Slashdot Mirror


Helping the FBI Track You

Hasan M. Elahi writes in the NY Times about his run-in with the FBI several months after September 11th, 2001. They'd received an erroneous report that he had explosives and had fled the country, so they were surprised when he showed up at an airport and was flagged by watch-list software. Elahi chose not to fight the investigation, and provided the FBI with enough detail about his life to convince them that he was a lawful citizen. But then, he kept going, providing more and more information about his life, documenting his every move and making it available online. His experience has been that providing too much information affords almost the same privacy blanket as too little. Quoting: "On my Web site, I compiled various databases that show the airports I’ve been in, food I’ve eaten at home, food I’ve eaten on the road, random hotel beds I’ve slept in, various parking lots off Interstate 80 that I parked in, empty train stations I saw, as well as very specific information like photos of the tacos I ate in Mexico City between July 5 and 7, and the toilets I used. ... A lot of work is required to thread together the thousands of available points of information. By putting everything about me out there, I am simultaneously telling everything and nothing about my life. Despite the barrage of information about me that is publicly available, I live a surprisingly private and anonymous life."

35 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Is it just me... by errandum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But if a suspect fellow is giving them access to everything he's supposedly doing I'd be trying real hard to find what he was trying to hide?

    1. Re:Is it just me... by walkerp1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You, sir, might have a very promising career in the FBI! Please report to your nearest field office for the deep probe.

    2. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if a suspect fellow is giving them access to everything he's supposedly doing I'd be trying real hard to find what he was trying to hide?

      It's just you.

      That said Mr.Elahi should not confuse lack of interest with privacy. It is a fallacy to believe that flooding information about yourself into the system makes it impossible to analyze in a timely fashion or to identify the things you don't willingly share. I'm not a huge privacy freak and in general don't care what you know about me as long as basic civil rights are still enforced by law (something that is starting to fail) but I'm also not stupid enough to believe that you can't figure out what I'm doing if you have almost everything. I just don't care that you know what I'm doing under the current system with my current lack of nefarious activity (this lack of interest will undoubtedly hurt me someday in some way though it will likely be minor and related to employment or income rather than incarceration).

      Mr. Elahi seems to confuse the fact that the FBI may no longer care about his daily whereabouts with the fact that they can't sort through the data should every one do what he's doing. Will it be more difficult? yes, but it's not impossible. Google searches the web in near real-time using sophisticated indexing strategies and there is no reason to believe that the FBI couldn't do the same with people and publicly available information to obtain statistically meaningful deviations from normal behavior on your part which could then be referred for human followup. Defeating that type of strategy will take more than sharing almost everthing and hiding the little you you want. It will require a sophisticated disinformation algorithm to produce a statistically nominal profile with original media content while you perform nefarious activities in secret (or just have a beer, smoke, and watch porn in private after they've finished outlawing the last of our vices).

    3. Re:Is it just me... by websoongi · · Score: 2

      Years ago I attended a few hacker meetings, like 2600. I always gave my real name; Though, it would have been safer if I gave someone else's real name. They always gave their handle. You know what those kids did right after getting your handle? They googled you on their wireless! And, if you had a unique handle, it was really easy to pull up information that was definitely yours. But what are you going to find when I tell you my name is George? Specifics aside, the author of the article is talking about security through obscurity. It's just that his method is to go so far left that you come back around on the right. --- On an unrelated note, but I feel I have to vent, don't click the Options button below a post you've just entered and then click save in the dialog box that pops up. I lost my post the first time 'round. I know, many of you probably know this, but I'm relatively new here and this tidbit may save someone else the misfortune. *Grrr!*

    4. Re:Is it just me... by errandum · · Score: 2

      This is genius! He now has the perfect defense! "You see, mr judge, I have my whole life on-line, anyone could have used it to frame me. I call reasonable doubt!" (:

    5. Re:Is it just me... by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 2

      I'm not old enough to scream "get off my damn lawn," yet I find the phrase years ago disturbingly incongruous with the practice of Googling a name using a wireless network.

    6. Re:Is it just me... by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good post, solid analysis of the flaw in Mr. Elahi's perception.

      I just don't care that you know what I'm doing under the current system with my current lack of nefarious activity (this lack of interest will undoubtedly hurt me someday in some way though it will likely be minor and related to employment or income rather than incarceration).

      I think that the reason that it is important to you is the same reason that it was important to let Larry Flynt continue to publish Penthouse. I have seen Penthouse a number of times, and it is not to my taste. That is not the same as saying that I would not have been harmed if Mr. Flynt had lost his case. My interest lies not in my right to free speech, I have nothing particularly controversial to say. My interest does not lie in protecting, specifically, Mr. Flynt's right to free expression, because I do not like what he has to say. My interest lies in protecting the right of people to say things that I do not like -- things I would not say and do not agree with.

      It is just the same with privacy.

    7. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All of this is obviously propaganda to encourage people to forfeit their privacy. Don't fall for it people.
      You're telling me the guy didn't mind being investigated and questioned for months? That he was ok with even taking polygraphs?
      You're telling me he had nothing better to do than to make a website about everything he did? And that we should all do the same thing?
      And how does putting information out there protect you in any way? Those who want to use the info for practical purposes can still get it. It only lowers the value of the info to those who would not use it but would instead sell it. In the end, people can still use it against you.

      Americans need to realize what kind of tyrannical police state the live in.

    8. Re:Is it just me... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      As the AC just demonstrated, just because it's a soundbite it doesn't mean it's false.

  2. Criminals by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is if you're a criminal and you want to pin something on a sucker, if you have a dude with his life posted online then you can set the poor guy up. I wouldn't ever recommend posting every move you make to the internet because at some point someone will use it against you. This world is predatory in nature.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Criminals by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Especially because the FBI makes extensive use of well-paid criminal snitches to gather intelligence. If the snitches have no real leads, then they can manufacture them by saying that ol' Abu down the street is up to no good. The FBI then stalk and browbeat Abu until he admits that he is up to activity that may be considered support of terrorism in the loosest sense.

      The FBI then busts Abu and all the mainstream media hail the "operation" as thwarting another terrorist attack. Another "terrorist" is jailed, the snitch is paid anywhere from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year(I'm not joking, Google it), all while your family is eating ramen noodles for dinner.

      Also keep in mind that all of these "terror plots" are manufactured in their entirety by the FBI. All they do is find a moron who is dumb enough to attempt to enact them, then they goad end entrap the poor fool.

    2. Re:Criminals by kent_eh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facebook is probably more of an issue that what this guy is doing, because he's aware of how much info he has put out there.
      90% of the people who do the same VIA Facebook don't realise how much aggregated info there is about them out there for sale.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    3. Re:Criminals by MikeB0Lton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You, sir, need a new foil hat.

    4. Re:Criminals by SnapShot · · Score: 2

      Ethanol-fueld might overstate the case, slightly, but are you saying the FBI doesn't use criminal snitches? Are you claiming that snitches don't have motivation to manufacture stories when their actual value starts to dry up? Are you sure that the FBI doesn't draw a very blurry distinction between internet blow-hards, entrapment and actual criminal plots? Are you implying that the current level of FOX/MSNBC news coverage actually does do in-depth investigations of claims by government?

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    5. Re:Criminals by Paracelcus · · Score: 2

      The cops, and especially the DA will, in many jurisdictions try to close as many cases as possible without resorting to any real investigation, in short, they will pin it on the first patsy that looks simple and poor enough to make it stick, ex-cons, the illiterate, the mentally challenged are all ready fodder for the young ADA to make his conviction rate go up so as to advance his/her career. Plea deals, coerced confessions, jinky evidence and judges with low blood sugar, lead us into being the largest incarcerator in the world!

      And he wants this corrupt machine to have MORE information abut him?
      Let's just help the executioner grease the guillotine before we lay down.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  3. Idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of work is required to thread together the thousands of available points of information.

    No, it is not. Data-mining is real and getting better every day. Huge amounts of data are no hindrance. It is certainly not harder to find a specific piece of information about you just because you put much more online.

