4 ms·

I hope there's some discretion used here based on the nature of the request. Child Sextortion (send me naked photos or record these sex acts with your sibling o

I hope there's some discretion used here based on the nature of the request. Child Sextortion (send me naked photos or record these sex acts with your sibling or I'll send this devastating photo to all of your friends on Facebook) is a very real and frequent problem. If mom & dad show the sextortion messages to their local police detective and s/he fills out a Facebook records request to see if the suspect is victimizing other minors, will Facebook notify the suspect? The average local investigator is low-tech, has good intentions to help a victim, and has nothing to do with FISA or national security issues. I'd much rather see a tech company say, "Hey, we're not just going to give you everything on this user. In fact, we'll notify the user unless you provide more justification or background on the reason for your request," than notify the suspect without warning. At least then the investigator can provide more info for consideration, or go back to a judge.

eipipuz 12y ago
I'm naïve, is sextortion a very real and frequent problem? Do you have stats?
- telecuda 12y ago
  I don't have stats, no, but Facebook openly acknowledges the problem at child safety conferences. Google "Facebook Child Sextortion" and you'll find your share of articles. I recognize "take my word for it" doesn't go very far!
sillysaurus3 12y ago
"Hey, we're not just going to give you everything on this user. In fact, we'll notify the user unless you provide more justification or background on the reason for your request," It seems like it isn't necessarily a good idea to let companies decide whether an individual request is justified. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's up to our society to remember that they are indeed innocent unless proven otherwise, and there's no way at that point for the investigator to prove anything. Imagine that an investigator comes to Facebook and asks them for information regarding one of Facebook's employees. Facebook asks why, and the investigator responds that they suspect they're involved in something like what you've mentioned. At that point there's a chance FB might become extremely uncomfortable retaining the services of that employee, even though nothing has actually been proven yet. Accusations like that can ruin lives. You make some good points, and it might be good to have more open communication between law enforcement and companies. It just seems a little dangerous. There are some unexpected ways that it could turn out to be a bad thing.
- telecuda 12y ago
  You make some good points as well, and I admit there's not a clear answer here. However, Facebook can very quickly look at the suspect's messages to the victim for example and see clearly if the s/he is a real threat before notifying anyone. "More open communication between law enforcement and companies" as you said is the key, especially at the state and local level.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Facebook can very quickly look at the suspect's messages to the victim for example and see clearly if the s/he is a real threat before notifying anyone. The thing is, at that point we'll have to concede that it's normal and proper for companies to be examining private communications. It's equivalent to a phone company keeping a log of all phone conversations transmitted on their network, then listening to them on a case-by-case basis. It strikes me as odd that it's illegal to do that for voice conversations but not illegal to do that for text conversations.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    Facebook can very quickly look at the suspect's messages to the victim for example and see clearly if the s/he is a real threat before notifying anyone. This is a Pandora's Box that I can pretty much guarantee Facebook does not want to open unless legislation is passed against their ever having civil or legal liability for doing so. Just speculate to the next school shooting where a parent/politician/newsperson asks "Why didn't Facebook tell us what was in their messages?"
mindslight 12y ago
You haven't provided any reasoning for why these requests need to be secret. People have the right to face their accusers, and by the time dumps of their online accounts are happening (akin to a search of their home), they should be able to exercise that right.
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  Are you suggesting all law enforcement agencies should notify a person or group prior to commencing an investigation? How amusing would it be if a detective turned up at your door and said "Oh hai! We'll be parked across the street in an unmarked vehicle for a few days while we observe your suspected illegal activities." People have the right to Habeas corpus, they shouldn't necessarily have the right to know they are under investigation. In my opinion.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    Passive surveillance is a far cry from having your home and belongings secretly searched. Standard procedure is not and should not be no-knock warrants to covertly sneak in while suspects are not home.
venomsnake 12y ago
Just a nitpick but when mom&dad know about the sextorsion it is over - every kid should hear "Calm down, it's not your fault". The dangerous situation is when the kid comply because it is afraid/ashamed to go to mom/dad. Also I am very skeptical about using "protect the children" as a policy justification. If there is policy of not notifying the child abuse suspects then every request from the prosecution office made will also have - probably the person is also an online predator. What is wrong with the concept of giving affirmative oath in front of the judge and make him sign warrant and if he deems necessary to sign also the temporary gag order.
mikeash 12y ago
Why call out "sextortion" specifically? You could just say that $CRIME is a very real and frequent problem, and if people show the $CRIME messages to their local police detective, will Facebook notify the suspect?
- telecuda 12y ago
  Hi Mike. I call it out specifically because crimes against children are a particular category of crime that deserves special attention from the community. Sextorting a business man with a picture of him having an affair and other $CRIMES 'should' be handled differently than the predator who drives a young teen to suicide or gets them to take pictures of their younger siblings, or face humiliation on a social network. In the former (businessman example), a social network has a 'right' to refuse law enforcement and notify the user. In the latter example, it's my belief (which I understand isn't popular here!) that the network has a civic 'duty' not to inform the user and to assist how they can - as many of them do right now. My question has more to do with asking if social networks will examine the background of the $CRIME before notifying the user. Phone companies recognize this distinction and, for example, will provide an emergency ping location when a child is in danger before any paper work is submitted, requiring in good faith that it will follow within 24 hours. If the following paperwork is not in order, they lose the ability to do that again. It's a wonderful thing that the average HN reader doesn't have to deal with these issues, and disappointing honestly that real questions from someone who does are heavily downvoted. But hey, it's fine not to agree with my view.
stevengg 12y ago
The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse is a term for internet criminals, or the imagery of internet criminals. A play on Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, it refers to types of criminals who use the internet to facilitate crime and consequently jeopardize the rights of honest internet users. There does not appear to be an exact definition for who the Horsemen are, but they are usually described as terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime. Other sources use slightly different descriptions but generally refer to the same types of criminals. The term was coined by Timothy C. May in 1988, who referred to them as "child pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, etc."[1] when discussing the reasons for limited civilian use of cryptography tools. Among the most famous of these is in the Cypherpunk FAQ,[2] which states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyps...
yaur 12y ago
As I understand it, things go like this. Detective: "give me all this users data and don't tell them you did." Facebook: "Without a court issued gag order we will tell the user." Detective: "Ok, I'll get a court issued gag order and get back to you." (LEO have this part down pat) So where is the problem exactly?
- darkarmani 12y ago
  > Detective: "Ok, I'll get a court issued gag order and get back to you." (LEO have this part down pat) So where is the problem exactly? Isn't the detective too late at this point? Can't they tell the user until the gag order arrives?
  - slavak 12y ago
    In that case it behooves the detective to obtain a proper warrant with or without a gag order, as necessary, before contacting them. Investigative procedure is not a new concept and we have a pretty well working system. There's really no need to give law enforcement fascist powers to do whatever they want without oversight under the excuse of "think of the children!"
  - malka 12y ago
    From my understanding, at this point if the detective still wanted the data (without a warrant), he'd get the data, but the user would be notified. However, if he gets a court order and come back to google, he will get the data without the user being notified. Basically it forces LE to go through a judge to get a warrant. This is a good thing imo.
darkarmani 12y ago
> If mom & dad show the sextortion messages to their local police detective and s/he fills out a Facebook records request to see if the suspect is victimizing other minors, will Facebook notify the suspect? Does it matter? You'll have already caught him and have the evidence.

