• 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

jallman said:
First of all, the arrest occurred after the fact.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that happens all the time.

Secondly, there was nothing to instigate an investigation of this kid through these deceptive means.
Click to expand...

Here I agree with you.

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.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can say that unless we've seen the pictures, plus the comments in them. In any case, I'm betting that it would probably be certain enough to be probable cause, probably at least as much so as most arrests; if officers required absolute proof, no innocent people would ever be arrested (and a lot of guilty ones would get away).

Fourth, he was deceived into what amounted to an questionable search and surveillance of his correspondence.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't think it was unconstitutional or anything. Facebook is, if not public domain, moreso than one's own home, and the guy friended someone he didn't know voluntarily.
And as I said, this would probably have been legal for any private citizen to do anyways.


The kid was dumb to make a plea of no contest.
Click to expand...

Not if it was only a minor penalty, as I am assuming it was, since otherwise the costs and trouble of a court fight would probably have been greater than the penalty he received.
 
Dav said:
How so?
Click to expand...

1. Holding a beer is not illegal.
2. Saying that you are an underage drinker is not illegal.
3. Photos can be easily manipulated.
4. They have no proof that this was his Facebook.

In order for them to have a successful case they would have to prove that he is in fact the person in the photos, that the container he is holding has beer in it and that he drank from a container that has beer in it. You cannot get any of this from a photograph.

Not if it was only a minor penalty, as I am assuming it was, since otherwise the costs and trouble of a court fight would probably have been greater than the penalty he received.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he could find something to sue the state for to compensate.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Sure it is. What's illegal about it?
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, a house is much more private than a facebook page, so it is much more objectionable to request to enter one's home under false pretexts than to request to become a Facebook friend under no pretexts at all (though I suppose you could make the case that no pretext = false pretext).

Also, when you let a stranger in your house, you are not consenting to let them search every inch of it; but if you friend someone on Facebook, since you have control of your privacy settings and since you decide what goes up there based on what you want others to see, you are basically consenting to let that person see everything that your friends can see.
 
vauge said:
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?
Click to expand...
Right off the top..
The police have too much spare time, if they have nothing better to do that this, which is a type of harassment.
Have you ever noticed that the police seldom if ever are laid off due to a lack of meaningful work.
And there are many problems, I think, and we do not need police to settle them.
Just better people.
 
vauge said:
Court is a different matter. There should have been a WARRANT to sign up on his page to be able to use it as evidence. Here, they obviously are ignoring that process. You know, due course.


They decided he was guilty by pictures. When the guy could have been drinking anything.


Sadly, you are correct.
Click to expand...
Let's see, who was bitching about warrantless wiretapping? Wasn't it the party now in power?
 
American said:
Let's see, who was bitching about warrantless wiretapping? Wasn't it the party now in power?
Click to expand...

Yes - when warrants are actually legally required, and the law makes it very clear that they are.
 
vauge said:
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?
Click to expand...





Yes, If you are that big a moron to post you doin illegal activities on a public site, then you get what you deserve.... ;)
 
vauge said:
They decided he was guilty by pictures. When the guy could have been drinking anything.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Even if he was pouring some amber liquid all over his face and down his throat straight out of a beer bottle, there is no way to PROVE that is was alcoholic, let alone prove that the photos were not manipulated. The probability is high, but that's as far as it's possible to go. I'm amazed the cops and the judges were able to pull this off at all. I guess the kid was also dumb enough to just roll over anyway, so maybe it was a 'teaching opportunity'?
 
This guy should have just said that the pictures came form a recent trip to Mexico or Canada.

He can say, "Yes I was drinking alcohol. I was doing so legally."
 
Dav said:
Well, for one thing, a house is much more private than a facebook page, so it is much more objectionable to request to enter one's home under false pretexts than to request to become a Facebook friend under no pretexts at all (though I suppose you could make the case that no pretext = false pretext).

