<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;instagram&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 20:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Criminal Nabbed By His Own Food Porn</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've covered the trespasses of stupid criminals here before. Bank robbers who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml">brag</a> about their actions on YouTube, for instance. Or thieves on the lam <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/05543221698/stupid-criminals-posting-vacation-shopping-pictures-yourself-facebook-while-fugitive.shtml">uploading</a> pictures containing their whereabouts to social media sites. It seems at times that these guys and gals are just <i>trying</i> to get caught. But that's certainly not always the case. Take the following story, which I have to believe is the internet-y-ist dumb criminal story yet.
<br /><br />
It begins with Troy Maye, who is accused of <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/instagram-food-porn-evidence-798451">grabbing identifying info on people and then attempting to sell the identities</a> off to bidders. The IRS was tracking Maye and his girlfriend, but they didn't have either of their real names, since they were at least smart enough to give aliases. So the IRS <a href="http://gawker.com/hipster-thieves-caught-because-they-just-had-to-instagr-503526567">engaged a confidential informant</a>, who sat down to eat with them at a restaurant in Florida.
<blockquote>
<i>They came up on the IRS radar after the couple met an informant at &mdash; no joke &mdash; YOLO Restaurant in Fort Lauderdale. Maye told the informant his name was Troy and that he had stolen 700,000 identities, but the IRS could not yet crack the thief of identities' identity.</i>
</blockquote>
I have no idea what kind of food is served at YOLO Restaurant, but you kind of have to assume everything on the menu has a 50/50 shot of killing you, right? Maybe it's nothing but puffer fish and uncooked chicken with a side of ebola? Regardless, the IRS still wasn't able to get names on the two, so the informant was sent to have another meal with the two criminals, this time upping the classiness of the operation by going to a Morton's Steakhouse. While there, Maye provided the informant with a thumb drive that contained a bunch of identities, which were promptly turned over to the IRS. Investigators were then able to pull Maye's name from metadata on the drive. From there, the IRS did what any federal agency would do:
<blockquote>
<i>IRS Agent Louis Babino then headed to Google and located Maye&rsquo;s Instagram page, which contained a profile photo of Maye. When shown the profile photo, the CW confirmed that Maye (seen at right) was the man with whom he dined at Morton&rsquo;s.</i>
</blockquote>
Well, sure, Agent Babino, but how can you be <i>really</i> sure this was your guy?
<blockquote>
<i>A further review of Maye&rsquo;s Instagram page, Babino noted, revealed &ldquo;a photo of a steak and macaroni and cheese meal containing the caption &lsquo;Morton&rsquo;s.&rsquo;&rdquo; The image--uploaded on January 7 at 11:24 PM--&ldquo;appears to coincide&rdquo; with the CW&rsquo;s meeting at Morton&rsquo;s, added Babino.</i>
</blockquote>
Yup, this guy food-porned his way into being arrested. The Instagram photo is reportedly being entered into evidence in the case, so one hopes the juicy steak and the creamy mac and cheese was really, <i>really</i> worth all the trouble Maye is now in. Once again, if you're a criminal, online narcicism is probably something you'd do best to avoid.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>steak-in-the-game</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130513/10360323060</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Apr 2013 00:10:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Montreal Student Arrested For Posting Photo Of Anti-Police Graffiti To Instagram</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/15470722582/montreal-student-arrested-posting-photo-anti-police-graffiti-to-instagram.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/15470722582/montreal-student-arrested-posting-photo-anti-police-graffiti-to-instagram.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
<b>UPDATE</b>: <i>A <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/15470722582/montreal-student-arrested-posting-photo-anti-police-graffiti-to-instagram.shtml#c157" target="_blank">commenter below</a> has provided a link to coverage of this story by the <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-woman-faces-charges-after-posting-anti-police-graffiti-to-instagram/article10779292/" target="_blank">Globe and Mail</a> which includes more details than the CBC story linked in this post. Apparently, Pawluck had previously posted other photos of anti-police graffiti as well. This additional information doesn't make the actions of the police department any less egregious, but it does explain why they might have an interest in questioning her. In addition, she was also arrested several times during the Montreal demonstrations. Again, this doesn't excuse any overreactions, but it does at least explain why she may have been questioned at length. Her history with the police department makes this investigation about more than one uploaded photo.</i>
