Yes, Friends Can Share Your Facebook Profile With The Police
from the and-it-doesn't-violate-the-4th-amendment dept
Jeff Roberts has the details of a ruling in which a judge said that if one of your friends shares your Facebook profile with the police, they haven't violated your 4th Amendment rights. This actually seems pretty straightforward and reasonable. Unlike some other recent rulings, this isn't a case where police are getting access to information that some others might have access to through other means. Individuals can share what they know with law enforcement, and if you reveal criminal activity to them, that's fair game. It seems like the real lesson here is, if you're (a) going to commit crimes and (b) brag about them on Facebook then (c) you should probably know who your friends are.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: friends, police, privacy, social networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It seems like the real lesson here is, if you're (a) going to commit crimes and (b)
brag about them on Facebook then (c) you should probably know who your friends are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
other than adding a line-break type dealy there...
did you actually change anything that i'm missing?
because it looks like you just repeated what Mike said there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems like the real lesson here is, if you're (a) going to commit crimes and (b) DON'T brag about them on Facebook then (c) there is no c.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
also: exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about law
Now my brain hurts.
Note to self: Walls of shouting are bad for your sanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about law
I mean, earlier someone predicted that people would be making outrageous comments to score First Word/Last Word slots, but this is something else altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about law
Spelling mistakes, all caps, no punctuation, random religious claptrap, snakeoil and the barest relevance to the post.
I don't know whether to report it or mark it funny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: about law
Oh gawd... my brain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
Oh the folly of my hubris! I thought I was prepared! I thought I could take it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: about law
Why must I be one of those button pushers when I see a big red button that says 'Don't Push!'.
I will remember this sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
muwahahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact not reporting used used to be a misdemeanour in common law countries under the offence of misprision (of felony). It has now been removed from the whole of the UK and Australia (think NZ & Canada too) though you guys in the US still have it in the federal books under 18 USC §4 (though it's more an active concealment instead of pure failure - so more abbetting).
But it all goes to show if you want things private DONT PLACE THEM ON FACEBOOK or the internet! Since the only real secrets are the ones known by less than two people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about one person and his pet cat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To state otherwise would be proof positive that not everything in the universe serves a purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he should have used the Google's Bigquery to see the outcome of such things before he did it :)
On an unrelated note have anybody read the white paper about Google's Dremel?
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/08/google-dremel-versus-hadoop/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would probably change C to "you're a bleeding moron" but I digress. Mike, I think you put it a tad more delicately than I could :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought it was hilarious last summer when the people looting in London put up videos of themselves doing so on Youtube.
Then there are people who claim disability benefit or are claiming injury to collect insurance and post videos of themselves rock climbing/playing football etc.
Do they not realise just how stupid they are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if, it is not your friend doing the talking but your car?
And a funny one.
Impersonating a cop to get out of tickets it is not protected speech this one too seems a good ruling.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/impersonating-cops-ruling/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/your-digital-life-for-a-donut-the-price-of-paying-w ith-your-phone/
By the looks of it the micropayment sector is about to become a warzone.
Everybody and their cat are gearing up to launch some kind of service in the sector except the entertainment industry apparently that has a focus elsewhere LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couple of thoughts...
First of all, the post and some of the commenters appear to be saying it's okay for others to reproduce the contents of someone else's FB PROFILE for police, based merely on an ASSUMPTION that a crime has been displayed.
Q. Isn't there a "slippery slope" argument to that kind of reasoning?
Q. Would it not make a difference if the FB user in question was only sharing with a limited circle of friends?
Q. If you were in this person's limited circle of friends, would you not confront your friend about his actions, before possibly violating his privacy, along with the trust he had in you?
Q. Are we talking about only those that openly share, with everyone, actual, BONA FIDE criminal activities, which are not "open to debate", and which they may be bragging about? Or, are we saying it's okay for people to pass judgement on anything they THINK might constitute a crime, and rat that friend out by exposing an otherwise private page (should the privacy settings be set to not expose it to "everyone")?
Just a few thoughts that came to mind when I read this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couple of thoughts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
broadcast to the wider world
But Wiki P sez:
I'm no constitutional lawyer but these seem a bit contradictory. My facebook profile is limited to friends precisely because I don't want it "broadcast to the wider world". That expectation is unreasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: broadcast to the wider world
The case Judge Pauley discussed was US v. Barone, 1990. The Barone case said that if your "friend" on the other end of the phone call is willing to tell the police what you have said, then there is no difference between that and allowing the police to directly listen in as you talk to your "friend".
In this current case involving facebook, Judge Pauley is concluding that when your "friend" allows the police to see information on Facebook it is no different than if your "friend" had allowed the police to listen in on your conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: broadcast to the wider world
Thanks for clarifying. That 1990 decision strikes me as quite bizarre. Has there been no criticism of it? I searched a little bit on the webs but found nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: broadcast to the wider world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common Sense
> profile with the police, they haven't violated
> your 4th Amendment rights
Not even a close question. Of course your friends haven't violated your 4th Amendment rights if the rat out your FB profile to the cops. Has nothing to do with computers, FB, or fancy new technology. The reason is simple: the 4th Amendment only applies to actions by the government, not private citizens.
If someone breaks into your house to steal your TV and finds evidence of a murder (dead body, Silence of the Lambs dungeon, whatever), and they run away and tell the cops about it, you can't have the evidence suppressed by claiming the thief violated your 4th Amendment rights because he didn't have a warrant when he broke into your house. Only the cops need a warrant to make evidence admissible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common Sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Common Sense
> and say, "Hey, you're not gonna believe what I found
> in this guy's house when I broke in to steal his TV!".
Happens all the time with snitches. They find out stuff while committing their own crimes and trade it to the officers that handle them for consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common Sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Common Sense
> leading them on a tour of my home.
Only if your home is owned by Mark Zuckerberg and is located on his corporate campus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three felonies a day ....
The solution to this problem is not to use Facebook or any other social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]