Woman Sues US government Over Fake Facebook page

[Tech_Dreamer]

Yeah nice try...They're quaking on their boots..
 

Oh DEA...

 

 

 

 

The woman is suing the US government after it created a fake Facebook page containing photos of her, including one that showed her half-clothed.(really?)

 

This one has a rather odd back story , but never the less you can see how rather authoritative  protective power used for protecting general public can be used against personal defamation, this being rather legal way of blackmail by the government..

 

 

 

EFF campaign group has described the government's rationale as being "laughable"...

 

 

 

Back Story: (Provided Name is an alias) cort:BBC

 

The fake Facebook page was created after restaurant waitress Ms Arquiett was arrested in July 2010, and accused of being involved in a drugs ring.She pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and was later sentenced to six months of weekend incarceration.

At the time of her arrest, Ms Arquiett surrendered her mobile phone and consented to officers accessing its data to help them with related criminal investigations.

 

This included an investigation into her boyfriend, Jermaine Branford, who was suspected of co-ordinating drug sales. He later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

Ms Arquiett said she was not however notified that this operation would involve the creation of a "publicly available" Facebook page in the name of Sondra Prince, an alias she used.

It included photographs of her as well as images of her son and niece.

 

The US government acknowledged that they had created the page and had used it to send a "friend" request to a wanted fugitive as well as accepting requests from others, but denied it had been made "publicly available" in a wider sense..(bbc/eff disagrees)

 

Facebook's terms and conditions state that users cannot create accounts for others without permission, but a spokeswoman for the firm declined to comment on this specific instance.

 

Post your rants & comments below....

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29536611

 

 

[mr moose]

Kinda tricky, not very ethical but given she admitted to being a drug dealer, what kind of treatment does she deserve? Does she deserve the same respect that citizens assumed innocent are entitled to?

 

Food for thought.  This will keep me rather occupied as I consider the social justice implications.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Kinda tricky, not very ethical but given she admitted to being a drug dealer, what kind of treatment does she deserve? Does she deserve the same respect that citizens assumed innocent are entitled to?

 

Food for thought.  This will keep me rather occupied as I consider the social justice implications.

 

 i too had the same thought with most of things i've seen, Something stunning to me is that the pattern of violence/abuse is the same from "justice team" who suddenly gets the right to treat the person same/worse regarding the crime, it's kinda like catching a shark & chopping it up & using it's meat as a bait to catch the other sharks , trouble is you're the ones doing the more 'thoughtful' killing in mass amounts, the same thing that the sharks were doing in the first place, but it's all good because it's 'justice' since you're protecting something more valuable ..it truly depends on perspective i guess.. Strong survives , right? , in the end it's just a rookie lynch mob taking about 'justice' while chopping off a head..

[brownninja97]

you lose your rights when you become a criminal so yeah the woman can go perish

[mooseducks86]

I'm just amazed that facebook is still around. I'm still in my 20s, and I feel anyone that uses facebook or pictures (or any social media) as a way to validate themselves and the life choices they've made are either holding on to their youth desperately (I feel sad for kids/teens having to see their parents' party pictures from last weekend...) or they are in denial of the fact that their lives aren't what they wanted and use social media to fake a fulfilling or enjoyable life to everyone they know, plus a butt-load of (at the very best) acquaintances.

 

I don't think these people got the internet soon enough and experienced things like melodramatic.com, faceparty, live/dead journal, deviantart, web rings, and other things that brought the smart/geeky, tech savvy, socially repressed, and just awesome people together.

 

The internet is becoming cable television. There's tons of channels, but it's all fake-reality and ads. Governments are just evolving with the times... and probably helping these people share as much as they can on sites like facebook or twitter... even if they don't have an official gov "back door" they just need one fed placed as a tech at their datacentres to make one.

 

If you want contact with complete strangers, sites like LTT are not only entertaining and informative, you don't have to be barraged with lies about peoples lives. Instead of exercising vanity and improving skills that define a sociopath...

 

Oh, and if it catches people who leave their drugs around for their kids to find, good on ya!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/mother-arrested-after-child-shares-heroin-at-daycare/16837403/

[smjpl]

Kinda tricky, not very ethical but given she admitted to being a drug dealer, what kind of treatment does she deserve? Does she deserve the same respect that citizens assumed innocent are entitled to?

 

Food for thought.  This will keep me rather occupied as I consider the social justice implications.

 

 

you lose your rights when you become a criminal so yeah the woman can go perish

 

Wow! You two think people should lose their rights if they engage in illegal activities? That is complete madness! Nobody should ever lose their rights, no matter what the crime. I am not saying that people shouldn't be punished but that doesn't mean they should lose their rights.