Also, when you let a stranger in your house, you are not consenting to let them search every inch of it; but if you friend someone on Facebook, since you have control of your privacy settings and since you decide what goes up there based on what you want others to see, you are basically consenting to let that person see everything that your friends can see.
Click to expand...

But what's illegal about it?
 
What's illegal about having a picture of yourself with a suspiciously foamy glass of pale ale? nothing.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
What's illegal about having a picture of yourself with a suspiciously foamy glass of pale ale? nothing.
Click to expand...

What's illegal about holding a bloody knife next to a stabbing victim? Nothing. But it makes good evidence too.
 
misterman said:
What's illegal about holding a bloody knife next to a stabbing victim? Nothing. But it makes good evidence too.
Click to expand...

well_actually_trollcat.jpg


You understand that in most murder cases, there is evidence of an actual crime BESIDES a photo, right?
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
psychedelics_have_no_long_term_detrimental_effects_trollcat.jpg


You understand that in most murder cases, there is evidence of an actual crime BESIDES a photo, right?
Click to expand...

Just...just walk away. It will save you a lot of frustration and disappointment if you just accept the fact that you are not having a legitimate conversation with him/her...whatever....right now and just let it go.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You understand that in most murder cases, there is evidence of an actual crime BESIDES a photo, right?
Click to expand...

Yes for people who get convicted. No for people who get arrested.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
well_actually_trollcat.jpg


You understand that in most murder cases, there is evidence of an actual crime BESIDES a photo, right?
Click to expand...

Well, actually, no. Murder cases have been built on less.

But that's irrelevant. The point is that nobody was being prosecuted for holding a beer in a picture. It was used as evidence of a crime, not the crime itself.

I will add here my standard periodic reminder that I agree that this was a stupid waste of police time.
 
Let's not rule out the possibility that underage drinking actually is a problem in this region and the police are resorting to every measure they can to contain it. I'm not certain of the statistics, but my intuition is that there are higher mortality rates involving teenage drunkenness than any other age group.
 
Last edited:
vauge said:
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?
Click to expand...

What? really? You've never heard the addage: Once it's on the internet, it's out there for good/all to see?

I know plenty of Police who use facebook and myspace, and good on them. If you're dumb enough to put EVIDENCE of you breaking the law on a PUBLIC system, especially if it's marked PUBLIC, then you deserve everything you get. :lol:

Now if they hack your account and violate the EULA and such, then I can see a problem.
 
EpicDude86 said:
What? really? You've never heard the addage: Once it's on the internet, it's out there for good/all to see?

I know plenty of Police who use facebook and myspace, and good on them. If you're dumb enough to put EVIDENCE of you breaking the law on a PUBLIC system, especially if it's marked PUBLIC, then you deserve everything you get. :lol:

Now if they hack your account and violate the EULA and such, then I can see a problem.
Click to expand...

There's actually no official legislation or any official practice that outlaws police from using Facebook as a tool and no evidence to suggest its an "invasion of privacy", and therefore i see no reason why a warrant would be required.
 
Pretending to be someone else on facebook isnt a crime :shrug:
 
kaya'08 said:
There's actually no official legislation or any official practice that outlaws police from using Facebook as a tool and no evidence to suggest its an "invasion of privacy", and therefore i see no reason why a warrant would be required.
Click to expand...

kaya'08 said:
Pretending to be someone else on facebook isnt a crime :shrug:
Click to expand...

Agree'd though sometimes a warrant is necessary, but only if there is a legal contract involved where privacy is assured. Not entirely sure on that but I'm pretty sure. For instance data-backup sites, like Carbonite, I am almost sure that Law Enforcement requires a warrant to access any of that data for any customer because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Pretending to be someone else on facebook may not be crime (yet, and I say yet because of the cases where impersonations have led to violence and death), but fraud and entrapment are. HOWEVER, Willingly posting a picture of yourself committing a crime and allowing anyone to see it, is not entrapment however. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom