Feds hit social networks to track down criminals

mlurp · #1 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 01:28 PM

Saw this in my local paper, looked at the online paper to post it. But I had to google it as the online paper didn't have it.

Quote:

Feds hit social networks to track down criminals

By Richard Lardner
Associated Press
Posted: Wednesday, Mar. 17, 2010

With some intensive searching on Facebook, Michael Scoville, an assistant U.S. Attorney, determined Maxi Sopo, a fugitive, was in Seattle. Sopo was arrested on bank fraud charges. 2009 AP FILE PHOTO

Buy Photo | Store
WASHINGTON The feds are on Facebook. And MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter, too.

U.S. law enforcement agents are following the rest of the Internet world into popular social-networking services, going undercover with false online profiles to communicate with suspects and gather private information, according to an internal Justice Department document that offers a tantalizing glimpse of issues related to privacy and crime-fighting.

Think you know who's behind that "friend" request? Think again. Your new "friend" just might be the FBI.

The document, obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, makes clear that U.S. agents are already logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target's friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs and video clips.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties group, obtained the Justice Department document when it sued the agency and five others in federal court. The 33-page document underscores the importance of social networking sites to U.S. authorities. The foundation published the document on its Web site, www. eff.org , Tuesday.

The Justice Department document, part of a presentation given in August by top cybercrime officials, describes the value of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn and other services to government investigators. It does not describe in detail the boundaries for using them.

"It doesn't really discuss any mechanisms for accountability or ensuring that government agents use those tools responsibly," said Marcia Hoffman, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The group sued in Washington to force the government to disclose its policies for using social networking sites in investigations, data collection and surveillance.

The foundation also obtained an Internal Revenue Service document that instructs employees on how to use to use Internet tools - including social networking sites - to investigate taxpayers. The document states that IRS employees are barred from using deception or creating fake accounts to get information, a directive the group says is commendable.

Covert investigations on social-networking services are legal and governed by internal rules, according to Justice officials. But they would not say what those rules are.

The Justice Department document raises a legal question about a social-media bullying case in which U.S. prosecutors charged a Missouri woman with computer fraud for creating a fake MySpace account - effectively the same activity that undercover agents are doing, although for different purposes.

The woman, Lori Drew, helped create an account for a fictitious teen boy on MySpace and sent flirtatious messages to a 13-year-old neighborhood girl in his name. The girl hanged herself in October 2006, in a St. Louis suburb, after she received a message saying the world would be better without her.

A jury in California, where MySpace has its servers, convicted Drew of three misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization because she was accused of violating MySpace's rules against creating fake accounts. But last year a judge overturned the verdicts, citing the vagueness of the law.

"If agents violate terms of service, is that 'otherwise illegal activity'?" the document asks. It doesn't provide an answer.

A former U.S. cybersecurity prosecutor, Marc Zwillinger, said investigators should be able to go undercover in the online world the same way they do in the real world, even if such conduct is barred by a company's rules. But there have to be limits, he said.

"This new situation presents a need for careful oversight so that law enforcement does not use social networking to intrude on some of our most personal relationships," said Zwillinger, whose firm doeslegal work for Yahoo andMySpace.

Read more: Feds hit social networks to track down criminals - CharlotteObserver.com

Feds hit social networks to track down criminals - CharlotteObserver.com

GOOGLE SEARCH: Feds use Internet to track criminals - Google Search

mlurp · #2 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 01:47 PM

Also found this at the google site...

Quote:

February 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST

Feds push for tracking cell phones

by Declan McCullagh

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."

Not long ago, the concept of tracking cell phones would have been the stuff of spy movies. In 1998's "Enemy of the State," Gene Hackman warned that the National Security Agency has "been in bed with the entire telecommunications industry since the '40s--they've infected everything." After a decade of appearances in "24" and "Live Free or Die Hard," location-tracking has become such a trope that it was satirized in a scene with Seth Rogen from "Pineapple Express" (2008).

Once a Hollywood plot, now 'commonplace'
Whether state and federal police have been paying attention to Hollywood, or whether it was the other way around, cell phone tracking has become a regular feature in criminal investigations. It comes in two forms: police obtaining retrospective data kept by mobile providers for their own billing purposes that may not be very detailed, or prospective data that reveals the minute-by-minute location of a handset or mobile device.

Obtaining location details is now "commonplace," says Al Gidari, a partner in the Seattle offices of Perkins Coie who represents wireless carriers. "It's in every pen register order these days."

Gidari says that the Third Circuit case could have a significant impact on police investigations within the court's jurisdiction, namely Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it could be persuasive beyond those states. But, he cautions, "if the privacy groups win, the case won't be over. It will certainly be appealed."

REMOVED TO MEET FORUM RULES see at site.