[mr moose]

Wow! You two think people should lose their rights if they engage in illegal activities? That is complete madness! Nobody should ever lose their rights, no matter what the crime. I am not saying that people shouldn't be punished but that doesn't mean they should lose their rights.

 

I never said that.

 

There are question marks, they are questions, implying the subject is a little to complicated to simple box as right or wrong and that I don't have an answer.  These are serious and varying circumstances that change ethical boundaries.  What one considers to be a basic human right, another may not, neither view is intrinsically correct.  So we must consider not only the morals of the actions the authorities have taken, but also the rights of the individual.  Again, does the deliberate choice a person makes (to be a drug dealer) constitute the relinquishment of her human rights? Particularly given that the choice has negative effects on innocent people?

[mooseducks86]

I never said that.

 

There are question marks, they are questions, implying the subject is a little to complicated to simple box as right or wrong and that I don't have an answer.  These are serious and varying circumstances that change ethical boundaries.  What one considers to be a basic human right, another may not, neither view is intrinsically correct.  So we must consider not only the morals of the actions the authorities have taken, but also the rights of the individual.  Again, does the deliberate choice a person makes (to be a drug dealer) constitute the relinquishment of her human rights?

I agree completely. The biggest problem here is people don't understand that the internet is not like being in your house. You lose a lot of rights when you go online, just like you lose a lot of rights when you walk into starbucks. (that was an analogy for a public space or someone elses private property.)

 

You have a right to shoot an airgun in your house (maybe backyard) but the moment you point it out a window and shoot, or a bb leaves your property... http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/04/22/edmonton-boy-shoots-bb-gun-into-traffic things change.

If you're writing things on your laptop and storing images there.... yeah, you have a right to privacy... but when you give a cellphone full of photos to the government and consent to them using anything on it, or if a normal person posts something on facebook... you don't have the same rights, facebook privacy settings are a feature to appease most law-abiding citizens who just realised everything they do on facebook is stored. forever. but theyre not set in stone and they wont hold up in a court and people aren't educated enough about it to understand that. Internet might be fun, but things will come back to haunt you 15 years later, even if you don't plan on it and think youre smart by using a different identity http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/august/mark-driscoll-crude-comments-william-wallace-mars-hill.html?paging=off

[brownninja97]

Wow! You two think people should lose their rights if they engage in illegal activities? That is complete madness! Nobody should ever lose their rights, no matter what the crime. I am not saying that people shouldn't be punished but that doesn't mean they should lose their rights.

its law whether you like it or not. Well as least it is for the uk.

 

You still have your miranda rights and depending on how you act in jail you can gain a few rights or loose some.

[smjpl]

I never said that.

 

There are question marks, they are questions, implying the subject is a little to complicated to simple box as right or wrong and that I don't have an answer.  These are serious and varying circumstances that change ethical boundaries.  What one considers to be a basic human right, another may not, neither view is intrinsically correct.  So we must consider not only the morals of the actions the authorities have taken, but also the rights of the individual.  Again, does the deliberate choice a person makes (to be a drug dealer) constitute the relinquishment of her human rights? Particularly given that the choice has negative effects on innocent people?

 

I still disagree (based upon limited info we have). While she decided to cooperate with law enforcement by giving up all information she had, she never agreed to becoming an informant. They made her become an involuntary informant (without her knowledge) by acting as her online. Normally criminals are given a choice to act as an informant (with benefits, i.e. reduced sentence) as it is a dangerous job. You are putting your life at risk by doing so and thus you should be given the choice whether you want to do so or not. In this instance, they took that choice away and that is not right. Nobody has the right to put your life in danger.     

[smjpl]

its law whether you like it or not. Well as least it is for the uk.

 

You still have your miranda rights and depending on how you act in jail you can gain a few rights or loose some.

 

What law states you can be made an informant without your consent or knowledge? That is what they did to this girl. They controlled her online persona to act as an informant. Normally people are given a choice to cooperate which results in benefits if they do.

[brownninja97]

What law states you can be made an informant without your consent or knowledge? That is what they did to this girl. They controlled her online persona to act as an informant. Normally people are given a choice to cooperate which results in benefits if they do.

sadly its one of those deal with it situations, the government is insanely powerful.

[smjpl]

sadly its one of those deal with it situations, the government is insanely powerful.

 

Again I disagree. I don't think the BBC would be reporting on it if that were the case. She obviously has some merit to her case.

[mr moose]

I still disagree (based upon limited info we have). While she decided to cooperate with law enforcement by giving up all information she had, she never agreed to becoming an informant. They made her become an involuntary informant (without her knowledge) by acting as her online. Normally criminals are given a choice to act as an informant (with benefits, i.e. reduced sentence) as it is a dangerous job. You are putting your life a risk by doing so and thus you should be given the choice whether you want to do so or not. In this instance, they took that choice away and that is not right. Nobody has the right to put your life in danger.     

