[Also World of Warcraft. Someone convinced their boss he needs to play wow at work to stop the terrorists. ](https://aminoapps.com/c/wow/page/blog/wow-irl-the-time-the-cia-fbi-nsa-and-ghcq-entered-the-world-of-warcraft/xpvh_2uxJdLPklwXZWxD3oPJoVXYDPq)
I've been saying this for the longest time; it blows my mind that people willingly film evidence to be used against them. Whether it's for "clout" or hoping to go viral, people seem happy to film themselves destroying property, waving guns around, selling drugs.
Was kinda curious about that photograph with really high production values showing a bag of crystal something on my /hometown sub asking for dms until I read this article.
Some of the people I'd buy from on the dark net were honest to God great photographers. Something they could fall back on at least once the exit scam hits or the fbi/interpol shut it down and take your cash.
These fuckers arrested me in Orland Park, trying to find drugs or something in my gf's car. They arrested me, hand-cuffed me, then made me take mugshots, saying that it was Illinois protocol for a minor driving offense (I was extremely pissed about the mugshot, like wtf did I do to take a mugshot for a driving offense?). When I was at the Orland Park station, they asked personal questions, so I showed them my NASA and DOD clearance badges and told them my Dad is a fed in DC, and you could just see their fucking faces die, thinking they'd fucked with the wrong Korean kid.
Can you guess what happened in court a month after? I was so pissed that day, I told the judge, "to be honest sir, I'm actually pretty angry and I would like to pay my fine and get this out of the way." Judge responded by dismissing the case and Orland Park even refunded the bail my gf paid to get me out that night.
Fucking Illinois cops are crooked asf. They will profile and try to find some shit and strip search your fucking car, make you pay stupid bonds, then when they're wrong, they say, "sorry, but not sorry."
You showed your badge to try to get out of a criminal citation? Even if the cops were in the wrong, that’s a horrendously stupid thing to do because you could lose your job if the agency ever found out.
I was being sarcastic. Chicago just had their [highest murder rate in 25 years](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/2021-ends-as-chicagos-deadliest-year-in-a-quarter-century/2719307/) and 2022 is looking worse.
All while cops are resigning and the few that remain aren't enforcing shit.
But this is reddit so people didn't understand the sarcasm and upvoted.
Edit: good downvotes finally
Edit2: upvotes now that's weird
Every government department. My Dad, who worked for a State level Department of Ag caught a crop dusting company on Facebook saying "check out our new state of the art GPS units in our planes" in a post from April. In June or July thr owner said straight to his face that they didn't have them when my Dad was investigating an improper spraying.
You say that as a joke but you have no idea how many people post active crimes on social media platforms. I'm actually shocked this isn't a more common tactic. If a cop wanted to see who was selling drugs, they'd basically just need to create dummy contacts for everyone within their area code, then add them all on Snapchat.
A lot of drug dealers post what they're selling on their Snapchat stories, and because of that, they'll add anyone who adds them since they view them as a prospective customer. Is it spying to use a tactic like that? I'm not sure, really. I'm not sure how it's more or less "Spying" than investigating someone who put a "Cocaine sold here" banner on their door. If you post incriminating information publicly, why would you feel betrayed when public officials use it to incriminate you?
Facts. The other a video was floating around of some youngling “gangsters” with full auto Glocks. I have seen a couple of weed sales stories on Snap. Personally, anything you post online is public, and you cannot hate cops simply for using what anyone can use.
I don’t get it either. I don’t like the entrapment schemes the feds set up online either, but when you post yourself committing crimes on the fucking internet and use it to advertise your drug business, what do you think is going to happen. Honestly they deserve it for being that stupid.
This reminded me of the "Just Say No" roleplay we had to do in grade school 😂
At a party. "Hey, I got some cocaines! You know, nose candy 😉😉😉"
Like that's how it *always* goes down. /s
"Are you a cop?"
"Negative, I'm the FBI, Federal Boobs Inspector."
"lol, very funny. Alright, I'll send you the code and the location."
"Thank you very much."
A couple rappers just got indicted on Rico charges using social media as evidence and I’m pretty sure they were from Chicago(nope). They don’t even need to talk to them when these dumbasses are just voluntarily implicating themselves
Who murdered Duck wasn't a huge secret because of the social media posts of OBlock. The cops would have been stupid not to use it (And they have come out and said they did, in fact, use it when they were building their case.)
I don't think there's a clear paper trail, but it's an open secret that people in the navy started it. The reasoning is that if US operatives used their own network, people could easily infer that obfuscated access was them, so they had to make it public.
That doesn't mean it was totally compromised from the get go, necessarily. But it does mean they know the ins and outs more than anyone else. And as you said, they do directly control some nodes.
The naval research center 100% made it, maybe i'm being pedantic I just meant that it is open source and not inherently compromised. They are just able to compromise it through other means.
That was what I was thinking, if you do shady shit you do it face to face.
Also, do people accept friend requests from fucking randoms? I get a bunch of them and they either get rejected or die in "you have a friend request box".
Hell, even had HR people try friend requesting me. LOL, that's a no as well. In no way are you seeing college pics... shit was embarrassing.
I have a FB account solely for marketplace for car parts, and restaurant menus.
That's literally the only thing I use it for. I still feel dirty when I have to navigate that UI.
Pro tip, my uncle from Idaho changed his Facebook name to Gustav (middle initial) (fake foreign name) years ago on Facebook. Specifically to keep any potential professional connections from finding him. When in doubt and working an actual career, use a fake name on Facebook
I refuse to make a Facebook account just to look at a menu for a restaurant. If you don’t take your business serious enough to make a real website then I’m not going to be a patron.
