Police Use of Social Media Surveillance Software is Escalating(aclu.org)
aclu.org
Police Use of Social Media Surveillance Software is Escalating
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/police-use-social-media-surveillance-software-escalating-and-activists-are-digital
8 comments
> surveillance works far better for the public as a whole.
A good read on the topic from Dr David Brin, http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html
A good read on the topic from Dr David Brin, http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html
This is something I would donate quite a bit of time and money to.
>It goes without saying that speaking out against police violence or government overreach shouldn’t land you in a surveillance database. But it can, and it does.
People need to realize is that social sites are voluntary surveillance platforms to begin with.
In the best of cases they surveil you to learn what advertisements to show you, but of course once the infrastructure is built, it can be put to other uses.
Social media gives the government and spy agencies undreamed of power. They don't have to create a file on each citizen, the citizen will create and update it for them!
People need to realize is that social sites are voluntary surveillance platforms to begin with.
In the best of cases they surveil you to learn what advertisements to show you, but of course once the infrastructure is built, it can be put to other uses.
Social media gives the government and spy agencies undreamed of power. They don't have to create a file on each citizen, the citizen will create and update it for them!
>Social media gives the government and spy agencies undreamed of power. They don't have to create a file on each citizen, the citizen will create and update it for them!
Which is exactly why accessing this kind of public and innocuous info needs to require a warrant when the police do it. Unreasonable surveillance/stalking of an individual is not acceptable.
We also need to clarify what "public" social media postings really mean. The intent is for a limited audience of peers to recieve postings, not the entire world, and not the police. Conflating a desire to communicate with friends with a desire to be surveilled is a mis-step that the police and state are happy to abuse.
Which is exactly why accessing this kind of public and innocuous info needs to require a warrant when the police do it. Unreasonable surveillance/stalking of an individual is not acceptable.
We also need to clarify what "public" social media postings really mean. The intent is for a limited audience of peers to recieve postings, not the entire world, and not the police. Conflating a desire to communicate with friends with a desire to be surveilled is a mis-step that the police and state are happy to abuse.
No, this is bonkers. It's like trying to defeat racial profiling by requiring policemen to wear horse-blinkers. Public is public; if you meant to send it to a limited audience, send it to that audience.
Otherwise you end up with bizarre conclusions such as police twitter accounts requiring a court order to follow someone.
A certain amount of what police properly do is "surveillance" - of a particular area or situation. What does become a problem is the use of directed police attention as harassment, for political purposes, or in a racial or otherwise discriminatory way.
Otherwise you end up with bizarre conclusions such as police twitter accounts requiring a court order to follow someone.
A certain amount of what police properly do is "surveillance" - of a particular area or situation. What does become a problem is the use of directed police attention as harassment, for political purposes, or in a racial or otherwise discriminatory way.
> The intent is for a limited audience of peers to recieve postings, not the entire world, and not the police.
You can make statements to the police that will cause you to be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned - it does not matter one bit what your "intent" was. Social media posts are no different.
If you make a public Facebook post admitting to a murder, the police should not need to get a warrant based on other evidence to get that post then arrest you.
You can make statements to the police that will cause you to be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned - it does not matter one bit what your "intent" was. Social media posts are no different.
If you make a public Facebook post admitting to a murder, the police should not need to get a warrant based on other evidence to get that post then arrest you.
The intent is for a limited audience of peers to recieve postings
That might be your intent, but whoo boy, do I have news for you: that's not the way it works, it's not how it was designed to work, and it's not how "they" tell you it works. Your "intent" has nothing to do with it.
If you wish to keep your audience small, Facebook and Twitter aren't the way to do it. But long before "social media" showed up, we had means to keep things to a limited audience, things which do require a warrant to access.
That might be your intent, but whoo boy, do I have news for you: that's not the way it works, it's not how it was designed to work, and it's not how "they" tell you it works. Your "intent" has nothing to do with it.
