Facebook’s Top Cop: Joe Sullivan

by Kashmir Hill

This story appears in the March 12, 2012 issue of Forbes magazine.

If Facebook were a country, it would be the third largest in the world and Joe Sullivan would be head of Homeland Security.

His actual title is chief security officer. The “terrorists” he’s up against include the
“Koobface gang,” a quintet of Russians who unleashed a worm that turned –
Facebookers’ computers into enslaved bots; the spammers who flooded the site
with violent and pornographic images in December; scammers who trick
Facebook users into clicking links and filling out surveys for the swindlers’ profit;
pedo philes using the site to make contact with minors; and scrapers who
inappropriately raid Facebook for users’ valuable personal information. These
scoundrels include those who use malicious apps, hackers and an amateur porn –
purveyor who matches profile pages to private nudie photos submitted by
vengeful exes—making it easy to contact, harass and “poke” the unwitting and
involuntary porn stars.

The dirt Facebook holds on its users makes it as attractive to cops as to criminals.
Among Sullivan’s responsibilities are daily decisions about how much user
information to give to law enforcement when it comes calling. And, as a digital
nation’s DHS, Sullivan and his team actively police the site for user data worth
volunteering to the authorities. Still, he says, “we err on the side of not sharing
and have picked quite a few fights over the years.”

Users may have constitutional rights against unreasonable searches by the state,
but the only Facebook Constitution is the company’s dense terms of service
agreement. It focuses on prohibitions for users, such as bullying, creating fake
accounts or uploading images of violence or nudity, as well as Facebook’s rights
to intellectual property uploaded to the site. It doesn’t spell out when Facebook
may dive into data for policing purposes or hand it over to the authorities.

Should Facebook give users a Miranda warning before they sign up—that
anything they post and do on the site can and will be used against them? The
company gives law enforcement “basic subscriber information” on requests
accompanied by subpoenas: a user’s name, e-mail address and IP address (which
reveals approximate location). Sullivan insists that everything else—photos,
status updates, private messages, friend lists, group memberships, pokes and all
the rest—requires a warrant.

Sullivan, 43, usually wears the “Mark Zuckerberg uniform” at the office: gray
hoodie, sneakers, jeans. With longish light-brown hair and gray-speckled goatee,
he looks more like a bouncer at a country music bar than an ex-federal
prosecutor, let alone the guy responsible for safeguarding and investigating
Facebook’s 845 million users.

Most of his security team is based at headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif. and sits
at clusters of desks close enough to take dead aim at one another with Nerf darts.
Broken roughly into five parts, the team has 10 people review new features being
launched, 8 monitor the site for bugs and privacy flaws, 25 handle requests for
user information from law enforcement, and a few build criminal and civil cases
against those who misbehave on the network; the rest are handling security
situations as they arise and acting as digital bodyguards protecting Facebook

staffers (“We have someone trying to hack an employee’s account every day,” says
Sullivan). If you include the physical security guards who patrol Facebook
headquarters, Sullivan’s team numbers 70 people.

It’s a big kingdom to police, populated with mundane and highly personal
information about its subjects. Its value, shaping up to be $100 billion when the
company goes public later this year, depends on keeping the populace happy and
safe—from overprobing law officials, as well as from predators.
THE OLDEST OF SEVEN CHILDREN, Sullivan grew up in Cambridge, Mass. He
describes his father as a painter and sculptor, and his mother as a schoolteacher
who wrote mystery stories about a nun who was a private eye. “So I rebelled and
went to law school,” he says. (A Google search revealed that the apple did not fall
so very far from the tree, though. Sullivan’s mother was a CIA analyst in Russia in
the 1960s before she settled down to start a family.)
Sullivan got his law degree at the University of Miami in 1993. A self-described
early adopter, he was the first of his friends to get a computer and an e-mail
account. In his first job at the Department of Justice in Miami, he convinced his
superiors that the office should have an Internet connection.

He has been riding the Internet crime wave since 1997, when he moved to Las
Vegas as a federal prosecutor. When the DOJ started a computer crime program,
recruiting one prosecutor in every office to work on cybercrime cases, he
volunteered and began working on early eBay fraud and software piracy cases.
After Bob Mueller, now director of the FBI, started recruiting a high-tech team to
work in the DOJ’s Silicon Valley office in 1999, Sullivan jumped at the chance,
putting him at the center of cybercrime during the Internet boom. In 2002 he
went to eBay, where his security detail included the units PayPal and Skype.
That’s when he had to make a fundamental shift in his thinking—not just how
best to prosecute criminals but also how much information to hold back from
authorities to protect the rights of customers.
“Depending on the product, we had fundamentally different philosophical
approaches to the law and user expectations around data-sharing with law

enforcement,” he says. As one might expect from someone who had been a
prosecutor a scant year before, Sullivan’s relationship with law enforcement when
he first joined eBay was cozy. In 2003 off-the-record remarks Sullivan made at a
cybercrime conference were secretly taped and given to a reporter at
Haaretz.com, the Israeli news site. Sullivan claimed that eBay’s privacy policy was
“flexible,” allowing it to freely provide information to investigators—“no need for
a court order,” Sullivan said. Haaretz wrote an outraged report about eBay’s
collusion with Big Brother.

