Should Police Be Arrested For Illegal Hacking For Setting Up Fake Facebook Profile?
from the we-should-be-fair,-right? dept
In the Lori Drew case, she was convicted for "computer hacking" because she violated MySpace's terms of service by setting up a profile of a fake person. And for this, she deserves years in jail? Well, if that's the case, reader Roni Evron wants to know if some police officers are going to face the same charges after they set up a fake Facebook profile in order to bust up an after-prom high school party. Apparently, they set up a fake Facebook profile and friended a bunch of the kids at school, who apparently were "cavalier about accepting people into their network of friends." That, of course, is fine... but it's basically the same thing that Drew was arrested and convicted of doing.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hacking, lori drew, terms of service
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isn't this entrapment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this entrapment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this entrapment?
Fair Lawn P.D. (201)796-1400. Talk to Chief of Police Erik W Rose re: the unlawful actions of Police Sgt. Derek Bastinck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this entrapment?
Fair Lawn P.D. (201)796-1400. Talk to Chief of Police Erik W Rose re: the unlawful actions of Police Sgt. Derek Bastinck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, unlike the police, Drew was not thinking of the children. And, as you probably know, ever since the Helen Lovejoy Act was passed in 2008, thinking of the children is now the sole basis of all criminal laws in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, is there a minimum number of children you have to be thinking about before "hacking" a social media site is okay?
Typing that last sentence kinda made me feel dirty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The act specifically uses "the children." Apparently, under the law thinking only of your own children is not good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
off subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it repulsive that any educated person could shrug this behavior off as "fine". These dipshit cops had nothing better to do than to go far out of their way in setting up a sting operation for a frickin' high school prom party?? While Lori Drew's actions had more unfortunate consequences, I personally find the cops' actions to be considerably more despicable given their power and responsibility to the public, which they have abused horribly to no evident benefit but to be able to harm the lives of a bunch of young teenagers happy to be graduating from high school.
Thinking this sort of stuff is "fine" is the next step along the way to an official Gestapo-esque thought police...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: children drunk killed
1). O.D. on booze, happens all the time.
2). Fall over balcony's and die. Again, happens all the time.
3). Killed in car accident. Car meats tree, tree wins.
but, I bet you don't care how many kid's die. They shouldn't be given a chance to a longer life and not making the mistakes we made.
fuck off and dye Ryan, because thats all you are wishing on the children by your bull shit fucking attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: children drunk killed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: children drunk killed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: children drunk killed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: children drunk killed
> killed because they were trashed.
I'd say that's too bad, but that's life. You make choices and sometimes they're bad ones and bad things happen.
> Car meats tree, tree wins.
It's "meets", not "meats".
> bet you don't care how many kid's die
It's "kids" not "kid's".
> They shouldn't be given a chance to a longer
> life and not making the mistakes we made.
This sentence makes absolutely no linguistic sense. Is English your second language?
> fuck off and dye Ryan
It's "die", not "dye" - unless you're suggesting he go dip himself in some kind of colored stain.
Seems like you could do with a little more high-schoolin' yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any trial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is a hint, if you are going to break the law, don't talk about your plans on Myspace.
Ryan, they didn't set up a sting, they just read about where the party was going to be, its not like they said they were throwing a party for underage people and arrested who showed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The big thing is the owner of the house gets a fine per kid for contributing to a minor even if they did not know about it or supply the alcohol.
I know this because some thing similar happened at a party just after graduation when I was 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, I don't agree. Those kids would have been taken off the streets that night. Thankfully, not in jail. But home where they would have a MUCH better chance at survival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some times I really wonder where peoples logic is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely, they should be arrested
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparently...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so... TOS are now law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My God...talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth. One the one hand it is said that internet sites are a good way for law enforcement to monitor the potential for criminal activity. Now it seems that by doing so they should be deemed guilty of engaging in illegl activity.
Sorry, but to compare Ms. Drew's case with this activity is so far off the mark it astounds me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. Way to miss the point. I don't think it's illegal. I'm pointing out that if you think what Drew did was illegal, then this should be illegal... Get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, except for the fact that Ms. Drew was charged with using a false identity to gain access to a site in order to commit an intentional tort...the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Several felony counts were alleged in the indictment, but in the end the jury elected to convict her on lesser included misdemeanor counts, and was unable to achieve unanimity on at least one count of criminal conspiracy.
Without a doubt Ms. Drew will be sued (if she already has not) by the parents of the young girl in a civil action including, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, etc. I would not hold my breath that she will be found not liable under the law.
The civil case notwithstanding, a criminal indictment was certainly not unexpected, though the statute utilized was unusual in the sense that it was a matter of first impression before the court. Will the conviction stand up when it is most certainly appealled is a matter of debate within legal circles, but clearly there is no overwhelming consensus that her conviction will be overturned.
It does bear mentioning that at this point in time the court has before it a motion for the conviction to be vacated. If it is vacated the government will likely appeal. If it is not the defendant will likely appeal. No matter what happens, this criminal case is far from over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> identity to gain access to a site in order
> to commit an intentional tort.
That's not what she was charged with at all. She was charged with using a false identity in violation of the web site's Terms of Service. Nothing in her charging document even mentions intentional torts, nor are they an element of the crime. (Nor could they be because torts are civil wrongs, not criminal wrongs.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Drew case was about a violation of the terms of service witch turned into a hacking charge. Drew created (or had created for her) a fake MySpace page and that is the only thing she was accused of (under the law).
The cops created a fake MySpace page. They lied about who they were and what they were doing. It's the same damn thing (under the law) as the Drew case.
I keep adding "under the law" because the law is suppose to be blind. Thus, Drew was sentenced exclusively for violating the terms of service, nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the point isn't that the cops broke the "law". the point is that now that thanks to the judicial travesty that was the lori drew case, the cops have now broken the law.
cops setting up a sting to catch teenagers via facebook is super lame, but being lame shouldn't be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples and Oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to think about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, defense attorneys should be able to say that this method of gathering evidence is criminal, and I would assume that they can get any evidence obtain from a fake profile (in a case like this, or in a case similar to what was done on Dateline)to be declared as illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral Duplicity
The New York Times screams moral outrage when it comes to strip searching a 13 year old girl based on a false accusation but then is silent concerning demands by the content industry that ISPs "filter" internet traffic without any due process or even probable cause. Seems to me that the concept of "justice" for the Times is a matter or perspective and not law.
Please see: Piracy and the Legal System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only that, but it seemed to me that I got punished harder for the things I did because I "represent the country".
Also, I am friends with a few cops and I'd say that they aren't any more or less corrupt than the rest of us.. with exceptions on either side, of course.
Politicans-- yeah, they're all corrupt, as far as I can tell.
Not that it has any bearing on the focus of your rant, I just wanted to set the record straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police on facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Undercover?
I know what you are saying and agree that it was a travesty to charge her with hacking offencess, but seriously isn't there isn't a better example somewhere other than cops doing their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doing their jobs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are sheep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are sheep
You call us sheep, I call you a sheep for following the emotional flash mob that cropped up. Or maybe you're calling us sheep because we try to follow the original ideals that were setup at the beginning, like freedom from wrongful prosecution (and having blind justice, that kind of thing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
above the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'll all be ok soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it just me, or has the already low reading comprehension abilities of TechMud commenters hit rock bottom? It was Facebook people, not MySpace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do As I Say - Not As I Do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Stings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest Law Enforcement ICAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VERY IMPORTANT
can someone please tell me if police are allowed to hack facebook-profiles to check face-chat if they suspect someone?
ty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]