"bad actors doing bad things"
Are they talking about miming "I will survive" while wearing too many sequins? Some things should be banned!
A woman is suing the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), alleging that the agency impersonated her online in order to lure suspected criminals. Sondra Arquiett claims that a DEA agent used photos taken from her mobile phone to create a fake Facebook page, which the agency then used to help corral drug suspects. According to a …
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
..and they can't be bothered to do proper identity fabrication to catch bad guys. Instead they use a real person's images, endangering that person. This can only happen if the agents involved feel no risk to themselves from doing so. That's the real scandal here; 'law enforcers' now feel free to screw over whomever they like whilst cutting corners in pursuit of their next bonus/pay rise.
And recourse to the courts only results in 'make good' money from the taxpayer's pockets, with the perps escaping the slightest exposure, let alone any actual punishment.
> This can only happen if the agents involved feel no risk to themselves from doing so.
I rather imagine they thought it was highly unlikely that she would ever find out that they had used her photos. I wonder how she did find out.
[Goes off to check the complaint]
Jeez, the cops used her real name as well as her photos for their "fake" Facebook entry.
Lock 'em up!
Unless I'm missing something, a drug user is offeneded the narks used her (or the likeness of her) to catch other drug users or dealers, and she's offended by that.
Not surprised. If the narks take your dealer away, you can't buy drugs anymore, and you're going to be pissed at the narks for that.
From the article - "she was arrested in New York State on drugs charges".
Not, you'll note, "she was convicted in New York State of drug charges". Innocent until... Not to mention that no detail is given about these charges. It could have been a quarter of weed. It could have been some under the counter meds.
Would somebody who (to our knowledge) has not been convicted of any offence but was once arrested for something this trivial be fair game in your opinion?
If so, are you a law enforcement official?
'Not, you'll note, "she was convicted in New York State of drug charges". Innocent until... Not to mention that no detail is given about these charges. It could have been a quarter of weed. It could have been some under the counter meds.'
Not to disagree with you, but even if she had been guilty of illegal possesion of drugs, presumably for personal use looking at the charge sheet, they had no right to do what they did. The DEA were, as others have pointed out risking her life by using her details this way.
I only hope the weasel who set her up faces criminal charges.
"....,Innocent until... Not to mention that no detail is given about these charges......" She was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and plead guilty, so she was guilty of a serious criminal offence.
The funny bit is El Reg seems to be a bit behind the curve here - she has already settled with the DEA (http://www.newsweek.com/feds-settle-over-fake-facebook-profile-used-drug-case-301096).
That's all completely irrelevant.
The allegation is that they used her private images for an illegal and unauthorised purpose, namely one that had no bearing on the case she was arrested for.
Futhermore, this put her in danger of reprisals.
Under US copyright law alone the unauthorised use carries millions in civil penalties, before considering anything else.
By my count the following offenses were committed by the DEA: 1 count of identity theft, multiple counts of reckless endangerment (children in the pictures could also become targets) and multiple counts of copyright theft. Did I miss anything?
Oh for those who think it matters, the results of her case are here but I'll sum up: entered a guilty plea to "Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Cocaine Base" sentenced to time served plus probation.
They didn't just use her image, they created a whole profile around her and included photos of her daughter and niece. Plus like others said, no mention of her being convicted of anything, just that she was arrested, they cloned her phone and later decided to use that data to pull in drug dealers. This wasn't something where they got her to agree to act as an informant, and worst case scenario she could have ended up *meeting* one of these scumbags and they think that she spent the last week flirting with them
She needs a better lawyer.
for once i really believe there should be a stupidly high payout to ensure this never ever happens again.
I really feel disgusted that a law enforcement agency would go ahead and do something like that.
I fear the day it happens here in the UK, or it probably has and gag orders issued :(
and I hope they arrest people in the internet with such a horrible grasp of the most basic english language concepts. I'm surprised you found your way here successfully.
Aside from her crimes, it is out of order for them to use any of her images, let alone those of her children for very obvious reasons.
What level of crime do you think is acceptable for someone to use your image then? Say you have a speeding ticket, points on your license etc, does this make your images fair game to be used to trap other people into committing crimes? Can we involve images of any children or family members too? Using your logic you would be fine with this no?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019