“With Skype we’d tell law enforcement to go through Luxembourg, and good luck
with that,” says Sullivan now. “But with eBay, if you were law enforcement
investigating a seller, you didn’t even need a subpoena. You could just ask for it
on your letterhead and we would hand it over. Back then some people were just
putting money in envelopes, sending it to eBay sellers and hoping to get their
products. There needed to be an expectation that sellers were being scrutinized.”

Sullivan says the experience of looking through different legal lenses in terms of
what to give to law enforcement was “really helpful” when he came to Facebook in
2008, “where expectation of privacy is paramount and our philosophy has to be
the Skype policy.” He claims that “99.9% of the time” when Facebook resists a
request, the government backs down

While Sullivan appreciates the nuances around privacy in the context of free
expression and communication, he appears to have little tolerance for claims to
privacy when it comes to either fraud or the treatment of children. With the rise
of Facebook credits—the site’s monetary system, which requires users to use
virtual dollars to buy goods in games and apps on the site—he will likely adopt the
eBay approach. Those dealing in Facebook dollars can expect to be closely

IN DECEMBER THE RAPIDLY EXPANDING Facebook moved from Palo Alto to
Menlo Park, into Sun Microsystems’ old headquarters, once known as “Sun
Quentin,” after the notorious Marin County bayside prison. The sprawling
campus is still under construction around us on this February morning, with
workers carrying ladders and bulldozers preparing the intrabuilding walkways for food carts and play areas. Since employees can’t use the central paths, there are
dozens of bikes outside each building for use on the paved “Hacker Way” road
that circles the campus. “Even when they’re finished, it won’t look too sculpted,”
says Sullivan, gazing out the windows of Building 18 at construction equipment.
“The unfinished look of our campus is a cultural thing.”

Inside, the walls bear a passing resemblance to the scrapbook feel of profile
pages. Prints from the videogame Donkey Kong and scrawled messages from
visitors (many who thank Facebook for enabling them to “stalk” the man or
woman who eventually became their spouse) hang alongside the security team’s
“scalps”—photos and investigation details for spammers, hackers and pedophiles
hunted down and kicked off the site. The conference room names in the security
building are mash-ups of music artists and security threats, such as “Alicia
Keylogger.” Sullivan gestures at ten people sitting at a row of desks, who smile
shyly in our direction.

“They handle requests from law enforcement,” he explains. The security team has
five other members based in Dublin, Ireland who speak every European language
and field government requests internationally. “Claudio, for example, speaks to
every police officer in Italy and answers any question they might have about
Facebook. We’re very careful about the information we share, but that doesn’t
mean we can’t help them understand the situation that they’ve never dealt with

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange has called Facebook the world’s perfect spying
machine, with access to 40% of the world’s two billion Internet users. A 24-yearold
Austrian law student recently took advantage of Europe’s “right to access” law
—which forces companies to provide all information they have on a citizen upon
request—to get his Facebook file. After three years on the site it ran to an
incredible 1,222 pages long.
Sullivan scoffs at the spying machine characterization. “We don’t have a data
pipeline to the CIA,” he says. “If people had horrible experiences, they would stop
using Facebook.”

That echoes a sentiment expressed in the company’s recent S-1 filing to go public:
“Any number of factors could potentially negatively affect user retention, growth
and engagement, including if there are changes in user sentiment about the
quality or usefulness of our products or concerns related to privacy and sharing,
safety, security or other factors.”
Law enforcement, as well as civil litigants, increasingly rely on third-party
companies like Facebook as a source of evidence in criminal investigations and
lawsuits. It’s the nature of the overexposed age that we make much more
information about ourselves readily available and easily discoverable.

