WebProNews

Tag: Crime

  • Internet Deemed a Human Right in Another Sex Offender/Internet Ban Case

    There are those out there who believe that banning a criminal, no matter how serious the crime, from access to the internet is unconstitutional and borderline inhumane. That’s because they feel that the internet and reasonable access to it is necessary to function in our modern society. So integral to our daily lives, in fact, that it has risen to the status of a basic human right.

    Judges in American cities have expressed this opinion in numerous cases. Take for instance the Louisiana appeals judge who disagreed with the state’s ban on sex offenders using the internet, calling it “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

    “The near total ban on internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world,” he said.

    And just last week, we saw a California appellate judge rule that probation conditions assigned to a 15-year-old molester were invalid. The original conditions barred the teen from operating social media accounts, using chat rooms or instant messaging, and even operating a computer outside an academic purpose.

    Now, today’s affirmation of internet as a basic human right comes from across the pond. The Guardian (UK) reports that a recent decision sided with a defendant, who claimed that he was being cut off from the world as a result of the ban imposed upon him during sentencing.

    Phillip Michael Jackson (I know, right?) was convicted of secretly recording a 14-year-old girl in the shower by hiding his smartphone inside s shampoo bottle. After he was arrested, police found more child pornography on his computer. One of the terms of his sentencing banned him from owning a computer.

    The two justices on the appeals court cited the restrictions as invalid, saying that it was “unreasonable nowadays to ban anyone from accessing the internet in their home.” They also called the order “entirely excessive.”

    There’s no arguing that the crimes in question are horrendous, but that’s not really the point. What’s being taken into account here is just how ubiquitous the internet has become in everyday society. Does it amount to unreasonable or even cruel punishment to cut a person off like that, no matter their crime?

  • Here’s Audio Of John McAfee As He Hides From Cops

    John McAfee, who until this week was best known for creating the McAfee antivirus software, is wanted for murder in Belize. He claims to be innocent, but is in hiding as cops pursue him as the prime supsect in the killing of his neighbor. More on the story here.

    As previously reported, McAfee has been calling Wired reporter Joshua Davis, and Davis has been tweeting about the calls as they happen. Davis has now posted the following audio of McAfee:


    “I do not think I’m a psychopath,” he says.

    Here’s Davis’ Twitter timeline, so you can follow his tweets in real time:


  • John McAfee Keeps Calling Wired Reporter, Wired Reporter Keeps Tweeting

    As previously reported, John McAfee, the creator of the antivirus of the same name, is wanted by police in Belize as the prime suspect in the murder of his neighbor. McAfee has been calling Wired reporter Joshua Davis, sharing his side of the story. He says he’s innocent, by the way.

    Apparently he keeps calling Davis, and Davis has been tweeting about the conversations as they occur. Here is a series of tweets form Davis. The first was from about 19 hours ago. The most recent is from 13 minutes ago.

    This is crazy.

    I’ll embed Davis’ timeline below, so you can see updates in real time:


    [via Twitchy]

  • McAfee Talks While In Hiding, Says He Didn’t Kill Man In Belize

    John McAfee, the founder of McAfee Antivirus, is wanted for questioning in connection with the murder of a man in Belize. According to various reports, he is the prime suspect in the murder.

    Wired reports that he is in hiding somewhere in the country, that he has been calling to give his side of the story, and that he claims to be innocent. Joshua Davis reports:

    As Belizean police combed the property of expat antivirus pioneer John McAfee Sunday afternoon, McAfee was closer than they could have known. He’d seen them coming, and says he hid — burying himself in the sand with a cardboard box over his head so he could breathe. “It was extraordinarily uncomfortable,” he says, in an exclusive interview with Wired. “But they will kill me if they find me.”

    McAfee, 67, is the prime suspect in a murder discovered Sunday morning in Belize. Convinced that he’ll be killed if he’s taken into custody for questioning, the millionaire antivirus pioneer has gone into hiding somewhere in the Central American nation, where he moved in 2008 to retire.

    According to the report, McAfee said the only thing he knew about the shooting murder of his neighbor Gregory Faull, is that he heard he had been shot. McAfee claims that he thought maybe the killers(s) were coming after him, and mistook his neighbor for himself. He’s quoted as saying, “He’s dead. They killed him. It spooked me out.”

    McAfee claims that his dogs (which Faull had complained about previously) had been poisoned on Friday night, but he blames Belizean authorities for their death.

    Gizmodo broke the news that McAfee is wanted for murder on Monday, sharing the following official police statement:

    MURDER
    On Sunday the 11th November, 2012 at 8:00am acting upon information received, San Pedro Police visited 5 ¾ miles North of San Pedro Town where they saw 52 year old U.S National Mr. GREGORY VIANT FAULL, of the said address, lying face up in a pool of blood with an apparent gunshot wound on the upper rear part of his head apparently dead. Initial investigation revealed that on the said date at 7:20am LUARA TUN, 39years, Belizean Housekeeper of Boca Del Rio Area, San Pedro Town went to the house of Mr. Faull to do her daily chores when she saw him laying inside of the hall motionless, Faull was last seen alive around 10:00pm on 10.11.12 and he lived alone. No signs of forced entry was seen, A (1) laptop computer brand and serial number unknown and (1) I-Phone was discovered missing. The body was found in the hall of the upper flat of the house. A single luger brand 9 mm expended shells was found at the first stairs leading up to the upper flat of the building. The body of Faull was taken to KHMH Morgue where it awaits a Post Mortem Examination. Police have not established a motive so far but are following several leads.

