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.

18 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    3. 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'
    4. 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?
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.