7 ms·

FBI ‘Can Neither Confirm nor Deny’ That It Monitors Your Social Media Posts

73 points by deegles 8y ago

renholder 8y ago
Laying aside the issue of the monitoring of U.S. Citizens versus the monitoring of Europeans, it would seem to me that they'd need something a little more nefarious than a simple data parsing and analytics toolset to access non-public posts, yeah? I don't Facebook, so I'm not sure if the default settings for Facebook are "Public" or "Friends Only" but I'd imagine that the bulk of what they'd principally be interested in is the "Friends Only" stuff, yeah?
- nradov 8y ago
  Facebook defaults to friends only the first time you post, but if you change it public the setting will stick and become the default on your next post.
- princeofwands 8y ago
  Yes, they are interested in private Facebook data. And no, you can't trust Facebook to not facilitate them if the wallets get opened, or if the police gets creative and starts sending you friend requests. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/26/facebook-data-ice-immigration/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/26/facebook-data-ice-immigr... https://bgr.com/2018/09/25/facebook-police-fake-profiles/ https://bgr.com/2018/09/25/facebook-police-fake-profiles/
tbabb 8y ago
Consider this angle the next time there is a mass shooting, and the attack is foreshadowed by troubling social media posts by the perpetrator. In those circumstances, there are often cries of "why was nothing done to prevent this?" I'm not advocating a specific side here, only pointing out that the two positions are fundamentally at odds with each other.
- philipov 8y ago
  You seem to be implying this is inconsistent or hypocritical. These positions are each advocated by different people who passionately disagree with the other side.
  - markovbot 8y ago
    Is it not possible for one person to believe both of the following? 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time?
    - philipov 8y ago
      So, you agree with me?
      - markovbot 8y ago
        no i just suck at making sentences apparently. See other reply, which made the same point much better.
    - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
      Why is it not possible to believe both? I believe that governments shouldn't exist, but given the fact that they obviously do, that they should do certain things. There's no necessary conflict in either set of beliefs.
      - markovbot 8y ago
        bleh, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tried to update my comment a little bit, i think i just phrased it poorly
    - vkou 8y ago
      > 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts Why shouldn't LE monitor public social media posts? Should they also ignore Billy standing on the street corner, shouting about how he's going to shoot up <those ______ers in ________>? I understand not wanting the police to listen to your phone calls, or read your private messages. I don't understand the police having to shut their ears, and close their eyes, at public messages that you broadcast to the world. Should I be allowed advertise a murder-for-hire business on Facebook, without any risk of the police getting involved involved? Is there some magical property of the Internet that is supposed to protect me from this? > 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time? They do occasionally do something 'useful' about it. I have first hand experience. Last month, in my city, they've arrested an off-his-meds individual in my area, within hours of making specific threats of violence against a number of public establishments. (That he has had a bad history with.) I'd prefer it if he got medical treatment, for his issues, but the US being what it is, he's far more likely to get five to ten years of jail time, instead. Of course, oftentimes, they also don't do anything about it. Sometimes, it's because the regional prosecutor can't be arsed to deal with the threats, so they do a catch-and-release. Sometimes, it's because the police themselves can't be arsed to take the threats seriously. I don't have any stats for how frequently these sorts of situations turn out one way, or another.
medion 8y ago
Of course they do, it's called OSINT and many agencies around the world collect & monitor social media for archival and profiling purposes...
pmarreck 8y ago
Good. I hope to have a reason to do business with them someday, would probably be very interesting. (This comment has not at all been informed by the possibility suggested in the title of the submission...)
mey 8y ago
Why wouldn't they? The publicly exposed data is publicly exposed. Is there any reasonable sense to privacy at that point? The more interesting question is how much data do they get that is "private" without a warrant. The following are a few examples of how the private data may be being gathered by the FBI, under existing legal structures. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter There is also the possibility of voluntary cooperation by corporations, or even corporations selling commercial access to their data (Facebook, Cellular Carriers).
- glitcher 8y ago
  So if they collect and store all this data indefinitely, and in aggregate it could easily be abused to profile innocent citizens for all manner of reasons, can you honestly say that you trust all future government officials to never abuse this data?
  - mey 8y ago
    Wouldn't be the first time the FBI abused its authority. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bureau-investigation-fbi https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bure... I expect the data will be abused. How could it not? I am not defending it. Instead stating it is their job.
    - yayana 8y ago
      It must be nice to have an employer who is OK with your neither confirming nor denying your job responsibilities.
- princeofwands 8y ago
  > Is there any reasonable sense to privacy at that point? Yes there is. This data is mined without reasonable suspicion, and shared with all parties, including contractors (commercial companies). Surveillance without suspicion, storing such data indefinately, is chilling to free speech, opposed to protections against unreasonable searches, makes it more difficult to associate and practice one's religion. People with no intention to commit crimes are in jail or have a record, because they decided to joke among friends, and had just a bit too big exposure, and just too little context. In the Netherlands you may get a house visit from the police if you tweet critical of the town mayor or tweet about protests (of course, they label it "threats" and "inciting civil unrest")
sdinsn 8y ago
Law enforcement are allowed to collect any public data without a warrant.
- izzydata 8y ago
  Is there some reason anybody couldn't collect public data? If it is public what would anyone need a warrant for?
  - datadata 8y ago
    It could be against Terms of Service to collect/store the public data in bulk.
- princeofwands 8y ago
  But it would be better if they had to show reasonable suspicion. > Effective law enforcement often requires undercover work, information gathering and surveillance of suspected criminals. Such surveillance should be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity – and ended when that suspicion is dispelled. > However, when conducted without suspicion of criminal activity, especially when targeted at unpopular political groups, or when intended to profile religious, ethnic or racial minorities, it violates the right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion and to exercise free speech, association, and practice one’s religion. The harm to those under surveillance without suspicion is made worse when the information collected about them and their activities is shared by local, state and federal law enforcement, military and security agencies and stored in multiple databases, just in case it might ever become useful. > In addition to chilling speech, surveillance without suspicion actually makes law enforcement less effective. When authorities are swamped with mountains of irrelevant and inaccurate information, their ability to properly analyze data is compromised. Ultimately, these practices make us less safe. https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/surveillance-without-suspicion https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/surveillance-without-suspicion Right now, your social media might be mined to classify you as an "anarchist", after which you may be pulled over and arrested when you are driving close to an anti-war protest. To me, that does not sound just at all.
  - 8y ago
tareqak 8y ago
In United States law, the term Glomar response, also known as Glomarization or Glomar denial, refers to a response to a request for information that will "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) the existence of the information sought [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
- trophycase 8y ago
  AKA: We can't legally lie, but we also won't tell the truth to avoid damaging our reputation.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ggggtez 8y ago
Well sure. Doesn't anyone remember what Snowden was known for revealing? Why would anyone think Twitter and Facebook would be exempt from monitoring?
VerbEncroacher 8y ago
This whole conversation is a flaming turd.
openSource_lol 8y ago
If you pay attention to enough tech talks, “open source intel” is wonk parlance for “we are watching every move for everyone ever, all over the internet, especially in the places where people feel like they can speak freely.” That term, “open source intel” is dropped with a wink, by every security goon, in at least one slide at every security conference.

