Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals 239
HughPickens.com writes: CNNMoney reports that Facebook has sent a letter to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration demanding that agents stop impersonating users on the social network. "The DEA's deceptive actions... threaten the integrity of our community," Facebook chief security officer Joe Sullivan wrote to DEA head Michele Leonhart. "Using Facebook to impersonate others abuses that trust and makes people feel less safe and secure when using our service." Facebook's letter comes on the heels of reports that the DEA impersonated a young woman on Facebook to communicate with suspected criminals, and the Department of Justice argued that they had the right to do so. Facebook contends that their terms and Community Standards — which the DEA agent had to acknowledge and agree to when registering for a Facebook account — expressly prohibit the creation and use of fake accounts. "Isn't this the definition of identity theft?" says privacy researcher Runa Sandvik. The DEA has declined to comment and referred all questions to the Justice Department, which has not returned CNNMoney's calls.
First (Score:2, Insightful)
Isnt impersonation a crime? Oh wait, I forgot the pigs are above the law.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Their job is fundamentally immoral to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Government thugs have no business deciding what recreational drugs people put into their own bodies. The federal government has no actual constitutional basis to do this (despite insane interpretations of the commerce clause), either. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' so freedom should take priority over safety (false or otherwise); bodily freedom, especially.
Government Dictionary (Score:5, Funny)
""Isn't this the definition of identity theft?""
Nope. It's identity eminent domain.
Re:Government Dictionary (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. It's identity eminent domain.
Much in the same way regular theft by the government is called civil asset forfeiture...
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, no.
Theft, when conducted in person while carrying a firearm, is felony armed robbery. In every state in the union [wikipedia.org].
It's hard to imagine being a police officer ordered to do this. Their choice is between facing homelessness and turning vicious, amoral thug.
Re:Government Dictionary (Score:5, Informative)
Civil asset foreiture as well as eminent domain follow a legal process with appeals routes and so on.
Not true [washingtonpost.com]. The cops can pull you over and help themselves to you cash. There is no "legal process" involved whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil asset foreiture as well as eminent domain follow a legal process with appeals routes and so on.
Not true [washingtonpost.com]. The cops can pull you over and help themselves to you cash. There is no "legal process" involved whatsoever.
Sure there is! What the cops do is legal, and here's the process:
1) Stop motorist.
2) Take motorist's cash.
3) Profit!
Although I think the "legal process" the GP was referring to was the basic justification for forfeiture spelled out in law, and the appeals process you can go through after the seizure to reclaim your property. Now, the law is certainly abused, but there's something the cops can point to and claim "we're doing that." Not so with impersonating someone else on Facebook.
I wonder, could you cha
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read your own link?
Of course there is a legal process, it says right in there -
Here is another humdinger from the article you posted-
Now if ther
Re: (Score:2)
And their is no "theft" involved with an agent using a perp's account when the perp is not in a position to be using it either. Neither is my pretending to be you in any way taking away your ability to be you. As long as all I do is open accounts and defraud other parties, I have taken nothing from you; I took it from them. The fact that yet other third parties see my activity as a reason to not do business with you is still not my fault. It is a misunderstanding between you and them that has nothing to do
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's identity eminent domain
haha, only they might actually argue along those lines (no shame). They're also appropriating Facebook's computer resources to make these profiles operate - it's no different than seizing property or money on a small scale, and the 5th Amendment has something to say about that (n.b. I'm playing the game that the Constitution is still in effect, rather than used to paper over "trouble").
Federated systems like Tonika [twit.tv] can provide authentication of friends - Facebook makes aut
Re:Government Dictionary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Government Dictionary (Score:4, Interesting)
And even that's not clear enough a definition to get past the people who keep throwing around the term. There has to be a false appearance of official sanction for the action. Either directly on the part of a cop, as in your example, or through the implication that there would be no prosecution of whatever crime they were entrapping you into.
If, to a regular citizen, there's no reason to believe that the person suggesting the crime has any official power whatsoever, it's not entrapment.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, perhaps the fact that so many people throw around the term entrapment is indicitive of a general feeling of unfairness at these actions and that they should be illegal actions for the police.
It reminds me of an incident a couple of years back where a man was found not guilty on a technicality after taking some upskirt shots with his phone. Everyone thought it was illegal, even the police and prosecutor, in the end, the law was flawed and the state legislature lept into action and had it fixed wit
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, perhaps the fact that so many people throw around the term entrapment is indicitive of a general feeling of unfairness at these actions and that they should be illegal actions for the police.
