Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Crime Government Security Social Networks United States IT

Facebook Has 25 People Dedicated To Handling Gov't Info Requests 125

Posted by Soulskill
from the government-creates-jobs dept.
nonprofiteer writes "A profile of Facebook's CSO reveals that his 70-person security team includes 25 people dedicated solely to handling information requests from law enforcement. They get thousands of calls and e-mails from authorities each week, though Facebook requires police to get a warrant for anything beyond a subscriber's name, email and IP address. CSO Joe Sullivan says that some government agency tried to push Facebook to start collecting more information about their users for the benefit of authorities: 'Recently a government agency wanted us to start logging information we don't log. We told them we wouldn't start logging that piece of data because we don't need it to provide a good product. We talked to our general counsel. The law is not black-and-white. That agency thinks they can compel us to. We told them to go to court. They haven't done that yet.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Has 25 People Dedicated To Handling Gov't Info Requests

Comments Filter:
  • Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:41PM (#39153169)

    anything beyond a subscriber's name, email and IP address

    You've already saved them quite a bit of work there.

    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John3 (85454) <{john3} {at} {cornells.com}> on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:44PM (#39153205) Homepage Journal

      Exactly right. If they were really interested in protecting the privacy of their users they would require a warrant before providing even that information.

      Of course this is Facebook we're talking about, so privacy usually has a different meaning to them.

      • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Hatta (162192) on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:55PM (#39153349) Journal

        If they were REALLY interested in protecting the privacy of their users, they'd publish any requests they recieved from law enforcement.

        • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:58PM (#39153397)

          Really? So if someone falsely accused you of pedophilia, you'd want that information request published regardless of the fact you're innocent and there's nothing to find?

          • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by gnick (1211984) on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:04PM (#39153469) Homepage

            No, but it would be nice if FB told ME that a request was being made for my information.

            Hell, let's go crazy here and say FB ASKED me if they could release my information to the requester w/o a warrant.

            • by Dahamma (304068)

              At the same time, there *are* in fact real pedophiles, scammers, and other criminals that use Facebook, in which case it's probably not really productive (or even legal) to notify a suspect they are investigating.

              Not that I think law enforcement should be able to violate someone's privacy at all without a warrant, just that in the end, as ignorant and misguided as they may sometimes be, it doesn't help being 100% cynical - their general goal is to catch people breaking the law.

              • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by gnick (1211984) on Friday February 24, 2012 @06:27PM (#39154195) Homepage

                At the same time, there *are* in fact real pedophiles, scammers, and other criminals that use Facebook, in which case it's probably not really productive (or even legal) to notify a suspect they are investigating.

                That's why the gods gave us warrants. But if it's just some guys with a badge, forget it.

              • Nicely said. Two of the wisest sentences I've read on /. in a long time.

              • Warrants are generally public records...

              • by Anonymous Coward

                Yeah, the trouble is that everyone breaks the law these days (how many new laws are created per month in your jurisdiction?).

                So step 1 is to pick the man and step 2 is to find the crime.

            • by Shavano (2541114)

              They already sell your info to advertisers. Maybe if the police offered them a few bucks...

              • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by jc42 (318812) on Friday February 24, 2012 @10:57PM (#39155895) Homepage Journal

                They already sell your info to advertisers. Maybe if the police offered them a few bucks...

                Actually, that's not just funny; it's also probably true. The problem is that the cops have a budget, and they want to get the information for free. But, as a couple of lawyer acquaintances have pointed out, the US Constitution has a very clear ban on "involuntary servitude", which they say they've helped clients use to explain to government agents why they won't work for the government for free.

                OTOH, if the government agencies want to hire the company to collect and hand over the information, and is willing to pay what it costs the company to do this (+ 10% is the actual traditional price), they'll probably be happy to comply.

                Part of the problem is that a lot of the US's government (at all levels) has developed the idea that they can just walk through a door and order people to work for them without paying for the labor. We should perhaps be disabusing them of this idea, by pointing out that the Supreme Court hasn't yet overturned the 13th Amendment.