    More background on the story here.

    Image: ABC News

  • John McAfee, Creator Of McAfee Antivirus, Is Wanted In Connection With A Murder In Belize

    John McAfee, the creator of McAfee security software is reportedly wanted by Belize police as the prime suspect in the murder of builder Gregory Faull ,who was found shot to death on Sunday.

    Update: McAfee has been talking (from hiding), and says he’s innocent.

    Gizmodo reports:

    Antivirus pioneer John McAfee is on the run from murder charges, Belize police say. According to Marco Vidal, head of the national police force’s Gang Suppression Unit, McAfee is a prime suspect in the murder of American expatriate Gregory Faull, who was gunned down Saturday night at his home in San Pedro Town on the island of Ambergris Caye.

    Gizmodo shares an official police statement:

    On Sunday the 11th November, 2012 at 8:00am acting upon information received, San Pedro Police visited 5 ¾ miles North of San Pedro Town where they saw 52 year old U.S National Mr. GREGORY VIANT FAULL, of the said address, lying face up in a pool of blood with an apparent gunshot wound on the upper rear part of his head apparently dead. Initial investigation revealed that on the said date at 7:20am LUARA TUN, 39years, Belizean Housekeeper of Boca Del Rio Area, San Pedro Town went to the house of Mr. Faull to do her daily chores when she saw him laying inside of the hall motionless, Faull was last seen alive around 10:00pm on 10.11.12 and he lived alone. No signs of forced entry was seen, A (1) laptop computer brand and serial number unknown and (1) I-Phone was discovered missing. The body was found in the hall of the upper flat of the house. A single luger brand 9 mm expended shells was found at the first stairs leading up to the upper flat of the building. The body of Faull was taken to KHMH Morgue where it awaits a Post Mortem Examination. Police have not established a motive so far but are following several leads.

    The San Pedro Sun is reporting that McAfee is wanted for questioning:

    The police are yet to make an arrest but are looking for John McAfee, who they believe may be able to assist them in their investigation. The incident took place in the Mata Grande area some six miles north of San Pedro Town and the victim has been identified as 52-year-old Gregory Viant Faull, a retired American of state of Miami, Florida USA. Faull was found by a housekeeper inside his living room with an apparent gunshot wound to the back of his head.

    That report later says:

    Residents in the area told The San Pedro Sun that Faull had a misunderstanding with a neighbor in the area and believe that the dispute may have escalated. According to the neighbors, Faull’s concerns as it related to the person in question were shared by other residents of the Mata Grande area. Those concerns had to do with armed security intimidating residents along the beach and according to the neighbors in the area, the issue was brought up to the San Pedro Town Council.

    Interestingly, this all comes several days after a report from Gizmodo discussing a police raid on McAfee’s property in Belize back in the Spring. The piece described him as “a kind of final-reel Scarface” complete with armed guards.

    The writer points to a message board where McAfee had apparently been talking about attempts to purify the chemicals/drugs known as bath salts (which we’ve heard plenty of horror stories about this year).

    McAfee had been arrested in Belize earlier this year, when the Gang Suppression Unit broke down his door after being tipped off about a weapons cache.

    SFGate points to an article from a few days ago from 7 News Belize, talking about McAfee donating weapons and various equipment to the San Pedro police.

    McAfee, age 67, was one of the first people to design anti-virus software. He worked for NASA, Xerox and Lockheed before founding McAfee. Intel bought the company a couple years ago. Since then, he’s been leading quite the interesting life, based on Gizmodo’s account of his lifestyle.

    image: Belize Reporter Newspaper (YouTube)

  • Judge Rules Teen Molester Has a Right to Social Media, Do You Agree?

    Think about how often you use the internet. Seriously, just think about it for a second. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of people would severely underestimate their dependence. Sure, maybe you don’t really get on Facebook or Twitter all that often. Maybe you’re not an online gamer. But when’s the last time you sent an email? Looked up a restaurant or used online maps? Hell, when’s the last time you Googled something?

    Of course, I’m making a silly argument. Everyone knows that the internet has become an indelible part of everyday life for most people. But would you go so far as to say that access to the internet and social media has become an unalienable right? One that if restricted, violates the constitution?

    If you answered yes to that, let’s tack on another layer. Would you still say it was a right for some of the worst criminal offenders imaginable? Those guilty of sex crimes? How about another layer. What if the criminal in question was a minor? Let us know in the comments.

    A California Appellate judge has ruled that the probation conditions of a 15-year-old boy that barred him from accessing a computer in non-academic settings and disallowed any participation in social media are invalid. The 15-year old offender was found to have sexually assaulted two girls, a 13-year-old and a 2-year-old.

    The minor and his lawyers had challenged some of the terms of his probation, including a ban on using computers with encryption, cracking, keystroke monitoring, security testing, etc. He also challenged the ban on maintaing a social media page and using chat rooms and instant messaging software. Finally, he took issue with being barred from using a computer for any purpose other the school-related assignments.

    First, a little background on his crimes.

    The minor, only identified as Andre B., was found to have sexually assaulted two individuals on separate occasions. His first victim was a 13-year-old middle school student who claimed that Andre held her down and “grinded his pelvis on her” for about 30 seconds. The other victim was a two-and-a-half-year-old girl whose vagina was “touched and possibly penetrated” by the defendant. Terrible crimes, of course. But the specifics aren’t important except for the fact that neither crime involved the internet in any way (according to the court).

