British Police Use Facebook to Gather Evidence

Amy Bennett writes "Move over police scanner and most-wanted poster. The Greater Manchester Police force has created a Facebook application to collect leads for investigations. The application delivers a real-time feed of police news and appeals for information. A 'Submit Intelligence' link takes a Facebook user to the police Web site where they can anonymously submit tips. Another link leads to the videos on YouTube featuring information on the police force, ongoing investigations and other advisories." As reader groschke writes, though, "Their access to user data raises significant civil liberties problems. They may be able to see more of your data than your friends or network members can — and you also expose your friends' data when you add the application. All without needing a subpoena or warrant."

The problem is with facebook, not the police

[explodingspleen]

"Their access to user data raises significant civil liberties problems. They may be able to see more of your data than your friends or network members can â" and you also expose your friends' data when you add the application. All without needing a subpoena or warrant."

Alright, we obviously don't understand what either of these are.

A subpoena is a court order for information. If you are able to provide it and don't, there will be trouble. This doesn't mean such information can't be handed over voluntarily at any time.

A warrant grants a privilege to the police to forcibly obtain information they would otherwise not be allowed to obtain through force. But you don't need a warrant when you have cooperation.

The best example I could give probably is this: you need a warrant to tap someone's phone line. You *don't* need a warrant to put a microphone on an undercover agent and try to cajole the information out of the guy, or to bug a hotel room and arrange a meeting there, or to go knocking door to door at the guy's neighbors' houses making inquiries.

Your problem should be with "Facebook" who is currently selling out its homies to cash in as an informant.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[ultranova]

So now children on Facebook will assume that it is safe to give information to a person who poses as a policeman or someone who has a similar logo.

If a policeman is asking you questions, the chances are he's investigating either you or someone you know. Consequently, it is never safe to give information to a policeman, unless you know that they aren't trying to get you or anyone you care about.

The same, of course, goes to anyone and anything that can be rasonably expected to be trying to "catch" people: all intelligence agencies, insurance companies, private investigators, people in the middle of a nasty divorce, etc.

Re:No . . . not really

[TheRaven64]

Since this is the British police we're talking about, better include "I shot him without cause" there

It seems that you are referring to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. The fact that this remained headline news for several months should probably serve as an indicator that it's not something that's exactly common.

Re:No . . . not really

[jimicus]

However, to pretend that the few mistakes they make cancel out the incredible amount of solved crimes they manage, even under the incredible crippling that the Labour government has inflicted on them with their target-based performance system, is disingenuous.

Erm... Go to your local police force's website and download their annual report. It contains figures for the amount of crime they've solved.

I hate to break it to you, but unless the crime is something pretty serious (think armed robbery, murder), the solving rate is depressingly low. As in no higher than 30% for many forces.

Re:The obvious recursion is ...

[Angostura]

Yeh, right. Two weeks ago, the police came around and asked me whether I had heard any shouting from next door, because a woman had been beaten up. Clearly I should have told them nothing. I didn'tknow it was part of a ruse to get at me.