Police Chief Tells Parents To Hack Kids' Facebook Accounts

from the trust-is-so-last-century dept

Chrys Matyszcyk points us to a report about how a police chief in New Jersey is running seminars for parents on how to hack their kids' Facebook accounts and install spyware and keyloggers to spy on everything they do. There's so much wrong with the claims by Mahwah Police Chief James Batelli, it's difficult to know where to start.

"Trust sounds good. It's a good cliche," says Batelli. "[But] to stick your head in the sand and think that, in 9th, 10th, 8th grade, your child is not going to be exposed to alcohol, is not going to be exposed to drugs is kind of a naïve way to go about it."

First of all, what's "cliche" about trust? Does he even know what the word means? But, really, the following sentence suggests he doesn't understand what trust means. It doesn't mean kids won't be exposed to such things, but that you trust them to know how to deal with it when they are. And the best way to do that is not to set up a relationship built on distrust, spying and lies, but to treat them with a modicum of respect, admitting that they'll almost certainly come across these kinds of situations, and helping them understand what it means, and how to deal with it on their own.

"If you sugar-coat it, parents just don't get it. Read the paper any day of the week and you'll see an abduction [or] a sexual assault that's the result of an Internet interaction or a Facebook comment."

Really? Prove it. I read an awful lot of news about things happening on social networks, and I can't recall any such story, let alone "any day of the week." That doesn't mean it hasn't happened -- I'm sure there are some cases here or there, but the fear mongering about kids being abducted over Facebook are blown way out of proportion. And, again, this is something that can be dealt with by education, teaching kids to be aware of what they're doing online and teaching them about self-respect -- which is a bit more difficult to do when their parents are spying on them.

Amusingly, the article also quotes a parent, Carolyn Blake, who secretly installed a keylogger and spies on her kids. Later in the article, she mentions that she thinks her teenager figured out there's a keylogger there. Well, if he hasn't yet, I would imagine that having her tell the story, with her real name, in a major media publication probably is going to get back to him.

The real issue here is that so many people seem to think that there are two and only two options when it comes to parenting in such situations: let kids be free to wander into dangerous predator-filled waters totally unprepared, or to spy on them. Of course, that's not true. There are a range of ways to deal with these issues, and it all starts with actually educating kids about what sorts of things and challenges they're likely to come across as they grow up (both online and offline) and preparing them for when they inevitably face those scenarios. The kids won't always respond as the parent wants (what kids do?), but it's a part of growing up. Spying on their every move doesn't prepare them for anything.

Filed Under: children, hacking, social networks, trust
Companies: facebook

Syria & Sudan Hoping That Greater Social Network Use Will Keep Regimes In Power

from the interesting-reaction dept

With the protests leading to political change in Tunisia and Egypt getting so much attention (including for the role played by social media as a part of that), there have been questions about what country is "next." So it's interesting to see that the governments in both Syria and Sudan appear to think that social media tools may work more in their favor than against them. Wired reports that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, an indicted war criminal, has announced that he wants to extend computer and internet usage among the youth, in the belief that young, connected people will "combat opposition" to the regime, rather than enhance it.

Meanwhile over in Syria, the government has lifted (widely ignored) bans on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter as part of an attempt to create a "new era" in the Middle East.

Whether or not either of these strategies will work for the regimes in charge remains to be seen -- but it's yet another reminder that technology does not inherently favor any particular party, but can be put to use for very different purposes by different groups.

Filed Under: internet, social networks, sudan, syria

Can A Judge Force A Juror To Reveal Facebook Account Info?

from the we-may-soon-find-out dept

And here we go with yet another case about courts struggling with the idea that jurors use social networking tools. In the latest in a long line of such cases, a juror in a case about a gang beating, named Arturo Ramirez, has been ordered to turn over information from his Facebook account, after another juror claimed that Ramirez had broken the rules by mentioning the case on Facebook. Apparently Ramirez's big violation was to wonder if the case could "get any more BORING" on his Facebook account. Rather than just respond to that issue, the defense attorneys in the case sent a subpoena to Facebook asking for Ramirez' full account info. Facebook noted that giving out such info would clearly violate both the Stored Communications Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The judge, in attempting to get around those laws, has ordered Ramirez to sign a consent form allowing Facebook to hand over the info... or face contempt of court charges.

While I agree that it wasn't the smartest move by Ramirez to mention the case on Facebook, the reaction seems to go way beyond reasonable. In particular, having the judge basically force Ramirez to give up the rights granted by the SCA and ECPA seems to go way over the line. Ramirez is planing to appeal the order, as it clearly seems to go against the basic structure of those two laws to then force someone to give up those protections or risk a contempt of court claim. And, honestly, given that Facebook communications tend to be the sort of thing you say to your friends, when you step back and think about it, imagine if Ramirez had simply made the same point to a friend one day during the case. Would the court really go to such extreme lengths in such a scenario?

Filed Under: ecpa, juries, privacy, social networks, stored communications act
Companies: facebook

Dating Site's Plans To Create Profiles By Scraping Social Networks: Publicity Stunt Or Just Dumb?

from the lawsuit-waiting-to-happen dept

If you thought Match.com was in legal trouble due to dead or fake profiles, just imagine the legal issues facing an Australian dating site that claims it's going to scrape social networking profiles and turn them into dating site profiles. I'm not even going to mention the name of the company, because I'm pretty sure this was just a publicity stunt to get its name in the press, before "backing away" from the plan. If it's an actual plan, it's stupid. Not just because of the potential privacy concerns and lawsuits, and not just because some of the social networks from which they scrape the info may find ways to sue them as well, but because this seems like a terrible strategy for a dating site. I mean, if you're looking to find a dating site where you're likely to actually meet someone, are you going to use the site where the vast majority of the "members" don't even know they're members? It's hard to see how that makes for a compelling pitch. And I'm not even getting into what will happen when it starts creating profiles of people who are married or in long term relationships...

Filed Under: dating, scraping, social networks

Does It Violate The Law To Fire Someone For Their Facebook Comments?

from the just-might... dept

Michael Scott points us to a discussion highlighting a recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that suggests companies cannot fire employees for things like complaining about their boss on Facebook. The NLRB apparently stated that such complaining about the boss is a "protected concerted activity" under the NLRA. It's been a long time since I was up-to-date on my labor law knowledge (even though I do have a degree in the subject), but this seems like a pretty extreme ruling. If people were fired for actually using Facebook to organize collective action, I could understand it, but it's not really clear that just bitching about your boss really qualifies. That said, it's not clear that it's particularly smart to (a) bitch about your boss on Facebook where they might see it or (b) for a company to react by firing any employee who does that. Neither move makes that much sense. The company definitely seems to be overreacting, but to stretch that to say it's a violation of the law doesn't make much sense.

Filed Under: comments, labor law, social networks
Companies: facebook

Facebook's 3rd Biggest Advertiser Accused Of Being Affiliate Toolbar Scam; Facebook Says It's Never Heard Of The Company

from the just-like-the-old-days... dept

There have been numerous reports lately concerning just how much money Facebook is making on ads. That's part of the reason it was able to get that otherworldly $50 billion valuation from some. However, some are noticing something fishy in the Facebook ad business. After seeing an AdAge article mention in passing that the third largest advertiser on Facebook is not a household namebrand, but rather Make-My-Baby.com. Google's spam-catcher-in-chief Matt Cutts did some digging and quickly noticed that the site appears to be a sketchy toolbar installer that tries to switch you to using Bing, and then it gets an affiliate cut of any search ads you click on going forward. Cutts also points out that the URL to tell you how to uninstall the toolbar leads to a 404 page not found -- and many folks have had difficulty uninstalling the toolbar.

Marshall Kirkpatrick, over at ReadWriteWeb, digs in deeper and wonders if anyone at Facebook or Microsoft is actually minding the store. Even if they didn't directly know this was happening, if this is really the third largest advertiser on Facebook, both of those companies had to know something was up, just based on the numbers. A company like Facebook is intimately aware of its third biggest advertiser, and if the company is really driving that much traffic to Bing, then Microsoft would surely know about it as well.

Of course, this is where the story gets more bizarre. While Microsoft's response to this story was to cut off the company, Facebook's response was to claim that the company isn't an advertiser at all, let alone the third largest advertiser on the site. So how is it that reports suggest the company is the third largest advertiser, when Facebook claims they're not an advertiser at all? The company does have a slight hedge, by saying that "any affiliates that try to push people there we would shut down." So it's possible that it was hidden through some sort of affiliate setup before Facebook caught it -- but no one seems to be revealing any of the details.

Either way, all of this sounds quite reminiscent of the old adware days, where all sorts of sketchy companies would trick people into installing software to scrape up affiliate revenue. We hadn't seen much of that lately, as many of the old players eventually got wiped out, but it's hardly a surprise that similar schemes would quickly jump up in a Facebook world, whether or not it was officially through Facebook's advertising functionality.

Filed Under: advertising, affiliates, social networks, toolbars
Companies: facebook, microsoft

If You're Going To Court To Prove Harrah's Is Not Your Employer, Probably Don't List Harrah's On Your LinkedIn Profile

from the just-a-tip dept

Yet another story of someone running into trouble in court due to their social networking profile. A guy sued Harrah's, claiming he was fired in an age discrimination suit. In an effort to get out of it, Harrah's claimed it never really employed the guy. Instead, it noted that he had been employed by the Grand, which was then bought by a subsidiary of Harrah's, and thus it was the subsidiary who should be considered the employer for the sake of the lawsuit. The guy debunked this by showing that he'd been given a Harrah's employee handbook, and his paychecks came from Harrah's. But, sealing the deal was that Harrah's own witness who tried to tell the court that the subsidiary (for which he worked) was not Harrah's listed Harrah's as his employer in his LinkedIn profile, and when confronted tried to claim it wasn't really his profile:

the evidence supporting Defendants’ explanation for Plaintiff’s termination consists primarily of Hirsch’s testimony, and Hirsch was not a credible witness. Notably, Hirsch testified that he did not work for Defendants even though he listed [Harrah's] as his employer on his LinkedIn page. When confronted with this inconsistency, Hirsch could not offer an explanation except to state that it was not his LinkedIn page. This assertion was incredible given that Hirsch had already verified all of the information contained on the LinkedIn page as being accurate. This and other inconsistencies and illogical conclusions discredit Hirsch’s testimony that Plaintiff’s Action Plan was intended to improve Plaintiff’s performance.

