Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Security Keeps a Detailed 'Lookout' List of Threats, Including Users and Former Employees, and Can Track Their Location (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: In early 2018, a Facebook user made a public threat on the social network against one of the company's offices in Europe. Facebook picked up the threat, pulled the user's data and determined he was in the same country as the office he was targeting. The company informed the authorities about the threat and directed its security officers to be on the lookout for the user. "He made a veiled threat that 'Tomorrow everyone is going to pay' or something to that effect," a former Facebook security employee told CNBC. The incident is representative of the steps Facebook takes to keep its offices, executives and employees protected, according to nine former Facebook employees who spoke with CNBC.
The company mines its social network for threatening comments, and in some cases uses its products to track the location of people it believes present a credible threat. Several of the former employees questioned the ethics of Facebook's security strategies, with one of them calling the tactics "very Big Brother-esque." Other former employees argue these security measures are justified by Facebook's reach and the intense emotions it can inspire. The company has 2.7 billion users across its services. That means that if just 0.01 percent of users make a threat, Facebook is still dealing with 270,000 potential security risks.
[...] One of the tools Facebook uses to monitor threats is a "be on lookout" or "BOLO" list, which is updated approximately once a week. The list was created in 2008, an early employee in Facebook's physical security group told CNBC. It now contains hundreds of people, according to four former Facebook security employees who have left the company since 2016. Facebook notifies its security professionals anytime a new person is added to the BOLO list, sending out a report that includes information about the person, such as their name, photo, their general location and a short description of why they were added. In recent years, the security team even had a large monitor that displayed the faces of people on the list, according to a photo CNBC has seen and two people familiar, although Facebook says it no longer operates this monitor.
The company mines its social network for threatening comments, and in some cases uses its products to track the location of people it believes present a credible threat. Several of the former employees questioned the ethics of Facebook's security strategies, with one of them calling the tactics "very Big Brother-esque." Other former employees argue these security measures are justified by Facebook's reach and the intense emotions it can inspire. The company has 2.7 billion users across its services. That means that if just 0.01 percent of users make a threat, Facebook is still dealing with 270,000 potential security risks.
[...] One of the tools Facebook uses to monitor threats is a "be on lookout" or "BOLO" list, which is updated approximately once a week. The list was created in 2008, an early employee in Facebook's physical security group told CNBC. It now contains hundreds of people, according to four former Facebook security employees who have left the company since 2016. Facebook notifies its security professionals anytime a new person is added to the BOLO list, sending out a report that includes information about the person, such as their name, photo, their general location and a short description of why they were added. In recent years, the security team even had a large monitor that displayed the faces of people on the list, according to a photo CNBC has seen and two people familiar, although Facebook says it no longer operates this monitor.
,but you can never leave.
On the one hand, I sort of approve of tracking the threats, but on the other hand, who appointed Facebook gawd with the secret inside knowledge of who is and is not a REAL threat that deserves to be tracked?
Actually, it is quite conceivable to me that Facebook has a high-dimension personality profile of each identity. On that basis they might actually have some real basis to know who is actually dangerous and who is just a noisy fool looking for attention. If that hypothesis is valid, then why doesn't Facebook take the next step of discouraging the noisemakers to make it easier to focus on the actual problems?
Facebook will NEVER do it because it would require sharing some of the personal information they've collected on us. They'd have to share it WITH us, and heaven forbid that much honesty. It might reduce the value of OUR personal information that Facebook is hoarding.
Just joking on the theory that Facebook could be more valuable, but it would waste less of my time if the trolls and sock puppets were helped in rendering themselves invisible. (ADSAuPR, atAJG.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The "Church" of Scientology works the same way.
I have no idea why anyone that genuinely wanted to do damage would advertise it, unless they really wanted to be stopped first. This seems like a made for TV movie.
Other former employees argue these security measures are justified by Facebook's reach and the intense emotions it can inspire. The company has 2.7 billion users across its services. That means that if just 0.01 percent of users make a threat, Facebook is still dealing with 270,000 potential security risks.
Nonsense.
There are 6 billion people on this planet. If just 1 in a million of them decides they need to hurt me, I've got six thousand people coming to hurt me. Therefor I need to have a permanent police escort, and patrolling of my house, and wear a bullet proof vest at all times. And there's probably some more.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
and they call out all the dogs.
Make a threat against a Facebook user? Not so much.
So, can we all sue Facebook for stalking behavior?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
... when the Revolution comes?
Lots of companies do this. Keep track of disgruntled ex-employees or those who make threats against the company or its personnel. And if the threat begins to look credible, they turn that information over to law enforcement authorities to act on it.
It's possible that this can be abused. If you have a paranoid member of management or one that uses the system to carry out personal retribution. Usually law enforcement is smart enough to figure out if the threats are groundless or malicious. Problems arise when the "security professionals" who are handed this information are empowered as mini police forces by themselves. There are companies that employ armed personnel who step beyond protection and conduct further investigations or other actions posing as police or FBI agents. Conducting "sneak and peak" searches when they have no legal warrants nor the authority to act on them.
Have gnu, will travel.
Are you trying to claim that the consent was informed? If so, I dismiss you as some sort of Libertarian. If not, then it is possible we have some underlying agreement on at least some aspects of the problem.
Potentially a distracting topic, but I mostly don't waste time with Libertarian BS these days. Last Libertarian-slanted book was Nudge , which was basically a paean to clever manipulation of the suckers for their own good.
Though I have basically started avoiding Libertarians in recent years, back when I "encountered" them more frequently I mostly concluded that they didn't have much understanding of what "liberty" or "freedom" mean--even though I admit my own understanding was relatively limited at that time. The first part of my Slashdot sig is dated and font-constrained here, but it captures some of my evolution on the topic. Now I think freedom exists, but it ain't easy.
On the other side, there seem to be an increasing number of materialists who disavow the idea of human freedom. They see humans as quite limited and easily manipulated machines. Currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari, and so far he seems to be taking that position on the issue.
In answer to the new Subject: question, I was asked by friends to communicate via Facebook. I still hate Facebook as a tool, and just made a kind of resolution to limit my usage of the tool, but it's also "The poor craftsman who blames his tools." But it's also the poor craftsman who doesn't know the differences among tools and who doesn't want the best tool for each job.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.