
Police Use of Social Media Surveillance Software is Escalating - CapitalistCartr
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/police-use-social-media-surveillance-software-escalating-and-activists-are-digital
======
cryoshon
Why don't we have police/state targeted surveillance software? A million data
points about police activity on social networks (on their personal accounts)
would be a trove of enlightenment for the public. It's clear that they won't
be transparent or share info about their personal or professional activities
willingly... but we need the information regardless of their intransigence.
Why should they be allowed to have privacy when they are so keen on abusing
ours?

I'm sure they feel the same way about us, but the honest truth is that going
tit-for-tat against them re: surveillance works far better for the public as a
whole.

~~~
draugadrotten
> surveillance works far better for the public as a whole.

A good read on the topic from Dr David Brin,
[http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html](http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html)

------
gerbilly
>It goes without saying that speaking out against police violence or
government overreach shouldn’t land you in a surveillance database. But it
can, and it does.

People need to realize is that social sites are voluntary surveillance
platforms to begin with.

In the best of cases they surveil you to learn what advertisements to show
you, but of course once the infrastructure is built, it can be put to other
uses.

Social media gives the government and spy agencies undreamed of power. They
don't have to create a file on each citizen, the citizen will create and
update it for them!

~~~
cryoshon
>Social media gives the government and spy agencies undreamed of power. They
don't have to create a file on each citizen, the citizen will create and
update it for them!

Which is exactly why accessing this kind of public and innocuous info needs to
require a warrant when the police do it. Unreasonable surveillance/stalking of
an individual is not acceptable.

We also need to clarify what "public" social media postings really mean. The
intent is for a limited audience of peers to recieve postings, not the entire
world, and not the police. Conflating a desire to communicate with friends
with a desire to be surveilled is a mis-step that the police and state are
happy to abuse.

~~~
mikestew
_The intent is for a limited audience of peers to recieve postings_

That might be your intent, but whoo boy, do I have news for you: that's not
the way it works, it's not how it was designed to work, and it's not how
"they" tell you it works. Your "intent" has nothing to do with it.

If you wish to keep your audience small, Facebook and Twitter aren't the way
to do it. But long before "social media" showed up, we had means to keep
things to a limited audience, things which _do_ require a warrant to access.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Hell, Facebook has - and had for a long time - ways to limit the audience all
the way you like. Many people do use it to great success (which I find sad,
btw. - the great thing about social media in the past was that people were
sharing a lot about themselves; now they seem to again isolate in very small
circles of real-life friends). But you can't expect software to magically
understand your intention, nor should you ever expect to control the
information you share with another human being. When you share information,
you also share control over it.

~~~
mikestew
_Hell, Facebook has - and had for a long time - ways to limit the audience all
the way you like._

And my experience says they'll flip that off on a whim. It's been several
years now, but one day FB decided that all formerly private photos would now
be public. Not a bug, a design decision. I deleted my account the next day, so
I can't say I've kept up on the latest in FB's privacy features.

FB has obviously since gone back on that decision, but there's nothing
stopping them from doing it again, or from introducing a bug.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I've never seen that one and I've been using Facebook for quite some time. It
sounds bad though :/.

That said, the way I perceive Facebook over the last few years, is that
they're constantly baiting people into _increasing_ their privacy. They switch
defaults towards "more private", and even for some time they had this annoying
popup when you tried to post publicly that said something like "Did you know
you're posting publicly? Click here to change it."

~~~
mikestew
_I 've never seen that one and I've been using Facebook for quite some time.
It sounds bad though :/._

I wish I could find a link for you, but I'm having no luck. And middle-age has
rendered me unable to get within even a few years of when it occurred. I do
distinctly remember the event, though, because I thought to myself, "nah, that
can't be right". So I went poking around in the albums of friends that I
recalled having private albums. Sure enough, everything was now accessible.
People that aren't friends? No problem, could see those, too. There was an
Internet kerfluffle, then FB put it back the way it was. Sorry for no better
details.

------
nxc18
Activists broadcast messages publicly on social media; public servants read
them.

How is this controversial? If you want privacy, surely you should understand
that sharing on the web isn't the way to go?

In a lot of these cases where protests turn into violent riots a police
response is necessary, if at a minimum to keep the peaceful protestors safe.
Using publicly available information to facilitate that makes perfect sense.

~~~
okwhatthe2
You're forgetting that in many cases these protests turn violent as a direct
result of police confrontation. In that regard these surveillance operations
only increase the likelihood of escalating tensions between citizens and
police.

~~~
sheraz
Please explain that line of thinking. How does increased surveillance increase
violence?

If anything it gives law enforcement a heads up of where thier presence might
be needed.

~~~
krapp
Police sometimes _intend_ to incite violence at these events as a pretense to
breaking up lawful protests. Especially when they are the ones being
protested.

edit - changed often to sometimes, since 'often' really isn't accurate. Lazy
writing on my part.

~~~
arca_vorago
Please dont forget that its not just the ones in riot gear either, often the
black-block anarchists who start the destruction of property which gives the
lea the excuse to kettle/arrest protestors are plain cloths police/contractors
acting as agent provocateurs, who then fade into background or even pass
through police lines right before the push.

Crowsds are so easily manipulated, its a time old tactic.

~~~
daveguy
> often the black-block anarchists who start the destruction of property which
> gives the lea the excuse to kettle/arrest protestors are plain cloths
> police/contractors acting as agent provocateurs

That sounds very conspiratorial. Is there any evidence for that claim?

~~~
DanBC
There was a scandal in the UK were undercover police officers went way too far
in infiltrating groups, sometimes causing violent (against property) action to
happen.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123438](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123438)

------
throw2016
There is an worrying dissonance in democratic societies that treats protest
like a paranoid regime would.

The use of surveillance is highly questionable for citizens exercising basic
rights. Military grade equipment and a heavy handed approach suggests a level
of paranoia that does not seem at ease with basic democratic principles.

Protests, large crowds and activism are essential aspects of a vibrant
society, they also have potential for volatility and disruption. If you can't
accept this and put law and order above all else to the extent that you need
to monitor and confront citizens how far away are you really from a police
state?

------
rm_-rf_slash
It goes without saying that this kind of survellience is not going to stop,
possibly ever. Therefore, it is only fair that the tools and data collected by
public servants is made equally accessible to the public. This provides a
check on unprecedented power and the inevitable corruption that our current
course is barreling towards.

~~~
white-flame
At the very least, personal privacy rights be clarified and encoded into law.
Even if disreputable surveillance continues, it should then be formally
classified as corrupt if not straight-up illegal activity.

------
Dowwie
How are cash-strapped police departments funding social media surveillance?

~~~
pjc50
They're choosing to make it a priority. Crime threatens the public, but
activists "threaten" the police - by trying to make them accountable.

> "identify so-called “threats to public safety” by monitoring hashtags such
> as #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, #ImUnarmed, #PoliceBrutality, and
> #ItsTimeforChange."

~~~
cryoshon
Alternatively, fighting traditional crime does not actually require that much
of their budget, so they try to open up new avenues of finding criminality in
order to ensure they continue to get the same budget.

~~~
ryandrake
Low on crime? Make more criminals.

------
EliRivers
Overt threats: Unions.

Them commies are everywhere.

~~~
marcusgarvey
Except police unions. The cops think those are just fine.

~~~
hood_syntax
The hypocrisy is palpable...

