Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Privacy

Facebook Tells LA Police To Stop Spying on Users With Fake Accounts (bbc.com) 60

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Facebook has written to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), demanding that it stop setting up fake profiles to conduct surveillance on users. From a report: This comes after the Guardian revealed that the US police department had been working with a tech firm, analysing user data to help solve crimes. Facebook expressly prohibits the creation and use of fake accounts. The intent, it said, was to "create a safe environment where people can trust and hold one another accountable". "Not only do LAPD instructional documents use Facebook as an explicit example in advising officers to set up fake social media accounts, but documents also indicate that LAPD policies simply allow officers to create fake accounts for 'online investigative activity'," wrote Facebook's vice president and deputy general counsel for civil rights Roy Austin in a letter outlining Facebook's policies. "While the legitimacy of such policies may be up to the LAPD, officers must abide by Facebook's policies when creating accounts on our services. The Police Department should cease all activities on Facebook that involve the use of fake accounts, impersonation of others, and collection of data for surveillance purposes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Tells LA Police To Stop Spying on Users With Fake Accounts More

Facebook Tells LA Police To Stop Spying on Users With Fake Accounts

Comments Filter:

  • Safe spaces. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ostracus ( 1354233 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @02:35PM (#62002575) Journal

    The intent, it said, was to "create a safe environment where people can trust and hold one another accountable".

    Like society?

    • The intent, it said, was to "create a safe environment where people can trust and hold one another accountable".

      Like society?

      Definition of "Ironic" -- Facebook used the word "accountable" with regard to their platform.

    • a safe environment where people can trust and hold one another accountable

      Really? How's that working out for you, Facebook?

  • So, are these accounts being shut down immediately, or are they still up?

  • Will all of the accounts, personal and business, of the organization and individuals that created the fake accounts be banned?
    If not, why different enforcement here than for other individuals?

  • Come oooon (Score:5, Funny)

    by Translation Error ( 1176675 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @02:53PM (#62002643)
    Guuuuys, stop spying on our users--that's our job!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 )

      Indeed, The Guardian left off the end of the quote from the Facebook representative, which alludes to exactly what you're talking about:

      The Police Department should cease all activities on Facebook that involve the use of fake accounts, impersonation of others, and collection of data for surveillance purposes. We cannot condone the collection of "pirated" data, particularly so when information packages designed to meet the needs of law enforcement are readily available at reasonable prices to any and all police departments, sheriffs' offices, law enforcement agencies, private militias, paramilitary operations, or "freedom fighters".

      • I really couldn't tell for a moment if you were being serious but the usage of quotes makes me think your pulling my leg. Touche.

        • It's a made up end to the quote, for sure. I knew it was a bit dry in tone as I wrote it, but I hoped the notion that they'd advertise their own product immediately after blasting the PD would tip the scales.

          • I found that part completely believable. Facebook can be kind of tone death. Like I said, it was the usage of quotes, especially at the end, "freedom fighters".

    • Yeah; if the cops want access to that info they can pay for it like everyone else!

      =Smidge=

  • the cops need to get an real warrant if they want user info

  • Why would the police spy on the fake accounts that facebook has been making?

    Oh, you mean "Facebook Tells LA Police To Stop Making Fake Accounts In order to Spy on Users"

  • While we're denouncing LAPD here, should we also ban all undercover police activity? All of the infiltrating of gangs and mafia — on account of it being done under false pretenses? Because we really ought to be above that, ought we not?

    • Police need to get a warrant to spy on people. You shouldn't let them break the rules just because it's "undercover". Any old stalker can say they're "undercover".

      • Re:Undercover police work (Score:4, Interesting)

        by JoeRobe ( 207552 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @03:48PM (#62002829) Homepage

        Is that true? If, say NYPD is trying to infiltrate a drug ring and sends in an undercover officer pretending to be a drug dealer, do they need a warrant for that?

        That's a real question - I've never thought about whether undercover operations needed a warrant (I guess I assumed not). If the undercover officer is wearing a wire, does that require a warrant?

        • I sure hope it does.. Without a warrant or similar documentation, how does anyone know they are pretending?

          • Sure, but documenting an undercover operation is different than needing a warrant approved by a judge. Wiretapping needs a warrant, so my question is whether an undercover operation also needs a warrant.

            I guess it raises a larger issue that in the case of a wiretap, law enforcement is privy to your conversation. In the case of an undercover operation it's similar. So a warrant requirement would be reasonable. Whether the law follows the same logic is a different question...

        • Re: Undercover police work (Score:4, Informative)

          by JoeRobe ( 207552 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @06:38PM (#62003545) Homepage

          Well, shoot, I could have answered it myself:

          https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virt... [ojp.gov]

          Undercover work does not require a warrant.

          "The courts do not require a warrant before the police initiate an undercover assignment, nor is the obtaining of incriminating information and evidence of a crime considered a violation of privacy rights or search and seizure laws."

          "Although the warrant process prevents overt police search-and-seizure operations without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed (except under specified circumstances), no such warrant is required if the police gain access to a person's property and personal habits through deceptive means."

      • Police need to get a warrant to spy on people.

        Bullshit. No, they don't. A warrant is required to search someone's property. "Spying" — whatever that means — requires no warrant. Heck, as established long ago, police can even search your garbage without a warrant [justia.com].

        Any old stalker can say they're "undercover".

        Unless in violation of an explicit restraining order, stalking [princeton.edu] is perfectly legal.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      OTOH, do we really want police to have the attitude that "rules and laws are for thee, none for me". Should they be allowed to let themselves into your home while you're on vacation so they can watch the house across the street?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        Should they be allowed to let themselves into your home while you're on vacation so they can watch the house across the street?

        LAPD aren't being accused of anything like this in TFA. Stay on topic.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          No, just trespassing on cyber property, not physical.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            trespassing on cyber property

            So, you're comparing Facebook's "cyber property" with my home. While I'm on vacation!

            If you must argue by analogy at all, LAPD's actions are more like reserving tickets under false names. Only not as bad, because tickets are limited in number whereas Facebook accounts aren't.

            There is nothing wrong in what they are doing... Facebook may not like it, that's up to them, but we have nothing for which to condemn the cops here.

  • Since no one has stated the contrary so far, why do these accounts remain active? Who is Facebook targeting with this silliness? Certainly not the LAPD

  • A request is one thing, enforcement is something else.

    How are they going to enforce their rule? Or is this just a (poor) attempt to pretend that they care about their users?

    Even if they were serious, police have a long history of acting as if "rules are for other people". So they'd need some effective way to enforce it. Or some effective punishment when rule breaking was detected.

    As it it, this just reads like PR.

  • fraud is fundamental to uncover work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by reanjr ( 588767 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @03:18PM (#62002729) Homepage

    So, FB's stance is any child porn site can evade police detection by a EULA stipulating you aren't police officer?

    Good luck with that...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      Zuk just wants the money. Can't have the cops not paying for the service.

    • Actually it's that only they get to spy on others like the article notes. Why? Because if users start behaving in a non-ideated manner (i.e. they think they're being spied on by law enforcement) then they will change their behavior to minimize risk, but that will also complicate FB's data collection / sales / advertising.

      Of course they forget that LA County is one of the most Republican counties in populated California. Republicans will not be happy to be told the police can't spy on on FB users. Police
    • To be clear, I am not a facebook fan.... Nor am I a fan of many aspects of the way the police work. but... There is a big difference between a child porn site and Facebook. A child porn site, by it very nature is breaking the law. Police and (and should) bypass the user agreement to do their job. Facebook, on the other hand is not breaking the law. This means that they have a right to impose restrictions on the use of their platform even to the police.
  • Facebook doesn't like the competition. They want to make sure that they are the only ones who can spy on Facebook users.

  • And they are still not doing anything about the spam bots.

  • A company that can suppress elected heads of state in several different countries should have no trouble disposing of one city police department. I wonder what Facebook will replace it with?

  • "The Police Department *should* cease all activities on Facebook that involve the use of fake accounts, impersonation of others, and collection of data for surveillance purposes." Pretty please stop making a bunch of fake accounts and doing other things we just don't like! [Makes pouty face and sheds an alligator tear]

  • Only Facebook should be allowed to spy on its users.
  • Need some people to proofread what they post. Facebook Tells LA Police To Stop Spying on Users With Fake Accounts

Slashdot Top Deals

2 pints = 1 Cavort

Close