EFF: Facebook Should Notify Users Who Interact With Fake Police 'Sock Puppet' Accounts (eff.org) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a senior investigative researcher at the EFF:
Despite Facebook's repeated warnings that law enforcement is required to use "authentic identities" on the social media platform, cops continue to create fake and impersonator accounts to secretly spy on users. By pretending to be someone else, cops are able to sneak past the privacy walls users put up and bypass legal requirements that might require a warrant to obtain that same information...
EFF is now calling on Facebook to escalate the matter with law enforcement in the United States. Facebook should take the following actions to address the proliferation of fake/impersonator Facebook accounts operated by law enforcement, in addition to suspending the fake accounts.
- As part of its regular transparency reports, Facebook should publish data on the number of fake/impersonator law enforcement accounts identified, what agencies they belonged to, and what action was taken.
- When a fake/impersonator account is identified, Facebook should alert the users and groups that interacted with the account whether directly or indirectly.
The article also suggests updating Facebook's Terms of Service to explicitly prohibit fake/impersonator profiles by law enforcement groups, and updating Facebook pages of law enforcement groups to inform visitors when those groups have a written policy allowing fake/impersonator law enforcement accounts. "These four changes are relatively light lifts that would enhance transparency and establish real consequences for agencies that deliberately violate the rules..."
"Facebook's practice of taking down these individual accounts when they learn about them from the press (or from EFF) is insufficient to deter what we believe is a much larger iceberg beneath the surface."
EFF is now calling on Facebook to escalate the matter with law enforcement in the United States. Facebook should take the following actions to address the proliferation of fake/impersonator Facebook accounts operated by law enforcement, in addition to suspending the fake accounts.
- As part of its regular transparency reports, Facebook should publish data on the number of fake/impersonator law enforcement accounts identified, what agencies they belonged to, and what action was taken.
- When a fake/impersonator account is identified, Facebook should alert the users and groups that interacted with the account whether directly or indirectly.
The article also suggests updating Facebook's Terms of Service to explicitly prohibit fake/impersonator profiles by law enforcement groups, and updating Facebook pages of law enforcement groups to inform visitors when those groups have a written policy allowing fake/impersonator law enforcement accounts. "These four changes are relatively light lifts that would enhance transparency and establish real consequences for agencies that deliberately violate the rules..."
"Facebook's practice of taking down these individual accounts when they learn about them from the press (or from EFF) is insufficient to deter what we believe is a much larger iceberg beneath the surface."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is sounding like trolling less and less as time goes on. I bailed from Facebook. I don't ever talk to anyone else about deleting theirs. That's my decision. And, it's theirs.
Re: (Score:1)
Until they tag you in a photo without your permission.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Support your police state.
Good citizen.
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes I swear these "civil libertarians" act like sock puppets for the FBI and wonder if the FBI isn't laughing hysterically as civil libertarians make such boneheaded arguments in the name of "muh freedumbz, muh libertayz, muh conztitushunz" that the whole goal is to make genuine balancing impossible and play right into the statists' hands.
Considering that both PETA and the NRA are run this way (astroturfing organizations deliberately masquerading as grassroots with heavy emphasis on complete incompetence), it would make perfect sense.
Re:And and and we want a pony! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I know about the NRA, but who's PETA astroturfing for? It looks like a bunch of genuinely incompetent vegan nutballs.
My Homeowners association forbids stakeouts (Score:3)
My homeowners association covenant agreement says that cops need to tell you is they are parkd on the street secretly surveilling your house for illegal activity. So I know I'm safe from the cops when I deal crack out of my garage. I can't beleive it was so easy to do. All you have to do is write down in the EULA for the HOA street that cops can't bust you and youre home free.
Re: My Homeowners association forbids stakeouts (Score:4, Funny)
Pure genius.
For some other HOA life hacks you may want to experiment with a few of these:
1. HOA legalizing marijuana for in neighborhood use.
2. Prostitution is legal between the hours of 6pm and 11pm.
3. Residents must be asleep by 11pm.
4. Each month a home owner is randomly selected to be a god king. All residents must worship and follow the edicts of said being.