T-Mobile, for instance, uses a GSM technology called Uplink Time Difference of Arrival, or U-TDOA, which calculates a position based on precisely how long it takes signals to reach towers. A company called TruePosition, which provides U-TDOA services to T-Mobile, boasts of "accuracy to under 50 meters" that's available "for start-of-call, midcall, or when idle."

A 2008 court order to T-Mobile in a criminal investigation of a marriage fraud scheme, which was originally sealed and later made public, says: "T-Mobile shall disclose at such intervals and times as directed by (the Department of Homeland Security), latitude and longitude data that establishes the approximate positions of the Subject Wireless Telephone, by unobtrusively initiating a signal on its network that will enable it to determine the locations of the Subject Wireless Telephone."

'No reasonable expectation of privacy'
In the case that's before the Third Circuit on Friday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, said it needed historical (meaning stored, not future) phone location information because a set of suspects "use their wireless telephones to arrange meetings and transactions in furtherance of their drug trafficking activities."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan in Pennsylvania denied the Justice Department's attempt to obtain stored location data without a search warrant; prosecutors had invoked a different legal procedure. Lenihan's ruling, in effect, would require police to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause--a more privacy-protective standard.

Lenihan's opinion (PDF)--which, in an unusual show of solidarity, was signed by four other magistrate judges--noted that location information can reveal sensitive information such as health treatments, financial difficulties, marital counseling, and extra-marital affairs.

In its appeal to the Third Circuit, the Justice Department claims that Lenihan's opinion "contains, and relies upon, numerous errors" and should be overruled. In addition to a search warrant not being necessary, prosecutors said, because location "records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest."

The Obama administration is not alone in making this argument. U.S. District Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee in New York, wrote in a 2009 opinion that a defendant in a drug trafficking case, Jose Navas, "did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell phone" location. That's because Navas only used the cell phone "on public thoroughfares en route from California to New York" and "if Navas intended to keep the cell phone's location private, he simply could have turned it off."

(Most cases have involved the ground rules for tracking cell phone users prospectively, and judges have disagreed over what legal rules apply. Only a minority has sided with the Justice Department, however.)

Cellular providers tend not to retain moment-by-moment logs of when each mobile device contacts the tower, in part because there's no business reason to store the data, and in part because the storage costs would be prohibitive. They do, however, keep records of what tower is in use when a call is initiated or answered--and those records are generally stored for six months to a year, depending on the company.

Verizon Wireless keeps "phone records including cell site location for 12 months," Drew Arena, Verizon's vice president and associate general counsel for law enforcement compliance, said at a federal task force meeting in Washington, D.C. last week. Arena said the company keeps "phone bills without cell site location for seven years," and stores SMS text messages for only a very brief time.

Gidari, the Seattle attorney, said that wireless carriers have recently extended how long they store this information. "Prior to a year or two ago when location-based services became more common, if it were 30 days it would be surprising," he said.

The ACLU, EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and University of San Francisco law professor Susan Freiwald argue that the wording of the federal privacy law in question allows judges to require the level of proof required for a search warrant "before authorizing the disclosure of particularly novel or invasive types of information." In addition, they say, Americans do not "knowingly expose their location information and thereby surrender Fourth Amendment protection whenever they turn on or use their cell phones."

"The biggest issue at stake is whether or not courts are going to accept the government's minimal view of what is protected by the Fourth Amendment," says EFF's Bankston. "The government is arguing that based on precedents from the 1970s, any record held by a third party about us, no matter how invasively collected, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment."

Update 10:37 a.m. PT: A source inside the U.S. Attorney's Office for the northern district of Texas, which prosecuted the Scarecrow Bandits mentioned in the above article, tells me that this was the first and the only time that the FBI has used the location-data-mining technique to nab bank robbers. It's also worth noting that the leader of this gang, Corey Duffey, was sentenced last month to 354 years (not months, but years) in prison. Another member is facing 140 years in prison.

Recent posts from Politics and Law: LINKS AT THE SITE...

Feds consider going undercover on social networks

U.S. Army worried about Wikileaks in secret report

Report names 'enemies of the Internet'

Venezuelan president calls for Internet regulation

Why people really do care about privacy

Police push for warrantless searches of cell phones

Why no one cares about privacy anymore

Feds push for tracking cell phones | Politics and Law - CNET News

GottaGo · #3 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 01:55 PM

I have mixed feelings about this.

I like my privacy, but if I willingly go to a networking site and put information out there, then I am responsible for the results of that information being used for other purposes.

On the flip side, nothing is private anymore, even things that are supposed to be, because information is shared between other parties. As I've stated before, there have been invasions of privacy based on "no expectation of privacy" because they have already violated that expectation.

There are some good uses for the information that criminals willing impart on social networking websites. But, where does the line get drawn for entrapment?

