Not to mention, if you go by what other prosecutors have argued in past hacking cases, violating a terms of use constitutes felony computer fraud.

She has a better case on:

* Is "you can use these in on-going investigations" really consent to create fake social network profiles?

* Is it ok for the DEA to (e.g.) post photos of her in her "bra and panties"? What if they had posted nude photos of her?

* Is it ok for the DEA to post photos of minors and put them in the middle of this?

Sigh... Why is this a thing? There's a whole host of things that are illegal for YOU to do but that the government CAN do. Like kill people for instance or print money. This is as it should be. A government must be granted powers individuals are not in order to rule. The concern is oversight and justification of those powers through our political system.

Edit: There's a lot of vitriol on this and it's because of my poor wording of the initial statement. It isn't OK if the Government "breaks the law". If they do they should be held accountable. However, under certain circumstances, the government can break laws that pertain to ordinary citizens and do things like hack computers/kill people/sell contraband, etc... this action itself is prescribed by laws and regulations and is legal government action. My beef was with the knee jerk reaction to undercover work like this or a police shooting, when people are screaming about how thats murder. My point was, yeah it might be, but it also might the government doing their job by doing things (legally) that a normal citizen might now do.

There's a slight difference between a government entity performing its unique duties as described by law and a government entity breaking the law to perform its unique duties.

It is legal for a police officer to kill in the line of duty under certain circumstances. It is illegal for the same police officer to commit a murder outside his duties even while on the job.

That's exactly my point. It's a nuanced situation. But I always see the same, "government officers broke the law!" argument. That doesn't matter, what matters is the context. "The Government" breaks laws citizens are held to all the time.

I totally disagree. The government does not, and should not, break the law that citizens are held to all the time. If a government agency has the ability to perform an action that is otherwise illegal for a person who is not a member of said agency it is outlined in the law. If it is not outlined in the law then they are in fact committing a crime and may be criminally liable for it.

That is why whenever there is a police-involved shooting there is supposed to be a review of the incident to see if the officer in question followed the guidelines as outlined in the law. If it is determined that the officer did not follow policy then he can be subject to criminal prosecution.

I'm not making this up, it happened recently. In South Carolina a state trooper shoots an unarmed man for reaching into his vehicle after being asked to show ID. The dashcam clearly shows the shooting was entirely unjustified. That trooper was fired and charged with assault and battery, facing a potential 20 years in prison. That is what should happen when a government agent breaks the law.

So, unless the agent from the original article had permission under the law to falsely pose as a real person without that person's permission then they likely broke the law and may face criminal and/or civil action.

We're in agreement, it's just semantics :)

Yeah, that officer in South Carolina did that break the law (shoot someone without cause). I'm just saying that a DEA agent posing as someone else on Facebook may not actually be illegal.

Ok, after that last post and re-reading your original, I can now see we're on the same track.

I think what you're failing to understand is that, when the government does something that is legal for them to do but illegal for a citizen to do, by definition it isn't breaking the law, because the law allows for it. The problem is when the law says the government can't do it, but they do it anyway. That's when the government is breaking the law, and there's nothing right or good about it. They should be held accountable for such illegal acts.

Is your point that because "The Government" breaks the law all the time that people have no right to be upset when an officer of the law steals your identity and puts your family's life at risk...?

The parent poster is lamenting all of the "hey! If I did that I would go to jail!" comments. There are many things that the government can do that you can't by law.

I don't think that these statements in anyway state that it's ok for the government to overstep the restrictions put on the extra powers that it has.

That's not what he's saying. To put wmeredith's point another way:

The government and the people aren't governed by the exact same laws. The government can tax people, while you can't, for instance. He isn't saying that what's happening isn't wrong or horrible, he's just saying that "I can't do it so the government can't either" is not a valid argument, because there are TONS of things the government can do that you can't. What they did is wrong, but a3n's standard isn't one that's applicable here.

I hope that made sense.