First thing I did when getting god king was to make myself permanently king and ban leaving the kingdom. Public beating Tuesday is gaining popularity... or else.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
the real situation (Score:1)
What they're actually angry about is that agents are infiltrating socio-political groups. In the past, you would just walk right into a room and join the alt-left / alt-right groups being formed physically and surveil and even possibly control direction of the group. They did it to the black panthers and also hippie peace protestors for example back in the day. But, these days they can just create a Facebook account and join the community. Though, if they weren't doing that when shit goes down they'd be bla
Re: (Score:1)
The real problem Facebook and LinkedIn should admit is state actors blatantly using the social networks to spread external propaganda.
Of course. those networks should spend those resources to spread internal propaganda. ... ...
your "internal propaganda" is somebody else external propaganda.
It is enough that I turn on CNN and listen to the messages spouted by that propaganda well.
Let's build the wall so no external propaganda comes into our beautiful place
Wait, there is more than one example of that. China, North Korea
Charge them with every known hacking law (Score:1, Interesting)
Have them (every law enforcement agent directly involved, that knew about it, and didn't stop them, their supervisor(s), etc. all the way to the top), charged, arrested, imprisoned.
It's the only way to be sure.
Make sure they are interrogated, intensely, using "enhanced" methods (as the CIA likes to call it), to reveal the names of every other person involved so that the entire "cancerous" body within the legal infrastructure is surgically removed and cauterized to stop the hemorrhaging of our civil rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a quote from the CFAA:
(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.
And you can bet every other anti-hacking law has a similar clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't FB charge them $$$? If the TOS say that any LE use without a judicial order/warrant or without FB's explicit written approval will be charged at $1000/day per account. And use of the system is deemed acceptance of this agreement.
They don't want to pay then shut down all of the FB accounts for that city, state or county.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that, according to the law, legal law enforcement operations do not need 'authorization' to access computers (and no, most 'legal law enforcement operations' do not require any king of judicial order or warrant). Therefore, the TOS can not be used to block law enforcement (or make them pay). And if you think that FB is just going to shut down all the accounts for basically everyone in the US, I'll have some of what you're smoking.
Oh, EFF, you are so funny! (Score:3, Informative)
You don't really believe Facebook is going to do something about this, do you? Do they ever do anything to change mistakes or fix security holes? Facebook users are the product Facebook sells -- Facebook users are NOT the customers.
Depends... (Score:1)
If everyone is allowed fake accounts, then I am fine with law enforcement being able to impersonate. If law enforcement is getting the special ability to impersonate accounts in ways that the average person does not, then either a ToS ban, or a ToS REQUIRING transparency after x weeks/months/years should be required instead.
Allowing disproportionate power to the government is just as bad as to the corporations, and right now we have both. Also consider the wider ramifications of what may seem like a small c
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone is allowed fake accounts, then I am fine with law enforcement being able to impersonate.
Good. Then you are fine with them doing this, and the discussion is moot.
Allowing disproportionate power to the government is just as bad as to the corporations,
The government ALWAYS has "disproportionate power". Do you think I have the right to force you to pay taxes to ME? Do you think I have the right to pull you over for speeding? Do you think I have the right to walk into court and get a search warrant to look around your house for stuff? Really?
Is there anybody out there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Soundcloud obviously has a ton of fake accounts, more than any other platform. I sometimes put up sound captures there, for example a capture of fan tone shapes as part of my fan reviews, or a comparison between microphone sensitivities, and once I upload such an audio capture, I very quickly receive notifications that someone liked my track. There isn't anything to like, really, these captures are not art.
Couple weeks later, those users are gone (accounts no longer exist).
Notification looks like this:
Patricia Bustamante likes your track
Patricia Bustamante likes one of your tracks, Logitech C910 vs Trust GXT 232
Check out Patricia Bustamante's likes and tracks
If th
It's another flavor of the anonymity problem again (Score:2)
Your [alvinrod's] brief comment just barely manages to tangentially touch the edge of the underlying problem. For that you got an insightful mod?
The underlying problems are the abuse of anonymity and our silly human tendency to be too trusting of strangers, even without the candy. It's greatly exacerbated by two aspects: (1) The Internet scales up the problem of encountering strangers beyond human capacity (Dunbar's number around 150) and (2) Facebook has abused the word "friend" to death. I would argue tha
Crazy idea here (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a crazy idea: if you are doing things that would make the police want to spy on you, don't accept random friend requests on Facebook? Better yet, maybe don't do/post about said things on Facebook in the first place? And if one of your friends/acquaintances sends you a friend request, call them up first to make sure they actually sent it.