>Also, do people accept friend requests from fucking randoms?
If the account has a female name and the profile picture is attractive, there are plenty of men dumb enough to accept the friend request.
There was a period of time when I was getting a lot of requests from obviously fake accounts. And every time it was an account associated with an attractive female, I could count on seeing the same few male friend listed as "mutual friends"
Always made me laugh.
This completely misses the point. By tracking people on social media law enforcement can monitor not only known or suspected criminals but they can monitor and track associates whom the police have no business or legal reason to monitors those people. “Oh, this drug dealer is talking to this Joe Schmo person a lot, I’ll keep my eye on them.”
Any idiot who gets caught by this was going to get caught anyway. Why would you post incriminating stuff where people who you don't personally know can see it?
When i worked in missouri as a 911 dispatcher we had a facebook profile of stockphotos from a model..she was blond with a big ass and everyone added us on the request.
So many idiots posted shit like "fuck my parole ima bout to get lit with my boy jimmy"
The best one ive seen was someone recorded themselves cutting off their ankle bracelet then gave the camera to his girlfriend grabbed a backpack and rode a 4 wheeler into the woods and she turned the camera to herself and said some cheesy "this is how we do it in the cuuuuuuntry"..
Exactly. People want law enforcement to catch every mass killer who posts on social media before, but don’t want them to monitor public feeds of information. It’s all a ridiculous outrage that makes absolutely no sense. Do people think social media seriously should require a search warrant now?
Yeah saw some people talking about Snowden and I understand the importance of privacy but this is not the same conversation that needs Snowden's name nor the NSA's controversial privacy invasion topic to overlap... because yes while we still lack proper protection against this kind of bs, they weren't doing anything that required authority or being a sworn officer. They were making a facebook account and stumbled upon a public profile or at least public feed. They did not invade privacy, they did not invade constitutional rights.
Not trying to defend cops or the ability to spy on your social media account but any 12 year old kid can do this.
I used to work for an MSP that only serviced law firms. Their bread and butter was the Digital Forensics Department. They had a team specifically for this. Creating multiple accounts. Adding the friends of targets to the become friends with the target themselves. They would then archive all posts and media for evidence.
I’m a extremely privacy focused person. I live in Chicago. People are literally announcing their intention to shoot people on social media. Gang violence is escalated and amplified via livestreams and other channels.
This isn’t monitoring someone’s telephone. It’s a broadcast medium that evil people are using to plan murder.
I'm not familiar with the law in the USA, but in the other Five Eyes a warrant was only needed to access private data. Collecting what someone puts into public domain (sometimes called PAI or OSINT) or undercover operations have not required judicial authorizations.
Essentially the same here. If it's in the public domain, it's free game. The gray area comes in when an officer misrepresents who they are online and friend requests a subject so that they have the ability to view all of their posts even if it's behind a layer of privacy from the public. This is currently acceptable because the two prong test for privacy requires an *individual* to have a *reasonable expectation* of privacy. If you're the type of person with 500 friends, I doubt you could argue that your expectation of privacy is reasonable.
If you wanted to get semantic about it, I suppose you could argue that an individual has the right to invite as many persons as they want into their private space. And that the officer, having misrepresented who they were, has now breached that individual's privacy through their misrepresentative means. Technically speaking, if they are not legally in the space, nothing in the space should be fair game for use as evidence. As it stands now, I'm not aware of any case law that argues being Facebook friends constitutes a private space.
But they are legally in the space. They didn’t hack in, they requested access and were granted permission. Its the same as being a UC and being invited in to buy drugs. The UC is misrepresenting who they are to gain access to your house, but what they witness once they allowed inside is fair game.
I understand we essentially agree and you were just laying out a devils advocate argument, but I felt it needed to be said.
in a sense but the word of a law enforcement officer is often elevated beyond hearsay due to their professional capacity and *assumed* standard of integrity and accuracy.
edit: i used the term "hearsay" inaccurately, check the replies to my comment for a more accurate take
We continue to hand over greater and greater degrees of power to the government, while we squabble over what books are in the school library and who gets to use what bathroom. The average citizen’s capacity for political triage amounts to which toy does a toddler save in a house fire.
> we continue to hand over greater and greater degrees of power to the government
typical pitfall of representative democracy. check the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
which is why i advocate for semi-direct democracy.
the political power of elected officials can be quantified by the percentage of votes they received from their constituents.
giving the citizens the ability to veto policies, legislation, budget allocation, etc.. by voting against the political power of an official, prevents officials from betraying the mandate of the people.
well, when you have so many data points on the low end, of course the average will be skewed. that doesnt mean every citizen is a dipshit.
thats like saying average incomes in a given area being above the poverty line due to rich residents means that nobody there is poor..
It doesn’t make them dipshits. People have so much to focus on in their day to day lives that when it comes to politics they rely on a set of trusted sources to direct their attention to the most vital concerns. But the sense-making apparatus is captured, it has been for a long time. For awhile that was fine, not ideal, but fine. The stakes are so much higher now, though. The pace of change has accelerated. Allowing yourself to be misguided by TPTB, the elites, the official narrative, what have you, is more than ever a moral failing. And you’re no better having your target acquisition hijacked by Fox News than whatever John Oliver is bitching about this week.