If you wish to keep your audience small, Facebook and Twitter aren't the way to do it. But long before "social media" showed up, we had means to keep things to a limited audience, things which do require a warrant to access.
Hell, Facebook has - and had for a long time - ways to limit the audience all the way you like. Many people do use it to great success (which I find sad, btw. - the great thing about social media in the past was that people were sharing a lot about themselves; now they seem to again isolate in very small circles of real-life friends). But you can't expect software to magically understand your intention, nor should you ever expect to control the information you share with another human being. When you share information, you also share control over it.
Hell, Facebook has - and had for a long time - ways to limit the audience all the way you like.
And my experience says they'll flip that off on a whim. It's been several years now, but one day FB decided that all formerly private photos would now be public. Not a bug, a design decision. I deleted my account the next day, so I can't say I've kept up on the latest in FB's privacy features.
FB has obviously since gone back on that decision, but there's nothing stopping them from doing it again, or from introducing a bug.
And my experience says they'll flip that off on a whim. It's been several years now, but one day FB decided that all formerly private photos would now be public. Not a bug, a design decision. I deleted my account the next day, so I can't say I've kept up on the latest in FB's privacy features.
FB has obviously since gone back on that decision, but there's nothing stopping them from doing it again, or from introducing a bug.
I've never seen that one and I've been using Facebook for quite some time. It sounds bad though :/.
That said, the way I perceive Facebook over the last few years, is that they're constantly baiting people into increasing their privacy. They switch defaults towards "more private", and even for some time they had this annoying popup when you tried to post publicly that said something like "Did you know you're posting publicly? Click here to change it."
That said, the way I perceive Facebook over the last few years, is that they're constantly baiting people into increasing their privacy. They switch defaults towards "more private", and even for some time they had this annoying popup when you tried to post publicly that said something like "Did you know you're posting publicly? Click here to change it."
I've never seen that one and I've been using Facebook for quite some time. It sounds bad though :/.
I wish I could find a link for you, but I'm having no luck. And middle-age has rendered me unable to get within even a few years of when it occurred. I do distinctly remember the event, though, because I thought to myself, "nah, that can't be right". So I went poking around in the albums of friends that I recalled having private albums. Sure enough, everything was now accessible. People that aren't friends? No problem, could see those, too. There was an Internet kerfluffle, then FB put it back the way it was. Sorry for no better details.
I wish I could find a link for you, but I'm having no luck. And middle-age has rendered me unable to get within even a few years of when it occurred. I do distinctly remember the event, though, because I thought to myself, "nah, that can't be right". So I went poking around in the albums of friends that I recalled having private albums. Sure enough, everything was now accessible. People that aren't friends? No problem, could see those, too. There was an Internet kerfluffle, then FB put it back the way it was. Sorry for no better details.
Sure, but what's the alternative? Social media is too involved in most people's lives for them to just leave. Maybe we should have legal restrictions on what data can be collected.
The alternative is not using social media. Are you really saying it's impossible?
Depending on your life circumstances, it can be very hard. What if you're part of a club that mainly communicates using Facebook? What if your friend group uses Facebook for events? Leaving Facebook makes it much harder to participate.
That's why it's best to load up on the false information, tag random people as you, and generally create noise. Lots of noise. Kind of like what gets generated for the keyword searches which are useless due to all the noise.
Use those aliases.
Use those aliases.
Activists broadcast messages publicly on social media; public servants read them.
How is this controversial? If you want privacy, surely you should understand that sharing on the web isn't the way to go?
In a lot of these cases where protests turn into violent riots a police response is necessary, if at a minimum to keep the peaceful protestors safe. Using publicly available information to facilitate that makes perfect sense.
How is this controversial? If you want privacy, surely you should understand that sharing on the web isn't the way to go?
In a lot of these cases where protests turn into violent riots a police response is necessary, if at a minimum to keep the peaceful protestors safe. Using publicly available information to facilitate that makes perfect sense.