And of course, we all remember the first rule of the internet; the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, comrade. It is okay-ski to let the police watch for the deviants among us.
After all, we fine people have nothing to hide.
Sleep tight.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, comrade. It is okay-ski to let the police watch for the deviants among us.
After all, we fine people have nothing to hide.
Sleep tight.
What's funny about that is that the only time the cool kids loved Russia was when it was communist.
Re: (Score:2)
But then, how are you supposed to get followers and become and influencer? HOW?!
Re: (Score:3)
Same way everyone else is doing it, get hired by some marketing company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a crazy idea: if you are doing things that would make the police want to spy on you
Like being neighbor with a cop, or just stating a political opinion the cop doesn't like?
The police doesn't want limitations, they want to be able to whatever they want without restriction.
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a crazy idea: if you are doing things that would make the police want to spy on you, don't accept random friend requests on Facebook?
What doesn't make police want to spy on you? The Total Information Awareness project proved to anyone aware of it that existence or merely having the perception of existing is sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, we all remember the first rule of the internet; the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents.
Genius.
Snarfing this one for my quotes file.
Undercover? (Score:2)
What is so special about social media?
Why should criminals and illegal immigrants feel free on social media?
Law enforcement groups should be all over social media all over the USA.
Why should any company "rules" protect people from their nations police?
Social media is a utility that connects people. Is social media now the "publisher"/"owner" of peoples comments, links, video clips?
What does social media want to be? Have total legal c
Re: (Score:2)
Police officers have to "identify" themselves as such.
No, they don't. They do when they are arresting you, and they should identify themselves when they are serving a warrant or when entering a building (this helps avoid people being shot). But during an investigation or undercover? No, they don't.
Re: (Score:1)
"It's this thing called "entrapment".
Police officers have to "identify" themselves as such.
"
You don't believe that all movies are based on reality, do you?
Re: (Score:3)
The "Are you a cop bro?" thing, is completely made up by TV/movies. Police have always been able to lie, otherwise undercover work wouldn't be able to exist.
Entrapment is a very specific thing. The police has to encourage you to do a crime that you wouldn't have done previously.
For prostitution:
Cop walks down street, sees a pretty lady, the cop asks "Would you like to have sex for money?" = Entrapment
Cop walks down street, sees a pretty lady, the lady asks "Would you like to have sex for money?" = Not e
Re: (Score:2)
I could think of a thing or two that should protect me from your country's police.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree in theory, but what keeps them from trying to entrap me on some social media platform, thinking that I am one of their potential victims?
Re: (Score:2)
"what keeps them from trying to entrap me on some social media platform"
Nothing. Nothing at all.
Perhaps, however, laws, enforced, can either prevent them from actually convicting you of a crime you did not intend to commit, or at least permit a court to refuse to prosecute if you were manipulated into doing so surreptitiously. Maybe.
And then, knowing this has happened, others can refuse to empower those authorities, by vote or rejection.
I know, naive.
Re: (Score:2)
A few more like this and you have a standup routine.
Re: (Score:2)
Truer than you might think. Today's comedians don't actually need to be funny. Just popular.
Re: (Score:2)
We're living in a time when being a standup is hard. Standup routines usually thrive on exaggerating and caricaturing celebrities, politicians and situations in general. The problem is, with the current batch of celebrities, politicians and the state of the world, how could you possibly exaggerate?
We're already living in a caricature.
I'm a bit confused here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
How the hell would Facebook know?!?! (Score:1)
Just how would Facebook know an account is a "fake police account"?
The police told them?
Yeah, that'll work well.
Seriously, what is Facebook able to do here? Yeah, Facebook is about as slimy as a slug swimming in sewage, but damn...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I had to upload a pic of my driver's license to Facebook to start an account.
That site wasn't Facebook
Yes, sometimes Facebook wants ID (Score:1)
I had to upload a pic of my driver's license to Facebook to start an account.
That site wasn't Facebook
Might have been. If people have names that Facebook thinks sound fake, they require proof. Or if some troll attacks them and claims their account is fake.
I know an American Indian who got kicked off Facebook because his (real) name was "obviously" fake, and had to show a lot of ID to get his account restored.
And if you are Vietnamese, with the common name Phuc [youtube.com], good luck with having Facebook allow you to have an account.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, if you uploaded a picture of your driver's license to Facebook, you're a complete fucking moron.
