Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime Facebook Privacy Twitter

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter Block Tool For Cops To Surveil You On Social Media (vice.com) 80

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California announced that, after the organization obtained revealing documents through public records access requests, Facebook and Instagram have cut off data access to a company that sells surveillance products for law enforcement. Twitter has also curbed the surveillance product's access. Motherboard reports: The product, called Geofeedia, is used by law enforcement to monitor social media on a large scale, and relies on social media sites' APIs or other means of access. According to one internal email between a Geofeedia representative and police, the company claimed their product "covered Ferguson/Mike Brown nationally with great success," in reference to the fatal police shooting of a black teenager in Missouri in 2014, and subsequent protests. "Our location-based intelligence platform enables hundreds of organizations around the world to predict, analyze, and act based on real-time social media signals," the company's website reads. According to the ACLU, Instagram provided Geofeedia access to its API; Facebook gave access to a data feed called the Topic Feed API, which presents users with a ranked list of public posts; and Twitter provided Geofeedia, through an intermediary, with searchable access to its database of public tweets. Instagram and Facebook terminated Geofeedia's access on September 19, and Twitter announced on Tuesday that it had suspended Geofeedia's commercial access to Twitter data.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter Block Tool For Cops To Surveil You On Social Media

Comments Filter:
  • Why? (Score:5, Funny)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @01:28PM (#53056387) Journal

    How dare people monitor what people post publicly?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @01:35PM (#53056455)

      They can monitor it, just not with API access with vendor permission. Not just everyone gets API access so this would be considered implicitly "sanctioned" activity. This isn't the same thing as a person reading things through a browser and connecting dots. The blowback from being associated with officially sanctioned government monitoring is not good for these services since the trust level is lower and eroding quickly.

      In reality, this is all PR. I am sure they provide these tools directly to LE, for a fee, and they don't this company because a) the bad PR and b) someone else selling services they can offer

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Empiric ( 675968 )

      It's a question of scale and data-mining objective.

      Give me everything you've ever posted, let's bet on whether I can come up with a one-paragraph "summary" that "represents you" that's disqualifying enough for your next job as read by HR, or a political run as read by the public.

      Two to one.

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        This all falls in with the same logic as how after all the other crazy stuff Trump has said (speaking as a likely Trump voter) he should some how be suddenly disqualified for some "joshing around guy talk" from 10 years ago. The reality is just about everyone says some in appropriate, poorly considered, things in bad taste some times. The fact that its all searchable and forever in public now is what has changed.

        I don't see the problem with law enforcement data mining peoples public statements for stuff r

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by HornWumpus ( 783565 )

          For decades now, the only people who could run for president were those who knew they would be politicians at a very early age and lived lives of deceit from the start.

          The positive way to look at this is that weasels won't be able to hide their dirt in the future. But the way the media is handling Hillary doesn't make me optimistic though. It only works if you have honest reporting.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Empiric ( 675968 )
          The reality is just about everyone says some in appropriate, poorly considered, things in bad taste some times. The fact that its all searchable and forever in public now is what has changed.

          Agreed.

          I don't see the problem with law enforcement data mining peoples public statements for stuff related to current events/open investigations.

          This is assuming that law enforcement is objectively and dispassionately prioritizing their enforcement activities. Do you trust the current U.S. Department of Justic
        • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @02:08PM (#53056665) Journal

          "joshing around guy talk"

          Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk", unless we're talking about the guys on your cell block.

          • by DaHat ( 247651 )

            Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk",

            Do you by chance know the who/what/when & where of this 'admitted' sexual assault? No? Neither do I.

            I hate having to defend Trump, but yes, at this point it was just "joshing around guy talk" as we don't have any other evidence of a crime.

            You can claim rather easily that you raped and killed a young girl in 1990... and absent any other evidence (a confession alone is worth very little), that doesn't mean the event happened, only that you made a

            • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

              by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @02:42PM (#53056947) Journal

              Do you by chance know the who/what/when & where of this 'admitted' sexual assault?