Because someone talks about a new car, does the IRS have a right to think they shouldn't be able to afford a new car and demand to audit them based on that information? This is fishing.....

Perhaps some sort of guidelines, only investigate those who are already on a "questionable" list (IRS) or a convicted criminal. I believe the phrase is justifiable cause.... not fishing in the ordinary Joe's life for something to go after him for.

foundit66 · #4 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

I have mixed feelings about this.
I like my privacy, but if I willingly go to a networking site and put information out there, then I am responsible for the results of that information being used for other purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

Because someone talks about a new car, does the IRS have a right to think they shouldn't be able to afford a new car and demand to audit them based on that information? This is fishing.....

I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Sad thing is I think I've heard of IRS cases like this where something like a "new car" prompted an investigation.
I am incredibly hazy on the details. It only sounds familiar.
And I am pretty sure it didn't involve a social network at that stage...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

Perhaps some sort of guidelines, only investigate those who are already on a "questionable" list (IRS) or a convicted criminal. I believe the phrase is justifiable cause.... not fishing in the ordinary Joe's life for something to go after him for.

In the past, the cops could go to your boss and/or friends and ask about you.
But then the inquiry would be known, and the person being inquired about could ask question back regarding what they were doing...

Today, the government can investigate in silence.
I think that's part of the problem.

cnredd · #5 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

I have mixed feelings about this.

I like my privacy, but if I willingly go to a networking site and put information out there, then I am responsible for the results of that information being used for other purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I'm not so sure...

The public does have REASONABLE expectations...

Two examples...

1) If a company was so incompetant that they gave out your credit card number on their site and you end up with a whole bunch of things on your card that you didn't buy, it would be inconceivable for that company to say "Well it's YOUR FAULT because you are, in your words, responsible for the results of that information being used for other purposes."

You'd go ballistic if a company said that and you'd have every right to...

2) This forum has everyone's personal email address...what if I were to bulk them into a file and sell the file to marketing agencies and the members start getting swamped with junk mail?...Would it be reasonable for me to say it's YOUR FAULT because YOU are, in your words, responsible for the results of that information being used for other purposes."?...

Of course not..I'd be the one guilty...because of reasonable expectations...

(And BTW - I'd NEVER do that)...

I have mixed feelings on this, too, but I wouldn't say that the responsibility falls 100% on the individual...

mlurp · #6 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 02:24 PM

I must still be asleep, where is foundit66 say it is our responsibility? Long night, but I have read it several times.

Sure we can say no to cell phones/ social networking sites. But if we pay for the phone and contract, there ough to be standards set up by the companies we do business with. The same for the social networking sites as they depend on memberships.

This is the problem and the fact the govt., is more and more in our face. And because we are attached to these items we ignore the facts.

I'm not worried if they are used to solve crimes. But after that it is intrusion and Big Brother IMHO.

Gordon Shumway · #7 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 02:42 PM

Am I missing something here?
So the feds are signing up on facebook, twitter, etc... & then investigating simply by "friending" them & not gaining information through the corporate end from facebook or twitter...?...
If you accept them as a firend & tell them a secret then that's on you --- that's not the same as the company giving out your info without your expressed permission.
My question is that why is it every time the feds figure out a new way to catch criminals some reporter finds it necessary to blow the cover?

cnredd · #8 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Shumway

If you accept them as a firend & tell them a secret then that's on you --- that's not the same as the company giving out your info without your expressed permission.

Excellent point...

The Feds aren't sneaking in through a back door or anything...I'd lean toward finding that reprehensible...

But the front door entrance IS the individual giving up info; not the Feds taking it...so I find that more reasonable...

GottaGo · #9 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Excellent point...

The Feds aren't sneaking in through a back door or anything...I'd lean toward finding that reprehensible...

But the front door entrance IS the individual giving up info; not the Feds taking it...so I find that more reasonable...

But the feds aren't SAYING their feds... they are acting as an ordinary Joe, and send a friend request.

I don't do FB or Twitter or any of that stuff, so if I say something wrong about them, then correct me.

You have "public" pages, and you have "private" pages. Someone friends you, they can see your private pages, where you might talk about that new car that starts the whole investigation.

To me, that's like knocking on my door, telling me you are the plumber, I let you in and it turns out your with Blue Collar Crimes. That is entrapment, IMO.

Yes, the person is stupid for accepting the friend, but some people do that. No one said criminals were always masterminds.

The thing is, the line between follow-up and fishing is very clear, and they aren't defining that line for law enforcement. They need to.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/news-current-events/11890-feds-hit-social-networks-track-down-criminals.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Track Cell Phone Location on Businesslifehome	This thread	Refback	03-17-2010 02:53 PM

The Following User Says Thank You to mlurp For This Useful Post:
GottaGo

The Following User Says Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
mlurp

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
GottaGo, mlurp

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gordon Shumway For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, mlurp