Germany Tells Facebook To Destroy Face Recognition Database

Yes, Friends Can Share Your Facebook Profile With The Police

from the and-it-doesn't-violate-the-4th-amendment dept

Thu, Aug 16th 2012 8:38pm — Mike Masnick

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

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mark, 16 Aug 2012 @ 8:51pm

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.
I'm probably going to be flagged for aiding and abetting, but wouldn't this make more sense.

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 thread ]
Mark, 16 Aug 2012 @ 8:53pm

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.
I'm probably going to be flagged for aiding and abetting, but wouldn't this make more sense.

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 thread ]
Chargone (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 8:56pm

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 thread ]
Chargone (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 8:56pm

Re:
ahh. there we go.

also: exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

THEMIS KOUTRAS (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:29pm

about law
I THINK THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE MOST IMPORTENT THING IN ALL THE COSMOS WITHOUT IT PEOPLE RUN THERE OWN LAW THIS IS GRATE IF THEY OBAY GODS LAWS BY NATURE BEING TRUE FAD INCOME CHRISTIANS WHICH THEY BRAKE NO LAWS BUT IF THEY ARE NOT THIS BECOME CHAOS EVEN THOSE FAKE CHRISTIANS NOT THE TRUE ONES BUT THE FAKE ONES CAN KILL ROB SO ON CREATING EVIL CONTINUESLY IF THERE WAS NO LAW IN OUR PART OF THE COUNTRY THERE IS FREEDOM WHERE WE CAN DO WHAT WE WONT TRUE YOU CAN BECOME A PERSON THAT DOES LEAGUEL THINGS OR NOT NOW THAT IS FREEDOM YET WITH THE LAW OF FREEDOM SO SHOULD THE LAW BE PERMITED TO DO WHAT THEY WONT SINCE THEY UPHOLD THE LAW THEY CAN ARREST THOSE THAT DONT DO LAW BECAUSE THEY SAID SO BEEN CHARDGE BUT WITH THIS LAW OF FREEDOM OF HAVING NO LAW MEANS THAT THE LAW SHOULD BE OBSERVED OBAYED MORE AND NOT LESS LIKE SOME PEOPLE MAY MISSINTERPRITE BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE ABOVE THE LAW NO NOT ONE BUT GOD NOW GOD CAN DO WHAT HE LIKES WITH THIS LAW BEING GOD GOD NEVER DISOBAYS HIS LAW HE PROVED THAT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST THEREFORE EVEN THE LAW BETTER WATCH OUT AND OBAY TO THERE BEST IN OTHER WORDS THE LAW IS FOR ALL AND FOR THE LAW AS WELL AS GOD NOW TO OBAY THE LAW IS SIMPLE LIKE YOU WORSHIP GOD HE THEN SEES YOUR HEART IF HE IS PLEASED THEN HE IS BECAUSE YOU OBAY IF NOT HE WILL HELP YOU LEARN TO OBAY AND IT WORKS LIKE THIS I FOUND OUT IN JAIL PEOPLE ARE ARRESTED WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE DO AT THAT TIME AS LAW IS CNSERNED OTHEWIZE WE WILL DO LAW AND NOT CRIME A PRECHER IS SENT IN THE JAIL EVENTIOLY AFTER EGNORING HIM/HER FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG WE COME TO OUR SENSES AND LEARN THE LAW WE THEN REPENT BECOME TRUE CHRISTIANS AND WHEN WE LEAVE REALEASED FROM SENTENCE WE GO STRAIGHT TO HELP OTHERS SO CRISTIANS THEN ARE LEAD TO HELP OTHER BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY HAS SUCCESS BY THE LAW SYSTEM JESUS CHRIST CAME TO SET PRIZONERS FREE MEANNING THOSE THAT REPENT AND TURN AWAY FROM EVIL AND NOT THE ONES THAT HERT THE PUBLIC SO AS EVERYONE KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW CRIME IN SO ON IS MAD A ILNESS THE LAW KNOWS THAT BUT UNTIL GOD FINDS A CURE THEY GOT TO BE PUT AWAY THAT IS CRIMINALS SO ON SO THE DEASESES DONT SPREAD THERE IS A CURE IT IS CALLED COME TO YOUR RIGHT MIND OF THINKING REPENT FROM EVIL TURN TO JESUS BECOME A CHRISTIAN AND DONT GO BACK TO YOUR OLD WAYS OF EVIL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:34pm

This makes common sense to me and it is a civic duty to actually report first hand knowledge of felony's to appropriate authorities.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:37pm

Re: about law
Damn it.. I actually tried to read all that wall of shouting..

Now my brain hurts.