You're forgetting that in many cases these protests turn violent as a direct result of police confrontation. In that regard these surveillance operations only increase the likelihood of escalating tensions between citizens and police.
> You're forgetting that in many cases these protests turn violent as a direct result of police confrontation.
I don't know that either of your assertions is true. I suspect very very few demonstrations turn violent (a negligible number) and I suspect that a small but significant number (maybe as high as 1/3) of those that do, turn violent due to police involvement.
But I have seen no numbers; they could be the opposite for all I know. The episodic nature of how news reporting is done (where most events are treated sui generis or are arbitrarily linked due to the structure of reporting) makes it impossible to tell unless someone actually does a study.
There is nothing in principle wrong with various entities monitoring public statements. In terms of policing there are several structural problems in how it is performed, in California, the US, and in the world at large. I doubt anyone would disagree.
I don't know that either of your assertions is true. I suspect very very few demonstrations turn violent (a negligible number) and I suspect that a small but significant number (maybe as high as 1/3) of those that do, turn violent due to police involvement.
But I have seen no numbers; they could be the opposite for all I know. The episodic nature of how news reporting is done (where most events are treated sui generis or are arbitrarily linked due to the structure of reporting) makes it impossible to tell unless someone actually does a study.
There is nothing in principle wrong with various entities monitoring public statements. In terms of policing there are several structural problems in how it is performed, in California, the US, and in the world at large. I doubt anyone would disagree.
Please explain that line of thinking. How does increased surveillance increase violence?
If anything it gives law enforcement a heads up of where thier presence might be needed.
If anything it gives law enforcement a heads up of where thier presence might be needed.
Police sometimes intend to incite violence at these events as a pretense to breaking up lawful protests. Especially when they are the ones being protested.
edit - changed often to sometimes, since 'often' really isn't accurate. Lazy writing on my part.
edit - changed often to sometimes, since 'often' really isn't accurate. Lazy writing on my part.
Please dont forget that its not just the ones in riot gear either, often the black-block anarchists who start the destruction of property which gives the lea the excuse to kettle/arrest protestors are plain cloths police/contractors acting as agent provocateurs, who then fade into background or even pass through police lines right before the push.
Crowsds are so easily manipulated, its a time old tactic.
Crowsds are so easily manipulated, its a time old tactic.
> often the black-block anarchists who start the destruction of property which gives the lea the excuse to kettle/arrest protestors are plain cloths police/contractors acting as agent provocateurs
That sounds very conspiratorial. Is there any evidence for that claim?
That sounds very conspiratorial. Is there any evidence for that claim?
There was a scandal in the UK were undercover police officers went way too far in infiltrating groups, sometimes causing violent (against property) action to happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123438
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123438
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived from COunter
INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at
times illegal, projects conducted by the United
States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at
surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting
domestic political organizations.
In many cases, law enforcement presence is what causes the violence.
Cops in the US are people with guns who have been trained that force is their only tool. The idea that cops will ever decrease violence is deeply misguided.
Cops in the US are people with guns who have been trained that force is their only tool. The idea that cops will ever decrease violence is deeply misguided.
Frankly, your comments are ignorant and uninformed.
Surely there are documented cases of abuse of police power, but it is not all of the time. In fact, those cases are a very small minority when compared to all citizen-police interactions.
You are woefully misinformed if you think that police in the US are taught that violence is the only tool in their repertoire. And even more so that you would say that police presence is the cause of violence.
Surely there are documented cases of abuse of police power, but it is not all of the time. In fact, those cases are a very small minority when compared to all citizen-police interactions.
You are woefully misinformed if you think that police in the US are taught that violence is the only tool in their repertoire. And even more so that you would say that police presence is the cause of violence.
> You are woefully misinformed if you think that police in the US are taught that violence is the only tool in their repertoire.
"There have been too many lives lost to police killings. Too many phone calls telling families that their loved ones, particularly young black men, won’t be coming home. But in most cases, it isn’t because individual police officers are consciously racist or think black lives don’t matter. It is because officers perform the way they are trained to perform."[1]
"Officers are trained to shoot until the threat is no longer present."[2]
Paul Waldman: Did you think what the officers did [in Powell's shooting] was appropriate? It seems pretty clear that that's standard operating procedure.
Maria Haberfeld: Yes it is, absolutely. [3]
> And even more so that you would say that police presence is the cause of violence.
Could you explain to me how a person with a gun could ever decrease violence?
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-g...
[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/ferguso...
[3] http://prospect.org/article/expert-us-police-training-use-de...
"There have been too many lives lost to police killings. Too many phone calls telling families that their loved ones, particularly young black men, won’t be coming home. But in most cases, it isn’t because individual police officers are consciously racist or think black lives don’t matter. It is because officers perform the way they are trained to perform."[1]
"Officers are trained to shoot until the threat is no longer present."[2]
Paul Waldman: Did you think what the officers did [in Powell's shooting] was appropriate? It seems pretty clear that that's standard operating procedure.
Maria Haberfeld: Yes it is, absolutely. [3]
> And even more so that you would say that police presence is the cause of violence.
Could you explain to me how a person with a gun could ever decrease violence?
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-g...
[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/ferguso...
[3] http://prospect.org/article/expert-us-police-training-use-de...
> Could you explain to me how a person with a gun could ever decrease violence?
The way every standing army out there does it by just being there and having guns?
As for the quotes, the biggest issue I see with the police brutality topic is lack of hard numbers. "There have been too many lives lost to police killings" is meaningless in this context. How many? 5 this year? 50? 50 000?
Eyeballing numbers from [0], the US - a 300 million country - has about one million police officers with arrest powers. 5, or even 50 deaths over one million officers is, frankly, an irrelevant statistical blip, not a major and important issue.
Now I'm not saying there is no issue in the US. I haven't seen the numbers, because they tend to not show up in the discussion. It seems to me however, that this is another media-driven issue - i.e. something that does not exist until media start talking about it, and worst case may actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy afterwards.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_...
The way every standing army out there does it by just being there and having guns?
As for the quotes, the biggest issue I see with the police brutality topic is lack of hard numbers. "There have been too many lives lost to police killings" is meaningless in this context. How many? 5 this year? 50? 50 000?
Eyeballing numbers from [0], the US - a 300 million country - has about one million police officers with arrest powers. 5, or even 50 deaths over one million officers is, frankly, an irrelevant statistical blip, not a major and important issue.
Now I'm not saying there is no issue in the US. I haven't seen the numbers, because they tend to not show up in the discussion. It seems to me however, that this is another media-driven issue - i.e. something that does not exist until media start talking about it, and worst case may actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy afterwards.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_...
The way every standing army out there does it by just being there and having guns?
Now contrast with all the posts going around social media from military veterans explaining the training they got on rules of engagement, including use of deadly force as an absolute last resort when all other options fail after explicit attempts, and look at how often the narrative with police is simply shoot first, then shoot more, then keep shooting. And that's without getting into increasingly-recorded incidents where we see things like officers retroactively planting guns on corpses to back up a claim that "I had to shoot him, he was going for a gun!"
Also:
5, or even 50 deaths
Try 2.8 per day[1] that we know of, which is over one thousand per year.
http://www.vox.com/a/police-shootings-ferguson-map
Now contrast with all the posts going around social media from military veterans explaining the training they got on rules of engagement, including use of deadly force as an absolute last resort when all other options fail after explicit attempts, and look at how often the narrative with police is simply shoot first, then shoot more, then keep shooting. And that's without getting into increasingly-recorded incidents where we see things like officers retroactively planting guns on corpses to back up a claim that "I had to shoot him, he was going for a gun!"
Also:
5, or even 50 deaths
Try 2.8 per day[1] that we know of, which is over one thousand per year.
http://www.vox.com/a/police-shootings-ferguson-map
> The way every standing army out there does it by just being there and having guns?
And how is that, exactly?
The cold war, where much greater threats than the threat of standing armies were at play, exhibited itself in violence all over the world.
It shouldn't require explanation that the threat of violence doesn't prevent violence.
And how is that, exactly?
The cold war, where much greater threats than the threat of standing armies were at play, exhibited itself in violence all over the world.
It shouldn't require explanation that the threat of violence doesn't prevent violence.
The most peaceful Central American country doesn't have a standing army – and that's arguably a main reason it is the most peaceful.
Increased confrontation causes violence. In particular, finding groups who are protesting against previous police violence and provoking them tends to incite violence.
[deleted]
There's inherent tension in group demonstrations. Typically most people want to peacefully protest but you also have an element of anarchists and hooligans who jump on the bandwagon and counterintuitively do more harm than good for a movement (by turning "regular hard working folk" against the movement due to needless violence and destruction).
That said, I agree with OP, if you're posting in a public forum, don't turn around and then say you expect privacy. The internet is a broadcast medium, in this sense, you can't push the genie back in the bottle once you let it out.
So, if you're going to say provocative things which don't broadcast them and then expect only your followers to pay attention.
That said, I agree with OP, if you're posting in a public forum, don't turn around and then say you expect privacy. The internet is a broadcast medium, in this sense, you can't push the genie back in the bottle once you let it out.
So, if you're going to say provocative things which don't broadcast them and then expect only your followers to pay attention.
The concern is that the police are considering peaceful activism as hostile intent, and escalating scrutiny accordingly.
Furthermore, more monitoring of activists provides more chances for incitement/provocation by the police as needed.
Furthermore, more monitoring of activists provides more chances for incitement/provocation by the police as needed.
>the police are considering peaceful activism as hostile
Exactly. Police are willfully misinterpreting participation in a conversation intended to raise awareness about police misconduct in an attempt to intimidate activists into remaining silent.
Using social media as a surveillance apparatus to manage their public image through intimidation is essentially cyber bullying.
Exactly. Police are willfully misinterpreting participation in a conversation intended to raise awareness about police misconduct in an attempt to intimidate activists into remaining silent.
Using social media as a surveillance apparatus to manage their public image through intimidation is essentially cyber bullying.
> manage their public image through intimidation is essentially cyber bullying
When an actor representing the state does this, I think it is appropriate to call it oppression. Sure, it isn't the Stazi, interrogate you in a small room for days kind, but it isn't exactly friendly or well meaning either.
When an actor representing the state does this, I think it is appropriate to call it oppression. Sure, it isn't the Stazi, interrogate you in a small room for days kind, but it isn't exactly friendly or well meaning either.
Tell the people who have disappeared into police run black sites like the one we know about in Chicago that, and I bet they would disagree. Interrogation for days without a lawyer sound awfully close to Stasi-esque to me.
As Thomas Drake says, the Stasi would have killed for the surveillance engine regular lea's have at their disposal today.
As Thomas Drake says, the Stasi would have killed for the surveillance engine regular lea's have at their disposal today.
> As Thomas Drake says, the Stasi would have killed for the surveillance engine regular lea's have at their disposal today.
OTOH, "X would have killed for Y" doesn't say a lot about Y when X is not actually known to be even slightly reluctant when it comes to killing.
OTOH, "X would have killed for Y" doesn't say a lot about Y when X is not actually known to be even slightly reluctant when it comes to killing.
Oh, that's happened. Don't go forgetting about the Chicago black sites and a bunch of other illegal detainment facilities that have been used (g8/g20/OWS)
OWS was the big one really. It saw law enforcement cooperation not just across NA, but globally, to put down the protests, to share tactics, and also to threaten the activist leaders at the time into hiding. Many had been branded by the electronic system and profiled.