 

Of course, and that is why scenarios like these are not black and white.  Talking purely from a moral perspective (not a legal one), at which point one is denied such rights can only be determined by each person as they see it. For many who have lost family members to drugs the very act of becoming a dealer in their mind is akin to forfeiting all human rights, however for someone such as yourself there seems no such act that should result in that.

 

It's interesting how we perceive rights in this regard anyway,  essentially what is the difference between locking someone in prison and putting their life in danger?  Some would argue that death is more human than life in prison, that death is short lived and then nothing while life in prison is akin to torture.  

 

At what point does the collective survival instinct of humanity determine the worth of a single life?  And can protective/governing authorities make that call?

[mooseducks86]

What law states you can be made an informant without your consent or knowledge? That is what they did to this girl. They controlled her online persona to act as an informant. Normally people are given a choice to cooperate which results in benefits if they do.

She was most likely an informant anyways, in the way that there was probably things on her phone, including names and numbers that helped officials find out more about this ring. She DID choose to give them that information. Informant.

 

She may not have been an inside informant (I don't know terms here... illegal activities are not my expertise) where she went to these people got information and gave it back to the police... it may have been a one time thing... but you're talking about being an informant is dangerous? How does it become dangerous? If I went to the police and told them things about my family... would I be endangered? No... because I don't associate with people I would consider dangerous. She endangered her life on her own time by being part of whatever she is apart of.

 

The dangerous part of her life is the illegal part. And she chose that. I'm pretty sure this guy was not an informant, but he still got killed.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/10/20141006-093524.html

[mr moose]

She was most likely an informant anyways, in the way that there was probably things on her phone, including names and numbers that helped officials find out more about this ring. She DID choose to give them that information. Informant.

 

She may not have been an inside informant (I don't know terms here... illegal activities are not my expertise) where she went to these people got information and gave it back to the police... it may have been a one time thing... but you're talking about being an informant is dangerous? How does it become dangerous? If I went to the police and told them things about my family... would I be endangered? No... because I don't associate with people I would consider dangerous. She endangered her life on her own time by being part of whatever she is apart of.

 

The dangerous part of her life is the illegal part. And she chose that. I'm pretty sure this guy was not an informant, but he still got killed.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/10/20141006-093524.html

 

Yes, many times I have heard of people who became a liability once they are arrested (not what you want to become in underworld), therefore the path one chooses may very well influence their demise.

[smjpl]

Of course, and that is why scenarios like these are not black and white.  Talking purely from a moral perspective (not a legal one), at which point one is denied such rights can only be determined by each person as they see it. For many who have lost family members to drugs the very act of becoming a dealer in their mind is akin to forfeiting all human rights, however for someone such as yourself there seems no such act that should result in that.

 

It's interesting how we perceive rights in this regard anyway,  essentially what is the difference between locking someone in prison and putting their life in danger?  Some would argue that death is more human than life in prison, that death is short lived and then nothing while life in prison is akin to torture.  

 

At what point does the collective survival instinct of humanity determine the worth of a single life?  And can protective/governing authorities make that call?

 

Big difference between life in prison and six months of weekend incarceration. Just because someone sells an illegal substance does not mean they put their life in danger. It doesn't even mean they are a bad person. It goes back to supply and demand. If there is a demand, then someone will supply. That someone can range from extremely nice well mannered citizens who just supply to people who want it, all the way to absolute scumbags who artificially create the demand by getting people hooked at a young age and then extorting those people for the rest of their lives. I don't think we should tarnish all with the same brush.

[mooseducks86]

Yes, many times I have heard of people who became a liability once they are arrested (not what you want to become in underworld), therefore the path one chooses may very well influence their demise.

Ooooh, I feel like I'm about to step in front of a firing squad... these are my personal thoughts/feelings on many matters, and they are at best divided. There is no utopia. Freedom is only a word... and we give meaning to that word. No one will ever truly be free (maybe in death... but that's only if there is no afterlife) because my world will always be invaded by your world (other peoples worlds) we all affect each other, whether we mean to or not... Positively or negatively (Hey, asshole! Don't smile at me! It makes me smile and feel better and I didn't want to!)

 

The whole point of an arrest, jail, questioning, etc... is to bring the person in question to break their rights by "their own free will". If someone was given a week on house arrest before being questioned, the police would not get nearly as much information as they do. You're taking someone who is already weakened by fear, anxiety, stress, and subjecting them to situations that don't let them calm down. It essentially is torturing them softly to get a confession or important information. Greater good and all that nonsense I'm sure... I mean, it isn't black and white. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't necessarily agree with her contributing to the decline of our society. It really is way more complex than you, me, the government or anyone can explain.

