Remove tag (no pun intended)?
June 13, 2011 12:03 PM Subscribe
Would identifying my (street art) work as my (flickr handle's) own incriminate me legally?
Last time I was in Las Vegas they had a special report on the TV news about exactly this -- the local cops were using social networking to identify and bust prolific taggers. If I remember correctly, they had indeed nailed a few people for dozens of individual violations, presumably as an example.
If there's any way your real name or photo can be connected to your flickr (say, via facebook, or your email address, or someone you know dropping an ill-considered comment), then yes, it could be incriminating. I'd suggest an anonymous flickr connected to a throwaway email account registered under a fake name/address. It should have nothing on it but your work, and should connect (via tags, votes, comments, and whatever else) to nothing but other people's work -- no friends, no family, no outside interests. Keep your connection to it quiet outside the scene, and try to minimize the number of people inside the scene who know your non-anonymous-flickr identity.
This could still be incriminating, if the cops want to bust you enough to confiscate your computer or subpoena IP logs and the like, but it's much less likely to cause trouble, especially since there are more prolific artists out there. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to be a little faster (or, in this case, less obvious) than the hindmost...
posted by vorfeed at 12:33 PM on June 13, 2011
If there's any way your real name or photo can be connected to your flickr (say, via facebook, or your email address, or someone you know dropping an ill-considered comment), then yes, it could be incriminating. I'd suggest an anonymous flickr connected to a throwaway email account registered under a fake name/address. It should have nothing on it but your work, and should connect (via tags, votes, comments, and whatever else) to nothing but other people's work -- no friends, no family, no outside interests. Keep your connection to it quiet outside the scene, and try to minimize the number of people inside the scene who know your non-anonymous-flickr identity.
This could still be incriminating, if the cops want to bust you enough to confiscate your computer or subpoena IP logs and the like, but it's much less likely to cause trouble, especially since there are more prolific artists out there. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to be a little faster (or, in this case, less obvious) than the hindmost...
posted by vorfeed at 12:33 PM on June 13, 2011
I am assuming this is a US law question based on your profile location.
Under what legal theory would a Flickr website taking responsibility for the street art NOT be an admission against interest (i.e., a confession to the crime being pictured)? If you are posting something on Flickr saying "I did this" and the "this" involved is an illegal act, what makes you think this wouldn't be used against you?
Rhetorical questions aside, the reason we're not seeing massive takedowns of street artists based on their Flickr admissions is limited prosecutorial resources and prosecutorial discretion. In other words, issuing a subpoena to Flickr to obtain IP address / login info, and then following up with subpoenas to the ISP in question to attach the "John Doe" to a real (chargeable / arrestable) individual is almost certainly not worth it.
This is all based on the notion that generally prosecutors have better things to do than delve into the depths of the Internet to cite/arrest "street artists". It is certainly possible that your local municipality might decide to "go Giuliani" on you and some prosecutor might get a bee in his bonnet and decide to make it worthwhile. (My suggestion if you really want to provoke this action: start lampooning or otherwise defaming local individuals in your street art!)
Put another way, if you posted evidence of a homicide to Flickr and took credit for the action, the subpoenas would be very likely to be issued. The lack of subpoenas for existing "street art" in your municipality related to the (perceived) seriousness of the crime and the allocation of limited prosecutorial resources, and not any legal theories about lack of incrimination or admissibility of evidence.
IANYL, TINLA.
posted by QuantumMeruit at 12:36 PM on June 13, 2011
Under what legal theory would a Flickr website taking responsibility for the street art NOT be an admission against interest (i.e., a confession to the crime being pictured)? If you are posting something on Flickr saying "I did this" and the "this" involved is an illegal act, what makes you think this wouldn't be used against you?
Rhetorical questions aside, the reason we're not seeing massive takedowns of street artists based on their Flickr admissions is limited prosecutorial resources and prosecutorial discretion. In other words, issuing a subpoena to Flickr to obtain IP address / login info, and then following up with subpoenas to the ISP in question to attach the "John Doe" to a real (chargeable / arrestable) individual is almost certainly not worth it.
This is all based on the notion that generally prosecutors have better things to do than delve into the depths of the Internet to cite/arrest "street artists". It is certainly possible that your local municipality might decide to "go Giuliani" on you and some prosecutor might get a bee in his bonnet and decide to make it worthwhile. (My suggestion if you really want to provoke this action: start lampooning or otherwise defaming local individuals in your street art!)
Put another way, if you posted evidence of a homicide to Flickr and took credit for the action, the subpoenas would be very likely to be issued. The lack of subpoenas for existing "street art" in your municipality related to the (perceived) seriousness of the crime and the allocation of limited prosecutorial resources, and not any legal theories about lack of incrimination or admissibility of evidence.
IANYL, TINLA.
posted by QuantumMeruit at 12:36 PM on June 13, 2011
If there's any way your real name or photo can be connected to your flickr (say, via facebook, or your email address, or someone you know dropping an ill-considered comment), then yes, it could be incriminating.
Or like the ISP that you use.
Hell, you've got your full name and picture here on MeFi.
Plausible deniability is only as useful as the deniability is plausible, and sometimes not even that much.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:40 PM on June 13, 2011
Or like the ISP that you use.
Hell, you've got your full name and picture here on MeFi.
Plausible deniability is only as useful as the deniability is plausible, and sometimes not even that much.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:40 PM on June 13, 2011
If you feel the need to" take credit" do so with some good precautions.
like others said, set up a dummy account with anything remotely related to criminal activity (I personally love graffiti/street art, back a few years ago here in Detroit we had the awesome turtle).
