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.'"
That would be my first question. Why would the FBI engage in such an obvious publicity stunt? Arrest someone right before they're supposed to speak before a group of hackers? They'd better have some serious charges to levy against him, or else they've just shot themselves in the foot.... again.
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
And speaking of conspiracy stuff please check out this newspaper column, then realize that the columnist that wrote this had a name change, was born and grew up in Russia, and has a long association with the Cato Institute (ostensibly a "libertarian think tank" but they normally side with the neocons on almost everything.
If only more Americans had read the US Constitution....
nothing like a public arrest to keep the populac in line.
I'm not saying that this arrest was for those purposes, but if you have large gathering of people who are all on the fringes of the law, a not so sutble way to remind them that they are being watched is arresting someone with a relatively high profile within the group.
I attended Rambam's panel that year (sadly couldn't make it to HOPE this year). He used a service called Diogenes that had an account that would only be active for the lifespan of the panel. From what I remember, he also spoke that year during that same slot about how easy it was to get ID in different names and held up three different drivers licenses that were obtained in the same day at the same DMV (in California, IIRC). He would then pose as a university professor to lure Nazi warcriminals out of the woodwork, claiming he wanted to interview them for a project, then turn them over to the Hague.
He always had interesting stories and much to contribute, I hope things turn out for the best.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
I can actually find out a heck of a lot about somebody with their name and Google. If you know power searching tips, and construct searches based on what you already find, you can find out a lot. If I had somebody's name who was a frequent Internet user, I could probably find out a fair amount of biographical information on them with a few variations on their name. Then I could search using those pieces of information as keywords and find out even more information.
...and you can too! A lot of the information he says he found in 4.5 hours is not that impressive. Pics of his former roommates? Easy if they're Myspace or Facebook friends. Places he lived before? Check the history for his wall. Places he worked before? If he was in IT, and you can find his favorite internet screenname, you can find his postings to internet tech forums such as Slashdot, Devshed, Sourceforge, etc, complete with the details of what he was working on.
And God help you if you have a MySpace account with a wall. Then I can learn everything about your social life, including the names of your friends. Then I can look them up too and construct a whole web of information about you.
That's just with Google. Combine that with even modest law enforcement databases and you can find out a heck of a lot about one person.
Granted, that still scares me a LOT. I value my privacy but I feel like I don't actually have it anymore. All I'm saying is his deal is not all that unique. Or maybe I'm just The Power Google Searcher From Hell!!!!!
Read the following link about how he maliciously sued Osirusoft, the maintainer of relays.osirusoft.com after having them DDOS'd. It does not shock me to see that this asshole has ended up in handcuffs at all. He has always acted above the law. For those that remember the foonet.net story will rejoyce to see that this shithead is going to PMITA prison.
Note that I did not say he was stupid, hence I post as AC.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
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.
Steve Rambam lost his law suit against the anti-spam DNSBL run by Joe Jarad. In the process Steve lost any respect I might have had for him for other things.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Ok, so they throw some to the wolves for the newspapers. Any reforms as a whole to the organization as a result? Aside from Freeh in your example, the rest were just caught being stupid off the job. It's still business as usual. A teeny bit worse under Bush maybe, but I don't see any real difference in their M.O. since Hoover was around. And, no I remain blissfully ignorant of the mass media's take on the matter. They only parrot what the government says. They don't DARE touch the real cause of what we are putting up with now. Certain groups are beyond all criticism. And their actions will never be reported or discussed. The last time they caused any real trouble was with the Pentagon Papers. But even after that, it's STILL business as usual. Turned out to be much ado about nothing. That, of course says more about the voters than anything else. Any attempt to report any truth just gets the media into more hot water. So it is useless to me now. It's all just more Laci Peterson fluff, which I immediately forget before I finish turning the page. Nope, the funnies are all I read now. The headlines are just flashing lights and pretty colors. I'll become interested in them when I see a real call to stand up for individual rights and freedoms. I'll be impressed when I see a call for Rumsfeld and the rest of the surviving Nixon and Reagan cabinet(Johnson's, Carter's and Clinton's too) and their European and Russian counterparts to stand beside Saddam in the trail. Or for Sharon, Shamir, and their ilk(the real untouchables) to be brought up on terrorism charges. The crooks being reported now are just being replaced with other crooks who will try to be a bit more careful about getting caught. Same ol' Same ol'.
What?
I recall a friend who was riding in a car the driver of which was (unfortunately for him) drunk. The car was stopped by the police, who then wanted to search everyone's belongings because they were college kids and the cops suspected them of carrying weed. A cop said to my friend something like: "I'm going to look in your purse now." Possibly he put an "OK?" at the end, but it was phrased in a very statement-kind of way, no real appearance of being a question. So, being young and naive, she naturally took this as a command or random statement and passively allowed the search (thus making it quite legal). But it was actually, technically, legally, a request and she had every right to reply "why, no, officer, that won't do at all -- I do not consent to my purse being searched."
