FBI's Facebook Monitoring Leads To Arrest In England 329
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that armed police were called to a UK school earlier today after being advised of a potential threat by the FBI. The school stated that the FBI 'raised the alarm after Internet scanning software picked up a suspicious combination of words,' strongly implying that they are carrying out routine, automated surveillance of social networking sites. While in this case it does appear that there may have been a genuine threat, the story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns."
Surveillance laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Privacy? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does someone out there thinks there is an expectation of privacy for data they post on the internet?
I thought that was exactly what you should NOT expect.
Concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
The story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns
Like "OMG my public postings can be read by others"?
Significant privacy concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the issue is that he might have been arrested without having actually done anything.
I mean, if he writes a note theatening bullies so that they don't ruin the last day of school for him, so that he can eat his lunch in peace, is it necessary for the police to step in?
I think it's a good thing the police were notified, this is a potential threat, and it's good that they acted upon it.
But - I mean, if you see the kid outside of school, and he didn't have a weapon on him, you've essentially got anecdotal evidence of what essentially boils down to a thought crime, which he shouldn't be ARRESTED for. Keep an eye on the kid, but no need to arrest him.
Re:Good grief (Score:2, Insightful)
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time some idiot goes and posts somewhere "I'm gonna kill people" and it isn't caught, the news is "They were posting it for all the world to see, why didn't somebody stop them!?"
Then some idiot is caught from his posting, and the new is "How dare the police read posts!?"
While I don't believe in prior restraint and so I worry about arresting people based on things they said they might do, Facebook is the new equivalent of painting signs on the water tower. If ever anything didn't qualify for 'expectation of privacy', a service where the express purpose is to tell other people what you're doing should be it. As long as some additional police work goes into verifying that the threat is real, I think this is a good thing.
Trolling, trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Tomorrow - last day of school. I'm glad because I'm tired of being bullied by the assholes in this place. I will at last be leaving this world. TGI summer break.
This isn't a Facebook threat Mr. FBI.
This is just me circa 1986 typing into a BBS.
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Facebook and privacy is an oxymoron (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not so much that they expected the information to be private, its that the kid was arrested and we don't know the details. Would you like to be arrested for an angry rant you wrote on your livejournal?
If I posted that I was going to blow up "X" building at my school at 3pm on a given day (not to say that's what happened here) in that angry rant, and it was public, then I think that deserves a second look.
Just because you are on an emo rant in your blog, doesn't mean you can write whatever the hell you want and expect there to be no repercussions.
Privacy? How? (Score:5, Insightful)
"the story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns."
I know it's all the rage right now to automatically link Facebook with "Privacy Concerns," but in this case it's just asinine.
Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Their monitoring has had one possibly correct hit. Therefore it was justified and it is a Good Thing (tm).
It saddens me that so many people I talk to have this exact thought process.
Re:Facebook and privacy is an oxymoron (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time some idiot goes and posts somewhere "I'm gonna kill people" and it isn't caught, the news is "They were posting it for all the world to see, why didn't somebody stop them!?"
Then some idiot is caught from his posting, and the new is "How dare the police read posts!?"
One problem with a surveillance society is that it forces the police to intervene in every event that anyone could interpret as the least bit suspicious, or else face the "Why didn't you do something!" rage whenever something does happen.
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns
Bullshit. Facebook posting is not private. There is no 'privacy' involved here. No mail was opened. No phone tapped. No email account rifled through. There may be other issues to address regarding whatever wholesale analysis the cops are performing, but there are no 'privacy' issues here. The kid put it out there for the world to pick up on, automated word-eater or otherwise. End of 'privacy' issues.
if he writes a note theatening (sic) bullies so that they don't ruin the last day of school for him
Since we're talking hypotheticals; If such a note is presented to police and they fail to follow up and/or arrest the author and he then carries out the act do we then condemn the police or defer to your finely tuned sense of justice and celebrate our civil liberties?
essentially boils down to a thought crime
Bullshit. Public threats are not thoughts. Here's a big fat clue [uslegal.com] in case you're confused about the legalities.
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
People have no fucking idea what "privacy" is anymore. They've given up so much of it with Facebook, Twitter, loyalty programs, etc that no one seems to care about losing more or taking that of someone else. And if you try to explain things to them, they just look at you like you have two heads and give you that good old line: "What do you have to hide?" Any attempt to reason it out with them results in indifference: "You're just paranoid." Privacy is taking it's final few breaths because the collective fat, lazy ass of western culture has sat on it and doesn't even realize what's being smothered to death beneath its cellulite inflated cheeks. Too fucking bad for those of us who cared, we just saw it too late to make a difference. /rant of a guy now labeled "paranoid" and "suspicious" by various acquaintances because he blew up when his cellphone was temporarily "borrowed" by an (ex) friend so they could rifle through my text message history "for fun".
