How Fracking Companies Use Facebook Surveillance To Ban Protest (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Facebook is being used by oil and gas companies to clamp-down on protest. Three companies are currently seeking injunctions against protesters: British chemical giant INEOS, which has the largest number of shale gas drilling licenses in the UK; and small UK outfits UK Oil and Gas (UKOG), and Europa Oil and Gas. Among the thousands of pages of documents submitted to British courts by these companies are hundreds of Facebook and Twitter posts from anti-fracking protesters and campaign groups, uncovered by Motherboard in partnership with investigative journalists at DeSmog UK. They show how fracking companies are using social media surveillance carried out by a private firm to strengthen their cases in court by discrediting activists using personal information to justify banning their protests.

Included in the evidence supplied by the oil and gas companies to the courts are many personal or seemingly irrelevant campaigner posts. Some are from conversations on Facebook groups dedicated to particular protests or camps, while others have been captured from individuals' own profile pages. For instance, a picture of a mother with her baby at a protest was submitted as part of the Europa Oil and Gas case. Another screenshot of a post in the Europa bundle shows a hand-written note from one of the protesters' mothers accompanying a care package with hand-knitted socks that was sent to an anti-fracking camp. One post included in the UKOG hearing bundle shows two protesters sharing a pint in the sun -- not at a protest camp, nor shared on any of the campaign pages' Facebook groups. A screenshot from INEOS's hearing bundle shows posts from a protester to his own Facebook wall regarding completely unrelated issues such as prescription drugs, and a generic moan about his manager.

Comments

Ok, those weren't good examples

[rsilvergun]

how exactly are those leading to protest bans? I'd like to RTFA, but the first link had a spyware popup ad and the second link goes nowhere. The rest are just pictures from facebook.

Anyone with an adblocker want to tell me if there's something here or is this just a terrible post? I've got no love of fracking (not a greenpeacer but I'm not convinced it's safe) but this isn't how you get me on your side.

Re:Ok, those weren't good examples

[mysidia]

how exactly are those leading to protest bans?

Basically, because many protest groups rely on skirting the law and having a large group conducting activities which are technically illegal to try to bring attention to their message, And because such a large group is involved, it is difficult to hold anyone legally responsible for the violations of the law.

The fracking operations occur on fracking sites which are located on Private Property which the Oil companies have the right to control access to, because they are plots of land owned by or leased by the company ----- Nobody has the right to protest on private property without the owner's permission, And if the owner specifically tells you ahead of time to stay off their property, and you step onto it anyways, then you've committed criminal Trespass: this is basically what they're doing to these people which is being called "banning the protest" ----- they're pre-emptively seeking a court order that says "Stay off my land,
  And stay away from my driveway".

The companies claim to seek injunction because the companies believe that protestors/protest groups intend to Trespass on their property in order to hold their protestes "Around the fracking sites", Or undertake other strategies designed to disrupt their lawful business activities --- such as having pedestrians standing in or otherwise outside their property blocking, harrassing, preventing, or slowing down the ability of authorized traffic to use the property access roads or streets or driveways, Or disrupt employee/vendor/company-related trucks or other vehicles' access to their property or to harass persons/vehicles entering or leaving their private properties.

As noted in the article:

The companies all stress they do not seek to restrict lawful forms of protest, but argue that activists should not be allowed to unduly disrupt their lawful business activity.

Since social media surveillance reveals the identities of many people likely to participate in such protests; the companies can go to the court and provide a List of Names and Pre-Emptively ask the courts for an Injunctive order that the named individuals Not set foot on our land, Or participate in any activity
  to disrupt the business operation of one of our fracking sites.

Re:Ok, those weren't good examples

[goose-incarnated]

A protest is basically a DoS attack on the real world. Marching down a street blocks it for other users. It creates noise that is difficult to ignore.

You aren't allowed to block property owners from their property under the guise of protesting.

If you are upset about that then you basically oppose all protesting, which is a fundamental and important part of democracy.

You're free to protest, that doesn't mean that other people have to give you a platform. Remember your stance when it was social media blocking users? You felt that those people were free to speak, but google, et al were not obligated to give them a platform.

Why is it only now that your stance has changed into thinking that property owners are obligated to give protestors a platform?

Re:it's in the UK

[AHuxley]

That great parts the US has about "'freedom of speech", "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", "freedom of speech", "to petition the Government" do not exist under UK tyranny.

To understand UK law study the wide and deep law changes of the 1960-90's when the UK was doing direct policing in Ireland.

This happens in NZ as well

[Maelwryth]

In New Zealand government departments (probably also private companies but they aren't covered by the Freedom Of Information Act) have been hiring Private Investigators to keep tabs on protest groups for ages.

This has lead to a series of embarrassing news reports about the investigation agency Thompson and Clark Investigations Limited and their links with government departments and most recently the SIS. Although I can't remember them (TCIL) specifically using Facebook, another PI did this report on how easy it was to get your Name, Age, Address, Parents, Spouse, Occupation, Children and Shopping habits using social media saying that basically money was the only limit on what information could be obtained.

Re:it's in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

At no time was the Army set on the Dakota Access pipeline protestors. At one point the National Guard as deputized peace officers of the state acted in a riot control operation to remove or push back the protestors. But in that role they are deputized police officers of the state not military.

There is a difference. The National Guard belongs to the State and reports to the Governor unless activated by federal orders. The Governors of the respective states can activate National Guard for various police operations and functions as was done in this case. The National Guard when operating in this role are not the Army, which is prohibited from conducting police operations inside the US.

Actually... They're not...

[denzacar]

Since social media surveillance reveals the identities of many people likely to participate in such protests; the companies can go to the court and provide a List of Names and Pre-Emptively ask the courts for an Injunctive order that the named individuals Not set foot on our land, Or participate in any activity to disrupt the business operation of one of our fracking sites.

From TFA:

One of the most worrying things about the oil and gas companies' injunctions is that they are against "persons unknown."

That means that anyone who could reasonably expect to know about the injunctions is covered by them.
Given the wide remit of the injunctions, that could be anyone who visits the fracking sites.

This is important given Eclipse's statement to the courts that the majority of the protestors are "law abiding."
But instead of targeting alleged "hard core activists" accused of disrupting peaceful protests, the oil and gas firms' approach can justify the wholesale prohibition of protests.

INEOS has a temporary injunction in place, which is currently going through the appeal process. UKOG is due in court in early July, while Europa's injunction is currently in place.
The UK's most high profile fracking company, Cuadrilla Resources, was just granted an injunction for its site in Lancashire.

By applying for injunctions against "persons unknown," the fracking companies prevent individual protesters from being able to defend their case in court as individuals.
This potentially gives the companies a litigious advantage.

Basically, they are managing to convince the courts that though these potential protesters may be lawful, some others may be not, so let's just ban anyone from protesting right now and be done with it.

Or, to put it in American, lawyers made courts ban all guns cause while some guns may be legal, some others may not be - so let's just ban all guns and let god sort 'em out.