Feds Spying On Social Network Accounts Without Warrants

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The government can count themselves lucky they aren't spying on my Facebook account...because they'd be bored to death. How many major criminals are on Facebook & Twitter anyway?

Federal police are increasingly gaining real-time access to Americans' social-network accounts -- such as Facebook, Google+, and Twitter -- without obtaining search warrants, newly released documents show. The numbers are dramatic: live interception requests made by the U.S. Department of Justice to social-networking sites and e-mail providers jumped 80 percent from 2010 to 2011.
Click to expand...
 
It's publicly-displayed information. This would be no different than taking pictures of someone walking into a business establishment or buying a magazine. Big whoop, sensationalist news FTL.
 
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
 
I think this is totally the best thing to happen to the Intertubes since Al Gore invented it and cats started carrying messages around inside it.
 
pothb said:
if its plubicly displayed, I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

teh_chem said:
It's publicly-displayed information. This would be no different than taking pictures of someone walking into a business establishment or buying a magazine. Big whoop, sensationalist news FTL.
Click to expand...

Is this actually what the article is about? I read it and couldn't figure out if they're talking about monitoring peoples' public activity, or actually going after email intercepts and direct messages (ie. NOT publicly posted information).

There's a mighty big difference between monitoring someone's public messages and monitoring the messages intended only for a specific person or group of people.
 
Yeah, I dont see the issue here. For the small percentage of morons who do crimes and post them on public sites, they deserve to get in trouble, but its all public so theres really no issues here. If anyone can go to the sites, then they can too. Common sense really.
 
they spy everywhere, heck maybe one of the person that posted a response here is a spy.
 
Some insight.

The Justice Department conducted 1,661 live intercepts on social networks and e-mail providers in 2011 (PDF), up from only 922 a year earlier (PDF), the reports show.

The ACLU hopes the disclosure of the documents it sued to obtain under the Freedom of Information Act will persuade Congress to tighten the requirements for police to intercept "noncontent" data -- a broad category that excludes e-mail messages and direct messages. The current legal standard "allows the government to use these powerful surveillance tools with very little oversight in place to safeguard Americans' privacy," says Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney.
Click to expand...
 
So to protect my privacy they have to violate my privacy.

No kool aid for me thanks.
 
Retsam said:
Yeah, I dont see the issue here. For the small percentage of morons who do crimes and post them on public sites, they deserve to get in trouble, but its all public so theres really no issues here. If anyone can go to the sites, then they can too. Common sense really.
Click to expand...

It is quite simple, allow me to point it out to you.

"Without search warrants".

The founding fathers required a judge to issue search warrants for a valuable reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1P53wMbnsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhNZjanX9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY

Explain to me one good reason why the role of the judges in the American legal system has been determined to be unnecessary for the protection of the Bill of Rights?
 
teh_chem said:
It's publicly-displayed information. This would be no different than taking pictures of someone walking into a business establishment or buying a magazine. Big whoop, sensationalist news FTL.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is a bitch to Americans.

Justice Department report shows real-time surveillance targeting social networks and e-mail providers jumped 80 percent from 2010 to 2011.
Click to expand...

Is your email publicly displayed information?

No wonder the country is circling the commode with everyone apologizing for the government.
 
The point is, if it is publicly displayed information, then seems fine to me. Why would they need a warrant to get info that is there for everyone to read. If its information they are getting without warrants that is not displayed publicly, then that is an issue...
 
It doesn't appear as if they are getting anything other than where you are going and who you are talking to ... not the actual content of those conversations ... as the article noted it is equivalent to getting a list of the phone numbers you have called or have called you (which they don't need a search warrant for) ... they only need the warrant for an actual wire tap

Since the police can legally follow you around town without a warrant I don't see this as being any different ... doesn't seem to be an issue here ... I think the ACLU is making a mountain out of a molehill ;)
 
kbrickley said:
It doesn't appear as if they are getting anything other than where you are going and who you are talking to ... not the actual content of those conversations ... as the article noted it is equivalent to getting a list of the phone numbers you have called or have called you (which they don't need a search warrant for) ... they only need the warrant for an actual wire tap

Since the police can legally follow you around town without a warrant I don't see this as being any different ... doesn't seem to be an issue here ... I think the ACLU is making a mountain out of a molehill ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with you. It just kind of depends on what level of information were talking about. Hard to know for sure what the government is actually doing and if the author of some small little article even has all the facts. Anything displayed publicly is fair game in my book, how anyone could disagree with that is absurd.
 
Really, people can just...I dunno...not use the Internet if that bothers them so much. Just get some cats instead.
 
Retsam said:
The point is, if it is publicly displayed information, then seems fine to me. Why would they need a warrant to get info that is there for everyone to read. If its information they are getting without warrants that is not displayed publicly, then that is an issue...
Click to expand...

The line gets blurred with Facebook. Do we consider it public if we posted something that's only available to those in our contact list?
 
SkribbelKat said:
Really, people can just...I dunno...not use the Internet if that bothers them so much. Just get some cats instead.
Click to expand...

