Slashdot Mirror


Facebook, Instagram, Twitter Block Tool For Cops To Surveil You On Social Media (vice.com)

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California announced that, after the organization obtained revealing documents through public records access requests, Facebook and Instagram have cut off data access to a company that sells surveillance products for law enforcement. Twitter has also curbed the surveillance product's access. Motherboard reports: The product, called Geofeedia, is used by law enforcement to monitor social media on a large scale, and relies on social media sites' APIs or other means of access. According to one internal email between a Geofeedia representative and police, the company claimed their product "covered Ferguson/Mike Brown nationally with great success," in reference to the fatal police shooting of a black teenager in Missouri in 2014, and subsequent protests. "Our location-based intelligence platform enables hundreds of organizations around the world to predict, analyze, and act based on real-time social media signals," the company's website reads. According to the ACLU, Instagram provided Geofeedia access to its API; Facebook gave access to a data feed called the Topic Feed API, which presents users with a ranked list of public posts; and Twitter provided Geofeedia, through an intermediary, with searchable access to its database of public tweets. Instagram and Facebook terminated Geofeedia's access on September 19, and Twitter announced on Tuesday that it had suspended Geofeedia's commercial access to Twitter data.

80 comments

  1. Really makes your neurons fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know trying to stay ahead of a riot was so controversial.

    1. Re:Really makes your neurons fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that actually what they were doing? I don't doubt that some gatherings need to be nipped in the bud before they grow too large (violence, destruction of property, etc) but there are many cases where there was no evidence of any wrongdoing (actual or intentional) but police moved in anyways. One incident comes to mind from the OWS protests, police reports basically read "Protestors were told to get off Courthouse steps and move to the sidewalk, they refused, we were forced to arrest them" but a street camera videotape clearly showed police talking to the protestors, and pretty much all of them move to the sidewalk in fairly short order, despite this a little less than an hour later multiple police vehicles swarm on the scene and begin arresting people. Of course after the video came to light the police report was passed off as a "miscommunication".

    2. Re:Really makes your neurons fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right Wingers. Hate the government. Love the government's law enforcement. As long as it's being used against people they don't like anyway. What a freak show.

  2. Why? by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Funny

    How dare people monitor what people post publicly?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They can monitor it, just not with API access with vendor permission. Not just everyone gets API access so this would be considered implicitly "sanctioned" activity. This isn't the same thing as a person reading things through a browser and connecting dots. The blowback from being associated with officially sanctioned government monitoring is not good for these services since the trust level is lower and eroding quickly.

      In reality, this is all PR. I am sure they provide these tools directly to LE, for a fee, and they don't this company because a) the bad PR and b) someone else selling services they can offer

    2. Re:Why? by Empiric · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's a question of scale and data-mining objective.

      Give me everything you've ever posted, let's bet on whether I can come up with a one-paragraph "summary" that "represents you" that's disqualifying enough for your next job as read by HR, or a political run as read by the public.

      Two to one.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    3. Re:Why? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How dare people monitor what people post publicly?

      It's OK for the police to track your movements via fake phone towers, because you're publically transmitting that data anyway.
      It's OK to place audio-bugs around the city to listen in on people walking around, because they're in a public place.
      It's OK to have license-plate readers on every road to track people's travel habits because they're out in public.

      We're all out "in public" or say things "in public" where the public could overhear us, or see us. That doesn't make tracking or bugging the general public OK. It's one thing to casually over hear someone, or read what a stranger posted. It's an entirely different animal to go out and track an individual or a group of individuals and monitor their every move and utterance. Even in public we have an expectation not to be stalked.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because selling you out to the feds is Facebook's job, and they don't appreciate the competition.

    5. Re:Why? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      This all falls in with the same logic as how after all the other crazy stuff Trump has said (speaking as a likely Trump voter) he should some how be suddenly disqualified for some "joshing around guy talk" from 10 years ago. The reality is just about everyone says some in appropriate, poorly considered, things in bad taste some times. The fact that its all searchable and forever in public now is what has changed.