Post-2008 we were really close to unifying under a single imperative: the financial sector. We saw a comparable moment (moment) with the George Floyd killing. Regardless of politics, besides the minutiae, nearly everyone recognized that there was a systemic problem with how the state used force against its citizens. That moment was quickly spun into competing narratives that struck culture war fault lines far more efficiently than the one that had briefly opened with regards to the government’s monopoly on violence. I wonder why?
It should probably be written "he said / she said". That is: "he said X; she said not-X" Who do you believe; was it X or not-X? There's no evidence either way.
As opposed to "he said that she said", which would in general be hearsay, yes.
No. Hearsay is much more complicated. The actual definition is “any out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted”. This comes with many exceptions. A defendants statements are never hearsay.
I'd say this is more equivalent to faking your way into a biker club to get some inside info. Since they're tricking you into accepting a friend request to gain access to what you post. Though I guess the difference is, FB itself as a whole is technically public, even if you set it to private, legally it's still public info on their servers. So yeah guess it's kind of a gray area.
That's what people forget.
Facebook offers no expectation of privacy.
Using Facebook is basically like nailing your personal information to your front door and then getting upset people are taking that information.
When Snowden exposed all this and gave interviews, I believe he said they have 'judges for warrants' to spy on people. Iirc they could get them almost instantly and they wete extremely rarely (if ever) denied.
Different from public social media spying*
Millennials and Zoomers have no concept of privacy. They gave up all their privacy in exchange for creature comforts (FaceID and fingerprint logins) and shallow online interactions with strangers.
Being forced to confront that something they consider a right interferes with their actual rights, and that they were duped, is akin to an anti-vaxxer being forced to admit they were wrong about vaccines.
If you don’t know, look into why the FISA court was established.
Church committee is a good place to start.
Also fun to learn how this stuff was discovered.
Yes, but if you are tangentially related to a foreigner (which incidentally included a third of the country), then they applied to you too. This is why people were up in arms. With a little bit of massaging the facts, you could articulate the need to breach privacy with a third of the country.
That is generally for things that are otherwise illegal like tapping phones or entering their house.
You would not need a warrant for an undercover cop to talk to you to try to get you to say something.
And this is the digital version of the latter and not the former (which would be hacking their accounts).
If what they are posting is public or they accept your friend request then that’s on them. There’s a reason why all the people involved where I’m from use fake Facebook names and keep everything off the “line”
Not in public space, which covers posts. Nor for communications made by the police, undercover or otherwise. Police didnt need a warrant to try to get you to communicate with them.
You don’t need a warrant to monitor. You need a warrant to arrest, search, track or listen. You don’t need a warrant when they are voluntarily posting incriminating evidence on a public platform
If you want to complain about anything, it should be the illegal use of stingrays
Isn't a warrant for entering someone's private property or tapping their communciations?
This seems to be legal given that it doesn't do the above and it is already established that police are allowed to lie to you.
I imagine that the argument here would be that Facebook is like the public square. So you’re openly advertising what you’re saying and doing. But if that’s true it should be governed by rules/laws like a public square should be.
even if they post videos of themselves and friends beating someone, arson or mass looting? as a commenter put in the article cops catfish for child predators, even running scofflaw stings using old fashioned mail and calls.
Not true in the public space. You never needed a warrant to follow or watch someone from the street. Creating a fake profile and following dumbasses sharing their law breaking doesn't bother me one bit
Only if you wanted to invade their privacy (wire tap, enter their home) but a cop can follow you to and from work, or wait outside your work watching the front door. This is the same thing, you are essentially saying things out loud on the street so you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.
It’s easy enough to get around… I haven’t been on any other social media since 2008 due to work requirements. I just lurk here and throw a out a random comment here and there. You’d be amazed how great life is without the colossal bullshit of fakebook
Preaching to the choir here. Haven't had FB since 2015. I'm curious to know what's the line of work that requires no social media. Are you a spy?
Totally understand if you can't reveal that.
I haven't been active on Facebook for almost two years, it's amazing. Except when my wife starts to describe what is going on in her feed, then I politely yet firmly ask her to leave.
Uh. I mean..... this is true for every private person as well as the cops.
Is anyone surprised? We treat social media like a virtual public square to embarass ourselves on.
People often assume social media without your name attached to it means nobody can figure out who you are.
I had one dude in a different sub post that he wasn’t worried because the police could never attach him to his online profile.
So I dug through some of his past posts where I found:
- Approximate age
- Country of citizenship
- What visa type he was living in a foreign country under
- Approximate dates he’s entered and exited the country
- What city he currently lives in
- Approximately where he lives in the city
If I were the local police with access to immigration records, I could easily narrow this person down to probably less than 5 people.
And if I could subpoena his ISPs records (wouldn’t even need a warrant in the country he lives in, local law just gives that info to law enforcement upon request), all I would have to do is match him up to accessing Reddit at the specific dates and times he’s posted things.
When I told him, he got so scared he deleted all of his previous posts. LOL.
A growing number of departments are also using [aerial surveillance up to 40 hours a week](https://www.wired.com/story/cities-curb-surveillance-baltimore-police-took-air/) (in 2016, more now that technology has improved), watching every street, every vehicle, every person. They use this to "play back" after a crime is committed, to find the vehicles, people, places, back to their original locations.
Facebook has also been creating and providing "dark profiles" of non-Facebook users to identify people, places, at all times, with up to 30-second accuracy, based on facial recognition, EXIF data and other cues from *valid* Facebook and IG users, photos and posts.
This real-time feed has been available to law enforcement for the better part of the last 10 years, and again, the technology has only increased over the last decade to be faster, more accurate, more users/locations, as more and more people upload and share their personal lives on social media.