I keep clicking on my cat to find answers to my quantum physics problems and it's not giving me any answers though :( Don't even get me started on the poor quality porn produced by the cat.
 
Hornet said:
The line gets blurred with Facebook. Do we consider it public if we posted something that's only available to those in our contact list?
Click to expand...

Personally, I do not think so, unless one of the contact list divulged it to another source or the police and such are in the contact list, then it's still private but the police should be able to use it because it's divulged to them.

Now..... the question that I can't make a decision on is what if an officer walked by someone in the library that was looking at what you wrote, and going off that? Because it's a public area, but it's also sort of snooping.
 
They might catch some of those stupid criminals before they commit crimes if they keep updating their status with their plans lol
 
They probably got caught spending all day on Facebook and when the boss walked in they said, "We were... uh... working! That's it We were spying on people!!" They were probably spying some pron stars too... :D
 
kbrickley said:
It doesn't appear as if they are getting anything other than where you are going and who you are talking to ... not the actual content of those conversations ... as the article noted it is equivalent to getting a list of the phone numbers you have called or have called you (which they don't need a search warrant for) ... they only need the warrant for an actual wire tap

Since the police can legally follow you around town without a warrant I don't see this as being any different ... doesn't seem to be an issue here ... I think the ACLU is making a mountain out of a molehill ;)
Click to expand...

You have a lot of trust in people you don't know. The federal government is not some holy monolith of virtues, it is a patchwork of individual people with individual likes, hates, and prejudices. Some have alteriour motives, which is why the forefathers required an impartial party, a "JUDGE", to be involved in the search process. There is ungodly room for corruption misuse.
 
pothb said:
if its plubicly displayed, I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

teh_chem said:
It's publicly-displayed information. This would be no different than taking pictures of someone walking into a business establishment or buying a magazine. Big whoop, sensationalist news FTL.
Click to expand...

The ACLU hopes the disclosure of the documents it sued to obtain under the Freedom of Information Act will persuade Congress to tighten the requirements for police to intercept "noncontent" data -- a broad category that excludes e-mail messages and direct messages.
Click to expand...

RTFA
 
Lith1um said:
You have a lot of trust in people you don't know. The federal government is not some holy monolith of virtues, it is a patchwork of individual people with individual likes, hates, and prejudices. Some have alteriour motives, which is why the forefathers required an impartial party, a "JUDGE", to be involved in the search process. There is ungodly room for corruption misuse.
Click to expand...

The article indicated that a judge does have to approve the request but that it is a lower bar than an actual search warrant ... according to the article this was an expansion of an existing rule that existed before the internet and 911 that allowed the police to get information on activity on your phone (who you called and who called you) ... the burden of proof for the request seemed to be pretty low ... they have expanded this to now include the internet so they can request access to who you communicate with via email and social networks ... to actually see the content of those communications or to listen to your phone conversations requires an actual search warrant (which requires probable cause) ...

I certainly don't trust the government blindly (I can only trust individuals, not organizations ;) ) but this is happening and as technology becomes more sophisticated someone will be monitoring what you do on the internet ... whether it is the government or whether it is business, the information that people put on the internet is too valuable a cupcake to pass up ... and government and business both love tasty information cupcakes :)
 
Who cares? if you are not doing something illegal you have nothing to worry about if you are doing something illegal, shame on you.
 
jackofalltrades said:
Who cares? if you are not doing something illegal you have nothing to worry about if you are doing something illegal, shame on you.
Click to expand...

What if I am only thinking of doing something illegal or talking to someone who is thinking of doing something illegal ;) ... using capabilities like those in the articles to hunt fugitives is more acceptable than using those capabilities to identify a criminal ...

unfortunately the War on Terror will cost us some freedoms (just as the Cold War did before it) ... that is the one thing that concerns me most with the modern justice system ... we are definitely seeing a shift towards crime prevention - arresting someone who has proposed a criminal act, rather than having actually committed the crime in question ... although that may be a necessity in certain circumstances I would prefer we try to limit our "thought crime" incidents to the smallest number possible ...

1984 may have missed the actual date but we definitely seem hell bent on implementing as many of the features of that book as we can ... such is human nature ;)
 
I care. Since the creation of government, government has always oversteped and crossed the line that protects the public from government, and only through actions such as FIA and Court cases are we able to see yes government overstepped. To stop keeping government in check would invite distaster.
 
kbrickley said:
What if I am only thinking of doing something illegal or talking to someone who is thinking of doing something illegal ;) ... using capabilities like those in the articles to hunt fugitives is more acceptable than using those capabilities to identify a criminal ...

unfortunately the War on Terror will cost us some freedoms (just as the Cold War did before it) ... that is the one thing that concerns me most with the modern justice system ... we are definitely seeing a shift towards crime prevention - arresting someone who has proposed a criminal act, rather than having actually committed the crime in question ... although that may be a necessity in certain circumstances I would prefer we try to limit our "thought crime" incidents to the smallest number possible ...

1984 may have missed the actual date but we definitely seem hell bent on implementing as many of the features of that book as we can ... such is human nature ;)
Click to expand...

I saw a documentary on this... http://youtu.be/QH-6UImAP7c
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top