*Grumble*
Re:Facebook and privacy is an oxymoron (Score:3, Insightful)
surveillance society (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Too fucking bad for those of us who cared, we just saw it too late to make a difference.
So, what, you think you need to protect all those poor, ignorant pleebs from themselves? Gee wiz, how nice of you.
Hey, here's an idea: Why don't you worry about your own privacy, and let everyone else worry about there's. If someone wants to post every little piece of minutiae of their lives on the internet, who the fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't? Are they curtailing your ability to preserve your own privacy? No. So fuck off. What they do with their personal information is their own god damned business, just as what you do with your personal information is yours.
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have an expectation of privacy when walking around town; but if there were a plainclothes G-man following everybody around, that would be a Bad Sign(tm)....
Re:They're damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:3, Insightful)
+1 -- Please mod parent up.
I'm jealous! because s/he beat me to the punch. I was gonna say, "How dare anyone -- especially a government agency, harrumph! -- perform an automated scan of publicly posted statements on a public website. How dare they!"
It's public, people. It's posted with the expectation that it _will_ be freely accessed and read. That's just the opposite of an expectation of privacy, regardless of who's accessing or reading it.
Re:Facebook and privacy is an oxymoron (Score:1, Insightful)
But the one thing we can be sure of is that the school system will NOT use their *discipline system* against the people who were bullying him, for years on end. The bullies, or "lads" are the ones to be protected at all costs, while their victims must be driven to the point of going over the edge, and then arrested when they complain, try to defend themselves, or threaten the bullies in turn.
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're muslim, those fuckers do it all the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad [guardian.co.uk]
There is one example with 1.0 seconds of google, I will leave it as an exercise for karma whores to find other notable examples.
Re:Actually that's not quite right... (Score:2, Insightful)
However the problem here is that there is a very strong suggestion that the FBI had access to Facebook accounts that they were not "invited to"
I see no such suggestion. Care to elaborate?
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's give and take and it is optional.
There is right balance in there somewhere, and it is not the same for everybody. Remember we are only talking about a new technology here that enables communication in a slightly changed way from what was previously possible. It is a bit unknown and therefore perhaps a bit scary. You'll get used to it.
People were scared of printed press and got used to it. Radio, TV, www, email, IM, they all had people against it for a number of reasons and in all cases you can still control your own actions. Participate - or not.
In fact it is slightly ironic that you are ranting on a public forum. I can see your interests, your peeves, your friends, and will be able to deduct a lot about you if I cared (I don't).
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I am fully capable of protecting my privacy on my own... if I want to live in a mud hut on a desert island.
I get your point, but the simple fact is if anyone wants to take part in "modern society" they have to abide by it's rules and norms; even if those very rules and norms require your photo, fingerprints, DNA, fetishes, psych profile, and rectal bacteria cultures just so the we can make sure you aren't a "terrer'ist" or some weirdo who doesn't like having their entire personal life on display like some fucking monkey in a zoo.
So to answer your question: yes, the other ignorant plebs ARE curtailing my ability to protect my privacy. Their ignorance is societies ignorance. And while I can ignore an ignorant person, unfortunately I still have to bow to an ignorant society.
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
but if there were a plainclothes G-man following everybody around, that would be a Bad Sign(tm)....
But there aren't, and the analogy doesn't hold up. You can't reasonably function without leaving your house, but what you post on Facebook is entirely within your own discretion. It's not at all like being followed around; it's like having one particular space monitored vigilantly, like a stadium, or the streets around the J. Edgar Hoover building. It's entirely up to you whether you wish to visit such places, let alone what you do when you're there. FFS, if your only guard against invasion of privacy is assuming that nobody's paying attention, then you're doing it wrong.
Re:Surveillance laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Facebook and privacy is an oxymoron (Score:3, Insightful)
But the one thing we can be sure of is that the school system will NOT use their *discipline system* against the people who were bullying him, for years on end. The bullies, or "lads" are the ones to be protected at all costs, while their victims must be driven to the point of going over the edge, and then arrested when they complain, try to defend themselves, or threaten the bullies in turn.
QFT
This is why people shouldn't put up with bullying at all. The moment a class mate pushes you or calls you a name, you should lash out and make sure they and everyone around remember not to mess with you.
Privacy concerns? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's looking at data which is explicitly published by people such that the general public can view it.
Or is the summary writer claiming they are snooping the data elsewhere?