            • What you guys ask is so ethical one could hardly expect a conglomeration of humans (corporation) to consistently exhibit such behavior. But, yeah, this is exactly how anyone would want to be treated. In another vein, if a governmental entity was trying to extract money from my bank account I would love for the bank to tell them to go fuck themselves, but instead they cheerily cough it up like a wide-eyed lap dog. There are no ethics in government, and any company that grows beyond the control of one person

          • by sjames (1099)

            The police may be in violation of the law if facebook even knows what the information is for.

            They should just stick to the basics like what agency, what information was requested and leave it at that.

            • by Thing 1 (178996)

              The police may be in violation of the law if facebook even knows what the information is for.

              Why do we have unconstitutional laws? (Oh, right, because of the breads and circuses...)

      • by kiwimate (458274)

        this is Facebook we're talking about, so privacy usually has a different meaning to them

        Sigh. The article says it better than I can:

        It's the nature of the overexposed age that we make much more information about ourselves readily available and easily discoverable

        Facebook can't share anything you don't put on there.

        It's also worth noting the article talks a fair bit about how they push back and get into fights when they think someone's being too aggressive. (On the flip side, they have their own priorities - they get very uptight about acitivty that is fraudulent or endangering a child.)

        • Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ColdWetDog (752185) on Friday February 24, 2012 @09:21PM (#39155359) Homepage

          Facebook can't share anything you don't put on there.

          Not exactly true. You show up at a function, someone takes a picture and posts it to Facebook. Now you have a presence there. If someone else posts another picture of you on FB and identifies you, then Facebook's recognition system might tag you in the first picture.

          Depending on the function and the timing, it might cause some issues.

        • by John3 (85454)

          Facebook can't share anything you don't put on there.

          Share with whom is the issue. Facebook has certainly had issues with exposing information beyond what users had configured to share. That does not excuse the people who freely post all sorts of personal details without considering the potential for exposing it to a wide audience, but there have been instances where faulty coding allowed too much information to be shared with the "public" even if privacy settings were set to prevent this.

        • Is not the safety of a child the responsibility of the parents? I know I don't trust the safety of my children to anyone else besides close family members. I'm getting real tired of the government nanny busy-body bullshit. In fact, I view it as my ultimate responsibility to keep government away from my children.

        • Facebook can't share anything you don't put on there.

          Which is fine for the likes of you and me, who understand that 'put on Facebook' means 'shared with anyone who is willing to pay'. A lot of other people, however, think of Facebook like the postal service. They think that if they put something on Facebook with a limit on who can view it then only those people can view it - that it's essentially private and is protected legally in the same way as something that you put in an envelope and post to your friends. This is the real problem with Facebook: that i

      • They're providing basic subscriber information in response to subpoenas [wikipedia.org] for that information. I've handled a ton of these, although not for Facebook. It has nothing to do with being "interested in protecting the privacy of their users" and everything to do with complying with the law.

    • by GeckoAddict (1154537) on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:51PM (#39153319)
      • by trevelyon (892253)
        Thanks for the link. Gotta love the onion.
      • FB got 12.7 mil in second round funding through accel partners, headed by the guy who had previously headed the CIA's venture fund. Now that doesn't mean it's an outright CIA operation but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a room 641A [wikipedia.org] style fiber beam splitter somewhere in the FB server farms.
    • by s.petry (762400)

      I'd be willing to bet that they get paid for any information provided as well. The Govt generally has sweet deals for this type of action.

      • by lgarner (694957)
        As I recall, other ISP's & such have price lists for the information. It costs Facebook money to pay those 25 people, so I'd expect them to charge a fee for the service.
  • by elgo (1751690) on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:43PM (#39153183)
    So Facebook provides all the necessary info for Law Enforcement, but doesn't engage in detailed logging, probably because it is too expensive and as the gentleman said, it doesn't yet fit in with FB's business model. Still, they provide peoples' names, emails, and IP addresses for Law Enforcement, so really they cooperate with the fuzz as much as is needed. Nice damage control, making themselves out to be standing up to Big Brother. Then again, IDNRTFA, and with the way sunmaries have been lately, this could be an article about My Little Pony, for all I know...
    • by Thing 1 (178996)

      this could be an article about My Little Pony, for all I know...

      No, you're 37 days early...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Yet another perfect reason to not use Facebook.

    Zuck has personally said that he wants everyone's entire lives made public, and Facebook as a company has been doing everything it can to make your private data public. This is just another in a long line of reasons they're evil.

    • Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lightknight (213164) on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:58PM (#39153395) Homepage

      The open assumption is that the data put on Facebook is entirely valid. Since it cannot be held to be valid, it becomes NP-Hard to sort through all the data for the bits which are true and the bits which are false.

      It's entirely possible to setup an identity for someone who doesn't exist (trolls + marketers do this all the time); that's one strike against the data. It's also possible to have a user simply lie, such as saying they were at a party or visiting a cousin when they weren't. Job applicants could maintain an entire account simply for the purposes of appearing social while maintaining a carefully controlled, carefully tailored public image. Finally, other people may post things, or even borrow someone's account, and change the user's profile to something unsavory, as a prank.

      Anyone who puts stock in this data as some sort of glimpse into another's thinking should not be allowed to make any kind of lasting decision.

      Of course, this is not to say that a portion of that data may not be true, only that it is impossible to know what quantity of it.

      • Re:Yep. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte@Nospam.drunksnipers.com> on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:33PM (#39153727) Homepage

        It becomes NP-very-hard to prove that you were joking on Facebook, or that you don't really know JohnBlowingThingsUp83 but just befriended him to increase you e-friend-peen.

      • by Thing 1 (178996)

        Anyone who puts stock in this data as some sort of glimpse into another's thinking should not be allowed to make any kind of lasting decision.

        I think the same about library checkouts, or book store purchases. (Perhaps I read the Koran to understand exactly why there's so much violence?)

    • Except him and the Senior Execs of course. And all Corporate Execs. And all Cops. And all Politicians.

      • No, not all politicians. Only the ones that do what he asks. Not all corporate execs. Only the ones that pay him.
    • Yet another perfect reason to not use Facebook.

      But that doesn't stop others from putting you on Facebook without your knowledge, such as tagging you by name in pictures.

      • No, but the only value that Facebook has is that other people are using it. No one would put pictures on Facebook for private storage, people put them there to share with friends. The fewer of their friends who use Facebook, the less chance there is of this happening.
  • Window Dressing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekmux (1040042) on Friday February 24, 2012 @04:47PM (#39153255)

    I have a feeling this entire article is nothing more than window dressing to make Facebook users (or the general public) somehow feel better that ANY logging requested by law enforcement isn't automatically done. Laws and rights pretty much went out the window with the advent of things like PATRIOT act.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Interpret Facebook's statements literally and narrowly. They haven't gone to court. They said nothing about a National Security Letter, or similar.

      • by geekmux (1040042)

        Learn to interpret what is said publicly and what is actually done privately, for the chasm of what the public is told and what actually takes place behind closed doors is growing daily, especially when the Government is involved. I certainly have seen little evidence of a more "open" Government, regardless of what was promised.

        • by jc42 (318812)

          ... for the chasm of what the public is told and what actually takes place behind closed doors is growing daily, especially when the Government is involved.

          So what evidence do you have that this is actually growing? Are you aware of the uses of government secrecy in previous decades? E.g., the Red-hunting activities back in the 1950s and 60s. Throughout the US government's history, such secret investigations have been used routinely by the people in power to ruin the lives of their perceived enemies, usually without resorting to the court system. And there have always been enemies; they just have different names in different decades.

          And I'm not aware

          • by geekmux (1040042)

            ... for the chasm of what the public is told and what actually takes place behind closed doors is growing daily, especially when the Government is involved.

            So what evidence do you have that this is actually growing? Are you aware of the uses of government secrecy in previous decades? E.g., the Red-hunting activities back in the 1950s and 60s. Throughout the US government's history, such secret investigations have been used routinely by the people in power to ruin the lives of their perceived enemies, usually without resorting to the court system. And there have always been enemies; they just have different names in different decades.

            And I'm not aware of any other governments that behave differently. They always have secrets that are too dangerous to reveal to the public. And these secrets are mostly about their own citizens, though various evil foreigners are the usual excuse.

            I don't see that this has changed significantly in recent years. But maybe the increased openness of due to the Internet has made it a bit more obvious to the citizenry.

