<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2011:/1/tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320-</id>
  <updated>2011-08-16T16:13:09Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for Watchdog Group EFF Sues Government Regarding Social Media Surveillance Tactics</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.35-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=17320" title="Watchdog Group EFF Sues Government Regarding Social Media Surveillance Tactics" />
    <published>2009-12-03T12:51:06Z</published>
    <updated>2009-12-03T17:58:19Z</updated>
    <title>Watchdog Group EFF Sues Government Regarding Social Media Surveillance Tactics</title>
    <summary><![CDATA[Consumer watchdog group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has initiated a lawsuit against multiple U.S. government agencies for failing to disclose their policies regarding the use of social media for surveillance. According to the filing, the government has been making use of social media sites like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube&nbsp;and Twitter to aid in various investigations where...]]></summary>
    <author>
      <name>Sarah Perez</name>
      
    </author>
    
    <category term="NYT" />
    
    <category term="News" />
    
    <category term="Social Networks" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/eff_pioneers_jul09.jpg" />Consumer watchdog group, the <a href="http://www.eff.org">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>, has initiated a lawsuit against multiple U.S. government agencies for failing to disclose their policies regarding the use of social media for surveillance. According to the filing, the government has been making use of social media sites like <a href="http://www.facebook.com">Facebook</a>, <a href="http://www.myspace.com">MySpace</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com">YouTube</a>&nbsp;and <a href="http://www.twitter.com">Twitter</a> to aid in various investigations where the alleged crimes range from the relatively minor infringement of <a href="http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_0ff40f7a-d4d1-11de-afb3-001cc4c002e0.html">underage drinking</a>, to more serious endeavors, such as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/nyregion/05txt.html?_r=1&amp;bl">coordination of protesters during the G-20 summit</a>. However, when requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for details about governmental policies, several agencies failed to respond with information regarding what data is collected, under what circumstances and who has access to it.</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[
<h2>About the Suit</h2>

<p>The EFF is working with the Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law on this lawsuit. The clinic filed the original FOIA requests on EFF's behalf and later filed the suit when government agencies refused to respond.&nbsp;</p><p>Named in suit are the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Treasury, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Justice, which includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, among others. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/social_network/social_networking_FOIA_complaint_final.pdf">The filing</a> mentions several recent media articles where criminals have been apprehended due to government surveillance of social networking sites, including <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/wireStory?id=8820934">the case of Maxi Sopo</a>, whose Facebook status updates led to his arrest on bank fraud charges. Another example involved programmer Aaron Swartz, who helped an open-government activist with the collection of millions of public and free court records. His activities led to a full-scale FBI investigation, <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/swartz-fbi/">as detailed here in this Wired article</a>. Twitter's name also came up when, as mentioned above, the service was used to notify G-20 summit&nbsp;protesters&nbsp;of police movements. </p>

<p>Although this suit may lead some to believe the EFF is against the practice of utilizing social networking sites for investigative purposes, that is not the case. The filing notes that government use is "often for laudable reasons" - they just want the scope clarified so as to prevent abuse. </p>

<h2>Social Media Investigations are the New Wiretap</h2>


<p>No longer solely used by tech-savvy individuals, social networks have seen explosive growth over recent years. Sites which at one time catered only to the young - such as Facebook which began as college-only network - now include demographic groups that range from pre-teens all the way up to grandparents. As more mainstream users join sites such as these, there is a growing need for privacy awareness. Specifically, internet users have the right to know who can access their data as well as when and how it can be used. </p>