FBI... (Score:3, Insightful)
Face Book Incorporated
The whole problem I have with sites like Facebook isn't that they exist, but that people treat them as if a conversation on FB is no different than one in person. There are a lot of differences:
I probably post more than I should on FB, but not nearly as much as some of my colleagues. The real problem with something like FB is that it gives any prosecuting attorney a mountain of evidence on which to have you tried should you ever become *problematic* to those in power. It's a website for the unwashed, insignificant masses ruled by the upper classes. For those fighting injustice and oppression, who have the guts to speak up for what is right, it's just another liability.
Re:FBI? (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's wrong for the FBI, or anyone else for that matter, to look at all the crap you publicly and deliberately post for the whole world to see on a website that is very well known for not giving a crap about anyone's privacy?
The article isn't about the FBI listening in on phone calls. It's not about them peeping into your windows or installing cameras in your car. It's about them looking at the graffiti you spray painted on the outside of your house.
Cleartext (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook is not secure. Facebook has servers in the US. The FBI can watch cleartext entering or leaving the country, pursuant to the border search doctrine. Unless someone comes up with a very good argument why that's unreasonable, and that someone takes the case to the Supreme Court. But it would have to be very good, because the First Congress approved border searches AND wrote the Bill of Right--so we know that they considered them "reasonable," and it's only unreasonable searches that are forbidden.
Re:Trolling, trolling (Score:2, Insightful)
The FBI scanning the public traffic of an American website is in no way is comparable to monitoring you in the UK. Take off the tin foil.
SB
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
(as an example read Blind Faith by Ben Elton, it is set in a community where people are expected to live video blog every aspect of their lives, borderline public nudity is normal because modesty = secretive = devious = actively seditious).
if this happened, then you wouldn't care. well, it wouldn't be you, so let me rephrase; if this had happened, you wouldn't care. You'd have lived with it all your life and you'd be used to it. That's how slowly it'll happen (if at all) and your values would be different if it had happened.
Further, if privacy is devalued then a lot of the reasons to be private go away. For example if your name, address, and social weren't enough to get credit in your name, then the fact that a lot of people besides you probably know your SSN would be a minor issue at most.
Re:Surveillance laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, how exactly is it a 'privacy invasion' for the FBI to flip through all the information you and your friends posted online for all to see?
Unless, of course, Zucker added a backdoor to enable the FBI to scan all your postings irrespective of your privacy settings...
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone wants to post every little piece of minutiae of their lives on the internet, who the fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't? Are they curtailing your ability to preserve your own privacy?
This argument is severly short-sighted. We are not living alone on this planet, so unless you do not have a social life, you have to regularly communicate in some way with the "unwashed masses". Especially on the internet the methods of communication tend to be monopolized quite fast so you really need to care what others are doing. You probably remember the ugly days of IE-only websites with flashy ActiveX controls, which thanks to people like you and me educating others about alternatives have finally gone away.
These days, the most imminant threat to freedom on the internet comes from companies like Facebook or Twitter effectively owning our communication tools. I don't want to live in a world where I'm forced to send messages via Facebook when contacting someone. That's why I'm putting great hope in the rise of freedom-respecting social networks like Diaspora.
Re:Facebook and privacy is an oxymoron (Score:2, Insightful)
Little anecdote...a friend told me how his little brother, about 10 years old, was put into a sandbox which then had the cover placed on it. Since those things are bloody heavy, he wasn't able to lift it off and the other kids pretty much left him there for about 10 minutes.
Now think on that for a second. It's dark, moist, cramped and you're all alone in there in what could only be called the equivalent of being buried alive.
My first question was what they had reported to the police? I mean, it makes sense right? If an adult were to do this to another adult he'd be up on charges before he knew what hit him. But no, when it's kids doing it all of a sudden this is normal behavior.
Not sure what it's going to take for us to stop accepting behavior like this. "Your kid tormented mine, so either you teach him the difference between right and wrong or Í'll do it to you"? Beating up deadbeat dads till they get the message?
Telling the victims to stand up for themselves works to an extent, but honestly, what kind of society are we living in where that is necessary? What's the point of civilization if not to protect the (physically) weak from the strong?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's OK to listen in on you? (Score:1, Insightful)
So it's OK to listen in on you? It isn't private. Is it OK if I follow you around all day on the street? It's not private. Is it OK if I look through your trash? It's not private.
Funny how if we were to follow MPs and police and tape their public conversations and watch them in public places, we'd get arrested for harassment.
PS Another thought: all that content out there in public (books, movies, etc), how come when we take copies of that, it's criminal theft?
Re:Privacy? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Insightful)
It saddens me that so many people on slashdot seem quick to defend it.