No way in hell I'd ever give that information to Facebook, because I don't trust them, and I don't give a fuck about any online service enough to give them a copy of my ID.
If you and the other fucking idiots would just simply refuse to give this shit to Facebook, then Facebook would start losing users.
Instead apparently you jus
Re: (Score:1)
"showing" != "giving a copy of"
If I go to a bar and they ask to see my ID, I show it to them. They get to look at it for about 10 seconds. Same thing at the grocery store to buy alcohol, they look at it and make a note in the transaction that they've checked my ID.
If they were to ask if they can make a color photocopy, or hold on to it for an hour and let random employees and contractors snap cellphone images of my ID, I'd go elsewhere. Sending a digital scan of your ID to Facebook is totally different from
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a copy of gimp?
Kids these days...When I was a kid, we made fake IDs with oversized ID boards and polaroid cameras, and we liked it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cops are able to avoid doing so, there's a reason.
Yeah, maybe because uploading a DL isn't a requirement?
Stamos (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pleased to meet you.
But you don't have to guess my name, because Facebook has a policy that you have to have your account under your real name.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a policy too ... fuck Facebook.
Nothing about Facebook interests me, and they've shown repeatedly they aren't to be trusted with your information.
Facebook is an ad company, pure and simple. Stop using them and take away their revenue source.
The EFF is wrong here (Score:4, Insightful)
I am an EFF member, but they are wrong here. Internet web sites should not be enforcing how people use the site. We've been talking about this slippery slope since the late '90s, and the real implications we experience are worse than the ones we speculated about back then. Web sites shouldn't be taking down hate speech because it is defined differently in every municipality on the planet. They shouldn't be taking down fake accounts because everyone's definition of fake -vs- legitimate varies. Definitely don't interfere with law enforcement (or help them) since law enforcement varies around the world. We can't write an algorithm to determine if someone is a cop and if their actions are legal. Facebook should not preventing advertisers from targeting certain groups because then every group will have a complaint about the advertisers - it will never end.. Advertising laws vary in every country. Don't try to stop Russian election trolls because the trolls are almost indistinguishable from valid commentary. Free speech is free speech. If you subscribe to stupid stuff, you get what you asked for. What one person thinks is a troll is another person's legitimate opinion.
The computer is a tool and should be wielded just like a hammer or a typewriter or a pen. Stop trying to teach the computer morality, it won't work. Instead, teach the humans to use the tool correctly. They should read things on Facebook with the same skepticism that they read The National Enquirer. People need to stop blaming the tool when they are duped!
You are very wrong (Score:1)
Web sites shouldn't be taking down hate speech because it is defined differently in every municipality on the planet
That makes no sense, whatsoever. What are you saying, that because somebody can say, "I define this phrase to mean something different from common usage", that no web site should ever block said word? That's really fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you saying, that because somebody can say, "I define this phrase to mean something different from common usage", that no web site should ever block said word?
Basically, yes. Let's think through what is happening today.
Suppose you work for Facebook. Country X wants you to block speech about a famous person in history. Country Y considers that person a hero. What do you do? Provide different sites based on the TLD? That's transparent, but too easy to get around. Implement geolocation and block it for country X? But then someone in Country Y sues you because your geolocation didn't work and it blocked the articles for them. In the meantime, Country Z think
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you [MobyDisk] most strongly at the end, about the technology being morally neutral. I also think you touch on several significant issues, but I just wrote a longer comment (above) on the abuse of anonymity, so I'm not going to repeat it here. I'll just say that I think you are letting Facebook off much too lightly.
I don't think I've ever supported the EFF, though I was once a card-carrying member of the ACLU (and I'm confident the worst of the cops know and hold it against me, too (if they car
I disagree with EFF.. I'm going to hell. (Score:2)
Seriously this is the most fucked up concept I've heard in a while. It's the fucking job of law enforcement to work the commons. No different than cops cruising around in unmarked cars looking for troublemakers or doing undercover work posing as someone they are not.
A commons in cyberspace is just as valid a place to have a police presence both overt and covert than a commons in meatspace.
All of the other alternatives are massively worse and doing shit like this will only provide incentive to push for (mo
Remember? (Score:2)
Remember this? "Welcome to the Internet! - Where the men are men, the women are men as well, and the kids are undercover FBI-agents."
It's still true, but now everybody might be a government agent, a troll or a spy. Enjoy!