening to Death
      Metal that is so mind-blowingly loud, it is warping the hood of your prius
      that is parked outside. Then we get drunk, then all of our friends come over
      for more of the same. We scream, we fight, we fuck, we get so high from pills
      and powders, snorting and taking a hit off of the mystery pipe until fucking 5am
      in the morning. That's when we're out in front of the house pissing our bladders
      empty and calling you names before we head to a diner for bacon & eggs!

      I am sorry if that somehow takes away from your weekend of smoking weed
      and playing on your playstation followed by spells of intense masturbation.
      But again, some people have lives, even when you don't.

      ...Easy for you to say on a cop's salary.

    20. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I'm 55, I can tolerate a concert next door on a Saturday night provided it finishes at a reasonable hour (say midnight), what I don't want is 500 drunken teenagers rioting in the street. Drunken brawls tend to spill into the street when large numbers of gatecrashers turn up to a party a kid has advertised on FB. I'm all in favour of cops watching FB for potential riots but pretending to be a dateless college girl is just silly, it would be far more effective to simply warn the party organiser publicly that they are being monitored and remind them of the local noise pollution laws.

      If you want a huge party with music all night and no cops, rent a rural property for the weekend.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! And what's with the name calling? Don't you have boundries?

    22. Re: They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we can't just draw the line for parties, what about children or pets or all of the other noises ivory tower bitches like you complain about?

      Hey, if you don't like the noise of having to live around other people maybe it is YOU who should move. Nobody else I've ever met in these dwellings has an unreasonable expectation of complete silence like you have.

    23. Re:They have nothing else more important to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough. Remember that you said that when you think about doing any kind of home repair or maintenance that involves power tools (mowing the lawn) and I call the cops on you for disturbing my peace and quiet. BTW, I don't want to hear about how the time of day or source of noise matters because it doesn't. We don't all work 9 to 5 and some people think enjoying life is as important as cutting the grass.

  7. This Is A Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It only makes sense that law enforcement should go into social networking sites to infiltrate evildoers, terrorists and other miscreants. It would be beyond naive to think they shouldn't be doing this, has nobody heard of cops going undercover in real life?
    I'm glad the NYPD is doing this to thwart these dastardly villains.

  8. Pre-meditated Loud Partying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worse than loud parties of passion, I guess?

    1. Re:Pre-meditated Loud Partying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least your can masturbate to that kind of noise.

  9. fake the fakers by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    this thing could just be the thing to do it.

    1. Re:fake the fakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Facebook can tag anybody in a picture, then those people can sue the police for unauthorized use of likeness. Unless they were arrested and agreed to allow them to perpetually use their likeness....

  10. Can you blame them? by Lynal · · Score: 0

    I don't want to condone or condemn these actions, but it just seems like a low-hanging fruit. If someone could do their job much more effectively at such a low cost (who reads the ToS anyways), is it surprising that they'd do this?

  11. Why not no knock warrants instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what i understand there is much less paperwork, and the kill ratio, especially for underage children is higher.
    Who has commited the greater Sin? The officer who kills a child? The judge who subverts the constitution so frivolously? Or the sheepish citizen whose boldest rebellion is to whine like a bitch on Slashdot? After all, who are you more afraid of, some whacked out Muslim in a desert 12,000 km away or an official from the state militia sworn to uphold the constitution? Answer -- fear them both. Because they don't care who they slaughter.

    1. Re:Why not no knock warrants instead? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I'll fear the domestic military* more, thanks. The Muslim is 12,000km away, and mostly has more pressing priorities at home. They're only likely to be an issue in this country if they need to rouse some more "foreign demons" to justify their cause.

      *The police are NOT a militia. A militia consists of civilians who supplement the military in an emergency, or engage in rebel activities, NOT a sustained military force.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Why not no knock warrants instead? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'll fear the domestic military* more, thanks.

      Don't feed their egos. They're not military, no matter how bad they want to be. For all its ills, the military is far more competent than the police are. We see this demonstrated over and over again on the streets of our country every day, as cops trying to act like military do bad and stupid things.

      The frustrating thing is, I doubt society would work without cops. But it isn't working now, and the cops we've got now are part of the reason why.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Old news by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From 2013 Cops Are Creating Totally Bogus Facebook Profiles Just So They Can Arrest People where they also point out that this is against FB's TOS

    Tangential to this in 2014 Justice Dept. will review practice of creating fake Facebook profiles (Which talks about Federal LE, most famously brought to light by the DEA creating the fake FB profile in the woman's name in order to nab suspects.

    Feds pay $134,000 to settle DEA agent's fake Facebook case

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Old news by jklovanc · · Score: 3

      The DEA case is different in that they impersonated a real person without her permission.

    2. Re:Old news by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      FaceBook may be the group that puts an end to this because it will KILL THEIR BRAND. Just as the police seem to target "urban" locations over suburban for drug raids -- targeting Facebook social party announcements will cause people to create their parties on other platforms.

      And we have to ignore the fact that drug addiction has been proven to be more the result of having an empty life over properties of the drug.

      While I don't want my kids getting involved in the drug scene, or have risky behaviors, I'd say it's clear that people have better lives and contribute more to society if they are NEVER CAUGHT by law enforcement. Experiment with drugs, move on, sell some to a friend and eventually grow out of it -- eventually become a well paid contributing member of society and a hypocrite while figuring your own kids will never do that kind of thing -- perfectly healthy compared to "ex con" status.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    3. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old news for pedos on the internet. Old news for hookers before the internet.

      I don't understand why people are surprised police will impersonate fake people. Vice is the entire police section to impersonate bad people.

      Or is this the case when they do it against criminals it's bad, but when they do it against more gray area, there is an outrage???

      If people were OK with police posing as 12-year olds for pedos, or posing as hookers then why are they then surprised that everyone else gets the same treatment soon after?

      Just now there was a story that UK police, once unarmed, are now taking guns out on routine checks, like speed traps or domestic disturbance incidents. And they were only to be used by "anti-terrorism special units" when introduced years ago.

      You give police any tool to be used in some specific circumstance, and it will get used against *you*. Simple as that.

    4. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cops in Ohio did this to a girl and used her identity to give to an undercover. the undercover earned wages as a stripper under the assumed identity.
      http://politechbot.com/2005/04/13/identity-theft-is/

      this is the Haley Dawson case for those of you that have heard about it

  13. Why Political activitys need a fake profile/image? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

    I'm kinda confused here. Why do they need to create a fake profiles/Images to watch political activities?? Last i checked being a part of any political activity isn't against the law. Being in a gang isn't a political activity nor is terrorism.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  14. Make sure to sow mistrust... by qeveren · · Score: 2

    Everywhere you go, in all things.

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    1. Re:Make sure to sow mistrust... by houghi · · Score: 1

      I heard this twice before in my life. Both was from people living in East-Germany when the wall was stil up.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Make sure to sow mistrust... by gweihir · · Score: 2

      That is not an accident. It is also not an accident that these societies collapsed. You cannot build a working society on mistrust. For society and economy to work, it is necessary that you can trust people you know in most cases. Eroding that trust is about the most immoral and evil thing that it is possible to do.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  15. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are literally acting like pedophiles.

    Creeps on the Internet making fake social accounts so they can track you.

  16. Shaky legal ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long till a defense attorney points out that they are obtaining evidence via an illegal act. Sure they can lie to a suspect but the cant falsely enter a contract.

  17. Re:Why Political activitys need a fake profile/ima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the same reason the NSA Fed the FBI information which the FBI then parsed and handed over to the IRS whom then performed tax audits on protesters they didn't like.

    Because if you are for a smaller government, putting people in jail when they commit fraud, and using money as a tool not as a master, you're against the crooks in this rotten government.

    Eventually everyone will realize this government has no legitimacy because it is about looting the lower classes and the meek. That's when the real fun starts.

  18. Re: Why Political activitys need a fake profile/im by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

    If you are a part of any anarchist, white supremacist, or otherwise socially/politically subversive group, the Bureaus treat you as fair game for stalking. No Matter that it is your right to have/speak those views, they will harass/arrest youfor any minor infraction or even engage in entrapment. This is tthe lesson learned since Ruby Ridge and numerous instances since.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  19. What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... of America dropping deeper and deeper into the abyss of absolute fascism

    ... this isn't condoning the actions of the NYPD ...

    I feel sad that you choose to limit it within the very narrow context of 'action of NYPD'

    The sad fact is that the United States of America, thanks to NYPD and all other local / state / federal law enforcement agencies is becoming more and more like what the Stasi did in Eastern Germany, or the secret police of the Nicolae Ceausescu regime of Romania, or under the CCP in China, or the Kim's secret police in North Korea, ...
     
    If the sentence 'uprooting terrorist plots, tracking "political activity"' fails to alarm any of the Americans, the future of United States of America is bleak

    I mean, please read that sentence again

    They actually use the term "terrorist plots" and the term "political activity" in the same fucking sentence!

    What kind of America is _that_ ?

    Aren't Americans supposed to be free to associate or join with any political activity, especially in the Land of the FREE??

    What the fuck has happened to the freedom of association?

    Or has America turned into a place where local law enforcement agencies such as NYPD, and all other agencies from the States as well as from the Federal level, get to dictate who can mix with whom now??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  20. If you have nothing to hide...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you have nothing to fear.