That's easy to say in the theoretical, when you're safely tucked behind your computer keyboard.
But in REAL LIFE, said cop would have had every ability to take her downtown and detain her up to 24 hours, *without a warrant*. Not everyone likes the idea of spending overnight in lockup.
This is the real problem - the fact that the cops can threaten you with that without any kind of warrant. I understand that the cops sometimes need time to finish searching a dangerous offenders hosue or whatever (with warrant), but being able to hold someone who did nothing wrong, with no evidence, for 24 hours is not how things should work.
The way it *should* work is, if the cops have a search warrant or other pending warrants against you, *then* they can hold you 24 hours. If they have none, they can hold you maybe up to 3hrs while they pursue one.
Maybe if those were the fules you wouldn't have so many people consenting to unwarranted searches - because the threat of "OK then le's go downtown and talk abotu it" doesn't mean as much when you know you will be out of there in 3 hrs max.
My brother was arrested(was a juvenile at the time) ~15 years ago, was held without being told the charges and my parents were denied access to him for 12 hours. The cops did let my brother make his phone call and he called home. When we(Dad & me) arrived at the police station they originally denied they were even holding him. That didn't fly, my Dad explained he had spoke with my brother and he was here. Next they threaten to arrest my Dad because he wouldn't leave the police station until he got to see&talk to his son. He sat there and I left to go physically bring a lawyer to the station(figuring I would be bailing out two family members by the time I returned) and to update Mom. There were no payphones in the police station lobby and cell phones were still uncommon.
The charges were "terrorist threats" and they were eventually dropped. The cops were pissed at my brother for telling the occupants of an apartment to see the search warrent before letting the cops in. So they said my brother matched the description of a suspect(pure bullshit, said suspect was 50 pounds heavier and 5 inches taller) and he verbally threaten the life of a cop(again bullshit, brother knows legally where the line is with cops; be polite but firm).
And several years before that my parents' house was searched and computer equipment seized by police wielding a search warrent without an address or name. Got the stuff back after getting a lawyer but took several months. Parents used to always leave the backdoor unlocked, so we(kids&friends) could come and go without having to carry a key(neighborhood was that safe). Cops came in thru that same unlocked door when no one was home and since that day the backdoor is always locked. Safe neighborhood... except for the cops.
Both events happened on US soil against US citizens.
Humans will do whatever they damn well like... Cops happen to have jails and guns at their disposal, avoid cops.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
Whoa, dude. Take a few deep breaths.
First off, do I think that some small minority of policemen abuse their authority, and that this needs vigorous prosecution and punishment? Do I think there's an important role for citizen oversite committees and for ACLU lawyers? Absolutely. Just the same way I'm certain a certain minority of corporate CEOs abuse their authority and screw their shareholders -- and so there's a role for FTC oversight. And a certain minority of programmers abuse their talent and write malicious viruses and spyware -- so there's a role for an FBI that goes after bad-hat hackers and puts them behind bars. And a certain minority of boyfriends beat up on their girlfriends (and vice-versa), so there's a role for domestic violence laws and the police should sometimes be arresting guys based on the mere facts that the girlfriend is cowering in fear and sporting nasty cuts on her face. We live in a world of men, not angels.
But there is a world of difference between a minority of policeman illegally, unconstitutionally and occasionally -- e.g. in a few dozen out of the over ten million arrests yearly -- abusing their authority, and the police being able to haul people away and send them to the Gulag for no reason as a matter of state policy.
As another poster has pointed out, when I said "never" I did not mean the police never abuse their authority. That would be as silly as saying Linux programmers never write malicious or stupid code. I meant that arresting someone as described in the article without a warrant could never be done legally, and that, therefore, it is a rare event.
Now if you believe it is not a rare event, then I invite you to provide a smidge of proof. DoJ statistics note there are about 13 million arrests a year in the United States. Can you provide evidence that in, say, as many as 5% of those cases (e.g. for over half a million people per year) the arrests are illegal, or the person arrested suffers physical abuse while in custody? If so, let's hear it. I'd sure like to know. Because what I'm aware of now is only that occasionally the police are abusive, and the proper response is citizen watchfulness. I'm not aware that we're living in some awful Stalinist state where the police are used as an instrument of organized terror, and the proper response is armed revolt.
If all you're saying is that the ordinary citizen is taken less seriously by the justice system than a policeman -- well, BFD. The non-programmer is taken less seriously when he says an application has a bug. The non-scientist is taken less seriously when he says the Big Bang never happened. And so on. It's human nature to take people less seriously when they aren't part of the daily picture, don't belong to the "in crowd," and maybe don't understand all the details and implications. Sucks, but there it is. Maybe the Universe is less fair then you were promised in the brochure.