    1. Re:Idiot. by jittles · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that if I were a crook and wanted to rob the guy, he's posting exactly just enough useful information for me to know when to rob his house!

    2. Re:Idiot. by ironjaw33 · · Score: 2

      A lot of work is required to thread together the thousands of available points of information.

      No, it is not. Data-mining is real and getting better every day. Huge amounts of data are no hindrance. It is certainly not harder to find a specific piece of information about you just because you put much more online.

      It's a hot research area right now. As I'm on the job market myself, I've found gobs of academic and industry positions that are searching for candidates with a focus in "big data" and data mining. If information saturation is a problem today, you can be sure that tons of people are working hard to make sure that tomorrow it isn't.

    3. Re:Idiot. by unrtst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wanted to mod this up, cause I agree, but there's one point I haven't seen mentioned here or in most of the posts below (that I've read so far)...

      If you do provide false information, and they (FBI) ask if it this little log of yours is true and you say "yes", then you can be held for lying to a federal officer (and/or obstruction of justice, etc). All they have to do is find one little line that isn't accurate... and that would probably be trivial. Then, even if your alibi is honest and someone is setting you up, you've just discounted your entire source of "facts" as inadmissible. They don't even need to find a lie to hint at the consequences - "You know... lying to a federal officer is a crime."

      True story, I was questioned in relation to an FBI investigation many years ago (I worked at an ISP that had been "hacked" and claimed enormous damages and got the FBI involved). The night of the incident, I was drunk (along with most of my coworkers to boot). I was cooperating, but they found one of the things I said to be in conflict with something someone else said. They called us both in and had the company legal people there too, and he laid out the statements and then said that lying to a federal officer can get you N years in jail, etc etc.

      I had told the truth, but with threats like that, I didn't want to talk to them at all anymore. We both fell back on "hey, I already told you I was very very drunk, and this is how I remember it." Nothing happened to us (except that we were soon fired without cause by an overly paranoid always-have-4-sources-of-white-noise-in-his-office owner), but a few people I knew had all their computers confiscated (included blank media, tv's, monitors, keyboards, etc), and they were completely innocent.

      They even brought up the drunk thing, I assume trying to make me slip up... I had told them I drove back to the office as soon as I heard about the incident (as did everyone else). He's like, "So if you were supposedly very drunk, how did you drive back to the office?". I just shrugged and told "yep, both those things happened". He was nice enough not to use that as an admission of guilt and hand it over to the local policy to charge me with drunk driving, but he allowed the threat of that to hang in the air, so to speak.

      Anyway, point being, whatever info you provide will likely be used against you, even if it's just as a threat to try to get more out of you. And you don't have to be guilty of what they're looking for to end up with some significant negative consequences.

      FWIW, I wouldn't change a single thing I did. Getting fired from there was one of the best things that ever could have happened to me in the long run.

    4. Re:Idiot. by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Reading your post my thought was that the FBI agents were bullshitting you about "lying to a federal officer can get you N years in jail, etc etc" as cops like to lie. Unbelievably America actually has a law against lying to a federal officer, not lying to obstruct justice or commit fraud but just lying.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  4. Re:Not a good idea by Lev13than · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting thought, but I don't think it's a good idea. Volunteering everything might work as long as there are very few people doing it -- but if everyone starts doing it, it then (i) the feds will focus on improving software that automatically filters out suspicious traits from the online data, and (ii) not sharing everything will be deemed suspicious.

    We already have this - it's called Facebook.

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Re:dupe by smallfries · · Score: 5, Funny

    But by posting this story constantly on slashdot it is as if they have never posted it at all. The paradox ensures that it is fresh and newsworthy every time.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  7. So in other words... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...he's doing exactly the same thing as every Facebook user. and twitter user. and foursquare user. etc.

    --
    This space available.
  8. Who is this guy? by topology · · Score: 2

    It is easy to be anonymous when nobody cares who you are. If he were a celebrity with public interest, a very different result would occur.