73 points by deegles 8y ago

Laying aside the issue of the monitoring of U.S. Citizens versus the monitoring of Europeans, it would seem to me that they'd need something a little more nefarious than a simple data parsing and analytics toolset to access non-public posts, yeah? I don't Facebook, so I'm not sure if the default settings for Facebook are "Public" or "Friends Only" but I'd imagine that the bulk of what they'd principally be interested in is the "Friends Only" stuff, yeah?

nradov 8y ago
Facebook defaults to friends only the first time you post, but if you change it public the setting will stick and become the default on your next post.
princeofwands 8y ago
Yes, they are interested in private Facebook data. And no, you can't trust Facebook to not facilitate them if the wallets get opened, or if the police gets creative and starts sending you friend requests. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/26/facebook-data-ice-immigration/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/26/facebook-data-ice-immigr... https://bgr.com/2018/09/25/facebook-police-fake-profiles/ https://bgr.com/2018/09/25/facebook-police-fake-profiles/

tbabb 8y ago

Consider this angle the next time there is a mass shooting, and the attack is foreshadowed by troubling social media posts by the perpetrator. In those circumstances, there are often cries of "why was nothing done to prevent this?" I'm not advocating a specific side here, only pointing out that the two positions are fundamentally at odds with each other.

philipov 8y ago
You seem to be implying this is inconsistent or hypocritical. These positions are each advocated by different people who passionately disagree with the other side.
- markovbot 8y ago
  Is it not possible for one person to believe both of the following? 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time?
  - philipov 8y ago
    So, you agree with me?
    - markovbot 8y ago
      no i just suck at making sentences apparently. See other reply, which made the same point much better.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    Why is it not possible to believe both? I believe that governments shouldn't exist, but given the fact that they obviously do, that they should do certain things. There's no necessary conflict in either set of beliefs.
    - markovbot 8y ago
      bleh, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tried to update my comment a little bit, i think i just phrased it poorly
  - vkou 8y ago
    > 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts Why shouldn't LE monitor public social media posts? Should they also ignore Billy standing on the street corner, shouting about how he's going to shoot up <those ______ers in ________>? I understand not wanting the police to listen to your phone calls, or read your private messages. I don't understand the police having to shut their ears, and close their eyes, at public messages that you broadcast to the world. Should I be allowed advertise a murder-for-hire business on Facebook, without any risk of the police getting involved involved? Is there some magical property of the Internet that is supposed to protect me from this? > 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time? They do occasionally do something 'useful' about it. I have first hand experience. Last month, in my city, they've arrested an off-his-meds individual in my area, within hours of making specific threats of violence against a number of public establishments. (That he has had a bad history with.) I'd prefer it if he got medical treatment, for his issues, but the US being what it is, he's far more likely to get five to ten years of jail time, instead. Of course, oftentimes, they also don't do anything about it. Sometimes, it's because the regional prosecutor can't be arsed to deal with the threats, so they do a catch-and-release. Sometimes, it's because the police themselves can't be arsed to take the threats seriously. I don't have any stats for how frequently these sorts of situations turn out one way, or another.