Or, this is the griping of people who figured that they were going to "get away" with something and are now looking for any justification to escape the responsibility for their actions that they knew were wrong to begin with.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So you think that the majority of people who misapply the word "entrapment" were caught in the act of felonies, and are trying to get off? I didn't think Slashdot was such a rough neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a fan of guilt by association, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok man, I am handing it over, but if I had one more swamp to tap you would be in a world of hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
slap that Black Lotus down, you know you want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, its whiny legalism that doesn't understand the intent, meaning, or purpose of the law.
Re: (Score:3)
In order for entrapment by estoppel to take place, then the entrapee needs to know that the person is a government agent, and be told that the conduct won't be prosecuted. As an example, if you're at a red light, and a traffic cop waves you forward through the intersection, and you proceed, only to be ticketed for running a red light, that's entrapment by estoppel (i.e. you were instructed by a law enforcement officer, who you knew to be one, to break the law, and then prosecuted anyway). That's a subset
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, if you're at a red light, and a traffic cop waves you forward through the intersection, and you proceed, only to be ticketed for running a red light, that's entrapment by estoppel (i.e. you were instructed by a law enforcement officer, who you knew to be one, to break the law, and then prosecuted anyway).
Bad example. The traffic laws I am familiar with all put the instructions of a uniformed police officer above an automated traffic signal. It is assumed the officer is acting in an official capacity to correct a malfunctioning signal, or to manage traffic that the signal is not dealing with.
That means it is actually against the law to ignore the police officer in this situation, and not a violation of law to ignore the signal. A better example would be if the meter maid tells you that it is ok to park in
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, that's definitely a better example.
Re: (Score:2)
well... it's definitely inciting to crime(or other similar).
and well.. it just happens, it's illegal in most countries, doesn't matter if you're a cop or not.
"do you want to buy some pot? here's some pot. please buy some pot! please go to your friend who sells pot and buy it and sell it to me!" shit you know. it's illegal in most countries and they manage just fine.
now, perhaps the DEA is worried that the prison population in USA is in decline.. perhaps...
"oh but judge I had to rape her to keep up appearanc
Re:Government Dictionary (Score:4, Informative)
Many words have a separate legal definition. For example, insanity means something completely different in legal, medical and colloquial contexts. When talking about a legal matter, assume the legal definition is what is meant. And you won't find a legal definition in the Webster or Oxford dictionaries unless it's a word with no alternative meanings.
Re: (Score:2)
That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions. Using the definition of Justice and it's purpose in a Republic as defined by Socrates there is supposed to be no separation. Where we have separate judicial rules and definitions depending on whether it's the State or Citizen is in other forms of Government (Oligarchy, Monarchy, Tyranny, Despotism, etc...).
Where it seems like we differ is what appears to be an attempt to normalize the separ
Re: (Score:2)
Legal definition - complete with precedent:
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).
You are backing my position (Score:2)
I'm not sure it was intentional, but you provide proof to my statement "You are providing the recent "bastardized by US judicial decisions" biased definition which allow for additional prosecutions."
This current "legal" definition does not match what was used in court cases for hundreds of previous years, which matches the Dictionary definition of the word.
Re:Government Dictionary (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sick of folks saying "entrapment" when a criminal is nabbed by any sort of deception. That isn't what entrapment is.
Indeed. In our society, it is perfectly acceptable for law enforcement to engage in deception to do their job. Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by, or FBI agents convincing borderline-retards that they want to blow things up in an effort to get more terrorism arrests, it's all totally legal.
Personally, I find deceptive law enforcement undesirable, if not downright frightening, but the law is what the law is. If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by
I'm not sure that counts as deceptive. Dangerous sure. There have been a few times where, if I would have needed to swerve to avoid something, I would not have known to not swerve left. But deceptive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the goal is to prevent people from exceeding the posted speed limit all the time, instead of just when a patrol car is visible up ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people, myself included, regularly exceed posted speed limits. I'll speak for myself: I do this fully aware that sometimes, I'll be caught off guard and ticketed. I go to great lengths to minimize the chances of this, but I admit that it's still going to happen from time to time. Now, when I'm driving down the road, exceeding the speed limit (as I regularly do), a visible patrol car will cause me to decrease my speed
Re: (Score:2)
Assume that every vehicle you pass is a police officer ready to issue a citation for a moving violation. Call me paranoid, and I will laugh in your smug fucking face when you get a ticket tucked into your shirt pocket while the real cop's partner goes back up the road to retrieve your other foot. Meanwhile I'll be the safe driver.
Paranoid... is very often a very healthy state of mind.