eipipuz 12y ago

I'm naïve, is sextortion a very real and frequent problem? Do you have stats?

telecuda 12y ago
I don't have stats, no, but Facebook openly acknowledges the problem at child safety conferences. Google "Facebook Child Sextortion" and you'll find your share of articles. I recognize "take my word for it" doesn't go very far!

sillysaurus3 12y ago

"Hey, we're not just going to give you everything on this user. In fact, we'll notify the user unless you provide more justification or background on the reason for your request," It seems like it isn't necessarily a good idea to let companies decide whether an individual request is justified. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's up to our society to remember that they are indeed innocent unless proven otherwise, and there's no way at that point for the investigator to prove anything. Imagine that an investigator comes to Facebook and asks them for information regarding one of Facebook's employees. Facebook asks why, and the investigator responds that they suspect they're involved in something like what you've mentioned. At that point there's a chance FB might become extremely uncomfortable retaining the services of that employee, even though nothing has actually been proven yet. Accusations like that can ruin lives. You make some good points, and it might be good to have more open communication between law enforcement and companies. It just seems a little dangerous. There are some unexpected ways that it could turn out to be a bad thing.

telecuda 12y ago
You make some good points as well, and I admit there's not a clear answer here. However, Facebook can very quickly look at the suspect's messages to the victim for example and see clearly if the s/he is a real threat before notifying anyone. "More open communication between law enforcement and companies" as you said is the key, especially at the state and local level.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Facebook can very quickly look at the suspect's messages to the victim for example and see clearly if the s/he is a real threat before notifying anyone. The thing is, at that point we'll have to concede that it's normal and proper for companies to be examining private communications. It's equivalent to a phone company keeping a log of all phone conversations transmitted on their network, then listening to them on a case-by-case basis. It strikes me as odd that it's illegal to do that for voice conversations but not illegal to do that for text conversations.
- rhizome 12y ago
  Facebook can very quickly look at the suspect's messages to the victim for example and see clearly if the s/he is a real threat before notifying anyone. This is a Pandora's Box that I can pretty much guarantee Facebook does not want to open unless legislation is passed against their ever having civil or legal liability for doing so. Just speculate to the next school shooting where a parent/politician/newsperson asks "Why didn't Facebook tell us what was in their messages?"

mindslight 12y ago

You haven't provided any reasoning for why these requests need to be secret. People have the right to face their accusers, and by the time dumps of their online accounts are happening (akin to a search of their home), they should be able to exercise that right.

TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
Are you suggesting all law enforcement agencies should notify a person or group prior to commencing an investigation? How amusing would it be if a detective turned up at your door and said "Oh hai! We'll be parked across the street in an unmarked vehicle for a few days while we observe your suspected illegal activities." People have the right to Habeas corpus, they shouldn't necessarily have the right to know they are under investigation. In my opinion.
- mindslight 12y ago
  Passive surveillance is a far cry from having your home and belongings secretly searched. Standard procedure is not and should not be no-knock warrants to covertly sneak in while suspects are not home.

venomsnake 12y ago

Just a nitpick but when mom&dad know about the sextorsion it is over - every kid should hear "Calm down, it's not your fault". The dangerous situation is when the kid comply because it is afraid/ashamed to go to mom/dad. Also I am very skeptical about using "protect the children" as a policy justification. If there is policy of not notifying the child abuse suspects then every request from the prosecution office made will also have - probably the person is also an online predator. What is wrong with the concept of giving affirmative oath in front of the judge and make him sign warrant and if he deems necessary to sign also the temporary gag order.

mikeash 12y ago

Why call out "sextortion" specifically? You could just say that $CRIME is a very real and frequent problem, and if people show the $CRIME messages to their local police detective, will Facebook notify the suspect?

telecuda 12y ago
Hi Mike. I call it out specifically because crimes against children are a particular category of crime that deserves special attention from the community. Sextorting a business man with a picture of him having an affair and other $CRIMES 'should' be handled differently than the predator who drives a young teen to suicide or gets them to take pictures of their younger siblings, or face humiliation on a social network. In the former (businessman example), a social network has a 'right' to refuse law enforcement and notify the user. In the latter example, it's my belief (which I understand isn't popular here!) that the network has a civic 'duty' not to inform the user and to assist how they can - as many of them do right now. My question has more to do with asking if social networks will examine the background of the $CRIME before notifying the user. Phone companies recognize this distinction and, for example, will provide an emergency ping location when a child is in danger before any paper work is submitted, requiring in good faith that it will follow within 24 hours. If the following paperwork is not in order, they lose the ability to do that again. It's a wonderful thing that the average HN reader doesn't have to deal with these issues, and disappointing honestly that real questions from someone who does are heavily downvoted. But hey, it's fine not to agree with my view.

stevengg 12y ago

The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse is a term for internet criminals, or the imagery of internet criminals. A play on Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, it refers to types of criminals who use the internet to facilitate crime and consequently jeopardize the rights of honest internet users. There does not appear to be an exact definition for who the Horsemen are, but they are usually described as terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime. Other sources use slightly different descriptions but generally refer to the same types of criminals. The term was coined by Timothy C. May in 1988, who referred to them as "child pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, etc."[1] when discussing the reasons for limited civilian use of cryptography tools. Among the most famous of these is in the Cypherpunk FAQ,[2] which states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyps...

yaur 12y ago

As I understand it, things go like this. Detective: "give me all this users data and don't tell them you did." Facebook: "Without a court issued gag order we will tell the user." Detective: "Ok, I'll get a court issued gag order and get back to you." (LEO have this part down pat) So where is the problem exactly?

darkarmani 12y ago
> Detective: "Ok, I'll get a court issued gag order and get back to you." (LEO have this part down pat) So where is the problem exactly? Isn't the detective too late at this point? Can't they tell the user until the gag order arrives?
- slavak 12y ago
  In that case it behooves the detective to obtain a proper warrant with or without a gag order, as necessary, before contacting them. Investigative procedure is not a new concept and we have a pretty well working system. There's really no need to give law enforcement fascist powers to do whatever they want without oversight under the excuse of "think of the children!"
- malka 12y ago
  From my understanding, at this point if the detective still wanted the data (without a warrant), he'd get the data, but the user would be notified. However, if he gets a court order and come back to google, he will get the data without the user being notified. Basically it forces LE to go through a judge to get a warrant. This is a good thing imo.

darkarmani 12y ago

> If mom & dad show the sextortion messages to their local police detective and s/he fills out a Facebook records request to see if the suspect is victimizing other minors, will Facebook notify the suspect? Does it matter? You'll have already caught him and have the evidence.