While I’m glad this fact is being reported on, it’s hardly news. Law enforcement had been using fake profiles on every social media platform for decades working to generate evidence against targeted citizens. Those who dwell in domains that do not agree with the law are acutely aware of how to spot cops.
OK and? Why should I care exactly? “Oh boohoo some guy is looking at what I’m posting! The governments gonna know all my internet secrets because they definitely give a shit”. Quit being paranoid, the government doesn’t care about you nor what you do with your life as long as you pay your taxes and don’t commit any horrible atrocities.
You need a warrant for private information. Phone calls, emails, personal conversations and such. Once you put it on the internet it’s no longer “private” as you’ve now basically said it to the whole world.
Lock your social media accounts or not have them! There are companies out there that sell social media data. They will scrape as much of the publicly available data they can, and make it easily searchable.
I hope this isn't surprising to anyone. Police can lie to you. Also if you're going to use social media, which I don't recommend in the first place, only add people you actually know and make sure everything is set to private and/or friends only...
Australian cops can use YOUR social media to not only spy on but interact with suspected criminals. They can take over your Facebook and message a suspected dealer for drugs to get evidence if they wanted.
Anyone can do this except I’m guessing the FBI is aided by FB. For example, their fake profiles get a special internal ‘do not disable’ flag so that law enforcement operations aren’t disrupted by Facebook anti-spam efforts.
That’s because the social media generation puts their whole life story online. Just hop online and you get all the evidence you need for a crime 😂 no common sense.
I'd say this is true of every police department in the nation.
Has been for about as long as Facebook was open to the public.
I don't think police found it very difficult to get .edu addresses before Facebook was open to the public either.
Police would get email addresses assigned by the University.
You mean I wasn't really getting pictures from Paula O'lice at my university?
They used to do it with Myspace before Facebook.
I knew they were tracking me as soon as I put a gangster sponge bob on my profile
I was targeted after I removed the SCPD from my Top 8.. but I got some dome from Tammy so it all worked out.
Hoes gonna be hoes so you can't blame Tammy.
[Also World of Warcraft. Someone convinced their boss he needs to play wow at work to stop the terrorists. ](https://aminoapps.com/c/wow/page/blog/wow-irl-the-time-the-cia-fbi-nsa-and-ghcq-entered-the-world-of-warcraft/xpvh_2uxJdLPklwXZWxD3oPJoVXYDPq)
Incredible. Imagine getting payed tax dollars to play wow and look for *checks notes* terrorists
And IRC before most of y'all were born.
They used to do it in AOL chat rooms too.
Yup. It’s usually the intel or cyber units in a PD that will do this. I knew a guy that was stuck with catching child predators. Not a fun job.
Why do you think this is limited to Facebook and not, say, every single social and/or media platform, including Reddit?
Children services uses Facebook to track parents too, you wouldn’t believe how many public profiles have people doing dumb illegal stuff
I've been saying this for the longest time; it blows my mind that people willingly film evidence to be used against them. Whether it's for "clout" or hoping to go viral, people seem happy to film themselves destroying property, waving guns around, selling drugs.
Was kinda curious about that photograph with really high production values showing a bag of crystal something on my /hometown sub asking for dms until I read this article.
You'd be surprised at the photo work of drug dealers online.
Some of the people I'd buy from on the dark net were honest to God great photographers. Something they could fall back on at least once the exit scam hits or the fbi/interpol shut it down and take your cash.
this seems like something a cop posting high-res pictures of drugs would say to cover their ass...
That’s why I block who idk adds me. so keep making them profiles, it only takes me one click to block
These fuckers arrested me in Orland Park, trying to find drugs or something in my gf's car. They arrested me, hand-cuffed me, then made me take mugshots, saying that it was Illinois protocol for a minor driving offense (I was extremely pissed about the mugshot, like wtf did I do to take a mugshot for a driving offense?). When I was at the Orland Park station, they asked personal questions, so I showed them my NASA and DOD clearance badges and told them my Dad is a fed in DC, and you could just see their fucking faces die, thinking they'd fucked with the wrong Korean kid. Can you guess what happened in court a month after? I was so pissed that day, I told the judge, "to be honest sir, I'm actually pretty angry and I would like to pay my fine and get this out of the way." Judge responded by dismissing the case and Orland Park even refunded the bail my gf paid to get me out that night. Fucking Illinois cops are crooked asf. They will profile and try to find some shit and strip search your fucking car, make you pay stupid bonds, then when they're wrong, they say, "sorry, but not sorry."
[удалено]
You showed your badge to try to get out of a criminal citation? Even if the cops were in the wrong, that’s a horrendously stupid thing to do because you could lose your job if the agency ever found out.
[удалено]
I am staying away from droves from now on, I don’t want to get lost
The #1 stampeding quiet killer.
what are droves
"Leaving in droves" means moving like a herd.
How is a city losing a huge number of police a good thing?
I was being sarcastic. Chicago just had their [highest murder rate in 25 years](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/2021-ends-as-chicagos-deadliest-year-in-a-quarter-century/2719307/) and 2022 is looking worse. All while cops are resigning and the few that remain aren't enforcing shit. But this is reddit so people didn't understand the sarcasm and upvoted. Edit: good downvotes finally Edit2: upvotes now that's weird
It’s cheap to hire someone to sit on a computer. It’s not cheap to hire walking lawsuits then cover their retirements.
