• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook friend turns into Big Brother

It's not public when it's marked as private. That's the whole issue...no one can see it except those you designate to share it with. The officer used a false identity, gender, etc to form a "personal" relationship with the suspect and proceeded to trample all over his right to be protected from unlawful search.

The absurdity here is that you can't support your opposition to my position with anything of substance.

I imagine the police will just say that was an "undercover" account.
 
I imagine the police will just say that was an "undercover" account.

Even so, undercover investigations are initiated with probable cause for a surveillance warrant.

And even still, forming a "personal" relationship is not acceptable practice when going undercover. Tainted investigation and all that.
 
Please don't use "retarded" as an insult.

I didn't say it was right because that's how it happened. I said it means he has the burden of proving his assertion. Which is true anyway.

It was retarded. Deal with it.
 
Yeah, so? Is all undercover police work a violation of privacy?

No. A lot of undercover police work has nothing to do with privacy.
 
Even so, undercover investigations are initiated with probable cause for a surveillance warrant.

Are they really? Always?

Even the cops who go looking for child molestors on the internet?

And even still, forming a "personal" relationship is not acceptable practice when going undercover. Tainted investigation and all that.

I can't believe you even said that. That's so obviously absurd it needs no explanation why.
 
Are they really? Always?

Even the cops who go looking for child molestors on the internet?



I can't believe you even said that. That's so obviously absurd it needs no explanation why.

So still no support for your assertion of absurdity.

Great, you can now be discounted from this conversation altogether after three attempts to get you to back up your statements.
 
So still no support for your assertion of absurdity.

Great, you can now be discounted from this conversation altogether after three attempts to get you to back up your statements.

I'm not the one making assertions here, I'm the one laughing at them.

Prove that all undercover operations require warrants. Prove they never involve fake "personal relationships." Both are laughable, but I'm willing to listen.
 
How could something that any private citizen could legally do require a search warrant?
 
I think the police could have used their time a lot better but what they did is not really illegal. First of all, even if it was the guy's personal and private facebook page, it's not his property, thus no warrant is required. Facebook owns all of it. If the police wanted, they could have subpoenaed Facebook to give them access to his page, but that wasn't necessary since the kid voluntarily let the person in. As far as I know, Facebook has no policy banning law enforcement, thus it falls under the public domain if a Facebook user lets people in.

Whenever people I don't recognize want to add me to facebook, I always send them a PM first to ask who they are. Additionally, there is no super private information on my facebook that I wouldn't want anyone to see.

The police bait potential offenders all the time. Undercover officers stand on corners pretending to be drug dealers or prostitutes so that the drug users or the johns can get caught. Yeah it's "gotcha" tactics but that seems to be the way law enforcement works in the U.S., especially if the techniques are in connection with a special operation that is ongoing. This is what happens when police departments are given quotas that they must fulfill. They go looking for crime.
 
Yeah, right.

Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water legally. I think this incident was ridiculous, but it was legal.

Facebook is a private social medium, not a police database. I don't know why anyone who cherishes liberty would support such draconian measures.
 
How could something that any private citizen could legally do require a search warrant?

Because police officers are not private citizens.

For instance, a police officer suspects there are drugs in your house, but has no probable cause; he simply thinks you look suspicious. He dresses in plain clothes, presents himself as a salesman, and convinces you to let him inside. Is the subsequent search Constitutional, even though he's entered under false pretenses, without probable cause or a warrant?
 
While probably legal, i think the whole premise sucks.....;)
Busting a kid for a couple of beers is a waste of taxpayer's money.....
Especially after the fact.....:roll:
bigbrother.jpg
 
WTF!?

Is it ok for the police to use facebook and other social websites to *enforce* the law? I think this is a privacy issue.

What do you think?

I think it's time for teens and young adults to grow up and realize there are consequences to their actions.
 
Because police officers are not private citizens.

For instance, a police officer suspects there are drugs in your house, but has no probable cause; he simply thinks you look suspicious. He dresses in plain clothes, presents himself as a salesman, and convinces you to let him inside. Is the subsequent search Constitutional, even though he's entered under false pretenses, without probable cause or a warrant?

True, but does undercover work require a search warrant? That question hasn't been answered yet.
 
WTF!?

Is it ok for the police to use facebook and other social websites to *enforce* the law? I think this is a privacy issue.

What do you think?

I think Facebook is not for everyone. I don't do Facebook because I value my privacy, and because it's not the venue I want to use to stay in touch with friends.
 