Sullivan goes over his most recent weekly security report to Facebook executives,
in which he highlights significant incidents of ne’er-do-wells getting poked by the
security team. Sullivan notes that Florida police called Facebook’s 24-hour
emergency hotline for law enforcement the previous week to request help locating
a two-week-old baby who had been abducted from its mother. When law
enforcement calls the hotline in a life-or-death emergency, Facebook waives basic
legal requirements and hands over information to authorities without making
them go through official channels. In this case it provided authorities with the IP
address and location information for the last sign-in for the Facebook user
suspected of abducting the child. The baby was recovered 30 minutes later.

In another incident, proactive policing by Facebook’s security team led to a
potential pedophile being fingered. The site employs algorithms to detect
suspicious behavior and bring it to the attention of Sullivan’s group. “We found
that a youth pastor and children’s sports coach in Indiana was using fake
accounts to try to engage with kids on our site,” he says. “So we called the FBI in
Indiana and sent them his information.”
While a youth pastor reaching out to young people doesn’t seem particularly
nefarious, Sullivan suggests that his use of fake accounts to do so, as well as the
content of his communications, was disturbing enough to warrant police

Users may often forget they are constantly watched on the site, if not by actual
people, then by algorithms. Last year Facebook adopted a Microsoft program
called PhotoDNA, which scans every picture uploaded to the site to see if it
matches known child porn images compiled by the FBI’s National Crime
Information Center. “Our list of child porn images is actually much longer than
the FBI’s,” says Sullivan. “Every time we find something new—through a user
report or flagging on a keyword—we manually review the user album to see if
there are other images that should be added to the list, and then we add them to
our library. We’re exploring how to share our library with others.”

For years the site has had back-end algorithms to weed out fake spam accounts
and monitor kid-adult interactions. Lotharios, beware: “If you’re sending friend
requests that trend to 80% female, that’s a red flag, or if you change your birth
date a lot—under and above the 18 threshold,” says Sullivan. “Our site integrity
team has built engines to feed in characteristics, and they start hunting people
down. When you have single concrete rules, it’s easy for people to figure them
out, but with machine learning, it’s evolving all the time.”
Sometimes in ways that most Facebook members probably aren’t aware of.
Sullivan’s team determines when cops get to dig into users’ accounts but also has
the power to do its own snooping to prevent miscreants from abusing the site, as
well as to turn those users over to authorities. The Constitution protects us
against unreasonable searches by the feds, requiring them, for example, to get a
search warrant from a judge to riffle through our digital homes just as they do for
our physical ones. But when it comes to our privacy rights from the companies
that store our data? That’s more complicated.

Privacy—or the lack of it—is the biggest complaint about Facebook. Constant
tinkering with privacy settings has prompted instant pushback from users and
retreat by the company. After an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission
into unfair and deceptive practices, the site is now subject to privacy audits every
two years. That hasn’t stopped a high recidivism rate. Recently, Facebook’s
switching all users over from their exiting profile pages to “Timelines” that expose

activity from years earlier by migrating it to the user’s front page provoked an
outcry from privacy advocates.
SINCE JOINING FACEBOOK Sullivan has brought a more confrontational
approach to security on the site. While many companies focus on deterrence and
eliminating threats, Sullivan also wants to pursue malefactors. “Joe is aggressive
about going after bad guys,” says Alex Rice, a member of his security team. “I
attribute that to his prosecutor background.

Sullivan complains that law enforcement is too focused on intellectual-property
crimes and takes little interest in malware and spam cases, a growing headache
for social sites. So Facebook has taken matters into its own hands, pursuing
suspects in civil court and in the court of public opinion.
“A lot of companies stop at playing defense, like credit card companies—they
invest a lot in fraud detection and prevention, but they’re not bringing civil
actions,” says Sullivan. “We spend a lot of time trying to figure out who’s sitting
on the other side of cybercrime.”

One frequent scam involves tricking users into filling out surveys or visiting
websites that generate profit for marketing firms, inducing them with promises of
lurid images, often involving Justin Bieber. Facebook’s lawyers hand out ceaseand-desist
letters like candy. When a site called IsAnyoneUp began taking
screenshots of users’ pages to post alongside naked photos of them, Facebook
sent the purveyor a letter, shut down his account and took away his ability to
install the “like” button on his site. (That still hasn’t stopped him.) It has also
taken to court dozens of spammers, as well as advertising and marketing outfits,
under the CAN-SPAM Act, and has been awarded more than $1 billion in
“Security is so high on e-mail now,” says Dirk Kollberg, a security researcher for
Sophos in Wiesbaden, Germany. “Everyone knows to look out for spam and
viruses there. But people are not educated about avoiding these things on social
media, so that’s where the criminals are migrating.”