      I don't see the problem with law enforcement data mining peoples public statements for stuff related to current events/open investigations. That seems perfectly reasonable actually. The rest of us though need to learn to set the stuff aside when it comes to character judgements, because if we don't their won't be a qualified person among us to collect the trash, let alone run for president, or teach 3rd grade english.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Why? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For decades now, the only people who could run for president were those who knew they would be politicians at a very early age and lived lives of deceit from the start.

      The positive way to look at this is that weasels won't be able to hide their dirt in the future. But the way the media is handling Hillary doesn't make me optimistic though. It only works if you have honest reporting.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Why? by Empiric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reality is just about everyone says some in appropriate, poorly considered, things in bad taste some times. The fact that its all searchable and forever in public now is what has changed.

      Agreed.

      I don't see the problem with law enforcement data mining peoples public statements for stuff related to current events/open investigations.

      This is assuming that law enforcement is objectively and dispassionately prioritizing their enforcement activities. Do you trust the current U.S. Department of Justice to do so, say, relative to Hillary Clinton? I don't. We have arguably people who have done the exact same things now in prison. In her case the FBI Director went ahead and decided he's now in the judicial branch, rather than the law enforcement and investigation branch, and went ahead and declared on the judicial branch's behalf that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue the case. As it's been said, with the number of laws on the books, everyone is guilty of something every day--what has prosecutorial effect is what and whom the law is focused on as a target. Who do you trust to make those decisions, and will you trust the unknown people doing so in 5 years?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    8. Re:Why? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      "joshing around guy talk"

      Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk", unless we're talking about the guys on your cell block.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Why? by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk",

      Do you by chance know the who/what/when & where of this 'admitted' sexual assault? No? Neither do I.

      I hate having to defend Trump, but yes, at this point it was just "joshing around guy talk" as we don't have any other evidence of a crime.

      You can claim rather easily that you raped and killed a young girl in 1990... and absent any other evidence (a confession alone is worth very little), that doesn't mean the event happened, only that you made a claim that may or may not be true. ... though I remain surprised the Clinton campaign hasn't brought someone out yet who claims to be one of Trump's victims yet.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the transcript again.

      Trump: [T]hey let you do it.

      It's not sexual assault when the woman implicitly allows the action to take place.

    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk", unless we're talking about the guys on your cell block.

      I love American liberal hypocrisy. When a man is a victim of sexual assault, it's all laughs, not unlike the tape. But when it's a woman, you all lose your shit.

    12. Re:Why? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If you say it on the Internet, it's there to be read, period. They're just going to run their own crawler instead. This is a non-story, really. It's more than just overheard, it's being broadcast.

      It's OK for the police to track your movements via fake phone towers, because you're publically transmitting that data anyway.

      Already requires a warrant. The fake phone towers are still illegal (yet to be proven) if other phones connect to it. This requires intercepting encrypted communications and performing a MITM attack.

    13. Re:Why? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I love American liberal hypocrisy. When a man is a victim of sexual assault, it's all laughs, not unlike the tape. But when it's a woman, you all lose your shit.

      I'm pretty sure that if Trump or Hillary talked about "grabbing a man's penis" against his will, it would reflect badly on them.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Why? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not sexual assault when the woman implicitly allows the action to take place.

      "It's not slavery if the man allows the whipping to take place".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Why? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean we have to make it easier on the fascists to spy on us.

    16. Re:Why? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you by chance know the who/what/when & where of this 'admitted' sexual assault?

      Yes.

      http://reason.com/blog/2016/10...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trump was disqualified to be president for things he said moths ago. the latest edition of what Trump said was not "Joshing around Guy talk". He bragged about sexually assaulting women, because he could.
      that is not guy talk.
      added to all the other stuff hes said over the campaign, he is racist,misogynistic, Islamophobic bigot, and i can only presume you are as well. you have to be to tolerate the statements hes made, and still think hes fit to be president.

