Toronto Police Use Facebook Picture in Online Lineup 227
An anonymous reader writes "A 28-year-old woman was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from her profile pic on Facebook. Artist Lizz Aston was identified in a lineup after police used a picture from her Facebook profile. From the article: 'In an interview she said, "I told the officer I was at an art opening for a friend, then went home with my boyfriend because he injured his knee. We stayed in for the rest of the night and I did research on the computer for an art installation I was working on. The officer didn't care ... I don't think the police looked into it further." Aston said, the officer "read me my rights. I was searched, finger printed and processed."'"
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Its not clear if the police used facebook ... (Score:5, Informative)
"When she called an officer told her "there was an altercation at the bar, two girls got in a fight and the girl who was assaulted has pointed you out as being her assaulter through a photo on Facebook.""
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're missing the point.
The headline's trying to beat-up the Facebook connection, to tie into the anti-Facebook zeitgeist that pervades Slashdot. The actual story is that police didn't actually investigate thoroughly, and ignored all other evidence. That would have been a problem even if they'd used, say, a photo from a school yearbook, or from a publicity shot from her art exhibition.
In short, the summary's trying to turn the story into a "OH NOES! Facebook is the end of privacy!" when really it's a "OH NOES! Police are sloppy and lazy" story.
Police lineups are a sham (Score:5, Informative)
Mistaken eyewitness identification is one of the leading causes of false arrests and convictions. The average civilian is absolutely terrible with memorizing and correctly identifying the actual guilty suspect.
Even worse is that most police lineups and photo arrays (or photo lineups) are presented as a "multiple choice" test. Where the victim or accuser feels like they must choose someone rather than admit that they don't recognize anyone or are unsure. They'll just pick the closest person that they think fits the person that they saw earlier. And earlier might be hours, days, or even weeks or longer. Academic studies have shown that if you give the average person a lineup of random innocent people that most people will finger one of them for the crime.
And of course we have police that coach someone going into a lineup. "Here we have suspects one, two, three *cough* FOUR, and five. Please identify which suspect you think robbed the convenience store". "Uh....it was person number four".
And lastly, one of my best friends is a cop,and he says as a joke that they put cops into lineups all of the time. Then they bet if the civilian will identify the cop as the shooter or rapist or whatever. I know one department even had a jackpot where if you went into a lineup and got chosen as the criminal you got a free golf club.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and... don't ever talk to cops. They sent this person an email and she voluntarily went down to the station to "help" with the investigation? Silly rabbit. The only way you'll get me down to the station is if I'm served a warrant, or bailing a buddy out of jail.
Re:It wasn't a lineup. (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, they apparently showed the victim a bunch of pictures of people who had "friended" the bar, got an ID based on that
Please read the article more carefully. It says no such thing. What the article says is " 'I was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from my profile pic on Facebook,' she wrote on the very same Facebook page. 'Please let this be an eye opener.' " Nowhere does it say the police were the ones that used Facebook to identify her. It could well have been the victim that did so. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that she friended the bar, as you assert.
Further on, the article says "She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division 'asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011).' " Now this is just bizarre. Since when did the police e-mail suspects inviting them to come in and be arrested? And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation? I think there must be more to this story than we're seeing.
Talking to the arresting cop. (Score:5, Informative)
There is no need to talk to the arresting cop, there is nothing he can do. He's got a warrant with your name on it and he has to bring you in for booking. That's really all there is to it and there is nothing that you can do at that point that isn't going to cause you actually pain, and another charge. The cop has no choice. What is he going to do, go back to the detective that got the warrant and say you convinced him you didn't do anything? The judge signed the warrant, you beef is with him now.
Re:Police lineups are a sham (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"On the INTERNET!" (Score:4, Informative)
What's the problem? An assault victim has been identified the suspect by a photograph. Further investigation will include the victim confirming or denying this suspect by direct view. If confirmed, the suspect will get their day in court.
It's assault -- it's a very serious crime. They have to arrest the suspect unless an air-tight alibi is presented. It wasn't, so they did. Case now moves to next step.
This is not "bad police work". This is what they're supposed to do.
It depends on how they got the photo. If for example, the photo came about because [prior to finding the photo] the person of interest was known to be in that area at the time, the perpetrator was already known to the victim, or was tracked down because she'd dropped some identifying information, then the photo is valid.
If, however, the photo was obtained after trawling a large number of online photos of people that live 'in the area', using automatic 'face recognition'. And assuming at best the face recognition was as good as 99% reliable (which is better than the average person would be at recognising an unfamiliar person). Then there would be a huge number of false positives. If the person is identified by this type of system, then statistically speaking, the match should never be used as evidence. And if the resulting match is then used to obtain corroborating evidence that is itself related to the search (eg. a police lineup using a human to verify the recognition), then the corroborative evidence is statistically useless.
The same failure applies to DNA database trawling, followed by matching something directly derivable from the search result - eg. someone's DNA matches a sample from the crime scene (again with a huge false positive rate across a large (or incomplete) enough database). And the corroborating evidence is that the guy also had red hair, freckles and light skin - must be him! Fail.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
visual identification is pretty strong evidence.
Go read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification [wikipedia.org]
Then come back and apologize for making shit up.
But since I know you wont here's a snippet. A quote from a Supreme Court Justice.
Justice Brennan also observed that "At least since United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), the Court has recognized the inherently suspect qualities of eyewitness identification evidence, and described the evidence as "notoriously unreliable"
Re:They don't serve and protect (Score:4, Informative)
It's fine and dandy to lump people together glibly, but I don't see how it's intelligent or insightful.
This is slashdot.