Facebook is more cooperative than Twitter Inc. in handing over private user data to the authorities; and that Friend you just added may well be a federal investigator acting undercover.
Those are just a couple of the juicy tidbits the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has secured. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the EFF issued a request to six federal agencies to retrieve documents detailing how they're using the Internet for investigations. When none of the agencies complied, EFF launched a lawsuit.
As a result, EFF has received documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice Criminal Division, both of which provide information on how officials should and should not be using the Internet for surveillance purposes.
A 38-page training course from 2009, released from the IRS, for example, provides a breakdown of how to use the "Advanced Search" tool on Google to locate taxpayer info, as well as an overview of how to use Google Street View.
"We're somewhat impressed with the IRS documents," says Shane Witnov, member of the Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic, who helped file the suit for EFF. "They offer pretty reasonable guidelines on how to use social networks, and when it's appropriate."
While the IRS document states that investigators can review public information online, it further adds, "In civil matters, employees cannot misrepresent their identities, even on the Internet. You cannot obtain information from websites by registering using fictitious identities."
This differs for the Justice Department, however, whose guidelines discuss which sites are willing to hand over private information, and advocates going undercover on social networking sites.
In a 35-page presentation, the Justice Department notes that Facebook is "often cooperative with emergency requests" and has information on users that isn't otherwise available. MySpace , it says, "requires a search warrant for private messages/bulletins less than 181 days old" and stores deleted accounts for a year.
Twitter appears to be giving the Justice Department the hardest time. The presentation says that the "good news" is that most Twitter content is publicly available, and that private messages are kept unless deleted by the user, but the "bad news" is that Twitter "will not preserve data without legal process."
Probably the most troubling aspect of the Justice Department's presentation is the part about going undercover. In a section entitled, "Why go undercover on Facebook, MySpace, etc?" the department outlines advantages, including, "communicate with suspects/targets, gain access to non-public info, map social relationships/networks."
Exactly what kind of undercover operations are taking place on these sites is unclear. Are authorities taking on faux personae to make Friends online, or are they assuming the identity of friends/family members of specific suspects in order to obtain that Friendship? (In other words, it may be time to start quizzing real-life "Aunt Ida" about your Facebook activity...)
The EFF is hoping to find out more information about who the government is spying on, as well as how agents are using the Web to go undercover. Also questionable is whether it's a Terms of Service violation to go undercover on social networks, considering sites like Facebook prohibit users from taking on false identities.
As yet, the EFF doesn't have further specifics, but it hopes to soon start a public discussion on this topic based on the information it's acquiring. Witnov says the organization is awaiting more documents from the criminal divison and is working with the government on a schedule for obtaining documents from the other agencies.
In the meantime, I suppose the moral is this: Keep your friends close, but your Friends closer.
If the crooks and creeps are stupid enough to conduct their illicit business over the social networks then it is the duty of the law enforcement community to "chase" them there.
"keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer."
Oh, yeah, Twitter is basically no problem. Unless your account is locked, all of that is public. You make valid points, which should ease the fears of many a paranoid person (like myself). I'm curious to see how the EFF progresses with this. The goal is to start a public debate about the policies of the individual agencies, but to what end, I'm not sure.
Hm. Well, these scenarios strike me as too far-fetched to generate real concern among the law-abiding. I mean, FB is rife with checks and balances. Take the Mutual Friends box; you expect your college friends to know your other college friends. You expect your work friends to know your other work friends. And, consider the Info page. I recognize my friend Marty is who he says he is partly because he lists his love for the Scorpions in that section. Yup, that's bad-80s-metal-lovin' Marty. What's more, with regular use, you come to know the FB "voice"of your friends as well as you know their offline voice.
Will a federal agent - or a crook, for that matter - really take the time to learn the quirky musical tastes of someone who's not on FB just so he can impersonate him, Friend his friends, THEN attempt to arrest him (or swindle him)? For the bad guy at least, looking over the guy's shoulder as he taps out his ATM code seems so much more efficient :-)
Twitter, on the other hand, is another story, since you don't choose your followers.
Hi Amy, I don't disagree with you. I think social networking sites are ripe with information that can help law enforcement track down criminals, and the like. People are foolish when it comes to over-sharing online, and I'm happy to see the DoJ take advantage of the rich vein of information available on the Web.