    18. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is not "people"

    19. Re:Why? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      i think the difference is you are transmitting TO the public on twitter and social media (thats the point of it) therefore there is no good reason not to use that information

      the items you spoke of are talking about trying to gather private conversations

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    20. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A reason blog? That's settled then.

    21. Re:Why? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      How dare people monitor what people post publicly?

      Well yes, this is like running naked through the park then complaining that people looked at you... You should be careful about what you post online. Doubly so if it's under your real name.

      However on the other side of the coin, we also don't have to make it easy for law enforcement to track you either.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:Why? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The other methods are private conversations (held in public places).
      Posting a comment on Facebook is a semi-private message (held in a public place).

      If someone followed you around in public recording everything you said whilst in public you could probably sue them for harassment, or get a restraining order. You have no such option online.

      I'm not blind to the differences. What you say in the marketplace disappears into history for anyone not around to hear it. What is published online stays there. You can see if people are around you in the town square. You can't see who is reading online- you have to assume it's everyone. Not being insensitive to those differences, I still think it amounts to an invasion of privacy and harassment for companies to harvest your data wholesale or sell it without your permission.

      It is tolerated because that's the way it's always been online and we've got used to it. If there were an economic way to record everything you say and do in public in the real world there would be more of a stink.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    23. Re:Why? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]â"I just start kissing them," Trump told Access Hollywood's Billy Bush, according to an audio tape leaked to The Washington Post on Friday. "It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

      Emphasis mine, because, well, you can't do that. Grabbing an unsuspecting and unwilling person's genitals is a criminal act of sexual assault under any definition of sexual assault. Trump is evidently proud of the fact that he wielded his wealth and star power as a weapon to help him abuse womenâ"to kiss and grope them without their permission. This is violence, full stop.

      No specifics there, yes it is violence so is half the stuff in 50 Shades. In human sexuality people agree to acts just by making eyes at each other. Its not a good or reliable system but its the way it works, in much of the animal kingdom too. I highly doubt Trump goes around grabbing anyone by the pussy, if he did there would be more sexual assault complaints. That is exactly the kind of talk men boast to each other with, "I am so gosh damn important that women line up to have me fondle them..." Its dick waiving lots folks do.

      I am not saying its right, its just common.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was over the line, it was not normal locker room talk, and yet it falls short of a confession to an actual crime.

      It was hot air spewed by one would-be alpha male trying to convince another who's studlier.

      The only meaning to it, beyond that, is that Trump is an asshole, but we already knew that.

      Speaking as someone who *STILL* thinks he's the lesser evil. If there is such a thing.

      If we're going to prosecute Trump for it, we should also be prosecuting Hillary as an accessory after the fact to her husband's sexual assaults.

    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like an NSA troll.

    26. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      You forgot to quote (or read, judging from your conclusion) this part:

      Some people might be tempted to write off Trump's comments to Bush as empty boasts. They would be utter fools to do so. The New York Times, in fact, has just run an interview with a woman who says she was given the Trump treatment by the reality TV star. This is not an isolated incident: there is ample evidence that Trump has physically harmed women. And he has now admitted on tape that he feels license to mistreat them.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    27. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      I hate having to defend Trump, but yes, at this point it was just "joshing around guy talk" as we don't have any other evidence of a crime.

      As a man, I can tell you that this is not "joshing around guy talk". I've never met anyone who talks like this, ever.

      And he was, actually, stating that he routinely sexually assaults women, using his celebrity status to get away with it. The fact he didn't name names is immaterial.

      I have no idea what gender you are. If you're female, no, Trump is not an example of how men act behind closed doors. If you're a man, you need to do some deep introspection and ask yourself what kind of person you are. Because if you seriously think it's normal for men to boast about sexual assault, then there's something wrong with your moral compass. It's not normal. Normal men are disgusted by sexual assault, and we'd never tolerate anyone boasting about it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    28. Re:Why? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      There is what is know as normative behavior though. If you are in a public place and you want to share something private with someone, you look around as you say to see if someone is near by, you lower you voice.