OWS was the big one really. It saw law enforcement cooperation not just across NA, but globally, to put down the protests, to share tactics, and also to threaten the activist leaders at the time into hiding. Many had been branded by the electronic system and profiled.
How does any part of "monitoring hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, #ImUnarmed, #PoliceBrutality, and #ItsTimeforChange" work toward keeping peaceful protestors safe? These people are the peaceful protestors.
Nobody should be in a police database just for joining a union or showing up at a protest.
So, so naive
Feel free to actually contribute rather than making snide comments about the commenter.
Well I didn't meant to offend him, I was just pointing out that I think it's a quite naive point of view and in doing so hoping he'll doubt himself and think about it :p I know the 'proper' way would be to write a dissertation on it and try to take his mind for a walk and go through why and etc, but well, I think he would be bored and I would too.
There is an worrying dissonance in democratic societies that treats protest like a paranoid regime would.
The use of surveillance is highly questionable for citizens exercising basic rights. Military grade equipment and a heavy handed approach suggests a level of paranoia that does not seem at ease with basic democratic principles.
Protests, large crowds and activism are essential aspects of a vibrant society, they also have potential for volatility and disruption. If you can't accept this and put law and order above all else to the extent that you need to monitor and confront citizens how far away are you really from a police state?
The use of surveillance is highly questionable for citizens exercising basic rights. Military grade equipment and a heavy handed approach suggests a level of paranoia that does not seem at ease with basic democratic principles.
Protests, large crowds and activism are essential aspects of a vibrant society, they also have potential for volatility and disruption. If you can't accept this and put law and order above all else to the extent that you need to monitor and confront citizens how far away are you really from a police state?
It goes without saying that this kind of survellience is not going to stop, possibly ever. Therefore, it is only fair that the tools and data collected by public servants is made equally accessible to the public. This provides a check on unprecedented power and the inevitable corruption that our current course is barreling towards.
At the very least, personal privacy rights be clarified and encoded into law. Even if disreputable surveillance continues, it should then be formally classified as corrupt if not straight-up illegal activity.
How are cash-strapped police departments funding social media surveillance?
They're choosing to make it a priority. Crime threatens the public, but activists "threaten" the police - by trying to make them accountable.
> "identify so-called “threats to public safety” by monitoring hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, #ImUnarmed, #PoliceBrutality, and #ItsTimeforChange."
> "identify so-called “threats to public safety” by monitoring hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, #ImUnarmed, #PoliceBrutality, and #ItsTimeforChange."
It's also easy to persuade people that riots could happen at any moment and could not only harm people and property, but reputation. If an area is seen as out of control, people will not go there to shop, businesses will not establish themselves there, and the city sees its tax base dry up.
None of these things even have to happen to get people scared enough to vote yes.
None of these things even have to happen to get people scared enough to vote yes.
It's probably easier to monitor ordinary, lawful political conversations on social media, than it is to monitor people taking some steps toward confidential, conspiratorial conversations.
Also, the social media stuff directly concerns the police image, and stature in society. Funding observations of criminals and miscreants is just their regular job. They don't get as much status for just doing their job as they might lose from institutionalized accountability.
Also, the social media stuff directly concerns the police image, and stature in society. Funding observations of criminals and miscreants is just their regular job. They don't get as much status for just doing their job as they might lose from institutionalized accountability.
They can save money by outsourcing surveillance to Iran, whose monitoring of social media was very effective in countering the Green Revolution.
It's pretty cheap, I guess. Cheap and easy to paint as effective (regardless of actual effectiveness).
Overt threats: Unions.
Them commies are everywhere.
Them commies are everywhere.
Except police unions. The cops think those are just fine.
The hypocrisy is palpable...
I'm sure they feel the same way about us, but the honest truth is that going tit-for-tat against them re: surveillance works far better for the public as a whole.