  9. Re:Go ahead, take advice from a guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, the top statement is true. The real problem is that what with the ton of idiotic laws we have, almost every person is surely doing *something* illegal, often enough not even knowing about it.

  10. Re:Doesn't seem to work by WillDraven · · Score: 2

    In the 90's perhaps. ... Possibly they might "find" some drugs on you too.

    This has been probably been going on since drugs were first made illegal, and has definitely been happening all over the country since the 70's when funding became tied to drug arrests.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  11. Data =! Information by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    Also known as Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  12. Re:Welcome to the digital age by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2

    Yup. You would have to make it have a bad signal to noise ratio. Tell the truth about the things that are obviously verifiable, tell lies about everything in between in such a way that it's still plausible, and keep in straight in your head so they don't catch you in the lie when they question you about it later. And even then, your algorithm for generating the lies better be practically flawless or they'll find something like "you can't get across town in an hour" or something and the whole system comes crashing down.

  13. Wrong. by Dogun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His assumptions about the nature of information sharing and privacy are dangerously wrong.

    The problem of information sharing is inequity; if it turns out that he documents his presence at a laundromat on some random dull October day, and later it turns out that some terrorists used to meet up there, his documentation of that random laundromat appearance will put him under scrutiny all over again - without any concrete reason. Meanwhile, some other fellow who rode his bike and paid with cash and didn't document his life on the web will probably never be scrutinized.

    There is a fundamental issue with all mass intelligence/data collection: Humans don't understand conditional probabilities.

    When we start to use large databases of essentially random data to inform investigations, we greatly increase the likelihood that investigations impact random people.

  14. Re:truth by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    We finally started linking all the databases together, and we started carrying tracking devices that make phone calls.

  15. He should have politely requested a lawyer by sco08y · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFA:
    "I COULD have contested the legality of the investigation and gotten a lawyer. But I thought that would make things messier. It was clear who had the power in this situation."

    No, American police, whether FBI or state or local, have no power unless you let them interrogate you without a lawyer. This isn't Europe where police investigations start with a beating: you just have to ask, politely, for a lawyer, and you hold all the cards.

    He gave them all the power. Was he justifiably scared? Sure, I can completely understand that. He probably wasn't prepared to be grilled.

    But this is all the preparation anyone needs: just remember to say, "I'd be happy to help you, officer, but to answer any questions I'll need a lawyer."

  16. Blog = alibi? by DeadboltX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would any information on a blog be taken as 100% truth? Since you can edit photo meta-data there is no way to prove when a photo was taken, where it was taken, by whom it was taken, or what camera it was taken with; all of this data can be spoofed. Combine falsified photos with an elaborate story about your whereabouts and make a post on your blog through a vpn from your phone so it looks like you were at home when you posted it. If you're doing this on a regular basis then it wouldn't be hard to create a semi-automatic system to do most of this work for you.

    Are we to believe that an investigative authority such as the FBI is going to simply take someones electronic word for it?

  17. Re:Go ahead, take advice from a guy by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Any trivial fact about you that sounds the slightest bit suspicious can be used against you to get an indictment or just a search warrant.

    Thats why the only fact you give them is that you want a lawyer.

    Anything that you say to the police during an investigation can be used against you, but nothing that you say to the police during an investigation can be used to help you.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  18. Re:Clever but... by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    Not even intentional gaps... I had a friend who was going through a messy period with his wife, and she made him turn on tracking on his phone so she could watch him. We had to make a lunch run to a place where the lunch room was in a sub-basement. While we are there he takes out his phone...and the GPS says we are several towns away.... within minutes he gets a phone call about it.

    Other times, I have seen my own GPS mess up and have me over 1000 miles from here. So.... your gps data, that you are compiling and sending to us, somehow claims you moved 1000 miles in 5 minutes.... care to tell us why you are faking your location? You aren't? Oh, then why are you sending us obviously bad data?

    Of course you were in a spot with no GPS reception when your ex-wife died. Oh so you say the GPS just happened to be screwed up when you were at the airport? A likely story.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"