            It is rather difficult to answer this today, since most secret activities remain classified for quite a long time. However, if you would like me to cite the most glaring point in recent history of massive greed and corruption held behind closed doors until it was far too late, perhaps the 20 trillion dollars that vaporized damn near overnight with the financial meltdown of 2008 would be a damn good example. Or perhaps we could discuss the fact that not a single person has even been officially accused or c

  • That agency thinks they can compel us to. We told them to go to court. They haven't done that yet.'"

    I'd be interested to know which one... CIA, FBI, DHS, [redacted]?

    ALSO, really, does what they said have to be true? I thought nowadays they could just slap you with some secrecy order, and walk out with your HDDs or do whatever they felt like, and you would be required to deny it publicly? Wonderful police state we live in here...

    • ALSO, really, does what they said have to be true? I thought nowadays they could just slap you with some secrecy order, and walk out with your HDDs or do whatever they felt like, and you would be required to deny it publicly? Wonderful police state we live in here...

      It seems that you have to piss off the right people, as Megaupload has demonstrated.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I'd be interested to know which one...

      That interest, is, in fact, a criminal offense.

      CIA, FBI, DHS, [redacted]?

      The NSA used to be called "No Such Agency". Maybe knowledge of the agency, itself, is secret.

      "We are from the government. Give us your data!"
      "Uh, which agency . . . ?"
      "That's secret."
      "Well, how do I find out about the agency . . . ?"
      "You need a security clearance."
      "And how do I get one . . . ?"
      "That's secret."

      . . . etc. . . .

      • "Uh, which agency . . . ?"
        "That's secret."
        "Well, how do I find out about the agency . . . ?"
        "You need a security clearance."
        "And how do I get one . . . ?"
        "That's secret."

        . . . etc. . . .

        "Then i will just refer to you as the gestapo. What it is that you want?"

        • by jc42 (318812)

          "Then i will just refer to you as the gestapo. What it is that you want?"

          We should perhaps note that "gestapo" is a German acronym for "geheime Staatspolizei", or "secret state's police". This is not really a proper name; it's a generic common-noun phrase. Using it to refer to any secretive government agency isn't a metaphor; you're just using the name literally.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Recently a government agency wanted us to start logging information we don't log."

    Really? Is that so? Which agency and what information...that would be interesting to know.

  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:01PM (#39153431)

    And how many does say a ISP like comcast have doing that same thing?

  • by Wintermute__ (22920) on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:02PM (#39153437)

    What could possibly be so privacy-invading, not-worth-the-disk-space-to-log-it crazy that Facebook doesn't already log it? These people make tons of money selling every minute bit of data and metrics about their suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Husers that they can possibly hoover up. What could it be that even *they* wouldn't want to log?

    Just goes to show, there is no boundary that some government agency won't want to cross to invade your privacy.

    • by tftp (111690)

      What could possibly be so privacy-invading, not-worth-the-disk-space-to-log-it crazy that Facebook doesn't already log it?

      onmousemove events, most likely.

    • by rtb61 (674572)

      Game play style and interactions for psychological assessment. Think criminal psychologists and theory rooms. Not just which games played but how they play them, it could be very revealing, patterns of gaming behaviour will reflect psychopathy, hence trigger pre-emptive style investigation.

      They are likely trying to spot and tie psychopaths to particular locations as probable investigatory targets for existing crimes. With psychopaths 1% general population and >15% prison population it would likely imp

      • by cffrost (885375)

        Game play style and interactions for psychological assessment. Think criminal psychologists and theory rooms. Not just which games played but how they play them, it could be very revealing, patterns of gaming behaviour will reflect psychopathy, hence trigger pre-emptive style investigation.

        They are likely trying to spot and tie psychopaths to particular locations as probable investigatory targets for existing crimes. With psychopaths 1% general population and >15% prison population it would likely improve their catch quota, basically fishing expeditions.

        Additionally, 100% of the corporate-person population is essentially psychotic.

        I think it would be interesting* to see if software used to automate business decisions and transactions show any significant similarities to psychotic human game-play in equivalent game theory models.

        * Mostly as a thought experiment; I see no practical applications of this knowledge in our society.