Re: (Score:2)
would you have slowed down upon seeing the red and blues off in the distance? I sure shit bet you would, now shut the fuck up and pay the fine. You not only got caught breaking the law, you're on the dashcam breaking the law.
If you're intent on doing 90 in a 60 zone, a cop cruiser on silent running isn't going to put you off until he flashes you to the shoulder. You're going to have to take a big bite of that shit sandwich.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is the law isn't the law. Law enforcement is not supposed to break the law. Facebook has a terms of use agreement, your right to access their systems and post anything there exists entirely from your agreement to abide by the terms there. Facebook does not allow pseudonyms and other characterizations of ones identity.
Doing so constitutes violation of the CFAA, the court even held that in US v Drew ( a case about pseudonyms on myspace), although the verdict was vacated because the District cou
Re: (Score:2)
Either law enforcement will get an exemption from the CFAA or as a society we'll decide that we don't feel comfortable with increasing levels of government power with decreasing levels of oversight.
Unfortunately, I think it will be the former.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if the government ignores the Constitution, it ceases to be the government. It's just another pack of thugs. Thus everything they do is illegal, it's just that there's nobody to arrest and prosecute them at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's unclear how I'm an apologist, as I don't believe I ever offered any support to the idea that the government ought to engage in deception to enforce laws. Recognizing the facts of reality is not the same as supporting them.
Indeed, I do think the US Constitution is meaningless. Because it is. It explicitly says one thing, and yet the SCOTUS reads something else entirely. We've long since moved away from the US Constitution
Re: (Score:2)
What gun control? The U.S. is the most armed country in the world.
The second amendment has nothing to do with how armed the US is compared against the rest of the world. It states that the right to bear arms (such as, for example, nuclear warheads) shall not be infringed. Since private ownership of nuclear warheads is prohibited, the right to bear arms is being infringed. Instead of repealing the amendment that guarantees people the right to bear nuclear warheads, our government has chosen a more expedient approach: to simply ignore the law as it is written and instead ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't what entrapment is. It is when you convince an entity to commit a crime they wouldn't normally commit, such as, telling a Nun if she didn't buy drugs from that guy over there on the street corner, her church probably will burn down due to an "unfortunate accident"
What you are describing is not entrapment, but coercion. I'm not claiming that a corrupt judicial branch has not required entrapment to include coercion for deciding when a law enforcement agent can be breaking the law, but this is a very new phenomenon (3-4 decades roughly). Not very long ago, police could not perform any illegal activities in order to get a prosecution and "entrapment" in legal proceedings used the dictionary definition. The "War on Drugs" started a trend towards our current dual justi
Re: (Score:2)
and I gave the legal definition with a proper citation. You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the age of the dictionary word Entrapment and how often it has been used in Judicial capacity in the last 300 years, and then notice the "legal definition" you provided and be amazed that the date of that definition is 1992 based on a court ruling. A ruling which of course was in favor of the law enforcement officer.
You're welcome."
Re: (Score:2)
Or using regular sales techniques on someone who is clearly trying to kick the habit?
Perhaps hoping to trigger an impulse buy?
Cop dresses like dealer, someone asks to buy drugs: not entrapment. Cop dresses like dealer and offers you drugs: entrapment
Re: (Score:2)
entrapment can only be proven when there is no intent on the perps part to commit the crime in the absence of the honeypot. If the perp could have committed the crime and had actually shown intent to do so in the absence of the honeypot, then any entrapment claim is invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to cure, when making new friends just ask: Are you a cop?
The police (or feds) don't have to answer that truthfully.
Ermagherd! (Score:5, Funny)
In related news.... (Score:2)
In related news. DEA to facebook: Who cares?
Re: (Score:3)
In related news. DEA to facebook: Who cares?
Curious how the DEA would "care" had the very young children they also posted on the fake Facebook profile been targeted or killed by the very criminals they were attempting to lure in.
And what of her identity once she gets out of jail (Score:2)
I would think that she would have a strong case against the DEA (or the agent(s) using her identity, because very few people will trust that she is who she says she is (online). They are very effectively destroying her status/reputation/life. I believe that the DEA actions are a crime, at multiple levels.
What integrity? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Integrity? (Score:2)
Considering Facebook vacuums every tidbit of information about a person (name, location, sites they visit, friends, etc), I don't think claiming the integrity of your community is at stake when law enforcement uses it to catch criminals is the way to go, especially considering the numerous times Facebook has already been caught manipulating results or running secret tests on users.
TOS violations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:TOS violations (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
In their view, they're allowed to break any law they need to to do their job. But if anybody else breaks any law, they can and will use that to achieve their goal.
So, when Schwartz does it, they can trump up the charge to make something stick. When the DEA does it, it's business as usual.
In other words, the law as applied to us little people is not the same as applied to law enforcement. Because they, in their minds, are above the law.
Welcome to the dystopian future, where laws exist only at the whim of those who enforce it, and only apply to those who don't.
Law enforcement is above the law. That they'll abuse it all they want is kind of inevitable.
Which means you should assume that all forms of law enforcement will become completely corrupt and out of control -- like happens in every other banana republic in which the police decide what is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're saying that creating an account on Facebook with a fake identity is a crime???
Excuse me a sec, I'll be right back, need to, uh, delete a few things......
"makes people FEEL less safe and secure"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this was unintentionally revealing. It's the feeling of safety and security that Facebook is frantic to defend. Actual safety and security? Well, that's... complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawless land (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that's not what they're asserting. Law enforcement has been granted powers by the higher powers in the government to occasionally perform actions that would be considered illegal in order to resolve a larger crime. (e.g., impersonation, possession of drugs, possession of illegal firearms, purchasing illegal substances). The DEA's assertion is that this is merely an branch of those granted powers. You might not like that they have been granted the powers to do this, but that doesn't mean that they ".
Good times... (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook teaching ethics and rules to the DEA. That's a good one. ...")
Good luck with that anyway, Facebook! If there is any response at all from the DEA side, it will most likely a strong judicial mumbo jumbo meaning "STFU, or... " along a unilateral NDA (you know, because of "or
Maybe the best way to proceed if they do not comply would be to automatically put in parenthesis beside the account name a warning (This account may have been tempered with by authorities).
Modern Democracy: A Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a fascinating and unexpected inversion here: Corporations are now standing up against government to protect the rights of citizens. Of course, most of us expect that relationship to work the other way around.
It is not just Facebook. The first sentence of this article [rt.com] reads: "The FBI director has slammed Apple and Google for offering their customers encryption technology that protects users’ privacy."
Today, a product which includes protection from the government has added value. A prediction: In the future, corporate protection from government intrusion and persecution will become the product. Smart corporations such as Tesla (see Nevada tax deal [rgj.com]) or Apple and Google (see double Irish Dutch sandwich [wikipedia.org]) have special rights or have exempted themselves from government rules by using loopholes. Meanwhile, every day there is news of the federal government becoming increasingly insane. Like today [washingtonpost.com]. Increasingly, the government is engaging in [washingtonpost.com] unethical, illegal activities such as theft. As demand from protection from the federal government increases with the growing abuses, corporations will meet that demand by sheltering customers under their own umbrellas.
Re:Modern Democracy: A Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
I have taken to quoting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible retribution.
Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.
Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
They are standing up to government because it effects their income, not because they are being altruistic.
And?
When government leaders act to help the voters you can argue they're doing it only because it affects their chances of staying in power, not because they are being altruistic.
This is called proper alignment of incentives, and it's a very, very good thing. At the end of the day, it's the only thing that keeps us moving forward. And it shouldn't be surprising that corporations like Facebook have an incentive to give users what they want, because in general profit motives are almost always closely alig
DEA to Facebook (Score:2)
facebook: situation normal (Score:2)
considering the fact that facebook host pages for child traffickers and paedophiles, and will shut down pages exposing such crimes without so much as a cursory investigation when the paedos themselves make a complaint, is this a surprise? No, it's not.
I think the DEA should get on with some other TLA departments and fucking shut facebook down.
Too Easy (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate the DEA and the rest of the TLA's as much as the next guy, but unfortunately the intertwining of defense and law enforcement via "narco-terrorism" pretty much leaves Facebook and every other social network shit out of luck.
One little NSL to Facebook to the effect of "We're doing a terrorism investigation, we need fake/impersonated accounts, and you will stfu about it" and it's game over.
Would the courts accept the "evidence"? (Score:2)
Would the courts even accept "evidence" gathered in such a manner? Doesn't it constitute entrapment? Isn't that illegal?
Re:Would the courts accept the "evidence"? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).
This has been happening for a very long time... (Score:2)
I have a friend who is a private eye who has a bunch of fake profiles and uses them to find the locations of people who are running out on their bills. If he's looking for the whereabouts of an older guy for example, he has a profile that is a 21 year old college girl - and he just friends whoever he's looking for and they usually almost always accept. Then these people tell their friends where they are going, private eye drops a gps tracking device on their car and "follows them home".
Rule 1 - if you are r
Since when does the government have "rights"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"State Versus..." Who do you think represents the State? That's right, Government.
An individual or collective body cannot represent or be represented in a court of Law unless they have legal personality (in the case of a collective, such representation in the form of a board of Directors or other leadership structure speaking for the Whole Person, either through themselves via public statement or in the case of a legal affair, through lawyers). Thus, the concept of corporate Personhood and the further conce
Old saying... (Score:2)
"Facebook. Where men are men, women are men, and 14-year-old girls are FBI agents."
Nah, it doesn't have the same ring to it...
Re:Children. (Score:5, Interesting)
But but but, think of the CHILDREN.
Ah, considering the police used images of this woman's son and niece on the Facebook profile to try and make it authentic, thereby putting very young children in harms way (they were trying to lure in criminals), I'd say someone was actually thinking of the children in this case.
And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the "Lessons have been learned" BS rmix by Dr No Statement..?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.
They'd book her on a made-up charge and offer her a plea deal if she just kept her trap shut. Or 25 years else. And who'd believe a criminal like her anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has been loosing active membership because of the threat to privacy and those who will use your ID in ways against you. Law enforcement is often percieved as another threat, not safety. This hits their revenue stream as chat rooms are replaced with Snapchat and alternatives.
A common perception is a chatroom of 13 year old girls is mostly older guys pretending to be 13 year old girls. This reputation is hurting revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting this stuff about chatrooms from? There's no such thing in Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
group chat comes close...
Re: (Score:2)
And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.
Yeah, just like the cops who permanently disfigured a baby with a flash-bang grenade. The only tune they wound up singing was "Couple Days Off" by Huey Lewis.
Re: (Score:3)
And had her children been targeted and harmed or killed because of this irresponsible bullshit, the DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.
Yeah, just like the cops who permanently disfigured a baby with a flash-bang grenade. The only tune they wound up singing was "Couple Days Off" by Huey Lewis.
Blame public apathy for that shit. We the People should be standing up and making a HELL of a lot more noise over those kinds of actions taken by law enforcement. When they screw up, they need to be held accountable.
That is the problem. We no longer have control. At all. But a loud enough voice that remains persistent can and will be addressed. Apathy kills persistence.
Re: (Score:2)
DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.
We're above the law and you can't sue. Doo-Da, Doo-Da!"
Re: (Score:2)
DEA will just compel the people to create phony profiles...
DEA did not compel me to use a phony profile.
Common sense did that.
As I see this playing out, Facebook's easiest option is to identify phony accounts and take them down. That's all the authority they have.
A more gainful pursuit would be to sue DEA for fucking with Facebook's revenue stream on two (2) counts: 1.) Undermining the trust of the (naive) members and 2.) Inflating eyeball numbers to Facebook's advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, Facebook has brought some heavy charges against people using the site against their terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation.
Re: (Score:2)
sick motherfuckers.
in a metal coffin, with spikes inside (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in both cases it would be intended to remove any ambiguity or doubt as to quantity. Perfectly cromulent usage, IMHO. No sarcastic tone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CFAA has an exception for law enforcement operations and criminal investigations.
Paragraph (f):
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
two words: *probable cause*.
Re: (Score:2)
wait, are we talking about phoney profiles, or are we talking identity theft?
Re: CFAA violation! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's time we all sit back and remember the first rule of dealing with cops. They do not have any obligation to tell you the truth. The courts give them a pass because criminals lie.
Note: if you lie to the police, the odds are good that you will be charged, because lying to the police is a crime.
The honesty street is one way.
--AC
Why worry about CFAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they are violating the TOS, Facebook can simply ban them - no laws required. It's nice they've made a public display of calling them out, and it may suffice as a blanket "first warning" to all operations from the DEA.
And, of course, they could always take affirmative action against them by flagging DEA IP addresses if they should come up, notifying the user of the access violation, suspending the account until it is re-verified, and posting to the persons page that the page may have been accessed by the DEA. That's kicking sand in a bully's face, of course, but it could be done if they were serious about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Facebook is really interested in their stock value and not kicking the DEA in the teeth? They're not going to win any favors with anybody for actively sabotaging a criminal investigation, even an illegally conducted one. They want to have the public on their side which is why we're hearing about this in the news, Facebook couldn't win an escalating conflict with proxies and whatnot. If this becomes a big enough PR problem for the police though, the practice might go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Facebook could kill us all (anonymous) by stipulating in their ToS that using the site in any way other than intended by Facebook is detrimental to Facebook's revenue stream and is, therefore, obstructing commerce and fraudulent and punishable by existing laws.
Re: (Score:2)
prostitution isn't illegal, soliciting is.