    In the opinion, Judge Terry O’Rourke notes that Andre’s contentions lean on a 1975 case that determined how probation conditions could be held invalid if they have no ties to the actual crime committed.

    “A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality…Conversely, a condition of probation which requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.”

    He also cites a 2003 ruling that discusses how outright internet bans on probationers and parolees have been struck down in both state and federal courts.

    ‘[S]uch a ban renders modern life—in which, for example, the government strongly encourages taxpayers to file their returns electronically, where more and more commerce is conducted on-line, and where vast amounts of government information are communicated via website—exceptionally difficult.”

    O’Rourke’s opinion is that a blanket internet ban is invalid because it’s not closely tied to past crimes or future criminality.

    “They are not tailored to Andre’s convictions for violating another’s personal liberty, willfully annoying and molesting another, unlawful use of force, and lewd and lascivious conduct, or the juvenile court’s dual goals of rehabilitation and public safety,” he says.

    As far as the ban on social media accounts, the logic is similar (but with a caveat):

    There is no evidence or indication in the record that Andre used Internet chat rooms or social media to contact his victims or to learn how to carry out his actions underlying the true findings. We conclude that prohibiting Andre from using social media is overbroad and, as phrased, the prohibition has no bearing on his possible rehabilitation.

    At oral argument, defense counsel conceded that in light of the fact a minor’s constitutional rights are circumscribed, the probation terms prohibiting him from having or using social media accounts can be more narrowly tailored to fit his sexual crimes and foster his rehabilitation. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to narrowly tailor the probation terms banning him from having or using “a MySpace page, a Facebook page, or any other similar page,” and from “participating in chat rooms, using instant messaging such as ICQ, MySpace, Facebook, TWITTER, or other similar communication programs.”

    In short, an outright ban on social media use is overbroad, but certain restrictions could be possible if they could be shown to pertain to his specific crimes and help in his rehabilitation.

    Andre didn’t challenge the condition that he be barred from accessing porn online, but he did challenge the ban on ” knowingly using ‘a computer that contains any encryption, hacking, cracking, keystroke monitoring, security testing, or steganography, Trojan or virus software.’” The Judge upheld that condition, saying that it is reasonable because it allows probation officers to monitor his compliance with the no-porn clause.

    So – blanket computer bans and social media bans are a tricky prospect. Of course, any parents acknowledges that the internet can be a dangerous place for their kids – and the visceral reaction is to want any sex offender (no matter the age) banned from using the internet as his scouting grounds.

    But has the internet become so important to functioning, day to day, in modern society that restricting access amounts to a violation of rights?

    Earlier this year, we told you about a wave of challenges to state laws banning sex offenders’ use of social media, spearheaded by civil right groups like the ACLU.

    Many states, including Indiana and Louisiana have passed legislation that makes accessing Facebook, Twitter or the like a crime for convicted sex offenders. In Louisiana, a Judge ruled such a law “unconstitutionally overbroad” (recognize that phrase?), saying:

    Although the act is intended to promote the legitimate and compelling state interest of protecting minors from internet predators, the near total ban on internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world. The sweeping restrictions on the use of the internet for purposes completely unrelated to the activities sought to be banned by the Act impose severe and unwarranted restraints on constitutionally protected speech. More focused restriction that are narrowly tailored to address the specific conduct sought to be proscribed should be pursued.

    Some agree:

    “To broadly prohibit such a large group of persons from ever using these modern forms of communication is just something the First Amendment cannot tolerate,” said the ACLU’s Ken Falk in response to such measures.

    In our featured case, Andre didn’t use the internet to stalk his victims. The Judge saw that, and said that the punishment didn’t fit the crime. But of course, one of a sexual predator’s biggest tools is the internet. For those concerned about the protection of kids online, it doesn’t seem that out of the realm of possibility to cut his rights to it altogether.

    Then again, he’s 15. And over the next (8, at the maximum) years, a ban on non-academic computer use and social media use would cripple his ability to do so many things in modern society. Can we really cut people off like that? Is there some happy medium that protects kids and doesn’t restrict rights beyond what’s proper? Let us know what you think in the comments.

  • Missing Teen’s Cryptic Final Tweet Generates Concern, Controversy

    A New Jersey girl is still missing after a mysterious tweet suggesting foul play went viral late Sunday evening.

    16-year-old Kara Alongi has been missing for over 12 hours following a 6 pm tweet that said “There is someone in my hour ecall 911.” It’s assumed that Alongi meant that there was someone in her house.

    Here’s the tweet:

    According to police, Alongi’s parents have been made aware of the situation and the search continues for the girl. Police tell the Star-Ledger that there were no signs of foul play at Alongi’s house on Sunday night, and there’s no reason to think that she is in danger.

    Apparently, Alongi was alone as her house on Sunday evening, as her family was away at a sporting event.

    The chilling final message went viral on Twitter, as users created the #HelpFindKara hashtag. There’s also a #KaraIsFound hashtag, but police confirm that she is in fact, still missing.

    Though many twitter users have tweeted their legitimate concern, some are questioning the validity of the “disappearance.” This image is going around, purportedly showing a tweet sent out by Alongi around 6 hours after the initial cryptic tweet. The tweet, if it really existed, has been deleted. Though some are touting this as proof that this is all a hoax, others are claiming that the image is photoshopped:

    (image)

    UPDATE: Police say that a cab driver told them that he picked Alongi up at her home and dropped her off at a train station around the time of the initial tweet.

    This isn’t the first time we’ve seen tweets (possibly) mark the final moments before a crime. In August, a teen’s final tweets were used by police in her murder investigation.

  • iCloud Helps Kentucky Woman Get Her Stolen iPhone Back

    Chalk up another success for Apple’s iCloud. A Louisville woman was able to help police track down a man who allegedly stole her iPhone thanks to Apple’s service.

    A 56-year-old man named Granville A. Cobble was reportedly arrested, and charged with theft by unlawful taking. According to Louisville’s Courier Journal, the woman tracked the phone to a repair store in the city. The newspaper reports:

    Police said Cobble tried to sell the phone there, but the store refused to buy the phone because Cobble didn’t know the password to unlock the phone. The store owner told police Cobble was a “regular customer of the store,” according to the report.

    The store was able to provide police with a photo of Cobble, leading to his identification, according to the report.

    WDRB reports that, according to an arrest warrant, the phone was stolen when someone broke into the woman’s car while it was parked at the E.P. Tom Sawyer State Park.

    Apple’s operating system, iOS, is getting its much anticipated iOS 6 update today, and along with that comes some new iCloud features.

  • Lawyer Posts Photo of Client’s Underwear on Facebook, Quickly Leads to Mistrial

    We’ve seen plenty of stories over the last few years involving court proceedings, social media, and how the two often run up against each other. We’ve seen a couple of cases that have gotten thrown out due to juries with impatient Twitter thumbs. We also saw a recent case where a young girl was nearly held in contempt for tweeting the names of her rapists during a trial. Most of the time, courtroom proceedings need to be keep private, and we know that social media simply doesn’t lead to much privacy.

    Today’s social media idiot doesn’t come from the jury, or the plaintiff’s side. This ethically challenged Facebooker comes from the defense.

    According to The Miami Herald, a Miami defense attorney has been fired after she uploaded a photo of her client’s leopard-print underwear to Facebook. Anya Cintron Stern reportedly snapped the photo of the unusual briefs when her client, Fermin Recalde, had his family bring him some fresh clothes to wear during the trial.

    She promptly uploaded the photo to Facebook, saying that she couldn’t believe that the family thought it was “proper attire for a trial.”

    As you may have guessed, someone spotted the photo in their news feed and notified the Judge in the case, who then declared a mistrial.

    Recalde was on trial for murder, having been accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death back in 2010. According, to the Herald, Recalde had been attempting to fire his lawyers for some time.

    Going forward, it’s obvious that legal proceedings will never be the same, as long as social media is so popular. Although Judges now routinely gives social media instructions before trials even begin, the temptation to tweet or make a quick post on Facebook is to much too handle for some participants.

  • This Genius Tried to Rob an Apple Store in the Dumbest Way Possible [VIDEO]

    Apparently, Apple products are so popular that people are literally smashing BMWs through glass to get to them.

    Congratulations to Equonne Howard and his gang of inept thieves, who win the biggest idiots of the day award. Unfortunately for Howard, the prize is probably not going to be much to his liking. In the early morning hours of September 6th, Howard used his own 2003 BMW X5 to smash through the glass and metal gate of the Temecula, California Apple Store.

    Howard and his accomplices weren’t able to get away with much merchandise, however, as they had to cut the robbery short after the metal gate closed behind them.

    In the following video, you can see the BMW hastily reverse out of the store. By this point, the car already had two flat tires from the initial break through.

    According to the Riverside Press-Enterprise, Howard also stopped at a 7-Eleven is order to steal some fix-a-flat. After patching up his tires, Howard returned to the Apple Store in search of the license plate that had fallen of the BMW mid-robbery. Police were waiting for him outside the mall.

    Howard, who is already on parole for a previous robbery, is being held on $600,000 bail, charged with vandalism, burglary, and theft of electronics.

    [via CultofMac]

  • ACLU Says D.C. Police Illegally Seized Man’s Cellphone After Photographing Alleged Misconduct

    The American Civil Liberties Union has just filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia and two police officers after alleging that they violated the law by seizing a man’s cellphone and stealing his memory card. The plaintiff in the case, Earl Staley, was reportedly using his cellphone to record the activity of the officers, who were mistreating members of the public, according to the lawsuit.

    According to the court documents, Staley claims that on July 20th, he saw a Metropolitan Police Department cruiser hit a man on a motorbike. As the man lay on the ground, the officers reportedly starting punching the injured biker. Soon after, our two defendants, officer James O’Bannon and officer Kenneth Dean, arrived in plain clothes, announced that they were indeed MPD, and began “aggressively demanding the bystanders leave the scene, including making physical contact.”

    Thinking this was improper, Staley took out his phone and snapped a picture of Dean. Shortly after, O’Bannon approached Staley and grabbed the phone out of his hands.

    Staley was told that he was breaking the law by taking the photograph and threatened arrest if he didn’t “chill out.” Staley was told that he could pick up his phone at the station later in the day.

    But when he did, he found that his memory card was missing. Staley claims that the card stored irreplaceable information, such as pictures of his daughter and other family from 2008 onward.

    “That memory card had a lot of my life on it,” said Mr. Staley. “I can never replace those photos of my daughter’s first years. The police had no right to steal it. They’re supposed to enforce the law, not break it.”

    The ACLU has stepped in, and here’s what they have to say:

    Mr. Staley’s activities on July 20, 2012, did not interfere in any way with police operations. No reasonable police officer in the position of defendant O’Bannon could have believed that he had a lawful basis to seize Mr. Staley’s phone or to threaten to arrest him.

    The ACLU is suing on grounds that the officers violated Staley’s First Amendment and Fourth Amendement rights, dealing with freedom of expression and illegal search and seizure.

    First, on the First Amendement front:

    Defendants’ actions, described above, violated Mr. Staley’s right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by preventing him from taking additional photographs of police activity, by intimidating him from asserting his right to recover his camera and criticize the police, and by destroying the photograph he had taken of Officer 2, as well as many other valuable photographs and expressive material,

    And in terms of the Fourth Amendment:

    Mr. Staley’s conduct on July 20, 2012, did not provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit any crime, and did not provide defendant O’Bannon with any lawful basis on which to seize Mr. Staley’s phone or to search, destroy or dispose of Mr. Staley’s memory card. Defendant O’Bannon’s actions in seizing Mr. Staley’s phone and searching, destroying or disposing of Mr. Staley’s memory card violated Mr. Staley’s right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

    The ACLU is seeking the return of Staley’s memory card, compensatory damages, and an order to D.C. Police to train all officers in the First and Fourth Amendment implications of photographing police procedures.

    Strangely enough, the events in question took place just one day after the MPD issued a general order concerning the rights of the public to record police business.

    “The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity,” it states.

    It also says that officers “shall not…[i]n any way threaten, intimidate or otherwise discourage an individual from recording members’ enforcement activities” and calls for supervisors to be present before any device is seized.

    “When a police officer sees a camera he should smile,” said Arthur B. Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital and the attorney representing Mr. Staley. “Officers must learn that people have a right to photograph them in public places, and that trying to cover up police misconduct is worse than the initial misconduct. The officer’s actions here will have consequences.”

    It’s not surprising that some police would have the desire to crack down on citizens photographing or videotaping their activities. The rise of YouTube and social media has meant that actions that were once secret are seen by millions of people within a matter of minutes. American law enforcement has bad apples, there’s no getting around that.

    Of course, it’s unfair and just plain wrong to suggest that a majority of police officers around the country are participating in illegal seizures and intimidation surrounding cellphone recording. But orders like the one issued by the D.C. MPD are there to protect citizen’s rights. The ACLU has made cases of illegal search and seizure one of their most important issues, and as more and more citizens gain access to tools like smartphones and wireless internet, it should be shocking if more lawsuits like this one appear on dockets around the country.

    [via Wired]

    [Image Courtesy vpickering, Flickr]

  • Charlotte Man Threatens to Hit Obama with “Lee Harvey Oswald Swag” on Twitter, Promptly Arrested

    Threatening to kill the President of the United States is a serious offense. Threatening to kill the President of the United States on Twitter is outstandingly idiotic.

    Apparently, 21-year-old Donte Jamar Sims thought it would be good idea to announced his plans to assassinate President Obama to his 566 followers on September 3rd. The Charlotte resident tweeted a series of threats during a 15-minute period just one day before the Democratic National Convention kicked off in his city.

    According to court documents, the tweets were spotted by a Secret Service intelligence agent, who went to Sims’ home on Wednesday to interview him about the statements.

    Without further ado, here are the tweets that got Sims in trouble:

    After that tweet, one Twitter follower warned him that he “better stop tweeting that before the Feds come looking for him.” But he continued:

    After that, another user asked if he was serious. “As a heart attack,” said Sims.

    Some of his other tweets in the days following the assassination threats read “Mitt Romney for President,” “#NOBama,” “F*ck Obama,” and “Democrats getting impeached.” He did say that he respects Michelle Obama, however, and that she’s “Sexy as hell.”

    After being apprehended, Sims confessed to the tweets, saying he knew it was wrong but he was high.

    “Sims stated that he published the statements because he hated President Obama,” the Secret Service agent wrote in the affidavit. “Sims asserted that he was high on marijuana when he made the threats but that he understood what he was doing and that it was wrong.”

    If convicted, those few tweets could cost him $250,000 and five years of freedom.

    [via CNN]

  • Parents Nab Daughter’s Pedophile Boyfriend with Facebook Sting

    A convicted sex offender is facing charges of immoral communications with a minor after he was caught sending photos of his penis to a 15-year-old girl on Facebook. The 15-year-old girl wasn’t actually a real person, and that’s the start of what makes this story particularly interesting.

    The fake Facebook profile was actually a creation of a mother and her daughter’s friend. After learning that her 17-year-old daughter was dating a convicted sex offender, 19-year-old William Elms, Julie Myrfors enlisted a teenage family friend to help her set up the fake account to trap him. The two created an account for a girl named “Ashley,” who they listed as 15 years old.

    Once they tricked Elms into friend requesting Ashley through the staging of a fake squabble on the network, “Ashley” stuck up a dialogue with Elms. Soon, Elms was sending pictures of his genitalia to an email account set up for “Ashley.” According to the Skagit Valley Herald (Sedro-Wooley, Washington), Elms attempted to get “Ashley” to go camping with him and spend time discussing lewd sexual acts. “He also told her that if anyone asks, she should say she is 16 years old,” they report.

