
DEA impersonates real person on Facebook - k4jh
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=sondra+arquiett
======
GuiA
Well, anyone would agree that this is a severe violation of this woman's
private life, that it is a crime for most intents and purposes, and a twisted
thing to do for a government agency. But she was a "criminal" so the DEA
thinks it can do whatever it wants with her.

What do you want to do in these cases? It would be surprising if this were an
isolated incident- it seems quite likely that similar things are happening
right now and will never see the light of day.

For every step forward we take in trying to make the US government agencies
ethical, responsible, and fair, we hear tens of stories of corruption, police
violence and rights abuse. I am not looking forward to seeing where this whole
mess is headed. Life in the US right now if you're not part of the upper
middle class or higher is not too far off from what's described in dystopian
novels from the last century.

What I find most ironic in all this is when I hear gun rights advocates saying
they need their guns to defend themselves if the government ever tries to fuck
them over, just like the founding fathers prescribed. Well, look around you-
the government is fucking people over by the thousands every day, and I don't
see any signs of a revolution.

~~~
anon9191
> But she was a "criminal"

I work for a company that provide Electronic Monitoring (EM) services to
jurisdictions. This system is used to track participants and make sure they go
where they are supposed to go and stay out of where they aren't supposed to
go. Recently my company has been in talks to expand our surveillance of
participants to monitor/record all their calls (we give them a phone), record
their SMS's, record their web and app history, etc.

I am strongly opposed to this as I see it as a huge privacy violation but
management sees it as "They are criminals", "The alternative is prison", and
"It's our phone, we will do what we want". One senior member even went as far
to say (when I brought up my opposition) "Don't worry about the
ethics/morality, just do it" which really pisses me off.

I really hate this attitude of anyone convicted of crime being sub-human and
not deserving of privacy. This cuts me especially deep because I was told when
I signed on that one of the reasons we give them a semi-new android phone is
so they can use it for web browsing and apps to help them get back on their
feet (find a job/house) and that we want to treat people with dignity.
Monitoring everything they do makes that statement a complete lie in my book
and I really want nothing to do with it. I will continue to push back but does
anyone have any good arguments to the points they are making? I have obtained
a copy of the contract participants sign and as it stands right now this
extended monitoring is NOT something they consent to (mind you they could just
update the contract and get them to sign the updated version).

~~~
GuiA
Human psychology still has a strong component of tribal culture in it. That's
why "us vs them" works so well in politics, even though you'd think in our
civilized society it'd be a completely ineffective argument.

Right now, you're against the tribe. Not only that, but the tribe's position
is cemented by financial interests and people at the top whose job is to make
sure that things stay the way they are.

When I've been in situations like that before, it always ended up in the
"dissident" employees being dismissed, shut up, or fired.

I'd tell you to speak your mind about this issue during an all hands meeting,
and conclude your tirade by "I quit this company", but not everyone can afford
to pull off a stunt like this.

~~~
anon9191
> I'd tell you to speak your mind about this issue during an all hands
> meeting, and conclude your tirade by "I quit this company", but not everyone
> can afford to pull off a stunt like this.

Another guy who spoke up and went as far as to create a 1984 + our company
name mashup poster got a talking to from the president. I have spoken up and
will continue to, however, as much as I hate to admit it I need this job. I am
passively looking elsewhere but part of me wants to stay and try to change it
for the better. I joined in the first place because I believed in their
mission to help re-integrate people into society, I thought I was joining the
"good guys". I don't want to be responsible for writing code that prys into
these people's lives and I really don't want to be a part of a company that
does it at all. I understand we need to track these participants but location
tracking is about as far as I feel comfortable with, anything more just feels
wrong.

~~~
GuiA
I can only empathize. Good luck.

------
readme
There's another huge problem, Facebook currently gives you legitimacy --
people will believe it's you. However, does little to nothing in terms of
verifying your identity.

I think the DEA could have faked it, even if there were strict measures.

But think of what average people are doing right now using similar
techniques... The public is blind to this but the technology (GPG) exists to
authenticate people's identities.

~~~
pjc50
GPG authenticates that a particular key was used to sign a message. Key
signing authenticates that a particular person claimed control of that key at
some point.

It does not prevent (although it does make it much harder) impersonation
through key theft.

~~~
readme
No security measure can completely prevent anything.

------
chillingeffect
It's endemic of our anemic conceptualization of privacy that the DEA conflates
"privacy" with the construction of a false identity.

I may give up my privacy, and let everyone have all my nude photos of me, but
that doesn't mean others can create fake profiles of me online - with or
without the nude photos.