Because police officers are not private citizens.

For instance, a police officer suspects there are drugs in your house, but has no probable cause; he simply thinks you look suspicious. He dresses in plain clothes, presents himself as a salesman, and convinces you to let him inside. Is the subsequent search Constitutional, even though he's entered under false pretenses, without probable cause or a warrant?

I'm not sure that would be legal for even a private citizen to do.
 
I think the police could have used their time a lot better but what they did is not really illegal.

They could have used their time better but whether it is legal or not is an open issue.


First of all, even if it was the guy's personal and private facebook page, it's not his property, thus no warrant is required. Facebook owns all of it.

WRONG. Per the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities on Facebook:

2. Sharing Your Content and Information
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

i. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.


In other words they do not have ownership of content but have a licence to the content as long as it is kept on their servers.








If the police wanted, they could have subpoenaed Facebook to give them access to his page, but that wasn't necessary since the kid voluntarily let the person in. As far as I know, Facebook has no policy banning law enforcement, thus it falls under the public domain if a Facebook user lets people in.

The police should have gone that route if they wanted to conduct an investigation. Content on Facebook is not in the Public Domain, meaning is not covered by Copyright Laws as recognized by Facebook See prior Quote. Furthermore is is against Face book policy to eroll an account with false personal information:

FACEBOOK'S SRC said:
4. Registration and Account Security
Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

Whenever people I don't recognize want to add me to facebook, I always send them a PM first to ask who they are. Additionally, there is no super private information on my facebook that I wouldn't want anyone to see.

Very good for you. We do not know if he PM-ed the officer or not. The info was not existent on the account until the officer asked for that info.

The police bait potential offenders all the time. Undercover officers stand on corners pretending to be drug dealers or prostitutes so that the drug users or the johns can get caught.

Not relevant since that is in Public View.


Yeah it's "gotcha" tactics but that seems to be the way law enforcement works in the U.S., especially if the techniques are in connection with a special operation that is ongoing.

It may be the case the officers were assigned to an under-aged drinking operation, but that doesn't mean that the officers can go to a website that has a policy against posting false identification and expect that the "confession" to be admissible.


This is what happens when police departments are given quotas that they must fulfill. They go looking for crime.

By that basis alone, if there is quotas for inditing suspects of a crime, then the entire case could be considered inadmissible. If quotas are considered sufficient to overturn traffic citations then they should be able to do this given that the only evidence is the "confession" itself.
 
This kid was a ****ing idiot for pleading no contest. He could have easily fought this and won. There are so many avenues of defense one can take that it's ridiculous not to get it thrown out.
 
This kid was a ****ing idiot for pleading no contest. He could have easily fought this and won. There are so many avenues of defense one can take that it's ridiculous not to get it thrown out.

Easily, with a few thousand bucks to pay a lawyer.
 
This kid was a ****ing idiot for pleading no contest. He could have easily fought this and won. There are so many avenues of defense one can take that it's ridiculous not to get it thrown out.

Exactly. Any third rate public defender for night court could have gotten this thrown out.
 
How so?

10char

First of all, the arrest occurred after the fact. Secondly, there was nothing to instigate an investigation of this kid through these deceptive means. Third, there's no actual proof that what was in his glass was, in fact, alcohol. We all know now that it was, but that's beside the point since he pled "no contendere" when he should have just kept his mouth shut and let his lawyer plea "not guilty" for him. Fourth, he was deceived into what amounted to an questionable search and surveillance of his correspondence.

Now had the officer gotten a subpoena to obtain records directly from Facebook, then nothing could be argued about that.

Also, undercover investigations such a drug busts and prostitution stings have something in common that this case does not: they catch a person in the act of commiting the crime. The officer isn't there to charge for a possible prostitution that happened six months ago or even an hour ago. They bust for what is occurring then and once the bust occurs, they announce their official capacity as an officer, right then. In this case, the officer singled a particular person out, gained access to his correspondence, pictures, etc going so far as to use a false gender to do so and then luring him to a designated place to make an arrest with no real evidence to support the crime. Just hearsay via his facebook page and an assumption there was alcohol in a cup in a picture.

It could have gotten thrown out. Even if the officer wanted to push it, with minimal fight, I am pretty sure a DA would have declined to prosecute it because of the HUGE waste of public safety and court resources involved in a trial to prosecute a status offense with such questionable police work.

The kid was dumb to make a plea of no contest.
 
Back
Top Bottom