    Although Myrfors orchestrated this Facebook sting without the help of local police, law enforcement stepped in when they were notified of the chats and pics. Elms is currently on probation stemming from a conviction for third-degree child molestation, which is defined by the Washington State criminal code as “sexual contact with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old” when the perpetrator is at least 4 years older than the victim.

    According to NBC News, the Myrfors showed the evidence to their daughter, who even watched some of the lewd conversations with “Ashley” live, as they occurred.

    “My daughter didn’t know we had done this. I invited her on to begin watching live. She started watching conversations on our fake little person,” said Mrs. Myrfor. “The hardest part as a parent was watching her heart break.”

    Facebook has a strict policy against convicted sex offenders maintaining accounts, and even monitors chats for illegal communications. In this situation, the parents could have notified Facebook and probably had Elms’ account revoked, but I guess they wanted to do a little more than that.

  • Man Steals Ebola Patient’s Cellphone, Promptly Gets Ebola

    As someone who’s had their cellphone stolen, I can attest to the fact that it really sucks. Right after I realized that the theft had taken place, I immediately began my pleas to the cosmos. “Can this low-down human stain please trip, fall, and break his nose? Pretty please?”

    “Can he get herpes? That’s all that I ask.”

    I’m sure I had plenty of other ill wishes for the thief. But I’m pretty sure I never hoped that he would contract Ebola.

    Apparently that’s just what happened to one cellphone snatcher in Uganda. The country, which is the midst of an outbreak of the virus, has confirmed nearly two dozen cases so far, with a pretty high death rate. And one of the deceased victims had their phone stolen from the isolation ward at the Kagadi Hospital a couple of weeks ago.

    According to the Ugandan Daily Monitor, a 40-year-old man snuck into the ward on August 14th under the guise that he was comforting the many patients. Although he reportedly did comfort some victims, he also took a souvenir on his way out.

    Police began tracking the criminal when he began to use the phone to contact friends, but all of the tracking wasn’t really necessary. Soon, the thief was admitted to the hospital with Ebola-like symptoms.

    According to police, he handed over the phone and confessed to the theft. He is currently undergoing tests and receiving medication.

    Moral of the story: An Ebola ward is no place to go searching for an easy steal. If this isn’t a prime example of karma, I don’t know what is.

    [via TIME]

  • Teen Tweets about Stalker Days Before Her Suspected Murder

    It’s possible that a series of tweets could play a role in solving a brutal homicide in Gainesville, Georgia.

    16-year-old Hannah Truelove was found dead last Friday (August 24th) in the woods next to her apartment. She had only been missing for a day. Police have yet to release autopsy results, but they are willing to say that her injuries “were indicative that she died from a violent death,” and that it points to homicide.

    Truelove sent her last tweet on August 23rd, just a day before she was found dead. But it is a series of tweets made in the days leading up to her death that have piqued the interest of investigators.

    This tweet, made on August 12th and mentioning a stalker, is now part of the investigation:

    “We think at this point it’s not a random crime. We think that this was a crime that involved persons who knew each other. We have no indication it was random,” Maj. Woodrow Tripp of the Hall County Sheriff’s Office told WSBTV.

    “We have to determine what she meant by stalker,” another officer told ABC News. “A stalker to a 16-year-old might not be a stalker to what may be Georgia code official. We’re trying to determine what she meant by that.”

    Other tweets made just days prior to her death may also be relevant…

    But of course, these tweets may only sound relevant in the context of her death. Police say they are definitely looking into the possible stalker, however. Friends and random people affected by the apparent tragedy have taken to using the hashtag #heartsforhannah.

  • Learn How to Troll the Police with an Air Duster [VIDEO]

    Messing with the cops for no apparent reason is generally something one should advise against. There are a lot of things that make this statement true – tazers, guns, and ultimate control of your freedom, just to name a few. These guys decided to screw with the police by making them get out their cars for absolutely no reason.

    I’m not sure if this is funny, an exercise in civil disobedience, a protest against all of the recent examples of police brutality, a demonstration of having pretty big balls, or just douchey. Whatever it is, I’m shocked that the officers were all so cool about this. You’d have to think that one would at least feel the need to smack one of these punks across the back of the head.

    Then again, it is pretty clever. Warning: Do not try this at home, as you have no idea how accommodating the police in your town may be.

    [h/t Fark]

  • Should Facebook Monitor Chats to Help Snag Child Predators?

    Let’s face it; social media and privacy are always going to be two warring parties. Sure, privacy controls help users define who can see what on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest (and some sites offer simpler, more accessible privacy options than others). But in the end, social networks are social – you’re actively sharing content with the world. Anybody who thinks they can maintain a pristine level of privacy and security while still enjoying the benefits of a social community is probably deluding themselves.

    Facebook is no stranger to user privacy scandals. Scenarios involving information sharing and user tracking have popped up in the last couple of years. The FTC has even stepped in and performed their own investigations.

    And recently, it was revealed that Facebook actively patrols user communications for unlawful activities. Is this a privacy betrayal from a company that sits on so much personal information about the country’s inhabitants? Or is it a social good that allows Facebook to help prevent violent crimes, especially those involving children? Let us know in the comments.

    A Winnipeg man is being charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and internet luring after Facebook intercepted communications between him and a 13-year-old girl. According to Winnipeg police, the chat messages were sexual in nature, and were brought to their attention by Facebook near the end of July.