Filed Under: evidence, social networks
Companies: harrah's, linkedin

FakeCelebrity Twitterers And Bloggers May Face Jail In California

from the that'll-go-over-well dept

We've already noted how California law makes it a crime to "personate" someone by pretending to be them, but with the new year, apparently such laws have been strengthened even more in California, with potential fines and jail time for those who:

"knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person"

While it may be questionable as to whether or not someone setting up a fake Twitter or blog account actually qualifies as having the intention of "harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person," you can pretty much guarantee that some celebrity thus impersonated will test the law on this, and make arguments as to how such impersonators really harmed, intimidated or defrauded. Hopefully the courts are quick to make sure that, if this law is even considered legal, that it's limited in ways to avoid coming down on people just setting up fun joke accounts.

Filed Under: california, impersonations, social networks

Should MySpace Friends & Photos Be Enough Evidence To Convict Someone Of Criminal Gang Activity

from the guilty-by-myspace-association dept

Gangs and gang violence may be a serious problem in some areas, but does that mean we should make people guilty based on very loose associations? Venkat Balasubramani has a post about a recent appeals court ruling in Ohio, in which some defendants were convicted of "participation in criminal gang activity," almost entirely based on their MySpace friends and photographs. The police officers initially testified that gang members were using social networking sites more and more frequently, and then went full on charging guilt by association:

Officer Criss . . . noted [defendants] were friends on MySpace. Mr. Owens was pictured in two photographs on Mr. McCraney's MySpace page. In one of the photographs, Mr. Owens was wearing all black and he was standing with several other people who were wearing all black, or black and red. Further, several of the people in the photograph were displaying gang hand signs. The other photograph from Mr. McCraney's page depicted [defendants, along with] a known gang member.

Officer Criss also discussed photographs taken from Mr. Owens' own MySpace page. One of the photographs depicted Mr. Owens in a red hat and a fur coat. Officer Criss said this was significant because red is a gang color and the fur coat is a status symbol in the gang community. In addition, Mr. Owens' gold teeth were also alluded to as being a status symbol. Another photograph from Mr. Owens' MySpace page depicted Mr. Owens holding a large sum of cash and wearing red and black clothing. Further, dollar signs are superimposed all over the photograph. Again Officer Criss stated that red and black are associated with the Bloodline gangs and the money symbols and the display of a large amount of cash represented that Mr. Owens was able to get large sums of money.

This was pretty much the crux of the evidence of gang activity. The court also heard that one of the defendants had a previous conviction for dealing marijuana, and the police noted that "gangs primarily are involved with the sale of drugs," but no other evidence was used to tie that conviction to any actual gang activity. That seems like incredibly thin evidence, but the court decided that it was sufficient to prove criminal gang activity.

One judge dissented, noting just how thin the evidence appeared to be:

Essentially, the majority's decision allows one to conclude that someone actively participates in a criminal gang if that person has committed theft or drug crimes in the past, wears one color associated with a gang, and associates with people who are in a gang or who make gang hand signs. I also find it troubling that the majority suggests that despite the lack of evidence concerning the significant indicators of participation in gang activity, the gap in the evidence is satisfied simply because an officer stated that he believed Mr. Owens actively participated in a criminal gang.

That judge also details how even the thin evidence was even thinner than the court suggested. It noted that none of the photographs with gang members even appeared on this guy's own MySpace website, but on another's. And he wasn't seen making the gang hand signs in any of them -- others are. In other words, if you're in a photo on a social network with people making gang signs and wearing some rather common colors that are also associated with a gang, you can be convicted of criminal gang activities. That doesn't seem right.

Filed Under: evidence, gangs, social networks
Companies: myspace

Is There Any Actual Proof A House Was Robbed Due To A Facebook Status Update?

from the somewhere?--anywhere? dept

Back in September, we noted our skepticism of some police and press reports about burglars using Facebook to pick their targets. It makes for a good story, but it just seems like an incredibly inefficient way to go about things -- and even with certain Facebook status updates, you have no idea if that means everyone in the house is gone. It just seems a hell of a lot easier to use other methods. Yet, because it's online and police and the press love to jump to conclusions, we've now got another similar report -- this time by the BBC, involving police in the UK warning people that Facebook updates are a burglary risk. The evidence for this? A woman whose house was robbed thinks it's because her kids posted a Facebook update about how they were going to be out getting a dog that day. Actual evidence to support that? None. Did they catch the burglar and find out it was a Facebook friend? Nope. Did they even review the Facebook friends? Doesn't sound like it. So why does everyone jump to these conclusions?

Filed Under: evidence, moral panics, robberies, social networks