So, taking the law into its own cyberhands, Facebook is outing them.
Collaborating with Sophos, the company fingered five Russians behind the
Koobface worm that infected hundreds of thousands of computers and generated
at least $6 million in criminal gains for its creators. When users clicked on “YOU
HAVE TO WATCH THIS CRAZY VIDEO” Facebook posts, they were instructed to
download an update to their software. The infected computers became unwitting
slaves of a botnet ring run by the Koobface gang. They profited by hijacking Web
searches to send users to rogue sites and bombarding users with ads run by other

Sullivan went the extra step because he thought he had to. With Sophos he
tracked digital bread crumbs to expose the guys responsible for Koobface (an
anagram for Facebook). They gave their evidence to the FBI and waited for it to
make a move. After over a year of inaction, though, they took a vigilante
approach, exposing the gang members in the New York Times after a security
blogger blew the whistle on one member, thus alerting the group they were being
pursued. Facebook and Sophos detailed how they tracked them down using IP
fingerprints, Foursquare check-ins, Twitter activity, friend lists on a Russian
social networking site and Flickr photos that showed the gang vacationing in
Europe. “It’s not about monitoring the users,” says Kollberg, who participated in
the Koobface sting, “but producing security for users.”

Sometimes Facebook goes too far—then pulls back. While Sullivan won’t be
specific, he cites the hypothetical case of teens using Facebook in a “spammy but
borderline legal way”—say, by mass inviting people to events. In such instances
his team usually doesn’t turn the offenders over to authorities but instead calls
their mothers.
Unrestricted by constitutional restraints, “lawyers at Facebook and Google and
Microsoft have more power over the future of privacy and free expression than
any king or president or Supreme Court justice,” writes legal scholar Jeffrey
Sullivan has harnessed crowdsourcing in service to vigilantism. He won a budget
to institute a Facebook bug bounty program, where independent sleuths can earn

$500 or more for identifying (and keeping secret) security and privacy flaws on
the site. “We have a very small security team,” he says. “So we’re trying to turn
our users into patrol guards.”
Facebook has made that reporting process easy for users, including a “report”
button on every piece of content that appears on the site, so that users can mark it
as “spam or a scam,” “nudity,” “violence,” “hate speech” or a number of other
categories. It has helped the company nab lots of high-profile bad guys. When a
Chicago man posted a photo of his toddler bound and gagged with duct tape in
December, captioning it, “This is wut happens wen my baby hits me back,” the
photo was flagged. He was reported to authorities and charged with aggravated
domestic battery.

But the community watch program can also backfire, especially when it tries to
turn a miscreant into a do-gooder. In December a user discovered an Achilles’
heel in Facebook’s security and decided to go public with it, showing how you
could expose a user’s private photos by reporting one of their public photos as
“abusive”; Facebook then offered the user’s other private photos to flag any that
were similarly abusive. The person who discovered the flaw posted it to the
Bodybuilding.com message forum and included some of Mark Zuckerberg’s
private photos exposed in this way. “My hope is that he just didn’t know there was
a place he could go to make money for reporting a bug like that,” says Sullivan.

HOW DO YOU MAKE A SAFER, more law-abiding place without creating a
stifling surveillance cyberstate? Now that Facebook has biometric face prints for
hundreds of millions of users, what will it do when law enforcement comes with a
photo of a criminal suspect and asks for an identification?
“We’d insist on a court order, and we’d fight it as far in the court system as we
could go,” says Sullivan, adding that Facebook gets thousands of calls and e-mails
from authorities each week. “Recently a government agency wanted us to start
logging information we don’t log. We told them we wouldn’t start logging that
piece of data because we don’t need it to provide a good product. We talked to our
general counsel. The law is not black-and-white. That agency thinks they can
compel us to. We told them to go to court. They haven’t done that yet.”

Still, the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures can’t
shield against these requests because of the so-called third party doctrine, which
says the information you knowingly provide to a third party loses its privacy
protections, making it much easier for the government to get your phone,
banking and Internet records. In a recent Supreme Court decision Justice Sonia
Sotomayor suggested the doctrine is “ill-suited to the digital age, in which people
reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course
of carrying out mundane tasks.” She suggested the doctrine be rethought.
The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act puts up extra legal barriers
around e-mail and other communication “content.” It requires cops to get a
warrant to get access, rather than simply asking companies to hand it over. But
the feds have been pushing for easier access and looser regulations.

In such a fluid legal climate, how much can we trust sites like Facebook to
safeguard our digital diaries that we willingly surrender to them? For Sullivan it’s
a matter of protecting users and the integrity of the site—and hunting down the
bad guys, a vestige of his days at the DOJ. “As a prosecutor, you feel like you’re
always on the side of right.”