  21. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Calm your taco: none of this is new or different, except the "on a computer" part. I thought we were over "on a computer" freak-outs?

    HS and college parties have always had narcs. Either undercover officers, or informers who were in the social scene and would ruin parties for fun. In college, we'd always learn who they were by the end of the year, and plan accordingly, but there'd be a new crop of them the next year.

    This is just that, "on a computer". A fake profile is easier than a CI, enabling more surveillance, but this doesn't seem different in kind. This isn't some panopticon with perpetual DB, like a lot of recent crap, this is just automating old-school narcing a bit.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  22. the people of New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really just need to hang all the cops in times square and start over

  23. Back In The Day by JimSadler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Under cover cops used to do things like randomly rent apartments in places they thought they could make contacts and do investigations. Back about 1967 I was more than amazed to find out that the very young looking hippie girl from next door was in fact an undercover cop. It went so far that she had moved out of her apartment and was living on the roofs of hotels on Ft. lauderdale beach in order to get on the inside with people prone to crime. All that has changed is that with the net the same tactics are easier to use. As for the cops a big part of this ios in not making arrests so that a police agent can work further and further into criminal activities. They may be on top of a criminal for several years before springing the trap and then they will have a list of charges so long the person will be buried in the prisons unless he starts working for the cops.

    1. Re:Back In The Day by gweihir · · Score: 2

      The cost to society this incurs is extreme: People do not trust strangers anymore and society slowly loses cohesion. The possible crime fighting successes pale in comparison to the damage done.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Back In The Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok cause we're keeping an eye on the cops the exact same way. ;)

    3. Re:Back In The Day by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Whether or not this incurs a cost on society or is a benefit to society depends on the law being enforced. If it's to stop organized crime, then it's probably a net benefit to society. If it's to enforce a law prohibiting you from putting coins in someone else's parking meter, then it's probably a net detriment to society.

      The world does not divide up into neat and tidy categories of behaviors which are always good or always bad. Sometimes the benefit is worth the price paid, sometimes it's not.

    4. Re:Back In The Day by phorm · · Score: 1

      *SHOULD* you be trusting strangers to your house party, hoards of personal information, or various other things?
      I can think of many people you should be more wary of than the cops. How about when "Bob Burglar" on your FB friends sees you "I'll be gone to Vegas for 2 weeks, can somebody babysit my cat" post?

    5. Re:Back In The Day by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Your point? You seem to be unaware that I was commenting on the case at hand...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. Time to bust out the Social Engineering! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd have these morons running all over NYC busting fake parties at the homes of every liberal in the City...

  25. Track This Political Activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the police.

  26. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True. Doesn't change the fact that it's fairly disgusting behavior by a fairly disgusting agency though.

  27. Normal by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "NYPD Creates Fake Social Media Profiles To Track Loud Parties, Underage Drinking"

    Who doesn't?

  28. How many by raind · · Score: 1

    other pd's do this without being exposed? Should we start a contest?

    --
    Get up!
  29. This is a good way to engender hatred of police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the police wonder why they are hated in some parts of society, they need
    look no further than their own unethical behavior in this case.

    It IS NOT SOCIETY'S JOB to infiltrate parties or other social gatherings.
    That is the job of a parent if it is anyone's job.

  30. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IOW: Relax, we've always had COINTELPRO. Whatcha getting your panties in twist for?

  31. If you use the devil to catch the devil... by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

    You're still playing with the devil.

    I think one of the reasons for the crime rate in the US is the wonderful example the authorities are setting with their fake profiles and spying on people.

  32. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    They actually use the term "terrorist plots" and the term "political activity" in the same fucking sentence!

    All terrorist plots are political, otherwise it wouldn't be terrorism. So political activity really is where you'd get earliest warning of possible terrorism. That's not the problem. The problem is that the government likes to crap all over the Constitution.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  33. Re: Why Political activitys need a fake profile/im by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll monitor any vaguely political activity that counters establishment interests and they always have. You don't have to be anything extreme like a terrorist or a supremacist - being an activist of *any* stripe makes you a target.

  34. You do not understand Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They actually use the term "terrorist plots" and the term "political activity" in the same fucking sentence!

    All terrorist plots are political, otherwise it wouldn't be terrorism. So political activity really is where you'd get earliest warning of possible terrorism

    I guess you haven't figure out what Islam is, have you?

    Islam is not only a religion. It's an ideology, a way of life, an all encompassing manual for the follower to do in their daily living

    In Islam it does not need politics to get people to become willing martyrs - because all it takes is to point out to that potential candidate the teachings as outlined in their enshrined texts and the promises of an everlasting enjoyment in the afterlife

    Thus, looking for 'political activities' do not apply to the Islamic folks --- as they are not into the same kind of 'activism' the Westerners are familiar with

  35. Re: Why Political activitys need a fake profile/im by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So where are the police tracking Richard Stallman? Where are the undercover cops who pose as students of MIT to bring down that radical activist, Mr Stallman?