      Posting on facebook, Twitter is just that its posting, its more like standing in the public square with a megaphone and sandwich board, or nailing you list of grievances to the cathedral door.

      There are plenty of ways to send private or more private communications online. PGP + E-mail works pretty good (pun intended).

      The difference is really the longevity and discoverability of the message. It used to be the wind and rain would take the message you pinned up down eventually, if you said something stupid in public and found yourself ostracized for it rightly or wrongly you could move a couple towns over where nobody knew you. Now everyone can discover every stupid thing you ever said on the Internet anywhere you go no matter how long its been (in a lot of cases). People simply need to get used to it and adapt, maybe be a little less "free" with their self expression online, least they find their passions and ideas evolve later but their posting history and reputation can't seem to catch up.

         

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    29. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And when you're a star they let you do it"

      You're dropping context. Unless you know the exact sequence of his and her hypothetical actions within the context of her "letting him do it", you are arguing that all sexual contact is assault.

    30. Re:Why? by mi · · Score: 1

      "It's not slavery if the man allows the whipping to take place".

      It is slavery, if the man can be punished (up to and including by death) for refusing to work for free.

      Trump held no power over the women involved. He may have flaunted his wealth, but, unlike Clinton, he never used armed men under his command to compel his victims into sex acts. And yet, you consider Bill Clinton the best President ever (or second only to Obama), while Trump's "assaults" make him an abomination.

      Your hypocrisy is not even thick — it is rock solid already...

      "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." - Abraham Lincoln

      No, what Lincoln actually said was “Bitch nigga buy your own damn fries.”

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    31. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Note to self: User Mi apparently thinks celebrities should be able to sexually assault women because their victims technically will not get killed if they complain about it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    32. Re:Why? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      No specifics there, yes it is violence so is half the stuff in 50 Shades.

      I didn't realize the author of 50 Shades of Gray was running for president.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:Why? by mi · · Score: 1

      User Mi apparently thinks celebrities should be able to sexually assault women

      User mi does not think, a kiss equates to an assault. Not in English language.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    34. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "from 10 years ago"

      10 years is old news. Hey, the Nazis were over 70 years ago. Time heals all wounds.

    35. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he was describing the way groupies behave.
      Unfortunately, I've never had groupies of my own, but when I was in college, I got stuck in the athlete's dorm one year. I got to see PLENTY of what the groupies did. They would have rejoiced if the football star came up and grabbed their pussy - frequently, they'd be rubbing it all over him as encouragement. Drunken blowjobs in the hallways from girls they didn't know? No problems! Blatant sexual bragging about pussies, tits, or asses? Check! Vivid descriptions of what was going into or out of said body parts? Check!

      You may have lived a very tame life, and never seen locker room talk. But it exists, hell, it's common, and it isn't sexual assault.

    36. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course once people know they are under surveillance, the may not speak their mind or may not even post. From your post it appears you would prefer that.

    37. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about grabbing them by the pussy without their permission, is that assault?

    38. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare people monitor what people post publicly?

      It's OK for the police to track your movements via fake phone towers, because you're publically transmitting that data anyway.
      It's OK to place audio-bugs around the city to listen in on people walking around, because they're in a public place.
      It's OK to have license-plate readers on every road to track people's travel habits because they're out in public.

      We're all out "in public" or say things "in public" where the public could overhear us, or see us. That doesn't make tracking or bugging the general public OK. It's one thing to casually over hear someone, or read what a stranger posted. It's an entirely different animal to go out and track an individual or a group of individuals and monitor their every move and utterance. Even in public we have an expectation not to be stalked.

      Any of us can do all of those things legally, the police can't? There might be rules about using any of the above as evidence at trial, but they are legal, and valuable intelligence.

