Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @10:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the facebook-charged-with-obstruction-of-justice dept.

CNNMoney reports that Facebook has sent a letter to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration demanding that agents stop impersonating users on the social network. "The DEA's deceptive actions... threaten the integrity of our community," Facebook chief security officer Joe Sullivan wrote to DEA head Michele Leonhart. "Using Facebook to impersonate others abuses that trust and makes people feel less safe and secure when using our service."

Facebook's letter comes on the heels of reports that the DEA impersonated a young woman on Facebook to communicate with suspected criminals, and the Department of Justice argued that they had the right to do so. Facebook contends that their terms and Community Standards - which the DEA agent had to acknowledge and agree to when registering for a Facebook account - expressly prohibit the creation and use of fake accounts. "Isn't this the definition of identity theft?" says Privacy researcher Runa Sandvik. The DEA has declined to comment and referred all questions to the Justice Department, which has not returned CNNMoney's calls.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by paulej72 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:09PM

    by paulej72 (58) on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:09PM (#108632) Journal

    If you crate a fake person it is identity creation not theft. Dumbass privacy researcher.

    --
    Team Leader for SN Development
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:17PM

    by Leebert (3511) on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:17PM (#108638)

    I didn't read anything that says it created fake PEOPLE, just fake accounts. From the Slashdot link (WTF?) in the summary:

    The woman was charged with being part of a drug ring and sentenced to probation, after which a DEA agent set up a Facebook page in her name, uploaded images to it (including pictures of her son and niece), and used it without her consent.

    The BuzzFeed article linked from the /. story corroborates this (for what THAT is worth). So, yeah, for at least some reasonable definition of identity theft, it is indeed identity theft.

    • (Score: 2) by paulej72 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:14PM

      by paulej72 (58) on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:14PM (#108709) Journal

      Then it is not a fake account if it based on a real person. It is a fraudulent use of a real person's identity to create an account. Lets get the facts straight.

      --
      Team Leader for SN Development
      • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:27PM

        by Leebert (3511) on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:27PM (#108862)

        Then it is not a fake account if it based on a real person. It is a fraudulent use of a real person's identity to create an account. Lets get the facts straight.

        The point wasn't whether or not it was a "fake" account. The claim was that it wasn't "identity theft", which I said it actually IS, for a reasonable definition of identity theft. By your logic, if I open up a bunch of accounts and take loans out in your name, it's not identity theft because I'm using a real person's identity to create a bank account?

        If your complaint is about the general misuse of the term "theft" in this context, then sure, we're in agreement. I prefer the term "fraud", since "theft" implies physically taking something from someone. But using the term-of-art definition of identity theft, this is identity theft.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 22 2014, @10:01PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 22 2014, @10:01PM (#108920) Homepage
    https://freedom.press/about/staff-tech/runa-sandvik

    "Runa A. Sandvik is a privacy and security researcher, working at the intersection of technology, law and policy."

    = Unable to contribute significantly to any field, she sits between them pretending to be useful as to those she interfaces with she probably has better insights into those other two fields (even if she's not particularly good in ours, but then again, ours is a difficult field, no?)

    "Prior to joining the Freedom of the Press Foundation as a full-time technologist in June 2014"

    = ... Oh, actually, I take that back, I didn't realise that she's a *full-time >technologist<*. Damn, I'm glad she had time time between her sessions of technologising to write that analysis. She really ought to get back to her technologisms.

    Is that unfair on her? Nah - I'm an equal-opportunities insulter, and that includes self - she may do her worst with "FatPhil is a coding monkey. That's it. I write code motherfucker."
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves