Slashdot Mirror


Feds Arrest Private Eye at HOPE

An anonymous reader writes "FBI agents today arrested Steven Rambam, the owner of a company that bills itself as the largest privately held online investigative service in the United States, according to Washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog. From the story: 'Rambam was arrested this afternoon by FBI agents just moments before he was to lead a panel discussion on privacy here at the HOPE hacker conference in New York City. Rambam and three other panelists were to discuss how they dug up -- in just 4.5 hours of searching private and public databases -- more than 500 pages worth of data on HOPE attendee Rick Dakan, who agreed to be the guinea pig for the project.'"

23 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Emmanuel Goldstein adressed the crowd just before the panel was about to start. Apparenty 4 agents arat arresed him as soon as he finished a security seinar he was running paralell to the HOPE Confrence. There has not been another update sence then. One his friends gave the address he is prob being held at, but Im not sure if I can legally repeat that. Also Kevin Mitnick fell very ill in Columbia (the country) and is unable to be here either.

  2. Parent is a troll by dschuetz · · Score: 1, Informative

    Links to porn.

  3. Re:Reason? by Cybersonic · · Score: 3, Informative

    No one (at the conference) knows the reason yet. Lots of people here at the show were quite confused and suprised at the whole situation. I am sure we will know something by Monday...

    --
    Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
  4. Krebs is a moron by meburke · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've looked at a few of Kreb's columns, and he has no qualifications for writing a column on security. He's a gossip-monger with limited skills. If he could see to take pictures, he'd give papparazi a bad name.

    I suspect this article was written to "scoop" other reporters. That's the only reason I can think of for the total lack of real information. Perhaps he ought to take lessons from Steve Rambam on how get information?

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  5. Re:Reason? by mikael · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this article, he has been involved in a lawsuit against a spam blocker (his company was mistakenly placed on a spam blocklist), he has tracked Nazi war criminals, and he discovered that
    Elvis has Jewish ancestors.

    He's had a mention in a previous slashdot comment in this article Comment title: "Outsourcing is a way around civil liberties". Article summary:

    I saw a talk by Steve Rambam at Hope 05. Besides a live demo of a database that freakin blew my mind (in a live demo in than 30 seconds, steve pulled up everything about a guy in the audience, including past roommates, active phone lines, and his mom's credit report using *ONLY HIS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER*).

    his assertion is that privacy is dead, not because Big Brother in D.C. is watching, but because Big Defense Contrator is watching. The government, sick of trying to ram through legislation on what it can and can't do with data it collects on its citizens, is now sub-contracting all kinds of tasks. For example, perhaps the Feds can't do a nation-wide driver's license photo scan without inciting privacy concerns; however, if most of the states sub-contract out their photo processing to a contractor on advice from big brother, then that contractor hires itself to the big brother and sells *RESULTS* from some data mining query (but never the data itself), then big brother hasn't violated any privacy rights. Similarly for phone logs, criminal databases, airline data, medicare, drivers license, health databases, traffic tickets etc.

    he told me the name of the database we should all really be afraid of, bigger than Echelon, but i forgot its name.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  6. Rambam speaking by Caffeinated+Geek · · Score: 5, Informative

    On the subject of Rambam check out previous talks given at HOPE conferences. He's a good speaker and quite interesting on the topic of information availability. He stated a couple of weeks ago in an interview leading up to this conference's talk that he had planed to do the same basic presentation at the last hope but the "victim" got cold feet at the last moment after he realized just how much information was available and threatened to sue. If you listen to the old presentations he does make a point that almost any information is available legally but it is more difficult to get it legally than illegally. I have to believe from hearing him speak several time that what he would have done for this presentation would at least to be best of his knowledge been legal.

    Four previous presentations.

    Privacy - Not What It Used To Be
    http://www.the-fifth-hope.org/mp3/privacy.mp3

    Databases and Privacy
    http://h2k2.hope.net/media/databases.mp3

    Information on the Masses with Steve Rambam.
    http://h2k.hope.net/post/panels/h2kinfo.mp3

    Info for Masses
    ftp://ftp.2600.com/pub/oth/beyondh/nfo4mses.ra

  7. Re:Reason? by sgt_doom · · Score: 5, Informative

    HOLY CRAP!!! Don't you EVER read the newspapers??? About 3 to 4 months ago, FBI guy arrested for child porn stuff. Awhile prior to that, big scandal about feebs trying to pull scam on Wall Street brokerage and people, prior to that, those FBI people convicted of being Mafia snitches, gave criminals inside information leading to murders of FBI informants. Ever hear of Ruby Ridge? FBI Assistant Director (under Louis "the Sicilian" Freeh's reign) was demoted before being tried, and convicted for obstruction of justice, falsification of evidence, etc., etc. Later his sentence was overturned when Bushies came into power....Please get with the program and stay current...and note I haven't even mentioned the five FBI agents busted for selling secrets to the Soviets over the preceding thirty years....