              Yes.

              http://reason.com/blog/2016/10... [reason.com]

              • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

                "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]â"I just start kissing them," Trump told Access Hollywood's Billy Bush, according to an audio tape leaked to The Washington Post on Friday. "It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

                Emphasis mine, because, well, you can't do that. Grabbing an unsuspecting and unwilling person's genitals is a criminal act of sexual assault under any definition of sexual assault. Trump is evidently proud of the fact that he wielded his wealth and star power as a weapon to help him abuse womenâ"to kiss and grope them without their permission. This is violence, full stop.

                No specifics there, yes it is violence so is half the stuff in 50 Shades. In human sexuality people agree to acts just by making eyes at each other. Its not a good or reliable system but its the way it works, in much of the animal kingdom too. I highly doubt Trump goes around grabbing anyone by the pussy, if he did there would be more sexual assault complaints. That is exactly the kind of talk men boast to each other with, "I am so gosh damn important that women line up to have me fondle them..." Its di

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • As a man, I can tell you that this is not "joshing around guy talk". I've never met anyone who talks like this, ever.

                I don't, but I've met people who do, and when they talk in public they tend to be very PC, social justice, anti-misogyny, etc, and overall they are very politically left leaning. In case you haven't met one of these, Bill Cosby is an excellent example.

          • Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk"

            Is that why Bill Clinton never admitted his? His actual assaults on multiple women [thepoliticalinsider.com], not merely kissing them without a prior written and notarized permission?

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • by mi ( 197448 )

                Are you seriously claiming, it is your sincere belief, Bill Clinton has never sexually assaulted anyone? Please, say so.

                Right now the only allegation of sexual impropriety made against Bill Clinton that's been shown to be true is an affair with a consenting woman

                Right now there are simply no such proven allegations against Trump. Zero — confession without hard evidence do not count. And it was investigated by the best minds in the business [nytimes.com] — the most they could find was a Florida model attending [foxnews.com]

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @01:44PM (#53056511)

      How dare people monitor what people post publicly?

      It's OK for the police to track your movements via fake phone towers, because you're publically transmitting that data anyway.
      It's OK to place audio-bugs around the city to listen in on people walking around, because they're in a public place.
      It's OK to have license-plate readers on every road to track people's travel habits because they're out in public.

      We're all out "in public" or say things "in public" where the public could overhear us, or see us. That doesn't make tracking or bugging the general public OK. It's one thing to casually over hear someone, or read what a stranger posted. It's an entirely different animal to go out and track an individual or a group of individuals and monitor their every move and utterance. Even in public we have an expectation not to be stalked.

      • If you say it on the Internet, it's there to be read, period. They're just going to run their own crawler instead. This is a non-story, really. It's more than just overheard, it's being broadcast.

        It's OK for the police to track your movements via fake phone towers, because you're publically transmitting that data anyway.

        Already requires a warrant. The fake phone towers are still illegal (yet to be proven) if other phones connect to it. This requires intercepting encrypted communications and performing a MITM attack.

      • Doesn't mean we have to make it easier on the fascists to spy on us.

      • i think the difference is you are transmitting TO the public on twitter and social media (thats the point of it) therefore there is no good reason not to use that information

        the items you spoke of are talking about trying to gather private conversations
        • The other methods are private conversations (held in public places).
          Posting a comment on Facebook is a semi-private message (held in a public place).

          If someone followed you around in public recording everything you said whilst in public you could probably sue them for harassment, or get a restraining order. You have no such option online.

          I'm not blind to the differences. What you say in the marketplace disappears into history for anyone not around to hear it. What is published online stays there. You ca

          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            There is what is know as normative behavior though. If you are in a public place and you want to share something private with someone, you look around as you say to see if someone is near by, you lower you voice.

            Posting on facebook, Twitter is just that its posting, its more like standing in the public square with a megaphone and sandwich board, or nailing you list of grievances to the cathedral door.

            There are plenty of ways to send private or more private communications online. PGP + E-mail works pretty

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      How dare people monitor what people post publicly?

      Well yes, this is like running naked through the park then complaining that people looked at you... You should be careful about what you post online. Doubly so if it's under your real name.