Familiarize yourself with tor a proxy service and run EVERYTHING including setting up accounts through proxies essentially creating dead ends as the servers don't maintain ip addresses.
posted by handbanana at 12:49 PM on June 13, 2011
like others said, set up a dummy account with anything remotely related to criminal activity (I personally love graffiti/street art, back a few years ago here in Detroit we had the awesome turtle).
Familiarize yourself with tor a proxy service and run EVERYTHING including setting up accounts through proxies essentially creating dead ends as the servers don't maintain ip addresses.
posted by handbanana at 12:49 PM on June 13, 2011
Or like the ISP that you use.
Yes. That's why I said "this could still be incriminating, if the cops want to bust you enough to confiscate your computer or subpoena IP logs and the like".
That said, plausible deniability will get you a lot further than a flickr which is connected to 10 other accounts with your real name all over them. Like most predators, cops tend to take the easiest prey.
posted by vorfeed at 12:49 PM on June 13, 2011
Yes. That's why I said "this could still be incriminating, if the cops want to bust you enough to confiscate your computer or subpoena IP logs and the like".
That said, plausible deniability will get you a lot further than a flickr which is connected to 10 other accounts with your real name all over them. Like most predators, cops tend to take the easiest prey.
posted by vorfeed at 12:49 PM on June 13, 2011
handbanana: Familiarize yourself with tor a proxy service and run EVERYTHING including setting up accounts through proxies essentially creating dead ends as the servers don't maintain ip addresses.
Alternatively, use public access points: coffee shops, libraries, open wifi around restaurants and motels.
And if you're really concerned, dilute your Flickr account with posts of other artists. Note: Flickr will only show 200 of your photos on a free account. Also, Flickr shows metadata like camera model, even geolocation tags. Again, depending on how paranoid you are, you could strip that data before uploading.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:58 PM on June 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Alternatively, use public access points: coffee shops, libraries, open wifi around restaurants and motels.
And if you're really concerned, dilute your Flickr account with posts of other artists. Note: Flickr will only show 200 of your photos on a free account. Also, Flickr shows metadata like camera model, even geolocation tags. Again, depending on how paranoid you are, you could strip that data before uploading.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:58 PM on June 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: There are a handful of street artists in this city who have tens of thousands of pieces of their work all over the metro area; they have pro flickr accounts which include their (supposed) real names (and even if it is a nickname, they're extensively identified as such, both on flickr as well as on scads of blogs, magazines, etc).
I haven't even crossed the 200 free-account limit yet, and the number of photos that I've posted that include my own, illegally pasted work, and identified as mine = 1. It's the fact that I've now crossed that threshold that prompted me to ask this question.
This city is very friendly toward street art; I'm concerned about a situation where a new mayor comes in and starts some noxious campaign about "clean streets = clean morals" or such horseshit.
I do get paranoid about this, because every social network is encroaching more and more on privacy, so, even without the IP address being an issue, it's increasingly difficult to be active without being identifiable.
posted by herbplarfegan at 1:14 PM on June 13, 2011
I haven't even crossed the 200 free-account limit yet, and the number of photos that I've posted that include my own, illegally pasted work, and identified as mine = 1. It's the fact that I've now crossed that threshold that prompted me to ask this question.
This city is very friendly toward street art; I'm concerned about a situation where a new mayor comes in and starts some noxious campaign about "clean streets = clean morals" or such horseshit.
I do get paranoid about this, because every social network is encroaching more and more on privacy, so, even without the IP address being an issue, it's increasingly difficult to be active without being identifiable.
posted by herbplarfegan at 1:14 PM on June 13, 2011
Best answer: Filthy light theif also is on point. Remove all exif data on the photos.
posted by handbanana at 1:23 PM on June 13, 2011
posted by handbanana at 1:23 PM on June 13, 2011
Best answer: It's been a long time since I was involved in the scene, and it was never outside of California, but...
Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco had cops that, on their own time, would drive around taking pictures of new graffiti and vandalism. They kept track of other cop's evidence in vandalism arrests. They researched roll calls and shout outs. This was before flicker and facebook but 12ozprophet was crawling with cops. A cop I interacted with fairly often in Berkeley had stacks of photo albums at home and every couple of weeks would spend a whole day drinking coffee at a cafe and organizing and connecting the dots with his newest batch of pictures.
The people who are posting their work online may never get popped, but they're making it real easy to do so, if a cop is so inclined.
posted by gally99 at 9:04 PM on June 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco had cops that, on their own time, would drive around taking pictures of new graffiti and vandalism. They kept track of other cop's evidence in vandalism arrests. They researched roll calls and shout outs. This was before flicker and facebook but 12ozprophet was crawling with cops. A cop I interacted with fairly often in Berkeley had stacks of photo albums at home and every couple of weeks would spend a whole day drinking coffee at a cafe and organizing and connecting the dots with his newest batch of pictures.
The people who are posting their work online may never get popped, but they're making it real easy to do so, if a cop is so inclined.
posted by gally99 at 9:04 PM on June 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
This includes photos they take of their work, before and after it's put up on the street, and identifying "themselves" in photos of their work that others have snapped and posted.
Because every spraying/stickering/wheat-pasting is a violation of the law, are these artists posting evidence of each of their crimes? Could their flickr page, and overall flickr presence (tags, etc) be used to get them charged for dozens, even hundreds, of separate documented violations?
posted by herbplarfegan at 12:09 PM on June 13, 2011