<br /><br />
If anyone needed any more evidence that police departments are casting a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130226/07563022114/top-german-police-officer-anyone-internet-has-left-private-sphere.shtml" target="_blank">wide surveillance net</a> over social media networks, <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-was-a-student-in-montreal-arrested-for-instagramming-graffiti" target="_blank">here's one more story to add to the woeful deluge</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>On Wednesday night, news broke that a 20-year-old &ldquo;supporter of the student movement,&rdquo; Jennifer Pawluck was arrested in Montreal for posting a picture to Instagram that she took of a graffiti wheat paste illustration that showed Montreal&rsquo;s police commander Ian Lafreni&egrave;re with a bloody bullethole in his forehead. <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/04/04/montreal-police-graffiti-arrest-instagram.html?cmp=rss#.UV14XTvQVOk.facebook" target="_blank">According to the CBC</a>, the image was thrown up on a brick wall in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve neighborhood. And Jennifer Pawluck&mdash;not that this even matters&mdash;didn&rsquo;t even draw the anti-cop graphic in the first place.</i></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/04/04/montreal-police-graffiti-arrest-instagram.html?cmp=rss#.UV14XTvQVOk.facebook" target="_blank">Further details at CBC's site indicate</a> that the Montreal police are actively monitoring Instagram, or more likely, its new best friend, Facebook.
<blockquote>
<i>Jennifer Pawluck was picked up by Montreal police at her home Wednesday, questioned for several hours and then released on a promise to appear in court.</i></blockquote>
So, this wasn't a case of Pawluck shooting photos of graffiti and being approached by an officer. This would be a posted photo being spotted online and traced back to Pawluck. The surveillance aspect is disturbing enough, but the Montreal police went even further, accusing Pawluck of "criminal harassment against a high-ranking Montreal police officer." All over a photo of artwork she didn't create (or apply to a wall).
</p>
<center> <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-was-a-student-in-montreal-arrested-for-instagramming-graffiti" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/OUoyPYm.jpg" style="width: 456px; height: 455px;" /></a></center>
<p>
The picture depicts Montreal police commander Ian Lafreni&egrave;re with a bullet hole in his head. Lafreni&egrave;re was a bit of a lightning rod during last year's riots in Montreal due to his position as head of the Communications Division. While the image is violent and <i>could be</i> perceived as threatening, posting a photo of the graffiti on Instagram is hardly "harassment" in and of itself. As the Vice article points out, there have been plenty of other photos of this particular artwork uploaded to Instagram.
<br /><br />
The police (unsurprisingly) have been less than forthcoming as to why Pawluck needed to be questioned for "several hours" about this photo. Here's what the department <i>did</i> have to say:
<blockquote>
<i>Spokesman Const. Dany Richer said the concern extends beyond just the posting of the photo, but said he could not go into further details.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>&ldquo;There are circumstances that surrounded the publication of this image, circumstances that we can&rsquo;t reveal because it is still under investigation,&rdquo; he said.</i></blockquote>
This statement is suitably vague with a hint of menace. There may be some "circumstances" surrounding Pawluck's participation in last year's demonstrations. There may also be some "circumstances" surrounding the original artwork, as I would imagine the police are <i>very</i> interested in finding the creator and questioning him or her for several hours. But I <i>cannot</i> see there being "circumstances" surrounding the upload of a photo to a social media site, at least not to the extent that someone gets detained and questioned for several hours and released only with the promise that they will appear in court, <i>all without being charged with any criminal wrongdoing</i>.
<blockquote>
<i>She has not been formally charged, but is scheduled to appear in court on April 17.</i></blockquote>
No charges, and yet the police have prohibited her from contacting Lafreni&egrave;re (can't imagine why she would want to -- and she states she never has) or coming within one kilometer of the Montreal Police HQ.
<br /><br />
This last part is enlightening. It strongly suggests the police department fears the general population, or at least those who photograph (or create) anti-police artwork. There's no other reason the police would need to file a restraining order (so to speak) against a student whose "weapon" is a cell phone with a camera. Unfortunately for Pawluck, the "restraining order" isn't mutually restrictive. I would imagine this won't be her last run-in with Montreal law enforcement. They seem unusually interested in shutting down expression they don't like, and are apparently willing to try to intimidate people into compliance.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/15470722582/montreal-student-arrested-posting-photo-anti-police-graffiti-to-instagram.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/15470722582/montreal-student-arrested-posting-photo-anti-police-graffiti-to-instagram.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/15470722582/montreal-student-arrested-posting-photo-anti-police-graffiti-to-instagram.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-have-a-friend-request-from-Officer-Smith</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130404/15470722582</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:51:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Instagram: 'Wait, Wait! That's Not What We Meant!'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/15010921430/instagram-wait-wait-thats-not-what-we-meant.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/15010921430/instagram-wait-wait-thats-not-what-we-meant.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So, as the deluge of hate towards Instagram got louder and louder concerning its terms of service change, the company has now come out and said that <a href="http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening" target="_blank">it will change the terms</a> and, of course, that it never meant them to be read the way people were interpreting them, and that it plans to adjust the terms so that people aren't so damn angry at them.  On the question of "advertising on Instagram" they note:
<blockquote><i>
From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.
<br /><br />
To provide context, we envision a future where both users and brands alike may promote their photos & accounts to increase engagement and to build a more meaningful following. Let's say a business wanted to promote their account to gain more followers and Instagram was able to feature them in some way. In order to help make a more relevant and useful promotion, it would be helpful to see which of the people you follow also follow this business. In this way, some of the data you produce &#8212; like the actions you take (eg, following the account) and your profile photo &#8212; might show up if you are following this business.
<br /><br />
The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we're going to remove the language that raised the question. Our main goal is to avoid things likes advertising banners you see in other apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience. Instead, we want to create meaningful ways to help you discover new and interesting accounts and content while building a self-sustaining business at the same time.
</i></blockquote>
I'm sure this won't mollify some, but it is more or less what we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/11131721427/everyones-up-arms-over-instagrams-terms-service-they-didnt-read-first-place.shtml">had assumed</a> they were trying to do in the first place.  The blog post similarly notes that they're not claiming copyright on your images, nor are they mucking with your privacy settings.
<br /><br />
In the end, we stand by our initial analysis: almost all of the complaints against Instagram's new terms of service were quite similar to complaints made against other terms of service in the past few years when someone got around to reading the details, which are hard to understand because of the annoying legalese that the lawyers want you to put in.  Instagram -- and especially its new owners at Facebook -- should have realized ahead of time what was about to happen.  They could have cut off an awful lot of this mess if they had posted a similar blog post <i>before</i> the new terms were released, or with the new terms explaining what they were really trying to do and why.  When you let people imagine the worst, they will do so.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/15010921430/instagram-wait-wait-thats-not-what-we-meant.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/15010921430/instagram-wait-wait-thats-not-what-we-meant.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/15010921430/instagram-wait-wait-thats-not-what-we-meant.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>responding-to-the-deluge</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121218/15010921430</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:48:27 PST</pubDate>
<title>Everyone's Up In Arms Over Instagram's Terms Of Service They Didn't Read In The First Place</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/11131721427/everyones-up-arms-over-instagrams-terms-service-they-didnt-read-first-place.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/11131721427/everyones-up-arms-over-instagrams-terms-service-they-didnt-read-first-place.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It never fails.  No one actually reads the various terms of service for the different online services you use, but when someone finally does -- out of boredom or (more likely) because the terms are changing (yet again!) -- it's not uncommon to see sudden mass outrage.  It seems to flare up every few months.  Last time around it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/03153517838/pointless-copyright-freakout-over-pinterest.shtml">Pinterest</a> and this time it's Instagram, based on the claim that the company (now owned by Facebook) will have new terms that allow it to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/" target="_blank">sell your photos to the highest bidder</a>, for which you will get nothing.  There is some outrage over that (selling <i>my</i> work!), but the thing that seems to be upsetting people the most is the fact that the company is reserving the right to have your images be used in advertisements.  Here's the part in the new terms:
<blockquote><i>
Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.
</i></blockquote>
This has created quite a bit of general outrage, though I'd argue that most (though, not all) of it is misplaced.  There are some extreme arguments on both sides -- from Sam Biddle at Gizmodo telling everyone <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5969221/stop-whining-about-your-personal-data-on-instagram-you-little-whiny-baby" target="_blank">to "shut up" because they're acting like a "little whiny baby"</a> to David Meyer at ZDNet insisting this is a move too far, and is <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/no-what-instagram-just-did-to-its-users-is-not-acceptable-7000008949/" target="_blank">totally unacceptable</a>.  Others are pulling out the <a href="http://www.streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/in-defense-of-instagram/#.UNCnFX4KI5s.twitter" target="_blank">"it's a business, what did you expect"</a> line.