    39. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is if its not wanted, even if the girl doesn't explicitly say no (whether due to intoxication, fear, whatever)

    40. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no reason to conclude what Trump was talking about was "without their permission", and in fact he said he was talking about a situation where "they let you do it".

      Do you get notarized "permission" in every case of sexual contact? If so, I venture to say you've never had any.

    41. Re:Why? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Efficiency and cost play a huge role in mass-surveillance. If you cannot establish fascism relatively cheaply, you will generally fail to establish it at all. So this is actually an efficient countermeasure, given that "site scraping" is something these sites try to make hard.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    42. Re:Why? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Just rearrange terms like "people", government, contractors a bit and its all legal in every city and state again.
      The US government actually has to allow for the right of assemble and petition without big gov/mil been able to spy, block or stop such fully protected activity.
      The press is also free to report on such comments and petitions without the gov getting enforce a stop to all such reporting.
      Freedom was understood to work well when not under chilling domestic spying and that is why it is fully protected from any gov.
      All that British tyranny in the past now gives the people huge amounts of freedom to talk, interact, protest and even report freely.
      If only private sector contractors could be used to get around such gov limitations?
      If the private sector collects all its not a gov search, no warrants per person needed, no gov/mil is doing the nation wide violation.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    43. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is assuming that law enforcement is objectively and dispassionately prioritizing their enforcement activities. Do you trust the current U.S. Department of Justice to do so

      Look to your left, you will see an empty bag. Look to the right, you will see a cat a quarter mile away. Good Luck

    44. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exponential gawker psyop alert

    45. Re:Why? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      As a man, I can tell you that this is not "joshing around guy talk". I've never met anyone who talks like this, ever.

      I don't, but I've met people who do, and when they talk in public they tend to be very PC, social justice, anti-misogyny, etc, and overall they are very politically left leaning. In case you haven't met one of these, Bill Cosby is an excellent example.

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

      Who says they only have acess to your public posts?
      I'm sure they also have access to your phone number, home address, and email account too. You know, things that are NOT public.

    47. Re:Why? by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I prefer what I see looking up.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    48. Re:Why? by mi · · Score: 1

      Yes it is if its not wanted

      No, actually, not even then. I linked to the definition of assault before — unwanted kiss does not qualify, even if Anderson Cooper thinks it does.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  3. Sadly, easy to fix: by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) form new shell company
    2) make website that throws up stupid quizzes and such with topics that appeal highly to people you want to monitor
    3) hoover up every ounce of data you can suck out of the FB API
    4) sell results to law enforcement, advertisers, etc etc
    5) profit! (notice the lack of "?" yeah, me too.)

    If discovered and rejected/blocked by FB, restart at step 1), with the bonus of having the existing databases to plug the new website into.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Sadly, easy to fix: by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Why would you make just one web site? All of the shell companies & websites should appear to be as independent as possible so that if one does get shut down, you don't have the time & energy cost to spin up another.

  4. Ok... and... ? by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The API *IS STILL THERE*

    So they've stopped one "nefarious" company...

    That company has proven the APIs make it possible to collect and collate data on behaviors and intents. What's to stop governments with shell companies from using it in the same fashion?

    How about political parties?

    Shops using the data to more accurately target spam hacks at you? I'm sure you've had a few spam calls as of late.

    Ooo - lookit us, we're so protective of your rights BS. If they really care they'd shut down the APIs altogether.

    1. Re:Ok... and... ? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this court ruling
      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
      Facebook could have TOS that prohibits LEO/government usage of APIs, directly or indirectly(shell company), unless with a court order.

  5. *sigh* by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    Don't the police have better things to do than monitoring citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights?

    1. Re:*sigh* by dagrichards · · Score: 1

      This is the online equivalent of driving a patrol car around watching for people that need to be spoken to. People driving weaving back and forth in a lane are exercising their rights. When stopped, they are sometime found to be DUI. People often post things on Facebook that are the equivalent of "Lets go do some crimes". Post publicly ... walk down the street ... uh what exactly is the difference?