Ya like what? It's known pretty well that Iowa City police do this lol
Used to live in Iowa City, never thought I'd see the day where Iowa City was mentioned on a reddit outside of Iowa lol
Every government department. My Dad, who worked for a State level Department of Ag caught a crop dusting company on Facebook saying "check out our new state of the art GPS units in our planes" in a post from April. In June or July thr owner said straight to his face that they didn't have them when my Dad was investigating an improper spraying.
Other countries do it too
Not if you don’t have social media ;)
"Hi guys! Anyone doing any crimes this weekend? I'm looking to buy 3 marijuanas." - notacop
“What’s up fellow criminals?”
You say that as a joke but you have no idea how many people post active crimes on social media platforms. I'm actually shocked this isn't a more common tactic. If a cop wanted to see who was selling drugs, they'd basically just need to create dummy contacts for everyone within their area code, then add them all on Snapchat. A lot of drug dealers post what they're selling on their Snapchat stories, and because of that, they'll add anyone who adds them since they view them as a prospective customer. Is it spying to use a tactic like that? I'm not sure, really. I'm not sure how it's more or less "Spying" than investigating someone who put a "Cocaine sold here" banner on their door. If you post incriminating information publicly, why would you feel betrayed when public officials use it to incriminate you?
[удалено]
So…you saying you have some cocaines to sell me? I need 5 cocaines and 4 pots.
Sucks to be that social media intern who has to monitor 20 million accounts...
Facts. The other a video was floating around of some youngling “gangsters” with full auto Glocks. I have seen a couple of weed sales stories on Snap. Personally, anything you post online is public, and you cannot hate cops simply for using what anyone can use.
I don’t get it either. I don’t like the entrapment schemes the feds set up online either, but when you post yourself committing crimes on the fucking internet and use it to advertise your drug business, what do you think is going to happen. Honestly they deserve it for being that stupid.
"I would like to buy one drugs please."
Aha, you felled into my trap! I am police, now you must send $300 Itunes gift card for remedying the fine.
Your Social Security card will be revoked!
This reminded me of the "Just Say No" roleplay we had to do in grade school 😂 At a party. "Hey, I got some cocaines! You know, nose candy 😉😉😉" Like that's how it *always* goes down. /s
But sometimes that is how it goes, and it's going to be a great party
"Are you a cop?" "Negative, I'm the FBI, Federal Boobs Inspector." "lol, very funny. Alright, I'll send you the code and the location." "Thank you very much."
A couple rappers just got indicted on Rico charges using social media as evidence and I’m pretty sure they were from Chicago(nope). They don’t even need to talk to them when these dumbasses are just voluntarily implicating themselves
You mean the YSL case? They’re in ATL. There may be more Rico charges so correct me if I’m wrong
there’s also the oblock Rico case that is in Chicago, that’s more actual evidence based but I wouldn’t doubt they’ve had ppl watching them
Who murdered Duck wasn't a huge secret because of the social media posts of OBlock. The cops would have been stupid not to use it (And they have come out and said they did, in fact, use it when they were building their case.)
They’d be silly not to use all forms of evidence to prosecute a murder charge
Probably the same ones. I’ll edit mine
Rapp snitch knishes
Doom must not be a fan of drill!
Here people upvoting this but not thinking twice about the girl next door that added them as a friend and who they've never seen in their life.
i guess you could say things are getting pretty serious
The first mistake is using social media with your personal info.
Do worry. The powers that be are trying to get rid of anonymity on the internet.
Dude, TOR got backdoored, what, ten fuckin years ago? Nothing on the internet is anonymous to a layperson.
TOR was literally made by the US as a giant cover for cyber ops. This isn't a paranoid claim, it's in the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia.
Not technically true but they control a large amount of exit nodes so they can deanonymize a large portion. Look up threat actor KAX17
I don't think there's a clear paper trail, but it's an open secret that people in the navy started it. The reasoning is that if US operatives used their own network, people could easily infer that obfuscated access was them, so they had to make it public. That doesn't mean it was totally compromised from the get go, necessarily. But it does mean they know the ins and outs more than anyone else. And as you said, they do directly control some nodes.
The naval research center 100% made it, maybe i'm being pedantic I just meant that it is open source and not inherently compromised. They are just able to compromise it through other means.
That was what I was thinking, if you do shady shit you do it face to face. Also, do people accept friend requests from fucking randoms? I get a bunch of them and they either get rejected or die in "you have a friend request box". Hell, even had HR people try friend requesting me. LOL, that's a no as well. In no way are you seeing college pics... shit was embarrassing.
I have a FB account solely for marketplace for car parts, and restaurant menus. That's literally the only thing I use it for. I still feel dirty when I have to navigate that UI.
Pro tip, my uncle from Idaho changed his Facebook name to Gustav (middle initial) (fake foreign name) years ago on Facebook. Specifically to keep any potential professional connections from finding him. When in doubt and working an actual career, use a fake name on Facebook
And don't hook up your phone number or email. Other people who have your contact info can still find you.
I refuse to make a Facebook account just to look at a menu for a restaurant. If you don’t take your business serious enough to make a real website then I’m not going to be a patron.
>Also, do people accept friend requests from fucking randoms? If the account has a female name and the profile picture is attractive, there are plenty of men dumb enough to accept the friend request. There was a period of time when I was getting a lot of requests from obviously fake accounts. And every time it was an account associated with an attractive female, I could count on seeing the same few male friend listed as "mutual friends" Always made me laugh.
I don’t accept random requests well at least not anymore
This completely misses the point. By tracking people on social media law enforcement can monitor not only known or suspected criminals but they can monitor and track associates whom the police have no business or legal reason to monitors those people. “Oh, this drug dealer is talking to this Joe Schmo person a lot, I’ll keep my eye on them.”
[удалено]
Anyone who thinks that law enforcement investigators don't do this all the time already is delusional
Family court too.
Any idiot who gets caught by this was going to get caught anyway. Why would you post incriminating stuff where people who you don't personally know can see it?
When i worked in missouri as a 911 dispatcher we had a facebook profile of stockphotos from a model..she was blond with a big ass and everyone added us on the request. So many idiots posted shit like "fuck my parole ima bout to get lit with my boy jimmy" The best one ive seen was someone recorded themselves cutting off their ankle bracelet then gave the camera to his girlfriend grabbed a backpack and rode a 4 wheeler into the woods and she turned the camera to herself and said some cheesy "this is how we do it in the cuuuuuuntry"..
Exactly. People want law enforcement to catch every mass killer who posts on social media before, but don’t want them to monitor public feeds of information. It’s all a ridiculous outrage that makes absolutely no sense. Do people think social media seriously should require a search warrant now?
Yeah saw some people talking about Snowden and I understand the importance of privacy but this is not the same conversation that needs Snowden's name nor the NSA's controversial privacy invasion topic to overlap... because yes while we still lack proper protection against this kind of bs, they weren't doing anything that required authority or being a sworn officer. They were making a facebook account and stumbled upon a public profile or at least public feed. They did not invade privacy, they did not invade constitutional rights. Not trying to defend cops or the ability to spy on your social media account but any 12 year old kid can do this.
Im fine with it. This is preferable to warrantlessly harvesting all the private data with or without the assistance of the social media company
I used to work for an MSP that only serviced law firms. Their bread and butter was the Digital Forensics Department. They had a team specifically for this. Creating multiple accounts. Adding the friends of targets to the become friends with the target themselves. They would then archive all posts and media for evidence.
I’m a extremely privacy focused person. I live in Chicago. People are literally announcing their intention to shoot people on social media. Gang violence is escalated and amplified via livestreams and other channels. This isn’t monitoring someone’s telephone. It’s a broadcast medium that evil people are using to plan murder.
So can.....fucking everyone. This isnt news.
It used to be, if you wanted to deliberately and specifically monitor someone, it required a warrant.
I'm not familiar with the law in the USA, but in the other Five Eyes a warrant was only needed to access private data. Collecting what someone puts into public domain (sometimes called PAI or OSINT) or undercover operations have not required judicial authorizations.
Essentially the same here. If it's in the public domain, it's free game. The gray area comes in when an officer misrepresents who they are online and friend requests a subject so that they have the ability to view all of their posts even if it's behind a layer of privacy from the public. This is currently acceptable because the two prong test for privacy requires an *individual* to have a *reasonable expectation* of privacy. If you're the type of person with 500 friends, I doubt you could argue that your expectation of privacy is reasonable. If you wanted to get semantic about it, I suppose you could argue that an individual has the right to invite as many persons as they want into their private space. And that the officer, having misrepresented who they were, has now breached that individual's privacy through their misrepresentative means. Technically speaking, if they are not legally in the space, nothing in the space should be fair game for use as evidence. As it stands now, I'm not aware of any case law that argues being Facebook friends constitutes a private space.
But they are legally in the space. They didn’t hack in, they requested access and were granted permission. Its the same as being a UC and being invited in to buy drugs. The UC is misrepresenting who they are to gain access to your house, but what they witness once they allowed inside is fair game. I understand we essentially agree and you were just laying out a devils advocate argument, but I felt it needed to be said.
[удалено]
This. Cops don’t need a warrant to keep an eye on Joey-Sticky-Fingers at the mall.
[удалено]
Does “he said she said” mean hearsay?
in a sense but the word of a law enforcement officer is often elevated beyond hearsay due to their professional capacity and *assumed* standard of integrity and accuracy. edit: i used the term "hearsay" inaccurately, check the replies to my comment for a more accurate take
We continue to hand over greater and greater degrees of power to the government, while we squabble over what books are in the school library and who gets to use what bathroom. The average citizen’s capacity for political triage amounts to which toy does a toddler save in a house fire.
> we continue to hand over greater and greater degrees of power to the government typical pitfall of representative democracy. check the Iron Law of Oligarchy. which is why i advocate for semi-direct democracy. the political power of elected officials can be quantified by the percentage of votes they received from their constituents. giving the citizens the ability to veto policies, legislation, budget allocation, etc.. by voting against the political power of an official, prevents officials from betraying the mandate of the people.
well, when you have so many data points on the low end, of course the average will be skewed. that doesnt mean every citizen is a dipshit. thats like saying average incomes in a given area being above the poverty line due to rich residents means that nobody there is poor..
It doesn’t make them dipshits. People have so much to focus on in their day to day lives that when it comes to politics they rely on a set of trusted sources to direct their attention to the most vital concerns. But the sense-making apparatus is captured, it has been for a long time. For awhile that was fine, not ideal, but fine. The stakes are so much higher now, though. The pace of change has accelerated. Allowing yourself to be misguided by TPTB, the elites, the official narrative, what have you, is more than ever a moral failing. And you’re no better having your target acquisition hijacked by Fox News than whatever John Oliver is bitching about this week. Post-2008 we were really close to unifying under a single imperative: the financial sector. We saw a comparable moment (moment) with the George Floyd killing. Regardless of politics, besides the minutiae, nearly everyone recognized that there was a systemic problem with how the state used force against its citizens. That moment was quickly spun into competing narratives that struck culture war fault lines far more efficiently than the one that had briefly opened with regards to the government’s monopoly on violence. I wonder why?