    If the phrase “Facebook intercepted communications” caught your attention, I don’t blame you. And I can’t say that it’s not exactly what you’re thinking – Facebook is actively monitoring our chats and messages. Early last month, the company revealed that it’s common practice for their teams to scan chats, searching for criminal activity. It’s mostly algorithms that handle this part, but once something is flagged Facebook employees make the final decision on whether or not it merits calling the authorities.

    Facebook algorithms give more weight to communications between users that don’t really have a lot of connections. If two users have a giant age difference or live all the way across the country from each other – the conversation may be flagged. If two users don’t share many friends or have never interacted with each other before on the site – their conversation may be flagged.

    So it’s fair to say that the “bad apple” conversations are going to be the ones most frequently caught up in the machine. But the final screening process for reporting malicious activity means that human eyes have to look at the chat transcripts – at least every now and then.

    Back to Winnipeg, and to the 25-year-old man who was sending sexual messages to the underage girl. Authorities say that Facebook described the chats to them as “inappropriate” and “explicit.”

    Although Facebook notified police of the chats in late July, the suspect wasn’t arrested until early last week.

    And according to CNEWS, a sexual assault had already taken place. There’s no word on whether the police received the tip from Facebook before or after the alleged assault.

    So, police now have the Facebook data to use in prosecution, but it didn’t actually stop a young girl from being sexually assaulted. It’s unclear if that’s because Facebook caught it late, police failed to act in time, or the assault had already occurred before anyone caught wind of the inappropriate chats. Really, it’s not right to blame anyone here except the pedophile who allegedly performed the violent acts – but it does show that Facebook’s monitoring program isn’t perfect.

    However, it also demonstrates that it’s possible for Facebook to do some good with their chat monitoring. It’s also worked before (to perfection), according to Facebook.

    When the chat monitoring story first broke, Facebook told Reuters a story of how the program had led to the arrest of a man who was in the process of soliciting a 13-year-old girl on the network. Here’s how Reuters told it:

    A man in his early thirties was chatting about sex with a 13-year-old South Florida girl and planned to meet her after middle-school classes the next day. Facebook’s extensive but little-discussed technology for scanning postings and chats for criminal activity automatically flagged the conversation for employees, who read it and quickly called police.

    Officers took control of the teenager’s computer and arrested the man the next day, said Special Agent Supervisor Jeffrey Duncan of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The alleged predator has pleaded not guilty to multiple charges of soliciting a minor.

    “The manner and speed with which they contacted us gave us the ability to respond as soon as possible,” said Duncan, one of a half-dozen law enforcement officials interviewed who praised Facebook for triggering inquiries.

    There’s really no denying than it can work. Scanning chats for suspicious activity can help to thwart child predation.

    Of course, there are still privacy concerns to consider. Not everyone is convinced that Facebook has the right to monitor “private” communications. Then again, you are using their (free) service to send and receive communications, and at least now it’s with the public knowledge that the company may be monitoring them. Plus, they are not the only ones engaging in this type of monitoring.

    Facebook won’t comment on the particulars of the Winnipeg case, but they tell me that they have zero tolerance for this type of activity and are “extremely agressive” in reporting it to the authorities.

    Here’s their full statement:

    We have zero tolerance for this activity on Facebook and are extremely aggressive in preventing and identifying inappropriate contact as well as reporting it and the people responsible for it to law enforcement. We’re constantly refining and improving our systems and processes. However, we feel we’ve created a much safer environment on Facebook than exists off-line, where people can share this material in the privacy of their own homes without anyone watching.

    Have they created a “much safer environment?” In your opinion, is it okay for Facebook to patrol chats in order to help identify possible criminals? Is it a good program conducted in good faith? Is it worth giving up a little bit of your privacy for the greater good?

    Or do you think that Facebook should cease this type of monitoring? Let us know in the comments.

  • Facebook Sex Rating Page Nets Australian Man Four Months in Jail

    Facebook Sex Rating Page Nets Australian Man Four Months in Jail

    In Australia, it is illegal to “use a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,” and a 22-year-old Victoria may pay a pretty steep price for violating that statue on Facebook.

    According to ABC News Australia, David McRory operated a Facebook page that rated the sexual performance of multiple women in the Bendigo, Victoria area. After the page garnered complaints from residents, McRory was charged under part 10.6 of the criminal code, which deals with telecommunications regulations. He pled guilty to publishing objectionable material online and using Facebook to offend and menace. Now, he’s been sentenced to four months in jail for the crime.

    He’s currently out on bail and proceeding with an appeal of the sentence.

    The page in question was titled “Bendaz Root Rate,” with “Bendaz” being a proper noun and “root” being an Australian slang expression for sex. The Register says that “root” is on par with “shag” in the UK, but not quite as inflammatory as a sexual pejorative like “f*ck.”

    Not only was the content on the page deemed to be offensive and derogatory, but it reportedly contained sex ratings for girls under the age of consent.

    McRory apparently had an accomplice in the maintenance of the page – another 22-year-old named Joshua Turner. He’s been banned from using Facebook for two years, and also received a six-month suspended sentence.

    It’s not just the Australian government that would have a problem with this type of page. Facebook, once notified of its existence (through a user flagging it) would most likely take it down anyways, as it clearly violates their terms or service (“You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user”).

    Australia and Facebook have been in te news recently for a couple of other reasons. A couple of weeks ago, a page that targeted Australia’s Aborigine population with crude memes was removed after public pressure. And earlier this month, the country’s Advertising Standards board ruled that user comments on companies’ Facebook pages must also comply with ad rules.