medion 8y ago

Of course they do, it's called OSINT and many agencies around the world collect & monitor social media for archival and profiling purposes...

pmarreck 8y ago

Good. I hope to have a reason to do business with them someday, would probably be very interesting. (This comment has not at all been informed by the possibility suggested in the title of the submission...)

mey 8y ago

Why wouldn't they? The publicly exposed data is publicly exposed. Is there any reasonable sense to privacy at that point? The more interesting question is how much data do they get that is "private" without a warrant. The following are a few examples of how the private data may be being gathered by the FBI, under existing legal structures. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter There is also the possibility of voluntary cooperation by corporations, or even corporations selling commercial access to their data (Facebook, Cellular Carriers).

glitcher 8y ago
So if they collect and store all this data indefinitely, and in aggregate it could easily be abused to profile innocent citizens for all manner of reasons, can you honestly say that you trust all future government officials to never abuse this data?
- mey 8y ago
  Wouldn't be the first time the FBI abused its authority. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bureau-investigation-fbi https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/federal-bure... I expect the data will be abused. How could it not? I am not defending it. Instead stating it is their job.
  - yayana 8y ago
    It must be nice to have an employer who is OK with your neither confirming nor denying your job responsibilities.
princeofwands 8y ago
> Is there any reasonable sense to privacy at that point? Yes there is. This data is mined without reasonable suspicion, and shared with all parties, including contractors (commercial companies). Surveillance without suspicion, storing such data indefinately, is chilling to free speech, opposed to protections against unreasonable searches, makes it more difficult to associate and practice one's religion. People with no intention to commit crimes are in jail or have a record, because they decided to joke among friends, and had just a bit too big exposure, and just too little context. In the Netherlands you may get a house visit from the police if you tweet critical of the town mayor or tweet about protests (of course, they label it "threats" and "inciting civil unrest")

sdinsn 8y ago

Law enforcement are allowed to collect any public data without a warrant.

izzydata 8y ago
Is there some reason anybody couldn't collect public data? If it is public what would anyone need a warrant for?
- datadata 8y ago
  It could be against Terms of Service to collect/store the public data in bulk.
princeofwands 8y ago
But it would be better if they had to show reasonable suspicion. > Effective law enforcement often requires undercover work, information gathering and surveillance of suspected criminals. Such surveillance should be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity – and ended when that suspicion is dispelled. > However, when conducted without suspicion of criminal activity, especially when targeted at unpopular political groups, or when intended to profile religious, ethnic or racial minorities, it violates the right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion and to exercise free speech, association, and practice one’s religion. The harm to those under surveillance without suspicion is made worse when the information collected about them and their activities is shared by local, state and federal law enforcement, military and security agencies and stored in multiple databases, just in case it might ever become useful. > In addition to chilling speech, surveillance without suspicion actually makes law enforcement less effective. When authorities are swamped with mountains of irrelevant and inaccurate information, their ability to properly analyze data is compromised. Ultimately, these practices make us less safe. https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/surveillance-without-suspicion https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/surveillance-without-suspicion Right now, your social media might be mined to classify you as an "anarchist", after which you may be pulled over and arrested when you are driving close to an anti-war protest. To me, that does not sound just at all.
- 8y ago

tareqak 8y ago

In United States law, the term Glomar response, also known as Glomarization or Glomar denial, refers to a response to a request for information that will "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) the existence of the information sought [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response

trophycase 8y ago
AKA: We can't legally lie, but we also won't tell the truth to avoid damaging our reputation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

ggggtez 8y ago

Well sure. Doesn't anyone remember what Snowden was known for revealing? Why would anyone think Twitter and Facebook would be exempt from monitoring?

VerbEncroacher 8y ago

This whole conversation is a flaming turd.

openSource_lol 8y ago

If you pay attention to enough tech talks, “open source intel” is wonk parlance for “we are watching every move for everyone ever, all over the internet, especially in the places where people feel like they can speak freely.” That term, “open source intel” is dropped with a wink, by every security goon, in at least one slide at every security conference.