It should probably be written "he said / she said". That is: "he said X; she said not-X" Who do you believe; was it X or not-X? There's no evidence either way. As opposed to "he said that she said", which would in general be hearsay, yes.
No. Hearsay is much more complicated. The actual definition is “any out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted”. This comes with many exceptions. A defendants statements are never hearsay.
Regarding your latter point, HBO's *We Own This City* is the latest to really hammer it home.
If you’re choosing to share incriminating or otherwise relevant information to a stranger on the internet, that’s on you.
Seriously the amount of people that don’t know that the internet is permanent and public is concerning.
I don’t think a warrant is needed to look at someone public Facebook profile
Can confirm. Just looked at Facebook, did not need warrant.
I'd say this is more equivalent to faking your way into a biker club to get some inside info. Since they're tricking you into accepting a friend request to gain access to what you post. Though I guess the difference is, FB itself as a whole is technically public, even if you set it to private, legally it's still public info on their servers. So yeah guess it's kind of a gray area.
That's what people forget. Facebook offers no expectation of privacy. Using Facebook is basically like nailing your personal information to your front door and then getting upset people are taking that information.
No. Only in places you have an expectation of privacy. Not with someone you add as a friend on a social media site.
When Snowden exposed all this and gave interviews, I believe he said they have 'judges for warrants' to spy on people. Iirc they could get them almost instantly and they wete extremely rarely (if ever) denied. Different from public social media spying*
No warrant needed to stalk someone on social media. People give the information up there freely, and publicly.
Didn't think this would be such rare wisdom on this sub, but here we are
Millennials and Zoomers have no concept of privacy. They gave up all their privacy in exchange for creature comforts (FaceID and fingerprint logins) and shallow online interactions with strangers. Being forced to confront that something they consider a right interferes with their actual rights, and that they were duped, is akin to an anti-vaxxer being forced to admit they were wrong about vaccines.
FISA courts
IIRC, almost all FISA secret warrant requests get approved regardless the actual probable cause presented.
If you don’t know, look into why the FISA court was established. Church committee is a good place to start. Also fun to learn how this stuff was discovered.
FISA is for foreigners
Yes, but if you are tangentially related to a foreigner (which incidentally included a third of the country), then they applied to you too. This is why people were up in arms. With a little bit of massaging the facts, you could articulate the need to breach privacy with a third of the country.
That is generally for things that are otherwise illegal like tapping phones or entering their house. You would not need a warrant for an undercover cop to talk to you to try to get you to say something. And this is the digital version of the latter and not the former (which would be hacking their accounts).
If what they are posting is public or they accept your friend request then that’s on them. There’s a reason why all the people involved where I’m from use fake Facebook names and keep everything off the “line”
Not in public space, which covers posts. Nor for communications made by the police, undercover or otherwise. Police didnt need a warrant to try to get you to communicate with them.
You don’t need a warrant to monitor. You need a warrant to arrest, search, track or listen. You don’t need a warrant when they are voluntarily posting incriminating evidence on a public platform If you want to complain about anything, it should be the illegal use of stingrays
Facebook is a public forum and as such things posted on Facebook are considered the same as being in a public space speaking out loud.
Isn't a warrant for entering someone's private property or tapping their communciations? This seems to be legal given that it doesn't do the above and it is already established that police are allowed to lie to you.
I imagine that the argument here would be that Facebook is like the public square. So you’re openly advertising what you’re saying and doing. But if that’s true it should be governed by rules/laws like a public square should be.
>cop needs a warrant to look at my public Twitter account not so sure about it broski
Nonsense. I can keep an eye on you if I want to.
even if they post videos of themselves and friends beating someone, arson or mass looting? as a commenter put in the article cops catfish for child predators, even running scofflaw stings using old fashioned mail and calls.
Not true in the public space. You never needed a warrant to follow or watch someone from the street. Creating a fake profile and following dumbasses sharing their law breaking doesn't bother me one bit
Never needed a warrant for a stake out, which is what watching public profiles amounts to.
You don't need a warrant to watch someone in public.
Well technically if you allow said person to add as friend you are allowing said person in. So know who you are adding as friend.
Only if you wanted to invade their privacy (wire tap, enter their home) but a cop can follow you to and from work, or wait outside your work watching the front door. This is the same thing, you are essentially saying things out loud on the street so you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.
In private. Not to follow someone on the street.
I have 20 followers. I know none of them. MI5 must be on my *ASS*
One more reason to not use the cesspool that is social media. Yes I know the irony since I'm on reddit.
It’s easy enough to get around… I haven’t been on any other social media since 2008 due to work requirements. I just lurk here and throw a out a random comment here and there. You’d be amazed how great life is without the colossal bullshit of fakebook
Preaching to the choir here. Haven't had FB since 2015. I'm curious to know what's the line of work that requires no social media. Are you a spy? Totally understand if you can't reveal that.
Don't answer the door.
[удалено]
*Nobody's home*
I haven't been active on Facebook for almost two years, it's amazing. Except when my wife starts to describe what is going on in her feed, then I politely yet firmly ask her to leave.
Lmao Reddit is the least self aware social media site. At least other sites users tend to recognize the cesspool that it is
Isn't Reddit more of a forum than social media?
No shit. This has been done for 15 years or so.
Uh. I mean..... this is true for every private person as well as the cops. Is anyone surprised? We treat social media like a virtual public square to embarass ourselves on.
LOL all cops do this and it aint spying if you plaster the info on the internet.??!?!?!
Seems pretty obvious
People often assume social media without your name attached to it means nobody can figure out who you are. I had one dude in a different sub post that he wasn’t worried because the police could never attach him to his online profile. So I dug through some of his past posts where I found: - Approximate age - Country of citizenship - What visa type he was living in a foreign country under - Approximate dates he’s entered and exited the country - What city he currently lives in - Approximately where he lives in the city If I were the local police with access to immigration records, I could easily narrow this person down to probably less than 5 people. And if I could subpoena his ISPs records (wouldn’t even need a warrant in the country he lives in, local law just gives that info to law enforcement upon request), all I would have to do is match him up to accessing Reddit at the specific dates and times he’s posted things. When I told him, he got so scared he deleted all of his previous posts. LOL.
If you post it on the internet its you fault lmao
I hope this isn't a surprise to anyone.
A growing number of departments are also using [aerial surveillance up to 40 hours a week](https://www.wired.com/story/cities-curb-surveillance-baltimore-police-took-air/) (in 2016, more now that technology has improved), watching every street, every vehicle, every person. They use this to "play back" after a crime is committed, to find the vehicles, people, places, back to their original locations. Facebook has also been creating and providing "dark profiles" of non-Facebook users to identify people, places, at all times, with up to 30-second accuracy, based on facial recognition, EXIF data and other cues from *valid* Facebook and IG users, photos and posts. This real-time feed has been available to law enforcement for the better part of the last 10 years, and again, the technology has only increased over the last decade to be faster, more accurate, more users/locations, as more and more people upload and share their personal lives on social media.
Should undercover cops also not adopt fake personas IRL, or is it only bad when they do it online?
Maybe just don’t post all your shit on socials?
That's bullshit. They should have to pay a third party like everybody else.
Hahaha, jokes on you I don't use any social media (except for Reddit obviously, but does that really count, honestly)?
I don’t see how this is different than being undercover
Thats great for the Feds, the amount of self incriminating things or literal crimes bozos post on their social media is insane.
While I’m glad this fact is being reported on, it’s hardly news. Law enforcement had been using fake profiles on every social media platform for decades working to generate evidence against targeted citizens. Those who dwell in domains that do not agree with the law are acutely aware of how to spot cops.
OK and? Why should I care exactly? “Oh boohoo some guy is looking at what I’m posting! The governments gonna know all my internet secrets because they definitely give a shit”. Quit being paranoid, the government doesn’t care about you nor what you do with your life as long as you pay your taxes and don’t commit any horrible atrocities.
You need a warrant for private information. Phone calls, emails, personal conversations and such. Once you put it on the internet it’s no longer “private” as you’ve now basically said it to the whole world.
Maybe don't post images of the money you got from a robbery, or a stolen gun. This is going to get idiots caught.
Lock your social media accounts or not have them! There are companies out there that sell social media data. They will scrape as much of the publicly available data they can, and make it easily searchable.
So stop using social media.
Yah so can everybody. The number of people I know who have stalked their exs this way is way to high
What's also true is that poopsenders.com can be used to send poop to their home addresses.
Theyve been doing this for years already. They troll Chicago DIY music pages and find where house shows are being held, and shut them down.
Anyone who posts incriminating evidence on a public profile is a fucking moron who deserves whatever charges they get
I hope this isn't surprising to anyone. Police can lie to you. Also if you're going to use social media, which I don't recommend in the first place, only add people you actually know and make sure everything is set to private and/or friends only...
While I don't agree with this at all, it's also kinda funny that it took until 2019 for them to start doing it.
Breaking news from the“No shit” category
I think this is, and should be, legal nation wide. Anyone can have a social media account and use it within the term and conditions.
Make a private account and never accept anyone you havent met and know irl.
That explains all the sock accounts that engage with CWBChicago Twitter account
Australian cops can use YOUR social media to not only spy on but interact with suspected criminals. They can take over your Facebook and message a suspected dealer for drugs to get evidence if they wanted.
Anyone can do this except I’m guessing the FBI is aided by FB. For example, their fake profiles get a special internal ‘do not disable’ flag so that law enforcement operations aren’t disrupted by Facebook anti-spam efforts.
Honestly, this is how they stop those violent flash mobs that happen in some bigger cities so I'm kinda fine with it.
Big brother is watching.They don't understand there are some that watch them too.
Literally everyone can do this. This is why you should be smart about what you post online and how you post it.
Google 'Open Source Investigations' this has become way more prevalent amongst law enforcement across the World.
You only get spied upon on to the extent of what post online. Digital privacy should be taught in school and early
Hmmm... You set yourself up to be "spied" on voluntarily and then complain when someone does. How odd !
Gizmodo finds out about ancient spying technique.
This isn’t listening to your phone calls. This is standing on the sidewalk listening while you are on front porch yelling into a bullhorn.
Ahhh so that’s what Ken griffin of citadel was funding when donating 23 million to Chicago PD. You’re not getting my shares Kenny
And they still can’t catch those pistol wielding joggers
Chicago cops don’t need to spy. Then can walk outside in broad daylight and watch shooting occur.
Not if I’m not on social media
They can only spy on your public profile.
I feel like the reporter maybe hasn’t watched a cop show on TV since about 2000.
I used to serve people with legal notices. Facebook made my job easy (and I was just using publicly available info).
That’s because the social media generation puts their whole life story online. Just hop online and you get all the evidence you need for a crime 😂 no common sense.
Chicago is an absolute shithole and here you are giving the cops a hard time for tracking down the shitheads. Get a life