<p>Initiatives like <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_facebooks_new_privacy_changes_will_affect_you.php">Facebook's recent privacy updates</a> are intended to help users maintain some control over that data, but that may not be enough. <a href="http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html">As graduate student Christopher Soghoian recently revealed on his blog</a>, government agencies routinely request information from the operators of social networks when investigating criminal activities in order to access data users have hidden from public view. In fact, most companies even have documented policies regarding the procedures for requesting this data. For example, <a href="http://www.wisspd.org/html/training/ProgMaterials/Conf2009/TFIT/FG.pdf">Facebook's Subpoena and Search Warrant Guide is here</a>, and <a href="http://www.mcc.ag.state.oh.us/publications/LC-MySpace%20Law%20Enforcement%20Guide.pdf">MySpace's Law Enforcement Guide is here</a>. </p>

<p>In this new technological age we live in, using social media to gather data and track criminals is commonplace. It's the new wiretap. And while groups like EFF acknowledge that social network surveillance is often used for commendable purposes, people deserve to know what their rights are in this area. Hopefully, this suit will shed some light on that. </p>]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320-comment:274038</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php#c274038" />
    <title>Comment from Buddy George  on 2010-11-24</title>
    <author>
        <name>Buddy George </name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>A matter that needs investigated<br />
On case#VA107160<br />
People Vs buddy lee George <br />
Norwalk superior court norwalk California division S<br />
Judge the Honorable Roger Ito<br />
Los Angeles county district attorney Kang. <br />
A case that can be proved as unconstitutional due to the following<br />
1.) I was denied my due process rights. <br />
2.) the district attorney had me charged with prison priors and strikes that I did not have and it was not until after the verdict did she admit her mistakes. <br />
3.) I was denied to confront witnesses I supoened 5 officers and only one showed up. <br />
4.) the only witness that showed up was detective hakala from Whittier police department he was the lead detective and expert witness. <br />
5.) the was bias with the processing of evidence he used his own lab. <br />
6.) he lied under oath by saying he removed the drugs before the pre search video because he had a dog. <br />
7.) the evidence in the case had been destroyed before the trial<br />
 Evidence was destroyed 5-29-09<br />
The verdict was read on 8-15-09<br />
8.) the attorney that represented me right before the trial caused a conflict of interest by violating attorney client privilege by having a meeting with the city of la mirada without my permission nor knowledge were he discussed my case were he was convinced by the city saying I should take a deal under the condition I move out of la mirada when I get out of prison. <br />
9.) Henry salcido also told me at one point he didn't care If I was innocent or guilty I should take a deal. <br />
10.) he also told me at one point he was best friends with steve Cooley and if I gave him $180.000 and sign over the deed to our home he could make the case disappear. <br />
11.) their was two retired district attorneys that were working for Henry salcidos law firm that were also over familiar with sheriffs and narcotics department that were involved in my case. <br />
12.) through the whole case the la mirada mayor and council members had law enforcement harassing me their was about 300 or more calls made to law enforcement with the intent to have me harassed <br />
13.) I can also prove false imprisonment. <br />
14.) I was charged with possession for sales when no drugs were ever found to be in my possessing neither was any money ever recovered and according to the detective he found 13 dollars worth of drugs in our home all together in separate bags. <br />
15.) it was unconstitutional for detective hakala to target me when their was 5 occupants living in our home at the time. <br />
16.) the search warrant he used to get in our home the day he supposedly found the drugs was stamped denied. <br />
17.) the second search warrant had a type -o- error and the name on the search warrant was Walter Eugene Farris a guy that I don't know and neither did any one els that lived in our home and he had never been in our home. <br />
18.)The attorney that represented me during the trial had not been given enough to to familiarize her self with my case the judge refused to give her time to overlook the case. <br />
19.) after we picked the jurors one of the jurors was prejudice he said no matter what he would find me guilty because he hates drug dealers the judge still allowed juror # 19 to hang out with all the other jurors until he was replaced. <br />
The following needs to be investigated<br />
1.) violation of due process rights<br />
2.) my state and federal rights were violated. <br />
3.) false imprisonment<br />
4.) harassment <br />
5.) negligent<br />
6.) malpractice<br />
7.) wrongful conviction<br />
8.) officer misconduct<br />
9.) judicial misconduct<br />
10.) cruel and unusual punishment. Email below evidence when the evidence had been destroyed a email from detective hakala to district attorney kang. <br />
11.) the city of la mirada offered to buy our home at cost saying under the condition I couldn't live in la mirada nor Whittier. <br />
12.)la mirada law enforcement was raiding our home practically daily. <br />
13.) before this case started detective jerry Reyes told me as he handed me his card with his hand writing on it that if I dident help him he would fuck me. <br />
14.) detective hakala and district attorney kang kept inflicting lies on the jury. <br />
    <br />
Buddy George - VA107160From: joanne alberry<br />
View Contact To: LAURIE YTARTE -----------------<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------<br />
-- Laurie,here is the email from the Detective <br />
telling the court that all the property was<br />
destroyed. Sorry about all of it. Feel free to mail<br />
me any payments you can at my office address<br />
4229 Main St Suite 4 Riverside CA 92501 I will<br />
let you know when I find an attorney who will<br />
take on a governemtn entity. good luck to you<br />
and Buddy,Joanne ---------- Forwarded message<br />
----------From: Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:23<br />
AMSubject: Fw: Buddy George - VA107160To:<br />
joannealberry@gmail.com Hi Joanne, Per our<br />
conversation, here is the email from Detective<br />
Hakala confirming that the evidence was<br />
destroyed. I will request that our matter be taken<br />
off calendar today. Thanks. ----------------------<br />
Forwarded by Miriam Kang/DAUsers/NLADA on<br />
09/25/2009 07:22 AM --------------------------- To:<br />
cc: Subject: RE: Buddy George - VA107160 I<br />
contacted our central property and the items<br />
seized in the Buddy George case (408-15814-<br />
0460-184) were dispoed on 05-29-09. Any other<br />
questions just let me know. Eric ---------------------<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------<br />
From: MKang@da.lacounty.gov<br />
[mailto:MKang@da.lacounty.gov]Sent: Thu<br />
9/24/2009 2:49 PMTo: Hakala, Eric J.Subject:<br />
Buddy George - VA107160 Hi Detective Hakala,<br />
Just as a reminder, please email me a letter<br />
confirming that the the property booked into<br />
evidence for this case has been disposed of and<br />
the date of disposal. Thanks so much!<br />
Sincerely,Miriam KangDeputy District<br />
AttorneyTel: 562-807-7211 </p>

