Department of Justice sued over creating fake Facebook page

Ajidica

High Quality Person
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
22,204
This thread screams for a witty title, but I can't think of one.
BBC said:
A woman is suing the US government after it created a fake Facebook page containing photos of her, including one that showed her half-clothed.

The Department of Justice acknowledged that one of its agents had created the page without telling Sondra Arquiett.

But it initially suggested that Ms Arquiett had "implicitly consented" to the action because she had granted officers access to her mobile phone.

The DoJ said it was now reviewing if the bogus page had been a step too far.

A trial is scheduled for next week in New York, with the US government and the Drugs Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, Timothy Sinnigen, both named as defendants.

The case dates back four years, but was first reported by the news site Buzzfeed.

Pictures of children

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.

One photograph, her lawyers said, featured "the plaintiff in her bra and panties".

"When plaintiff learned of Sinnigen's actions, she suffered fear and great emotional distress because, by posing as her on Facebook, Sinnigen had created the appearance that plaintiff was wilfully co-operating in his investigation of the narcotics trafficking ring, thereby placing her in danger," they added.

Ms Arquiett said the action had breached her rights to privacy, equal protection under the law and due process, and has demanded more than $250,000 (£155,560) in damages.

Fake Facebook A screenshot taken by AP indicates that the fake page had 11 "friends" before it was removed (images blurred by BBC)
The US government acknowledged that Mr Sinnigen 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.

However, Buzzfeed and the Associated Press news agency were both able to access the page before it was taken offline.

The US government also recognised that one of the photos included showed Ms Arquiett "wearing either a two-piece bathing suit or a bra and underwear," but denied that the photograph should be characterised as being "suggestive".

'Laughable'

Regarding the wider allegation, the US government stated that Ms Arquiett had "relinquished any expectation of privacy she may have had to photographs on her cell phone" when she agreed to let officers search and use information on the device.

However, it acknowledged that she "did not give express permission for the use of photographs contained on her phone on an undercover Facebook page".

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a US-based online privacy campaign group, has described the government's rationale as being "laughable".

But legal experts have said that the case might hang on exactly what Ms Arquiett had consented to.

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.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29536611
tl;dr: A woman was arrested and plead guilty to intent to distribute drugs, and in the process her phone was confiscated (with pictures on it). The DoJ used those pictures to create a fake facebook page under one of her aliases to send friend requests to people believed to be involved with the drug ring but currently fugitive.
The government said the woman consented to this use of her photos by handing her phone over to the DoJ.


I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact somebody at the DoJ came up with this idea and thought "Yup, nothing potentially illegal or morally questionable about this. Not at all."

Do you believe the woman was properly informed of this potential use of her photos?
Should the government be allowed to do things like this, even if it is currently legal?
Other thoughts?
 
I am really torn here between it obviously being unacceptable for the government to do this, and my utter contempt I hold for drug dealing scum.
 
That's the good thing about things being clearly unacceptable - they remain clearly unacceptable, even when they couldn't happen to nicer people.
 
The mistake was not making it clear enough what they were using her phone for and not asking her permission to impersonate her in the plea deal. If it had been agreed to in writing there is very little she could have done about it.
 
The mistake was not making it clear enough what they were using her phone for and not asking her permission to impersonate her in the plea deal. If it had been agreed to in writing there is very little she could have done about it.
I don't think I like the idea of suspects being blackmailed to allow the DOJ to directly mess with their private lives like that.
 
I am really torn here between it obviously being unacceptable for the government to do this, and my utter contempt I hold for drug dealing scum.
If the rule of law doesn't extend to "drug dealing scum", then can it be said to exist at all?
 
Why do you think I'm torn?
Well, that's just it: the principle of the rule law dictates that Ms Arquiett criminal history is entirely besides the point. She could be the ghost of Adolf Hitler possessing the corpse of Osama bin Laden and it would still be wrong. Feeling conflicted suggests that you're not totally sold on the "rule of law" to begin with?
 
Isn't it blatantly against Facebook's TOS to claim you're someone you aren't?

I mean there was a big stink about drag queens not being able to use the names they wanted as a side-effect of their policies(Facebook did eventually change this policy) so I can't imagine this is remotely okay.
 
Cause you just can't do without large amounts of liquid hypocrisy?

:scan:
I prefer my hypocrisy in solid pill form, thank you very much, though I really cannot say I am spotting the hypocrisy here. Did I say I was fine with the government doing it here because she's a drug dealer? No, I don't think so. In fact, I think I said I was torn over it. Why am I torn? Well because it's obvious to anyone with a brain that what the government did was wrong, but I just don't like drug dealers, to put it mildly, so I wish there was a way this could have been done where it was okay. But there isn't, so golly I'm torn.

@Light Cleric: Regardless of how the actions of the govt were wrong, Facebook's TOS are not exactly law. THAT part of this is no more "wrong" that some kid under 13 years of age lying to create an account on a site that says you have to be 13 to create one.
 
Do we have to side with someone here though? Can't they both suck?
Why does both parties sucking prevent you from taking a side? It's fairly clear that Ms. Arquiett's rights have been unjustly and more to the point illegally infringed upon, regardless of her personal history.

(It's strange that I, the anarchist, who lends the least credence of any of us to the "rule of law", should be having to make these points! But perhaps that's just it- because I don't take the rule of law particularly seriously as a principle, I'm free to entertain it in a pure and unqualified form, entirely apart from my gut-desire to bash people I don't like on the head?)
 
I meant in the sense of "being torn". I think the government was clearly at fault here and there's zero excuse for what they did. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't think the drug dealer is a scumbag even though scumbags have the same rights we do. Maybe I'm seeing "sides" differently here than others are.

And yes I know Facebook's TOS are not law. I was just saying that, even if what they did is not illegal, at the very least they decided they were above the rules they agreed to so they were wrong on multiple levels.
 
I meant in the sense of "being torn". I think the government was clearly at fault here and there's zero excuse for what they did. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't think the drug dealer is a scumbag even though scumbags have the same rights we do. Maybe I'm seeing "sides" differently here than others are.
But again, isn't our attitude to Ms. Arquiett an individual is entirely besides the point? The issue is the behaviour of the government, so the only "sides" which can be said to exist are in relation to that issue. Bshup is by his own acknowledgement hovering between support and opposition for the government on this because he's unsure of his depth of commitment to the rule of law, not because he interprets the issue as being about whether or not we like Arquiett as a person.

Fundamentally, it's a question of whether you prefer constitutional government or arbitrary government: if you prefer the former, then Arquiett doesn't actually matter, she's merely a test case, so there's no reason to stake out an awkward middle ground of insisting upon contempt for both of them.
 
I don't think I like the idea of suspects being blackmailed to allow the DOJ to directly mess with their private lives like that.

She should not have consented to giving up her phone. People make plea deals all the time. Should the practice be stopped because it may be considered blackmail?
 
She should not have consented to giving up her phone. People make plea deals all the time. Should the practice be stopped because it may be considered blackmail?
Considered?
I don't see much room for debate weather it is or not.
But no I don't think it should be stopped for that reason alone. It is too useful.
 
Top Bottom