That said, I think what's suspect about this is that it's unclear how exactly these officials are going undercover on these sites. Are they making up identities, or are they finding out who you know in real life, who also doesn't have a profile on Facebook, etc., and posing as that person? It's also unclear whether officials are spying on suspects alone or doing more of a broad data collection. Do you find either of the aforementioned situations troubling?
I may get pilloried for this, Nicole, but how does DoJ--a law enforcement agency--using SNS to track down pedophiles, fraudsters and other lowlife differ from them trolling chat rooms posing as "little Tommy" or as "someone happy to talk with that nice man in Nigeria who needs a small loan"?
With the right bait, criminals can be caught. And bait morphs with the times and the technologies.
All kinds of creeps and crooks have been fingered and ultimately apprehended because of these kinds of methods. As SNS reaches a larger and larger global audience, why shouldn't federal law enforcement adapt its tactics to exploit the trend?
And on another note, don't Facebook-savvy people know offline the vast majority of those in their Facebooks? I know I do. Are there that many people who accept Friend requests from people they don't know, thus giving the savvy detective an in? (And, if you are accepting requests willy-nilly, how discerning of a bad guy can you be? Crooks try to maintain a low profile, if not a faux profile.)
You are right Arielle. Many net users forget the warning of Ecclesisastes10:20 and believe that everything is permitted.
But whatever people do in good or in bad, follows them. Even though Twitter doesn't keep records for eventual inquiry, we have to remember there is no secret on this earth, so someone may be watching what we are doing.
Did you guys see the story of a mafia hitman tracked down via Facebook? Someone tipped off the Italian police saying the hitman liked using Facebook & did so often. They're now checking that guy's friends to see who else is involved in criminal activities.
I have two main rules when it comes to the online world:
1. Always assume someone is watching everything that you do on the internet. 2. Only add someone to your friend list that you haven’t meet in real life and have pictures of themselves on their profile.
The picture rule is most the important. I have had a lot friends complain about why I haven’t approve their friend request. I tell them, you don’t have any pictures on your profile.
Or you may say, "With Friends like this, who needs enemies?" Another proof that you should not post anything to FB that you would not want in any type of public forum. And for those who think of posting on FB as just a form of thinking out loud should remember the warning in Ecclesiastes 10:20:"Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, nor in your bedroom curse the rich, for a bird of the air will carry your voice, or some winged creature tell the matter." The digital records may be the winged creatures of today.
I wonder to what extent does FB, Twitter, and other such internet media have to keep records and offer them up? Not that I think FB is keeping records out of a sense of citizenship. I'm sure they feel there is some profit in keeping the data. The powers that be at Twitter must believe that it is not worth keeping for their purposes. Certainly, each business should be free to make its own decisions about such matters. As to what they share, I suppose that buried in the language of all the user agreements is something to the effect that anything you say can be used against you by anyone who manages to access the information.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
WASHINGTON -- Gov 2.0 Summit -- The federal government is wild about Websites, with its latest being Challenge.gov, a site for crowdsourcing solutions to problems.
After months of facing legal and political pressure, and a barrage of negative media reports, Craligslist has shut down the Adult Services corner of its Website.
If you've been exhibiting signs of IE Radio withdrawal, today is your lucky day: IE Radio picks up yet again, this time with Dale Fuller, CEO of MokaFive. Fuller joins us at 2:00 p.m. ET.
Getting to Work on Smart Work: How IT Is Transforming the Implementation of the 'Internet of Things' Organizations in all industry sectors are becoming more instrumented, interconnected, and intelligent -- and that's changing the way they approach virtually every facet of their operations. It's up to IT to help organizations adopt a "Three I's" approach that leverages the emerging Internet of Things and enables them to work smarter. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
High on the list of desired improvements from the mobile industry are: shared digital storage for the Internet; phone capability across borders; reduced electro-magnetic radiation; and rewards-based service plans.
Because 25% to 45% of broadband cost is due to sales and marketing, we could reduce our broadband prices by eliminating advertising and promotional spending by providers.
The next edition of one of the greatest English language reference books, the "Oxford English Dictionary," might not be published in paper. Bibliophiles might mourn, but should they?
RIM is giving in to demands by India to snoop on encrypted BlackBerry data. It's time to develop cheap or free encryption software for BlackBerrys and other cellular phones.
Nielsen’s recent numbers on the increasing use of texting bode well for enterprise networks. Shunning the phone in favor of text messaging could mean reducing bandwidth.
Two studios have filed suit against an ad broker for placing ads to help monetize P2P sites suspected of copyright infringement. That's taking a dangerous step toward what might be a worthy goal.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