Note to self: Walls of shouting are bad for your sanity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vog (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:43pm

Re: about law
I... can't believe I actually read this whole comment.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:47pm

Your best friend, your worst enemy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:51pm

https://developers.google.com/bigquery/

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 thread ]
Wally (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:52pm

"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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:56pm

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/08/two-connected-car-studies/

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 thread ]
Wally (profile), 16 Aug 2012 @ 9:57pm

Re: about law
Win for the biggest wall of fail ever. Not only did you win the gold medal for pointless trollish dribble, but you also got perfect scores in giving the judges headaches. You got last place for subtlety though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2012 @ 10:06pm

Wired is on a roll today, geezus.

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 thread ]
drew (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 12:31am

Re: about law
Wow. That is, just, well, wow.
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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 12:40am

Re: Re: about law
Whatever you do NEVER click on the link on his name and read, ok.. try to read, the site he has... umm in the interest of diplomacy I will say.. created

Oh gawd... my brain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 1:17am

Re:
Since the only real secrets are the ones known by less than two people.

What about one person and his pet cat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 2:35am

Re: Re:
Cat's don't actually exist.. it says so right their in small Planck constant sized letters on Shrodinger's box and instead are a solipsistic dream.

To state otherwise would be proof positive that not everything in the universe serves a purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 4:38am

Re:
I agree with this. Anyone who commits a crime and posts it on Facebook (or any other social site, for that matter) is an idiot who deserves everything they get.

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 thread ]
abc gum, 17 Aug 2012 @ 4:54am

Re: about law
Think I'll share your comment with the police.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 17 Aug 2012 @ 4:54am

Re: Re:
Ceiling cat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re: about law
....must...resist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 6:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
aargh! my eyes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2012 @ 6:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
Why did we open that site?! WHY!?

Oh the folly of my hubris! I thought I was prepared! I thought I could take it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick Smith (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 7:30am

Re: Re: Re: about law
That was just cruel.

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 thread ]
Atkray (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: Re: about law
Thanks for the heads up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devils_Advocate (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 7:46am

Couple of thoughts...
Maybe it's me, but this matter doesn't appear totally black and white.

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 thread ]
dennis deems, 17 Aug 2012 @ 7:52am

broadcast to the wider world
The article said:

Colon�s legitimate expectation of privacy ended when he disseminated posts to his "friends" because those "friends" were free to use the information however they wanted-including sharing it with the Government.

To support this position, Judge Pauley III cited a case that confirmed the government can listen in on phone calls without a warrant provided that one of the people on the call gives it permission to do so.

But Wiki P sez:

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth.[22] The Court's reasoning was that 1) Charles Katz expected that his phonebooth conversation would not be broadcast to the wider world and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2012 @ 7:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
Hmm. PeerBlock blocked Shouter-Guy's website. I wonder why???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems, 17 Aug 2012 @ 8:00am

Re: Couple of thoughts...
Well it's clear from the article that the "friend" was really a police informant, so of course he's not going to confront the guy before violating his trust. It does seem a slippery slope to me. I give ten friends keys to my FB page or keys to my apartment. What's the difference, constitutionally, when one of the friends passes the key along to the police?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: about law
Subtle trolling is the best trolling don't you think ...

muwahahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
velox (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 8:55am

Re: broadcast to the wider world
Katz v. US says that the government can't tap your phone call without a warrant. It does not say what the person on the other end of that phone call is allowed to do after you talk to them. If you use the phone to discuss a crime you have committed, the other party is allowed to tell the police.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 10:20am

Re: about law
This is the most awesome comment I've read here all week!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems, 17 Aug 2012 @ 11:04am

Re: 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".

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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 17 Aug 2012 @ 11:05am

Common Sense
> if one of your friends shares your Facebook
> 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2012 @ 7:11pm

Re: about law
"True fad income Christians"? I'm not familiar with that sect. Is that some new Hollywood trend like Kabbalah or Scientology?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2012 @ 7:15pm

Re: broadcast to the wider world
So much for the "Katz don't exist" theory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2012 @ 7:27pm

Re: Common Sense
A person would have to be a real idiot to go to the cops and say, "Hey, you're not gonna believe what I found in this guy's house when I broke in to steal his TV!". Reminds me of a case a few years ago when a guy broke into the apartment below his and found naked pictures of his sister, went to the cops about it, and ended up being charged with the burglary. Not smart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Rowe, 19 Aug 2012 @ 7:56am

Three felonies a day ....
Let's not forget that we all commit three felonies a day. See threefelonies.com for more info. ;-)

The solution to this problem is not to use Facebook or any other social media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
deems, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:47am

Re: Common Sense
Except that a "friend" giving cops access to my FB page isn't analogous to a burglar running to the cops and reporting about something he claims to have seen in my house. It's analogous to him inviting the cops in my front door and leading them on a tour of my home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:05pm

Re: Re: Common Sense
> A person would have to be a real idiot to go to the cops
> 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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:06pm

Re: Re: Common Sense
> It's analogous to him inviting the cops in my front door and
> 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 thread ]