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          I would think two reason are particularly clear, firstly avoid hiring those who demonstrate psychopathic characteristics due to their destructiveness in the workplace and the threat to the future of the business (bank bailouts). Lazy policing, once they have tagged psychopaths and they can tie them to particular locals and particular times, probability would indicate they are likely offenders (behavioural targeting), so quicker arrests with less effort. So hunt the psychopath gameplay, does have two real s

  • by mr100percent (57156) on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:07PM (#39153505) Homepage Journal

    How about Facebook's Actual Law Enforcement Contact page [facebook.com] with guidelines. It seems facebook does waive these requirements sometimes, such as when "responding to a matter involving imminent harm to a child or risk of death or serious physical injury to any person and requiring disclosure of information without delay."

    • by jiteo (964572) on Friday February 24, 2012 @06:26PM (#39154191)
      FBI: I'm going to harm this child unless you give me Bob's information.
      Facebook: I don't think that's how you're supposed to interpret our guidelines...
      • by arth1 (260657)

        Hi, this is Kloosaw from DHS. We would like some information on Matt Archibald, who risks death penalty if we get him convicted. Since there's a risk of death, you are obliged to give us this information.

        Oh, and his commie friend Stymey Tiper too. He may accidentally run someone over with his car tomorrow, and that's a "risk of death to any person". Five minutes, you say?

  • by dtmos (447842) * on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:13PM (#39153543)

    What was written (p.2) was,

    The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.

    What was meant (I think) was,

    The sprawling campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with workers carrying ladders, and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas.

    The first time through I had to do a re-parse, as I ended with an image of workers carrying a ladder under one arm and a bulldozer under the other.

    • by jc42 (318812)

      ... I ended with an image of workers carrying a ladder under one arm and a bulldozer under the other.

      Well, I just thought that the writer was following the well-known rule: Don't use commas, which aren't necessary.

  • They should make a second product, called Facebook-revealed, where all logged data is freely available to everyone.

    Then they just tell the FBI that it is their job to move everyone over to the new system. Send them free vouchers for marketing workshops. I'm sure that the FBI has a sense of humor. :)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      They should make a second product, called Facebook-revealed, where all logged data is freely available to everyone.

      They did. It's called Facebook Timeline.

  • If they instead said "not without a warrant" to every request.

    I guess currently any law enforcement officer (or anyone willing to break the law and impersonate one) can get that information for any facebook account they feel like.

    • by Chuckstar (799005)

      You're not on the most secure legal footing if you say to law enforcement: "I know you don't need a warrant to demand this information from me, but I'm going to ask for one anyway."

      And just to be clear, they don't need a warrant to demand that information from Facebook.

      • by Dhalka226 (559740)

        Do you have a source for this?

        Law enforcement can certainly require you to give them your name and a few other specific bits of information required to verify your identity, but I have seen nothing to suggest they have the power to compel a company to disclose information about you absent a court order.

        • by Chuckstar (799005) on Friday February 24, 2012 @06:06PM (#39154017)

          Paragraph (c)(2) at the following link:

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 [cornell.edu]

          "(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the—

          (A) name;
          (B) address;
          (C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
          (D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
          (E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
          (F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),

          of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1)."

          Paragraph (1) provides for broader disclosure under certain circumstances (but still requires a real warrant for disclosure of contents of communications). This is the same statute that lets the cops get access to your phone records without a warrant. An "administrative subpoena", does not require judicial review. Processes vary, but basically it amounts to getting a superior to sign off that you have a legitimate law enforcement reason to get the info (helps keep people from searching their spouses phone records, but does nothing to keep the cops from looking in anyone's records if they are in any way suspected of a crime).

          • Now, is this actually applicable to a service like Facebook? It seems to be written in a fashion that implies it's meant for Telecoms and the like. I'd be interested in the legal definitions of "electronic communication service" and "remote computing service", in particular. The first definitely sounds like it's a physical infrastructure company, while the second may be broader.
            • by Chuckstar (799005)

              Below are the definitions (after the reference). Note that because this is federal, there is a qualification that it "affects interstate or foreign commerce". However, the courts have generally interpreted that phrase so broadly that it's inclusion here is effectively meaningless. Facebook definitely falls under the definition.

