Undercover cops break Facebook rules to track protesters, ensnare criminals

[JonLP24]

Facebook is teeming with fake accounts created by undercover law enforcement officers. They're against the rules — but cops keep making them anyway.
by Jon Schuppe

In the summer of 2015, as Memphis exploded with protests over the police killing of a 19-year-old man, activists began hearing on Facebook from someone called Bob Smith. The name was generic, and so was his profile picture: a Guy Fawkes mask, the symbol of anti-government dissent.

Smith acted as if he supported the protesters, and, slowly, they let him into their online community. Over the next three years, dozens of them accepted his friend requests, allowing him to observe private discussions over marches, rallies and demonstrations. In public postings and private messages he described himself as a far-left Democrat, a “fellow protester” and a “man of color.”

But Smith was not real. He was the creation of a white detective in the Memphis Police Department’s Office of Homeland Security whose job was to keep tabs on local activists across the spectrum, from Black Lives Matter to Confederate sympathizers.



The detective, Tim Reynolds, outed himself in August under questioning by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which sued the police department for allegedly violating a 1978 agreement that prohibited police from conducting surveillance of lawful protests. The revelation validated many activists’ distrust of local authorities. It also provided a rare look into the ways American law enforcement operates online, taking advantage of a loosely regulated social media landscape — and citizens’ casual relinquishing of their privacy — to expand monitoring of the public.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna916796

[True_Blue]

1. I'm glad I never got into Facebook.

[JonLP24]

3. It violates Tennessee law to run surveillance on legitimate protestors

And they are lying pretending to be a POC.

Memphis has a bad history of this which is why they have that state law.

[JonLP24]

8. Trying to join their groups pretend they are one of them

I'm on the ACLU side on this. Thank God for the ACLU.

Pretending to be a "far left Democrat" their bias is showing.

[MagickMuffin]

4. WRONG, they are infiltrating a movement to create chaos

It's what they do.

[Oneironaut]

5. Facebook privacy is a joke. Anything you do on there is public domain.

Even if they say it isn’t, that’s a bunch of nonsense. Everything on there is accessible - whether it be intentional or by accident. Don’t put private things on Facebook. Facebook’s privacy settings are all show to lure people into a false sense of security.

If you discuss protest plans on there, it’s broadcast to the public (even if you use a closed group). You’re trusting Facebook to honor your privacy, when they have no reason or desire to do so.

Also - On a slightly unrelated note, Facebook could technically sell your pictures to a porn site. They own whatever content you put on there. Be careful what you post - once you put something on there, it’s on their servers forever (even if you delete the content).

[dembotoz]

7. Do they just watch or do they incite

[JonLP24]

10. 4. High-level police officials had little knowledge of the 1978 consent decree.

“Prior to the lawsuit, I had a vague knowledge of the consent decree,” Rallings said on the stand.

He said he didn't know what new police recruits were learning about the 1978 decree, that he wasn't aware of any ongoing training given to existing officers and that he couldn’t remember receiving training in the consent decree himself.

Lt. Col. Eddie Bass was asked if he had an understanding of the decree: "Vaguely. Again, it's from 1978."

The decree says police can't take pictures of people at a protest or meeting for identification purposes. The MPD was doing that, according to testimony and emails.

That's just one example. The consent decree also says the police director must approve any criminal investigations that might affect First Amendment rights.

Testimony during the trial suggests that in recent years, police officers at lower levels were deciding what steps to take about free speech events, not the director.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.commercialappeal.com/amp/1073478002

Up top.
U.S. Judge Jon McCalla ruled on August 10 that the city violated the 1978 consent decree, but he allowed a bench trial to go forward as he considered other issues, including whether or not to appoint a monitor to enforce the decree.

I----

In this case the police are the law breakers.