  36. violation of the CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesnt this explicitly violate Facebooks TOS and therefore constitute a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act?

  37. At least this teaches them about online predators by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Like the ones in the story. Side benefits are learning about chilling effects, dishonesty and certain groups of people that cannot be trusted for anything. This will be invaluable preparation for the coming fascist regime, so I would say the NYPD is doing good here.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  38. Wait approved by top brass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they don't trust their own agents why should the rest of us?

  39. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck has happened to the freedom of association?

    It was punched in the face by our Founding Fathers themselves, and then taken out back and shot twice in the head by Mr. Lincoln.

  40. Re: Why Political activitys need a fake profile/im by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he was advocating the freedom of people and not just software, then you would be sure that three-letter-agencies would be all over him.

  41. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by DirePickle · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure it's the same America that put all of its Japanese citizens into camps, destroyed the lives of scientists because they had left-leaning friends, tested experimental drugs on the poor, incarcerated and military without their knowing, and practiced eugenics on "undesirables."

    The America you remember never existed except in propaganda.

  42. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a waste of resources. But i think this just shows you that they are interested in surveilance (hollywood style) because shit is dope yo, rather than going after real crime. Under age drinking, pffft. Fuxing hipocritical bullshit!

  43. Priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad they're spending our tax dollars wisely, keeping people from having fun and avoiding taking actual criminals off the streets.

  44. Disonest by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    They thin their word, and invalidate their testimony,

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  45. Weaselly wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake profiles must be approved by bureau brass, unless it would "seriously impair" an investigation or risk life or property damage.

    Ahhh, the classic law enforcement weasel words that guarantees that there will be absolutely no oversight or approval needed. Especially since it also keeps the brass off the hook when the press finds out about the inevitable egregious behaviors of the officers. Management can simply claim we "didn't know that this highly illegal/unethical activity was happening" and it was "not authorized as per our procedure"...

    Just like that case where the DEA created a fake Facebook profile of a real person and deliberately put her underage son at risk so they could entrap someone they wanted. They simply didn't care if she and her son were killed as a result. They quickly changed their tune when the story became public with the accompanying hand wringing by management about how can we avoid being sued.

  46. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you feel the need to violate federal law in order to track loud parties? Just wait till the noise complaints come in, drive to that area, roll down the window and start listening. I'm sure NYPD dispatch already filters out incoming 911 calls from areas the police do not want to go into at night (very poor areas). Oh, I forgot. That requires actual police work and not sitting in an office reading Facebook all day. Sounds like a nice easy job, I wonder how much that pays.

  47. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Or, ditch the "nothing to see here, move along" pablum. In the 80's, cops weren't armed with military hardware, and the FBI wasn't running around trying to turn activists into terrorists with paid informants. In the 90's, the NSA might have liked to spy on everyone's communications (see Clipper Chip) but most people didn't have email, much less cell phones, much less Twitter or Facebook.

    HS and college parties have always had narcs.

    And the police department's with limited resources always had to send an actual person to do said narcing. Now they can skip all that by pulling an automated report from their friendly neighborhood Fusion Center, launder the illegally gained "intelligence" with parallel construction, and start shopping for a new squad car with asset forfeiture before the DA even brings an indictment.

    Pab. Lum.

  48. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Aren't Americans supposed to be free to associate or join with any political activity, especially in the Land of the FREE??

    Ask anyone who was hounded out of their job in the 1950s by Senator Joe McCarthy for going to a cocktail party where communist party members may have been..

    This shit has been going on for a long time.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  49. Re:What NYPD is doing is part of a larger trend .. by lgw · · Score: 1

    Police aren't raiding HS parties to pad their budget with asset forfeitures, AFAIK, it's just a nuisance crime that they don't want to be bothered with in the first place. At least at my college, there was never any shortage of willing narcs to have all parties covered, unless you worked to keep it secret. I suspect HS parties are about the same.

    Yes, there are real problems with police overreach, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  50. There's one rule about Facebook... by hacker · · Score: 1

    Never, EVER accept a Friend request from someone you haven't met, physically, in person. Seriously.

    I treat Facebook and LinkedIn with the same policy, and I have dozens of Friend Requests pending for YEARS, which will never be accepted. If I haven't met the person and pressed palms with them, then they don't get connected to me using social platforms, period.

    You would be wise to do the same. With all the dark profiles being built behind the scenes, it makes sense to keep things clean and tight.