  • Clown Uses Steve Jobs’ Stolen iPad to Play Michael Jackson

    You really can’t make this up.

    In an incredibly odd turn of events, an iPad once beloning to the Steve Jobs household wound up in the hands of a party clown known as Kenny the Clown. Police confiscated the stolen device while investigating a recent break-in of the late Apple co-founder’s Palo Alto residence.

    Earlier this week, we told you that Steve Jobs’ home had been burglarized in late July, and 35-year-old Kariem McFarlin had been arrested for the crime. He allegedly stole $60,000 worth of computers, tablets, and personal items. At first, officials were hesitant to say whether the items actually belonged to Jobs himself, or one of his family members. Now, Mercury News is reporting that many of the items did belong to Jobs, including iDevices, Macs, and Jobs’ wallet.

    And his iPad, which was found with Kenny the Clown. Apparently, he received the 64GB iPad from McFarlin as a gift shortly after the burglary.

    Kenny the Clown (real name Kenneth Kahn) says that he had no clue as to the iPad’s unique significance.

    “I didn’t notice anything special or anything like that,” said Kahn. “It was silver; it looked normal. I was basically using it like an iPod.”

    According to the report, Kahn didn’t really take advantage of many of the iPad’s capabilities. All he really used it for was iTunes, which he used to play the theme to the Pink Panther as well as some Michael Jackson tracks at one of his gigs.

    “”He’s a nice guy who made a horrible, horrible decision,” Kahn told Mercury News. “I wish I could ask him: ‘What were you thinking?’”

  • Judge: Your Facebook Friends Can Legally Show Cops Your Profile

    If you think that privacy settings will stop a persistent investigator from accessing your profile information, status updates, and various other types of personal Facebook data – think again.

    According to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Williams Pauley III, it’s not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights for investigators to access your Facebook profile with the help of one of your friends. That’s because all of that data that you think is personal really isn’t that personal after all, according to the Judge.

    Accused gangster Melvin Colon made a motion to suppress evidence that was “seized from his Facebook account pursuant to a search warrant.” Colon doesn’t argue with the probable cause used to issue to warrant, what he does object to is the method of evidence collection. Mainly, Colon “presented a fourth amendment challenge to the Government’s use of a cooperating witness who was one of Colon’s Facebook friends and gave the Government access to Colon’s Facebook profile.”

    But the Judge felt that Colon had no expectation that his Facebook friends would keep everything on his profile private.

    Colon’s legitimate expectation of privacy ended when he disseminated posts to his friends because those friends were free to use the information however the wanted – including sharing it with the Government.

    It’s hard to argue with that. Anyone who shares private information on any social network and thinks that it’s truly private is fooling themselves. But the Judge’s argument is a little murkier when he starts talking about levels of Facebook privacy.

    The Judge concludes that the Fourth Amenedment argument could have merit, but it depends inter alia (among other things) on the user’s personal privacy settings. “When a social media user disseminates his postings and information to the public, they are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, postings using more secure privacy settings reflect the user’s intent to preserve information as private and may be constitutionally protected,” he says.

    So, Colon simply didn’t take the steps to properly lock down his account, right?

    Well, kind of. The Judge continues:

    Here. Colon maintained a Facebook profile in which he permitted his Facebook friends to view a list of all of his other Facebook friends, as well as messages and photographs that Colon and other posted to Colon’s profile…Where Facebook privacy settings allow viewership of postings by friends, the Government may access them through a cooperating witness who is a friend without violating the Fourth Amendment.

    Even the most stringent privacy hounds on Facebook allow their friends to see their posts and profile – it’s simply strangers that they keep out. What would be the point of Facebook if you allowed nobody to see your content expect you, yourself? The Judge is basically saying that as long as you let one friend see what you post, that one friend can rat on you.

    In short, being a member of Facebook precludes you from any expectation of privacy, in regards to the Fourth Amendment.

    Social media is a new, and commonly misunderstood frontier when it comes to legal proceedings. Everyone is still trying to grasp what it all means in relation to laws already on the books. I have a feeling this won’t be the last time we see a case like this debated, and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a completely different ruling next time.

    Facebook Privacy Ruling

    [via GigaOm]

  • Guy Tracks Bike Thief Via Craigslist, Sets Up Sting [VIDEO]

    Well, that’s one way to get your stolen property back.

    When Simon Jackson’s (alias) bike was stolen from his home in Portland, Oregon, he began searching the internet for it. When he eventually found it listed on Craigslist 160 miles away in Seattle, Washington, he decided to head up there and confront the thief face-to-face.

    Mr. Jackson credits the success of the sting, in part, on the new Burner app for iOS. Burner allows users to create multiple virtual “burner” phones, so that they don’t have to use their real phone numbers when making calls. It’s like The Wire, but with a lot less trips to the corner store and a lot less waste. By unsing Burner, he was able to feign the correct area code for someone in the area of the thief.

    “We called the cops just before Simon started talking with the thief. It took Seattle PD 45 minutes to get there. Simon decided to confront him when they neglected to show up. Once he did, however, they rolled up as you can see in the video,” they say.

    The “thief” claims that he simply bought the bike on Craigslist, even though he knew it was stolen. The sting team feels otherwise, claiming to have tracked his residence to a few blocks away from the theft.

    Check it out below (NSFW language):

    [via reddit]