  8. Re:Reason? by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's the pseudonym of Eric S. Corley [iirc] the editor of 2600 magazine and host of Off The Hook [a radio show on WBAI in New York, Wednesdays at 7PM].

    And yes, he picked the name for the 1984 allusion.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  9. Re:Any information on charges? by double-oh+three · · Score: 5, Informative

    Steve Rambam is a licensed private eye, and according to the guinea pig (I'm attending the conference) he signed a waiver and Steve used only legal databases. Steve was also running an intensive mini con on the 6th floor (Hope is on 2 and 18) and was arrested after that. That mini-con was private-eye oriented, not hacker.

    --
    "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
  10. is HOPE gone? by emagery · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every single link relating to HOPE, being hope.net (with various prefixes, etc) and those mp3 files coming off hope sites... all just ~gone~... is anyone seeing them?

  11. Re:Any information on charges? by 0kComputer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Its not illegal. The only real guidelines AFAIK deal w/ FCRA regulations. In most cases PI's dont fall under this and actually have quite a bit of freedom as far as searches. In my opinion, this article is pretty useless. Sounds like this guy was arrested for something else. The fact that he could dig up information on his participant is just the result of a standard background check. ID verification/Credit/Vehicle registration databases readily provide this information and are the bread and butter of backround checks.

    --
    Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
    10.
  12. Good to see the scumbag go by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Informative
    Rambam is nothing more than a lying scumbag. The moron sued Joe Jared over his spam blocklist back in 2003, and the Court basically told him to suck it.

    http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/

  13. Rambam arrest by buss_error · · Score: 4, Informative
    Hard to comment when the reason for the arrest isn't known.

    If only for Rambam's suit against oretec and Joe Jared, I'd say it was fate balancing the scales.

    And again, this is in advance of knowing what Rambam is charged with. If it's silly, then I'll have to (yuck!) support him. If it is legitimate AND he's guilty, then I hope he gets tossed in jail and the key thrown away.

    My sense of justice doesn't allow me to not object when an injustice is done, even if it's against someone I think deserves what happens for another reason. The law must be fair and just for everyone, even if I think a particular person is a piece of human garbage.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  14. Re:1984 Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    What's funny is that in 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein is "the Enemy of the People" after having once been a leading Party member almost at the level of Big Brother.

    It's not really funny if you know who he is. "Emmanuel Goldstein" is the founder of 2600, and that's not his real name (it's Eric Corley). The name was deliberately chosen to draw the parallels you're attributing to coincidence.

  15. Re:Steve Rambam, aka Rombom is a freakin' scumbag by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1, Informative

    Re-read the article. Rambam allegedly sued while the attack was going on: this is different from creating the attack. Moreover, there is a fascinating letter at http://www.dotcomeon.com/injoewetrust.html that explains that the "DDOS" was not planned, it was the direct result of not having enough bandwidth to deal with all the DNS queries caused by the SoBig virus. The letter also explains that Mr. Joe Jared, the administrator of osirusoft.com, has been playing nasty games against the domains of quite innocent people, including poisoning the DNS for big chunks of the Internet for anyone who uses his services in a fit of pique after the DDOS.

    These are nasty claims, but they seem to match other reports I've seen, and the claims of harassment against osirusoft.com are poorly documented at best in their own webpage. So I'm inclined to think that Mr. Rambam had nothing to do with this and is simply trying to slap down an incompetent blacklist author.

  16. Re:oh, I agree by learn+fast · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's another example:

    Benemar Benatta was arrested in September, 2001 after the 9/11 dragnet. The government determined he was innocent in November, 2001. He was held in solitary confinement for 6 months anyway.

    He was released... yesterday. July 22, 2006. That's right, held without charges even though he was known to be innocent for almost 5 years.

    I'm not making this up, here's the link

  17. Re:Any information on charges? by ArtStone · · Score: 3, Informative

    By "someone", are you thinking the person who has been arrested has a right to be told - or that *you* (someone not involved with the case) has a right to know? Those are two very different things.

    *You* have no right to know what is in a sealed court document that does not involve you.

    The term you are thinking of is "Habeas Corpus".... that a person cannot be held for an unreasonable time without being informed of the basis of their detention and offered reasonable bail. IANAL.

    If you can find something in that "goddamned piece of paper" that says otherwise, please cite your fact.

    --
    Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  18. Re:oh, I agree by sdriver · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey dumbass... maybe you'd like to RTFA from yahoo....

    He was going to be deported for being in the country illegaly - but they "kept him in custody in Buffalo while he appealed a deportation order and renewed his quest for asylum based on a claim that, as a military deserter, he would tortured or killed if he returned to Algeria."

    Next time they should just deport without an appeal? While waiting for his asylum hearing he was jailed - as he had no Visa... makes sense to me

    While waiting (still) for his asylum request with the U.S., "U.S. officials agreed to release Benatta after the Canadian Consulate General's office in Buffalo granted him temporary residency, according to court papers filed Wednesday in New York". So now he is Canada's problem. :P

  19. good golly no by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Informative

    Good grief, in what fascist hellhole do you live? In the United States the police can arrest you without a warrant only if they have very good reason to believe you have just committed, or or about to commit, a crime. Here and here and here are some legal references. "Very good reason" in this context means a reason that will convince a judge not only that you should have been arrested, but also that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on it first. Judges really like to be in control, so in practise this means the police can freelance a decision to arrest in only a few well-defined situations.

    For example, the police can arrest you without a warrant if an officer has just seen you do something highly suspicious, like run out of a convenience store wearing a ski mask, with a store owner yelling "Stop thief!" in hot pursuit, or a credible witness says they just saw you commit a serious crime -- for example your girlfriend accuses you of slugging her and causing the bruises that appear on her face -- or you match the description of someone wanted for jumping bail on a multiple murder charge, or even if you've been stopped for a minor infraction, like a traffic violation, but proceed to give an obviously false name, refuse to sign the citation, and aren't carrying any valid ID, so they have no way of being reasonably sure you'll appear in Court to answer the summons.

    Can the police walk up to you at a public function, where you're doing absolutely nothing illegal, just minding your own business, and showing no indications of fleeing the country -- and arrest you without a warrant? Never.

    1. Re:good golly no by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good grief, in what fascist hellhole do you live?

      Canada.

      In the United States the police can arrest you without a warrant only if they have very good reason to believe you have just committed, or or about to commit, a crime. Here and here and here are some legal references. "Very good reason" in this context means a reason that will convince a judge not only that you should have been arrested, but also that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on it first.

      No, you're exaggerating the requirements. The links that you referred to say nothing about a requirement "that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on [an arrest] first". This one makes it abuntandly clear (emphasized and annotated):

      A police officer may arrest you if he has an arrest warrant. An officer may not arrest you without a warrant unless it is reasonable for him to believe that a crime has been committed and that you are the person who committed it. [FULL STOP] This reasonable belief is called probable cause. Probable cause cannot be based on a hunch, a surmise, or a guess. Probable cause exists only if the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that you committed it.

      If you are in your home, you have an additional layer of constitutional protection. Probable cause alone is not enough to allow a police officer to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. The general rule is that an officer needs a warrant to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. But there are important exceptions to that rule which are too complicated to discuss on this tape.

      If the police establish resonable grounds to believe (not just suspect) that you murdered your neighbour, they can arrest you without a warrant at the grocery store, a conference, or any other place except your home. Even then, I suspect (based on the wording used above) that they can arrest you in your home, if you voluntarily allow them to enter your home (for example, if your wife calls the police because you're beating her).

      It's mostly the same in Canadian Law (using the canlii.org link because the government site is down). I'll let you read that link on your own, but here are a few pointers for readers from the U.S.:

      • "Indictable offences" are similar to felonies (although you don't lose the right to vote in Canada if you're convicted of an indictable offence.)
      • "Summary offences", or more formally, "offences punishable on summary conviction" are similar to misdemeanors.
      • Police officers are "peace officers".
      • "Criminal offences", I think, are offences listed in the Criminal Code of Canada, but I haven't checked this.
      • Section 553 of the Criminal Code lists a bunch of offences for which the provincial courts have absolute jurisdiction.

      One thing to note about the Canadian law, however, is this clause, which might have applied to this particular case if it were in Canada:

      2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant
      ...
      in any case where

      (d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

      (i) establish the identity of the person,
      (ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
      (iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,

      may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

      (e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that,

  20. Re:Reason for arrest (maybe) by ArtStone · · Score: 2, Informative

    The FBI would only make an arrest with a warrant if there was a violation of Federal Law over which they have jurisdiction.

    http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/faqs/faqsone.htm

    The closest the FBI comes to having that power is they can ask for a Federal Arrest Warrant if the suspect has crossed state lines or attempts to leave the country to flee prosecution or confinement.

    This is the relevant FAQ question about this precise issue which seems to have fired up the anti-Bush moonbats:

    "Can I obtain detailed information about a current FBI investigation I see in the news?

    No. Such information is protected from public disclosure, in accordance with current law and DOJ and FBI policy. This policy preserves the integrity of the investigation and the privacy of individuals involved in the investigation prior to any public charging for violations of the law. It also serves to protect the rights of people not yet charged with a crime."

    --
    Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  21. Re:Any information on charges? by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Informative

    In some states (CO) private eyes are given extra priviledges to lie or pretend to be someone else in the course of investigating, normal people are not.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  22. Re:Reason? by smvp6459 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not quite...there are three magic questions:

    "Am I under arrest?"
    "Am I being detained?"
    "Am I free to leave?"

    and two magic phrases:
    "No thank you officer" - in response to requests for search
    "If you feel you need to arrest me I understand that you need to do your job" - in response to threats of arrest

    Say you're pulled over for speeding. If you ask the cop, "Am I under arrest?" and he/she says, "No" you are still not free to leave. If you do so you will probably end up under arrest. Police do have the legal authority to temporarily detain you without affecting an arrest.