 

Government is important. Without government nothing would get done. We would probably go back to needing fortresses and castles and not having electricity because no one is there to pay for infrastructure (I can't remember what BBC documentary I was watching, but they were talking about when England first got electricity... there were hundreds of providers, there was no regulation, standard voltage, plug, etc... bringing it into your home was usually a DIY thing... many people died...) How far should governments go? Well, it's a rolling train engine, and you can't put the brakes on when you think it's enough... it will roll a few hundred feet into the future. (confusing analogy)

 

If it were up to me, we'd all be living in around 1880 on homesteads... making our own clothes, dressing our childrens wounds with a medicinal mash and using branches as splints... but then half our children would die before they reach high school (wait... there wouldnt really be high school...) and we would have to pray someone didn't axe us to death in our sleep for some bread. So... pros/cons? We have looked to a group of people to keep us safe(r ) and healthy(ier) and protected(er... lol) and if you take a step back and look at it, they do their best. Government is like any other entity (or human being... maybe loved one would be a good analogy) They make us happy, they make us sad, they try their best, they disappoint us, sometimes they're selfish, sometimes we are selfish, but the only ONLY thing we can control in our lives.. no matter the place or the time period is the way we REACT. We cannot control our thoughts. We will have good thoughts, bad thoughts, murderous thoughts, sexual thoughts. That is natural. We cannot control our emotions (inwardly) something can overwhelm us, surprise us, anger us... the only thing we can do is control what we do with those. The moments leading up to our physical expression of any of that. Slap someones face. Clap with pride. Laugh uncontrollably. Shout at our kids. Pour cream in our spouse's coffee when you know they only take milk.

[smjpl]

She was most likely an informant anyways, in the way that there was probably things on her phone, including names and numbers that helped officials find out more about this ring. She DID choose to give them that information. Informant.

 

She may not have been an inside informant (I don't know terms here... illegal activities are not my expertise) where she went to these people got information and gave it back to the police... it may have been a one time thing... but you're talking about being an informant is dangerous? How does it become dangerous? If I went to the police and told them things about my family... would I be endangered? No... because I don't associate with people I would consider dangerous. She endangered her life on her own time by being part of whatever she is apart of.

 

The dangerous part of her life is the illegal part. And she chose that. I'm pretty sure this guy was not an informant, but he still got killed.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/10/20141006-093524.html

 

While I agree to some extent, I do believe there is a difference between working in a dangerous environment and putting your life in danger. Think of it this way. People work with dangerous animals but most those people say that as long as you respect the danger, then you should be fine. When you lose respect for the animal, then you are in trouble. This is a similar situation. By putting the decision making process into the hands of someone who is not directly in danger (the officer behind the FB page), the respect can be lost and the real dangers can emerge.

 

I know this is a bad way to put it but it is the best I could come up with. The girl may never have bought anything from some psycho dealer (only people she knows and trusts) but the officer is only after the psycho and tries to make contact with him through her name therefore putting her life in serious danger (that she would never have been exposed to if she was in control of the decision making process). The main difference is "choice" and they took that away without her knowledge let alone her consent.  

[MagnetSh0CK]

Even if she was a mass murderer everyone needs privacy and rights, or else the government will just call everyone what they want and be justified. (*cough *cough terrorists get 0 rights, so what if they call you a terrrorist?)

[heathd]

I'm waiting/hoping for this crap to reach critical mass soon. The sheeple need to wake the hell up and be outraged over this shit. If the younger generations are willing to accept this as the norm, then we are screwed.

[Suika]

She gave them clear and cut consent, so they're going to go overboard. That's how they operate lol.

If you don't want government, don't give them consent.

[Jerakl]

Interesting to see how this plays out. Government is shady

[Trik'Stari]

I wonder what it will actually take to make the general public realize that:

1. the government doesn't care about them

2. the government can't be trusted anymore.

 

They care about 2 things,

staying in power

getting more money for themselves.

 

That's it, nothing else matters to them, why do you think the politicians say "oh well we need to wait until after the election to do that"?

 

Granted she's a coke head so I don't really care about her, but what other shady shit have they done like this?

[heathd]

I wonder what it will actually take to make the general public realize that:

1. the government doesn't care about them

2. the government can't be trusted anymore.

They care about 2 things,

staying in power

getting more money for themselves.

That's it, nothing else matters to them, why do you think the politicians say "oh well we need to wait until after the election to do that"?

Granted she's a coke head so I don't really care about her, but what other shady shit have they done like this?

Yup. Its not who they're doing it to that really bothers me, its the justification issued that is disturbing. What about data, pictures, etc seized in a raid or whatever else that belong to an innocent person, or someone who has been judged innocent by a jury?

Also, what if/when this shit backfires and some shitty drug pusher tracks this woman down and kills her or anyone else as a result of the DEA using their likeness.