      However on the other side of the coin, we also don't have to make it easy for law enforcement to track you either.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Efficiency and cost play a huge role in mass-surveillance. If you cannot establish fascism relatively cheaply, you will generally fail to establish it at all. So this is actually an efficient countermeasure, given that "site scraping" is something these sites try to make hard.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Just rearrange terms like "people", government, contractors a bit and its all legal in every city and state again.
      The US government actually has to allow for the right of assemble and petition without big gov/mil been able to spy, block or stop such fully protected activity.
      The press is also free to report on such comments and petitions without the gov getting enforce a stop to all such reporting.
      Freedom was understood to work well when not under chilling domestic spying and that is why it is fully p
  • by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @01:31PM (#53056423) Journal

    1) form new shell company
    2) make website that throws up stupid quizzes and such with topics that appeal highly to people you want to monitor
    3) hoover up every ounce of data you can suck out of the FB API
    4) sell results to law enforcement, advertisers, etc etc
    5) profit! (notice the lack of "?" yeah, me too.)

    If discovered and rejected/blocked by FB, restart at step 1), with the bonus of having the existing databases to plug the new website into.

    • by DaHat ( 247651 )

      Why would you make just one web site? All of the shell companies & websites should appear to be as independent as possible so that if one does get shut down, you don't have the time & energy cost to spin up another.

  • Ok... and... ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @01:51PM (#53056561)

    The API *IS STILL THERE*

    So they've stopped one "nefarious" company...

    That company has proven the APIs make it possible to collect and collate data on behaviors and intents. What's to stop governments with shell companies from using it in the same fashion?

    How about political parties?

    Shops using the data to more accurately target spam hacks at you? I'm sure you've had a few spam calls as of late.

    Ooo - lookit us, we're so protective of your rights BS. If they really care they'd shut down the APIs altogether.

  • Don't the police have better things to do than monitoring citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights?
    • This is the online equivalent of driving a patrol car around watching for people that need to be spoken to. People driving weaving back and forth in a lane are exercising their rights. When stopped, they are sometime found to be DUI. People often post things on Facebook that are the equivalent of "Lets go do some crimes". Post publicly ... walk down the street ... uh what exactly is the difference?
      • People driving weaving back and forth in a lane are exercising their rights.

        You don't have a constitutional right to create dangerous driving conditions. There's a difference between driving with the flow of traffic at 75MPH and weaving in-and-out of traffic at 75MPH. The latter behavior will get you pulled over and ticketed.

        • Exactly the point I was making. You have a right to drive ( this is actually a privilege, not a right ) . Doing so on public streets will expose you to scrutiny, sometimes you may be found to be dangerous. This is why we have police patrolling not simply waiting in a depot to be dispatched.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Aehm, no? If they restricted themselves to the things they should legitimately do, they would have to sack half their people and give up all their new shiny toys. That is not going to happen...

  • It's almost as if the entire social media ecosystem is designed to gather up data relating to your behaviors, decision making, and skillset into a neat little package for the highest bidder. Say it aint so!

    Its curious how every time a revelation like this surfaces, the masses act all slighted and surprised. Why else would facebook insist on you using your real full name? Is there ANY other legitimate reason? If it was just advertising as they claim, my name could easily be CONSUMER42234564.

    Has anybody else

  • All this behavior, the hoovering up of seemingly inconsequential data, is all about Parallel Construction. LEOs seemed to be fascinated by the technique right now. The way things work these days is: Someone reports a crime. LEOs decide who did it. Having evidence is optional at this point. They sift through all the data they have on the selected person(s) until they arrive at some reason to make life really hard for that person(s). So hard, that the accused confess and plea to the originally reported c
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Its great for civil asset forfeiture too. Buy lots of telco products with that new cash flow. Then rent and buy more time with the private sector to track ever more users.
      More case work, over time, expanding budgets, promotions, holidays. More asset forfeiture to cover any shortfall in city, state and federal task force funding after big upgrades or just to cover every new budget .
      Contractors see the money left on the table and swarm in with fantastic rental software products per city, state to find m
  • It says that Twitter announced "Tuesday that it had suspended Geofeedia's commercial access to Twitter data."

    Does that mean it still has non-commercial (e.g., NOT for resale)? Just saying they seem like the sort who might use the non-commercial feed for commercial purposes..

    • Twitter have multiple APIs. The Gnip API is probably what's meant here; it's a paid API that provides a filtered feed of the entire stream of tweets.

      The regular Twitter REST API is more limited, but it's available to anyone with a working Twitter account, so it's basically impossible for Twitter to block access by technical means.

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Working...