              Also, note that the exclusions -- "wire and oral communication", "tone-only paging device", etc. -- are only excluded because they are handled in other legislation. Similar rules

    • Ballparking the amount of calls/requests they get, I would say 25 people is more or less the bare minimum needed just to say "not without a warrent" to 99% of requests. Especially if you consider that some of the time, a few of them might actually be busy getting the information for the ones that do.
  • by Kohath (38547) on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:39PM (#39153777)

    This government intrusion into our Facebook profiles is intolerable. Why can't the government stick to overruling our health care and dietary choices and determining how much of our income we should be allowed to keep?

    • by gatkinso (15975)

      Agreed.

      But your question is akin to asking why your dog will refrain from eating that steak sitting out on the counter.

    • by Thing 1 (178996)
      It's not really the government that's doing these things. It's the international bankers, who don't want the population to understand that it is them that keeps us in these wars. Thus, they subvert the democratic governments (I was heartened recently to hear that the police in Greece were writing warrants for the arrest of the international bankers) in order to sell more weapons, so that "we" kill "each other" and don't kill "them".
  • Oblig. link (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slasho81 (455509) on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:39PM (#39153779)
  • by Maltheus (248271) on Friday February 24, 2012 @05:53PM (#39153921)

    Why should FB have to pay 25 people a year to do the government's dirty work? Companies should be able to submit a research bill to the government for these kinds of requests. There's no better check on power than a budget.

    • A budget has never stopped the government before. 25 is nothing--national banks probably employ hundreds of FBI informants.
    • Did you just claim making the USA pay for something under the guise of national security would LIMIT their spending?? budget? what budget?

      Nearly every politician does not want to be blamed for a mess where they didn't spend 150% supporting whatever was found to have possibly prevented it after the fact. Hell, mayors get ousted for not having EXTRA snow blows for freak blizzards or in trouble for wasting money on unused expenses... Guess which one has the lower political cost? (spending)

    • by onyxruby (118189)

      Facebook does this for two very simple reasons:

      1. They have to do it or they have nasty legal problems of their own.
      2. They make a lot of money [wired.com] by doing so.

      Your proposed check on power through the budget hit is in fact alive and well and has been for many years.

    • Because it is cost of doing business, a part of being an entrepreneur.

      • by dcw3 (649211)

        So, you're implying that this is an additional indirect tax on being a business owner? This is exactly what small business owners have been complaining about for some time.

  • It seems like those are bits of information that would be of the utmost importance to protect from warrantless probes for information. I have just removed all FB cookies and will never again log into FB, and called my ISP to change my IP address. How many more privacy fails is it going to take before FB gets it?
    • by u38cg (607297)
      Perhaps you should find out what the law is before going all tinfoil hat at Facebook. Specifically, they are required to give up this information and the police are not required to have a court-issued warrant.
      • by jmerlin (1010641)
        If you bothered to watch any of the EFF presentations or even read the linked 18 USC 2703 above, it specifically states:

        (a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.
        ...only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure...

        (b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service.—
        ....if the governmental entity obtains a warrant....

        (c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service
        • by u38cg (607297)
          The word "warrant" does not necessarily mean a court warrant. The words "administrative subpoena" do not mean "court issued subpoena". Stop swinging your dick around and do your research a little bit better.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Want to slow the gov down from making ridiculous requests? They need to, at a minimum, be charged the cost associated with staffing, processing, and delivering on those requests.

    The government, not industry, should also be required to be post the costs and the aggregate data regarding what they get from those requests. Not the individual data, but the aggregate. Annual reporting, at a minimum, should include the number of cases which had these requests, how many of those went to trial, the type of case (dru

  • If you wanted to be useful, Facebook, you'd tell us the agency, the person in the agency, and the additional information that they wanted you to log. But because it's a Democratic administration that is lavishly supported starting from the very top of FB, why am I not surprised that you've said as little as you can get away with to avoid embarrassing them?

  • I wonder how facebook handles requests for data about foreigners? I wonder if that data is also protected by the privacy laws of the USA or that they can just provide that without a court order.
  • Seriously?

    The "old school" ways of keeping in touch seem far better privacywise.

    Give Diaspora a try.

  • We told them we wouldn't start logging that piece of data because we don't need it to provide a good product.

    In other words they'd have no problem collecting that data if it were useful to them or their advertisers. All that agency has to do is make a case that holding the information would offer a way to increase revenue by a fraction of a % and they'll be off collecting it with reckless abandon.

    Or am I being too cynical here?

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Working...