<br /><br />
The most reasonable take I've seen so far comes from Kash Hill at Forbes, who <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/12/18/instagram-money-grab/" target="_blank">goes through the new terms methodically</a>, explaining what they mean.  The whole "use in advertising" thing sounds basically like they're going to integrate Instagram images into Facebook's existing efforts for things like "Sponsored Stories."  If that doesn't creep you out, then perhaps you shouldn't be too worried about this new thing:
<blockquote><i>
<p>If this sounds familiar, it's because it's a page from the Facebook book. It sounds like Instagram is planning something along the lines of "Sponsored Stories." So if you go into a business and gram your experience, the business can use the gram in ads, probably targeted at your friends to encourage them to do the same. The fact that Instagram grants itself the right to use metadata is significant &#8212; that means it knows the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/12/07/dear-journalists-at-vice-and-elsewhere-here-are-some-simple-ways-not-to-get-your-source-arrested/">exact location where a photo was taken</a>, making it easy for businesses to know a photo was taken inside one of their fine establishments. A big question here is whether these ad campaigns will be limited to Instagram's (and Facebook's) platforms or if they will migrate outside of the Instabook ecosystem.</p> 
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/2M6Xu"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/2M6Xu.jpg" /></a>
</center>
<p>Le's be honest: Many of the photos on Instagram are perfect for this. A sample gram from my weekend: "<a href="http://instagram.com/p/TRC9ZxAwEi/">Best bloody mary in D.C. At the Pig;</a>" that's a Pig ad waiting to happen. Actually it's a Pig ad that already happened, but no one got paid for it. Most of us are already essentially packaging and advertising our experiences to our friends (as Joe Brown at Gizmodo <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5969239/dear-instagram-please-sell-my-photos">makes clear</a>); Instagram is wisely trying to make money off of it.</p>
</i></blockquote>
When pitched that way, it doesn't sound nearly as bad.  After all, if you were talking about how awesome the burgers at your favorite burger joint are, is it so crazy to think that the burger place might want to repeat your enthusiasm as part of their push to get more customers?  Furthermore, even if the terms are worded poorly (it's mostly boilerplate, and you'll find somewhat similar terms in lots of places) if Instagram really went out and started selling your photos to appear in, say, a big magazine or TV ad, there would be significant public backlash over that, such that it's probably in their own best interest not to do that without direct permission.
<br /><br />
That said, there are a few questionable things in the terms that may lead to legal trouble.  When they say: "You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such" they're asking for a beatdown from the FTC (though, the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms" target="_blank">current Facebook terms</a> include an almost-identical item).
<br /><br />
The thing that really surprises me in all of this is that Facebook/Instagram didn't see this coming.  Perhaps it's because Facebook seems to do this kind of thing every few months -- in which they change their terms or launch a new feature that has a surprising impact on some element of privacy -- leading to mass complaints and outrage... which all gradually fade away.  So maybe Facebook just figures to weather the storm -- and, chances are, for all the people complaining, very few will actually leave Instagram.  
<br /><br />
Still, earlier this year, Tumblr finally realized that it makes sense to put up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120326/01301418236/will-tumblrs-new-terms-service-finally-lead-to-de-stupidifying-terms-service.shtml">plain language terms of service</a> that isn't chock full of legalese (beyond what's necessary) and which include straightforward explanations for what the different clauses mean and how they impact you.  It seems like Facebook/Instagram could have cut off a significant amount of criticism of this move if they'd simply done that: better explain in plain language what they're doing and why they're doing it.  Instead, just flipping the switch on new terms is bound to set off this kind of firestorm of anger.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/11131721427/everyones-up-arms-over-instagrams-terms-service-they-didnt-read-first-place.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/11131721427/everyones-up-arms-over-instagrams-terms-service-they-didnt-read-first-place.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/11131721427/everyones-up-arms-over-instagrams-terms-service-they-didnt-read-first-place.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-again?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121218/11131721427</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>