Slashdot Mirror


DC Inauguration Protestors Are Being Hit With Facebook Data Searches (citylab.com)

During the protests over the inauguration of Donald Trump, more than 230 protestors were arrested -- many of which were charged with rioting and had their phones seized by Washington, D.C., police. One of the individuals who was arrested received an email from Facebook's "Law Enforcement Response Team," which raises the question: Did D.C. police ask Facebook to reveal information about this arrestee? CityLab reports: In an emailed response to CityLab's request for more information, Rachel Reid, a spokesperson for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, responded that "MPD does not comment on investigative tactics." The District of Columbia United States Attorney's Office -- the agency leading the prosecution of Inauguration protesters -- has not yet responded to CityLab's inquiry. CityLab also asked Facebook about the email. "We don't comment on individual requests," company spokesperson Jay Nancarrow said. He referred CityLab to the site's law enforcement guidelines page and to its Government Requests Report database, where the public can see how many legal processes it receives from countries worldwide. According to this database, U.S. law enforcement requested information on the accounts of 38,951 users over January to June of 2016, and they received some type of data in 80 percent of cases. Which "legal process" authorities sent to Facebook for information on the protester matters considerably in terms of how much data they can seize for investigation. According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es)."

11 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So now under Trump... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. Re:So now under Trump... by danbuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is based on a law pushed through by Obama. Trump just gets to use it. i.e. Just because your guy is in, don't let him pass bad laws. The next guy might not agree with you.

  3. What is the problem?.. by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A number of crimes (including violent ones) have been committed, which the relevant law-enforcement agency(ies) are duly investigating. They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:What is the problem?.. by coofercat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I may... the news here is that committing a crime and being arrested for it (might) mean law enforcement get to see every last thing you've ever posted to the Internet, even if you thought those posts were vaguely private and beyond the reach of the likes of a google search. Many of us already knew this, but the point is being made clearly and explicitly here.

      I can understand the dislike of the criminals in protests, but I'm amazed at the partisan vitriol in most of the modded up comments. It seems that if you're a /.er, you must have huge disdain for criminals who attended a protest against a very controversial (and currently unpopular) president. In order to show how much you dislike said criminals, you must entirely support law enforcement, no matter how invasive they are. You're allowed to voice your dislike of law enforcement's methods and the general loss of privacy the modern age brings in other threads, but not this one.

      "Throwing the book at the criminals" seems reasonable enough, but let's leave all their friends, relatives and random acquaintances that they've ever had out if it, eh?

  4. If if was a fifth by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If these were legitimately violent protesters being arrested..for violence..then by all means search. If this was random jo standing and shouting without violence, then no. Context is important here and TFS and the first linked TFA are not clear on if all who were arrested were violent, nor who had devices/accounts searched.

    Part of the reason of that is the opacity with which government treats these things. That makes it hard as hell to be an informed populace and fight overreach. It is also something Obama promised and never delivered, he in fact often did the opposite. This is not a partisan statement, as I have nothing but disdain for or current administration and tend to lean pretty damn liberal. I mention it as a point of fact that few, if any of those in power have your or my interest at heart, regardless of the populist messages they spew.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  5. Re:So now under Trump... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny how, if we're all a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, neo-nazi, fascist, greedy, evil, violent, intolerant bastards like you say we are, we didn't riot, burn shit, threaten to blow up the White House, dress up like vaginas, scream, whine, cry, bitch, moan, and boycott everything when Obama was elected (twice!). I mean, it's not like we AGREED with Obama's policies in the slightest, certainly no more so than you agree with Trump. Yet somehow the only time you see this behavior is when liberals lose. Conservatives...not so much.

    It reminds me of the argument that gun owners are some sort of threat to the general public. We've got more than 300 million guns and several trillion rounds of ammunition. Trust us, if we were a threat, you'd know it by now.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  6. Re:So now under Trump... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

    Well, actually it can be a "protesting" tactic.

    But being an "act of protest" doesn't make it any less a violent criminal act, or any less subject to prosecution and criminal sanctions.

    It also doesn't make planning to do it in a group any less a felonious conspiracy.

    = = = =

    I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  7. Re:So now under Trump... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Informative

    protesting is illegal.

    No, but rioting is. You know - burning cars, hurting people, damaging property. Just like it was under Obama and every other president we've had. Protesting and rioting are not the same thing, obviously.

    Protest Definition != Riot Definition

  8. Re:So now under Trump... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It could also be the false flag operation. Police used fake protestors at Vietnam War protests to provoke violence and discredit the real protestors. I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support. When Trumpsters see these people rioting, looting, and waving Mexican flags, they feel their intolerance and xenophobia is even more justified.

  9. Re:So now under Trump... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support.

    Funny, I saw the protesters as doing exactly what they said they'd do all along: act like a bunch of spoiled babies who didn't get their way and are now throwing a tantrum. They don't rationalize. They don't listen. They don't engage cognitive thinking skills. They distill it down to "you don't agree with me, therefore you are a hateful, mean, stupid, intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Hitler lover and I'm completely justified in doing whatever my emotions lead me to do and you can't criticize me because criticism is racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc."

    It's the logical endpoint of the "there is no truth and right/wrong is an illusion" ideology.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  10. Re:So now under Trump... by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, As much as I hate seeing people get hurt I am hopeful this how the left with its us against them identity politics it always engages in finally burns itself out. Hopefully regular will wake up a look around in 2 years and realize that all the damage all the violence came about from left wing protesting and all of them reached their point of justification not from Trump but from supposedly respectable news media, entertainers, politicians and the like.

    Trump does some peevish name calling but its almost always directed at an individual and its *usually* based on something they did or failed to do, got poor ratings, gained a bunch of weight, got hacked, etc. That is different than the left were they toss around words like bigot and fascist quite often with no real historical justification at least not in terms of scope, they will outright fabricate claims of bigotry and racism which they will than often level not at individuals but at entire groups; the whole things really translates as "I know you are but what am I".

    Hopefully middle America and lots women especially who went Hillary because they bought into the lefts lies about the "war on women" will wake up and see that:

    1) They are at least as safe from external and domestic terror threats as before (Albright/Rice/Bush/Obama/Clinton/Kerry) were not foreign policy savants.

    2) Their darker skinned friends and neighbors have not been dragged away in the night

    3) They still have access to healthcare similar in quality to what they got before

    4) Public schools still exist and maybe someone is actually trying to make them better in a meaningful way besides just pumping in more money which has not worked for the last 30 years.

    5) Taxes are lower and people have a little more in their pockets

    If all that comes to pass hopefully many of the remaining leftists will be removed from the Senate. We can get back to group of well meaning sensible liberals and traditional ( Taft style ) conservatives.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html