We need a better, more structured definition of "privacy" and "identity,"
especially in the online sphere. If we don't define it, federal agencies are
simply going to define it and normalize it for us.

~~~
judk
We don't need better definitions. What we need is for the public to rise up
against the tyrants who trample our rights.

------
noonshine
"The photographs used by Sinnigen included revealing and/or suggestive
photographs of Plaintiff, including photographs of the Plaintiff in her bra
and panties." There is NO WAY to justify this.

------
tw04
So, assuming they ever catch the person behind the fappening, they'll be let
go, right? Because it's totally legal to take someone's private photo's and
post them online for the world to see.

------
DanielBMarkham
Wow, I sure hate to be providing a bit of data to support the government's
actions, which I find abhorrent, but here goes.

For a long time, if cops have you in custody or were at your house and your
phone rang? They'd pick it up and say "hello" You can find out all kinds of
incriminating stuff like that.

Of course, that's not actively impersonating somebody, like this case. If I
had to guess, I'd say that this was the result of 1) an atmosphere of "we're
the government, so we'll do damn well what we please", combined with 2) poor
oversight, and 3) similarity to something else that was approved and had
worked for years.

Hell of a thing, taking somebody's online identity. You take away all they've
got, and all they're ever going to have [1]

[1] Apologies to Clint Eastwood, but it seemed appropriate. We have yet to
really figure out the kind of damage things like this can have.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lYVggyHRkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lYVggyHRkY)

------
a3n
Identity theft, and placing minors in danger.

That's illegal, right?

Right?

~~~
wmeredith
Sigh... Why is this a thing? There's a whole host of things that are illegal
for YOU to do but that the government CAN do. Like kill people for instance or
print money. This is as it should be. A government must be granted powers
individuals are not in order to rule. The concern is oversight and
justification of those powers through our political system.

Edit: There's a lot of vitriol on this and it's because of my poor wording of
the initial statement. It isn't OK if the Government "breaks the law". If they
do they should be held accountable. However, under certain circumstances, the
government can break laws that pertain to ordinary citizens and do things like
hack computers/kill people/sell contraband, etc... this action itself is
prescribed by laws and regulations and is legal government action. My beef was
with the knee jerk reaction to undercover work like this or a police shooting,
when people are screaming about how thats murder. My point was, yeah it might
be, but it also might the government doing their job by doing things (legally)
that a normal citizen might now do.

~~~
talmand
There's a slight difference between a government entity performing its unique
duties as described by law and a government entity breaking the law to perform
its unique duties.

It is legal for a police officer to kill in the line of duty under certain
circumstances. It is illegal for the same police officer to commit a murder
outside his duties even while on the job.

~~~
wmeredith
That's exactly my point. It's a nuanced situation. But I always see the same,
"government officers broke the law!" argument. That doesn't matter, what
matters is the context. "The Government" breaks laws citizens are held to all
the time.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Is your point that because "The Government" breaks the law all the time that
people have no right to be upset when an officer of the law steals your
identity and puts your family's life at risk...?

~~~
pyre
The parent poster is lamenting all of the "hey! If I did that I would go to
jail!" comments. There are many things that the government can do that you
can't by law.

I don't think that these statements in anyway state that it's ok for the
government to overstep the restrictions put on the extra powers that it has.

------
a3n
The woman should demand from Facebook that the account be turned over to her.
And then pull them into the lawsuit when they refuse.

------
judk
"Jury Nullification".

You can fight back by refusing to convict defendants who were prosecuted using
immoral or illegal methods. And remember, a juror has no way of knowing if the
police/FBI/DEA lied to the court throughout the process, behavior which has
been heavily documented in general.

~~~
Someone1234
Juries have been eliminated in the US justice system. 94% of all criminal
cases at the federal level are settled by a plea (as of 2001).

So when will you jury nullify? Most defendants won't stand before their peers,
won't face a judge beyond cursory rubber stamping, and won't get good
representation (public defender funding is cut year upon year, some public
defenders take on over 500 cases a year now).

The US justice system is utterly broken, beyond repair. It is a revenge system
(not rehabilitation), with little justice to be had except of the wealthy (who
will get off scott free), overly politicized, overly money orientated (e.g.
spend a year in jail unless you have $100K), and has purposely high maximum
sentences to force even innocent people to take a plea (which they often do
[0]).

I can think of few other countries which has a criminal justice system as bad
as the US, and unfortunately when I start naming them they're not really the
type of states the US wants to be associated with.

[0] [http://www.fhsulaw.com/Legal-Articles/Plea-Bargain-
Sentences...](http://www.fhsulaw.com/Legal-Articles/Plea-Bargain-Sentences-
Tempt-the-Innocent-to-Plead-Guilty.shtml)

------
Someone1234
Even if I take the DEA's arguments as true, isn't this STILL a copyright
violation? She may have allowed the information on her phone to be "used in
the process of the investigation" however that is a HUGE jump to publishing
that copyrighted information.

~~~
pyre
The DEA and DoJ are all about stretching the meanings of phrases to the point
where all phrases translate to:

    
    
      All your powers are belong to us. We can do whatever we 
      want make your time.

------
srcmap
DEA might have better luck use snapchat for this kind of work. Impersonate,
posting suggested photo on FB is too easy for other friends to find out, ask
and tell off line.

------
hawleyal
This is fucked up, right here.

