Facebook As Your Alibi

from the when-your-status-suddenly-becomes-important dept

There have been stories here and there about Facebook statuses implicating people in a crime, but how about one that helped get someone cleared from a crime? Apparently, a guy who was accused of being involved in a burglary used the fact that he had updated his Facebook status at around the time of the crime, and had supposedly done so from his father’s apartment, as evidence that he wasn’t present at the burglary. The police subpoenaed Facebook to get the actual location where the update came from (and said it corroborated some additional alibis), but it seems to be one of the first (if not the first) case of a social networking status update being useful as an alibi.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Facebook As Your Alibi”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Flamsmark (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Furthering the previous reply:
One doesn’t have to be sure. If you’re defending yourself, you don’t have to prove innocence, merely establish reasonable doubt. When you combine an electronic event that you’re the only person likely to trigger, with other alibi material; you raise significant doubt that you had opportunity to commit the crime.

Fred McTaker (profile) says:


Apparently the prosecution isn’t familiar with VNC, cron, at, WebMonkey, or computer scheduling and scripting in general.

IP numbers prove neither guilt nor innocence. With technologies like I2P, Freenet, TOR, or even IPv6:4 gateways, all readily available with simple installers and routing behind Multi-WAN NAT firewalls, IP numbers are all fairly meaningless. You can’t even prove that any packets detected weren’t dropped before reaching the intended destination, over an encrypted channel hop further down the chain. So in absolute terms, apparent network packet data sources and targets don’t prove anything — you can’t even prove the intended recipient got the data.

Anonymous Coward says:


Apparently the prosecution isn’t familiar with VNC, cron, at, WebMonkey, or computer scheduling and scripting in general.

The problem is the prosecutor has the wrong guy. As the defense said: “This implies a level of criminal genius that you would not expect from a young boy like this; he is not Dr. Evil,”

Yes, he could be faking it. But his parents say he was home. There’s evidence he was on his computer. Do you really believe he did it?

This is just a stupid kid who gets into trouble a lot, when he should be at home updating his facebook account. He might be guilty of something, but we should presume innocence in this country.

I wonder if he was just playing minesweeper, would the courts find him guilty? If so, our justice system is so far from true justice that no American can appreciate it.

lifehappenzinvestigates (profile) says:


What Fred said x2! Ironically right before passing by this article today I was reviewing the available twitter apps and widgets on their wiki fan page. I saw many free versions of software specifically designed to schedule tweets.

With this said however; our justice system tends to be decades behind and in my perspective as such this lag in our system seems to favor the prosecutor more often than not. Seems the laws do however; catch up right quick when this is not the case. In the event they can rush this through the courts, this would be one instance where the defendant may just have a chance whether guilty or not. As it has already been mentioned a defendant merely has to raise doubts regarding their guilt rather than prove their innocence.

Paul Keating (profile) says:

Facebook saves the day

Several comments:

1. it was not so much facebook as the IP address that was logged – it could have been his banking connection for that matter.

2. As pointed out by others, there is no evidence that it was actually he who did the update. He could have given his password to anyone and had them do it. Come to think of it, what a great way to get an alibi without even having been seen.

pegr (profile) says:

Wrong-headed and lame

If this Facebook update is the only evidence keeping him from being charged, he had no business being charged in the first place.

They obviously didn’t have any evidence placing him at the crime, fingerprints, fibers, etc. Why do they think they have enough to charge him when they have no evidence at all? Poor black kid that all they have to do is accuse to get a conviction? That prosecutor is corrupt!

Anonymous Coward says:

Don’t law enforcement officers have to see if the alibi checks out before filing charges and making arrests? Also, don’t they have to gather evidence first? It’s one thing when it’s a fined offense for violating a code, and the municipal authorities set the amount such that it would cost more to fight than pay, but it’s another thing entirely when there’s incarceration at stake. Absent any other real evidence, they almost locked this guy up for not being at home when a crime was committed. And because of the novel way of establishing the alibi, the public is being routed around that little issue.

Yakko Warner says:

Flimsy alibi

When I get to work, the first thing I do is open an SSH tunnel to my server at home. My browser uses that tunnel as a proxy. If I go to a site like whatismyip.com, I see my home’s IP address.

The fact that his Facebook status was apparently updated from home doesn’t prove anything. Even if he did it, he could’ve done it from anywhere.

Call me Al says:

Re: Flimsy alibi

The point is that it agrees with other evidence supporting his alibi. It isn’t the whole alibi on its own.

I get the impression that there was various bits of evidence supporting his alibi which individually were not enough. However when they were considered as a whole it was reasonable to accept that he was at home as he claimed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Not quite true. An IP address get a “name”, but one still needs more than just a name to prevail in a “sharing” case.

Using the Thomas-Rassert and Tenenbaum cases as examples, a wealth of evidence was produced that led the respective juries to conclude that the defendants were the perpetrators. Of course, it did not help her case that Thomas-Rassert at one point tried to throw her kids under the bus, nor did it help Tenenbaum when it was discovered that the had lied at one of his depositions.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...