<p><br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2010-11-24T09:45:09Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320-comment:198702</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php#c198702" />
    <title>Comment from Victor on 2010-03-23</title>
    <author>
        <name>Victor</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>Thanks for groups like this one we can breath a bit easier. The IRS here in Fresno is initiating Mandatory over Time.  It has threatned to Penalize employee for failing to perform a set required of hours of over hours regardless of the reason for non compliance whether it be medical, Social ETC.  We are citizens and not Slaves.</p>

<p>Thank you<br />
Concerened<br />
Vic</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2010-03-23T14:29:54Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320-comment:172929</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php#c172929" />
    <title>Comment from Khaled on 2009-12-05</title>
    <author>
        <name>Khaled</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>As long as people don't know the law, those in charge of enforcing it will do with it what they please.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-12-05T20:33:05Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320-comment:172296</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.17320" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/watchdog_group_eff_sues_government_for_nondisclosure_on_social_media_surveillance.php#c172296" />
    <title>Comment from Stupidscript on 2009-12-03</title>
    <author>
        <name>Stupidscript</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>The link to Facebook's Guide is broken.</p>

<p>AFAICT, all of the recent law enforcement "successes" involving social media applications have been the result of criminal stupidity, and not of any sort of inappropriate data-gathering. As the IT guy for a large defense legal firm, I do know that subpoenas are served regularly on social media companies in order to gain access to the private materials often posted by those accused of a crime, but a subpoena is required in order to get the data, just like it is with telephony.<br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-12-03T21:17:04Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>