    2. Re:*sigh* by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      People driving weaving back and forth in a lane are exercising their rights.

      You don't have a constitutional right to create dangerous driving conditions. There's a difference between driving with the flow of traffic at 75MPH and weaving in-and-out of traffic at 75MPH. The latter behavior will get you pulled over and ticketed.

    3. Re:*sigh* by dagrichards · · Score: 1

      Exactly the point I was making. You have a right to drive ( this is actually a privilege, not a right ) . Doing so on public streets will expose you to scrutiny, sometimes you may be found to be dangerous. This is why we have police patrolling not simply waiting in a depot to be dispatched.

    4. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "online equivalent of driving a patrol car"

      Police cars can be seen and they have limited numbers/resources so they have to focus on areas of actual (or at least perceived) crime. This is a little more like the police purchasing and deploying thousands of cheap hidden spy devices (directional mics, license plate scanners, mobile phone ID loggers, etc) throughout a community without regard for private property/privacy and conveniently "forgetting" to tell the public about it.

    5. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of you are wrong. It's more like posting a single camera that records 24/7 everything that anyone puts up on the one specific telephone pole that happens to be very popular with everyone.

      Personally, I'm OK with this. Maybe people will learn to stop making stupid "hey watch me do illegal shit" posts.

    6. Re:*sigh* by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Aehm, no? If they restricted themselves to the things they should legitimately do, they would have to sack half their people and give up all their new shiny toys. That is not going to happen...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. Did anybody think was not *not* happening? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    It's almost as if the entire social media ecosystem is designed to gather up data relating to your behaviors, decision making, and skillset into a neat little package for the highest bidder. Say it aint so!

    Its curious how every time a revelation like this surfaces, the masses act all slighted and surprised. Why else would facebook insist on you using your real full name? Is there ANY other legitimate reason? If it was just advertising as they claim, my name could easily be CONSUMER42234564.

    Has anybody else noticed how far these services have wormed their way into our various social systems? From our senators live tweeting while in session to FB running the second presidential debate by proxy, does the scope of the surveillance really surprise ANYBODY anymore?

    The only way to win is not to play, but the breadth of the social media reach is making that next to impossible.....

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  7. Parallel Construction by twmcneil · · Score: 1

    All this behavior, the hoovering up of seemingly inconsequential data, is all about Parallel Construction. LEOs seemed to be fascinated by the technique right now. The way things work these days is: Someone reports a crime. LEOs decide who did it. Having evidence is optional at this point. They sift through all the data they have on the selected person(s) until they arrive at some reason to make life really hard for that person(s). So hard, that the accused confess and plea to the originally reported crime. Case closed.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
    1. Re:Parallel Construction by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its great for civil asset forfeiture too. Buy lots of telco products with that new cash flow. Then rent and buy more time with the private sector to track ever more users.
      More case work, over time, expanding budgets, promotions, holidays. More asset forfeiture to cover any shortfall in city, state and federal task force funding after big upgrades or just to cover every new budget .
      Contractors see the money left on the table and swarm in with fantastic rental software products per city, state to find more "users" in real time.
      Police forces are then addicted to rental GUI's, voice prints, phone tracking, bespoke malware key loggers, ip's and onion routing discovery per case.
      The toolsets of nations, mil are now been rented on city and state budgets at federal prices.
      Every min, hour, day, week, year sat in front of a contractor social media tracking system is billed to the state or city.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Parallel Construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this behavior, the hoovering up of seemingly inconsequential data, is all about Parallel Construction. LEOs seemed to be fascinated by the technique right now. The way things work these days is: Someone reports a crime. LEOs decide who did it. Having evidence is optional at this point. They sift through all the data they have on the selected person(s) until they arrive at some reason to make life really hard for that person(s). So hard, that the accused confess and plea to the originally reported crime. Case closed.

      Ummm, no, that isn't what parallel construction means.

      Parallel construction is when cops have illegally gathered information that they can't use in court, then try to manufacture a plausible reason to do the same thing.

      For example, with an illegal wiretap cops learn that a drug dealer will be delivering a big shipment, driving a specific car at a specific time. Cops find them, then pull them over saying that they turned illegally or other BS which is nearly impossible to disprove. Then the cops say they "smelled marijuana" and searched the vehicle, finding the big stash.

      Sounds like just a lucky break. But it isn't.

  8. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you believe this load you're already too far gone.

  9. They can just buy it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of getting it from FB & co., now they'll just buy it from someone else. Great work, thanks for all the privacy invading APIs!

  10. Assaults of different kinds by mi · · Score: 1

    Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk"

    Is that why Bill Clinton never admitted his? His actual assaults on multiple women, not merely kissing them without a prior written and notarized permission?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Assaults of different kinds by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Did you ever hear the story of the boy who cried wolf?

      Because there's a similar story about the right wing partisan that cried "Clintons committed another crime".

      If Bill Clinton admits to sexually assaulting women, as Trump did, or else he's prosecuted and found guilty, we'll believe that he did and treat him as dirt. But until then, the number of proven false accusations of everything from real estate fraud to murder makes it impossible to take any allegations against him seriously.

      Right now the only allegation of sexual impropriety made against Bill Clinton that's been shown to be true is an affair with a consenting woman. That makes him a dick in terms of his treatment of his wife. It does not make him a rapist. And it certainly doesn't make his wife a criminal.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Assaults of different kinds by mi · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously claiming, it is your sincere belief, Bill Clinton has never sexually assaulted anyone? Please, say so.

      Right now the only allegation of sexual impropriety made against Bill Clinton that's been shown to be true is an affair with a consenting woman

      Right now there are simply no such proven allegations against Trump. Zero — confession without hard evidence do not count. And it was investigated by the best minds in the business — the most they could find was a Florida model attending Trump's party, whom he has offered to change into a swimsuit. Wow, the nerve! It was so pathetic, it made some Democrats laugh.

      And it certainly doesn't make his wife a criminal.

      His wife is — credibly — accused of suppressing his victims' accusations. That is not merely immoral, but criminal too.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Assaults of different kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bill Clinton admits to sexually assaulting women, as Trump did, or else he's prosecuted and found guilty, we'll believe that he did and treat him as dirt.

      What group are you speaking for? For reference "innocent until proven guilty" means that _in the eyes of the law/government_ one is treated as innocent until proven guilty. It really doesn't mean anything at all as far as what various people think of one another and suspect about one another.

  11. Sell me spies sell me 1337 little spies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any government or group or company or agency that spies, and lies about its spies, and lies that it does not spy, will spy and lie about it not spying while lying about spying and not spying.

    For now, you're safe from spying inside your own head, and no place else... and the government already has field-agents in the hotel across the street from your head, trying to see in.

  12. Commercial Access by hhawk · · Score: 1

    It says that Twitter announced "Tuesday that it had suspended Geofeedia's commercial access to Twitter data."

    Does that mean it still has non-commercial (e.g., NOT for resale)? Just saying they seem like the sort who might use the non-commercial feed for commercial purposes..

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
    1. Re:Commercial Access by SQL+Error · · Score: 2

      Twitter have multiple APIs. The Gnip API is probably what's meant here; it's a paid API that provides a filtered feed of the entire stream of tweets.

      The regular Twitter REST API is more limited, but it's available to anyone with a working Twitter account, so it's basically impossible for Twitter to block access by technical means.

  13. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter Block Tool For... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook, Instagram, Twitter Block Tool For Facebook, Instagram, Twitter To Surveil You On Social Media!

  14. He *DID* sexual assault in the bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you guys missed it, but about 40 seconds in, Trump spots a girl in a purple dress (a researcher), says "Geez's she's beautiful", all the men say "Whoa", and one of them says "The Donald has scored".

    He lifted her skirt and cupped the pussy of a junior researcher.