Don't Use These Lame Acronyms If You Don't Want to Get Nabbed by the Feds(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Don't Use These Lame Acronyms If You Don't Want to Get Nabbed by the Feds
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/to-nab-traders-prosecutors-hit-ctrl-f-for-suspicious-acronyms
15 comments
I had this illustrated to me early in my career in a mostly harmless way.
I worked on an early-childhood / social work combo grant program as a "Data Consultant"[1]. We were in a building that had celebrated its 100th year, and it had one bathroom. The nurse had accused the males of "poor aiming". In a memo about fairly normal stuff, I included a paragraph in my status rebuking this claim and pointing out we have young children using the bathroom who might not be quite up to our level. I also pointed out this would be something that the early childhood people might need to work on with the children. I am pretty sure every word of it was viewable by a nun since we had one on staff. I was a very sarcastic person and not a bad writer of tales at the time.
About two weeks later, I got a call from the assistant project officer inquiring about this bit of information. He also informed me all of our correspondence internal to the program was reviewed by the project office in DC and a section of my memo was "well reviewed" in said office. Given the data requirements, I am pretty sure there is a box in a warehouse with this memo in it.
Since then, I write e-mails and memos like they will be reviewed.
1) It was a research grant and they needed help with data reporting and I sure as heck didn't come up with that title.
I worked on an early-childhood / social work combo grant program as a "Data Consultant"[1]. We were in a building that had celebrated its 100th year, and it had one bathroom. The nurse had accused the males of "poor aiming". In a memo about fairly normal stuff, I included a paragraph in my status rebuking this claim and pointing out we have young children using the bathroom who might not be quite up to our level. I also pointed out this would be something that the early childhood people might need to work on with the children. I am pretty sure every word of it was viewable by a nun since we had one on staff. I was a very sarcastic person and not a bad writer of tales at the time.
About two weeks later, I got a call from the assistant project officer inquiring about this bit of information. He also informed me all of our correspondence internal to the program was reviewed by the project office in DC and a section of my memo was "well reviewed" in said office. Given the data requirements, I am pretty sure there is a box in a warehouse with this memo in it.
Since then, I write e-mails and memos like they will be reviewed.
1) It was a research grant and they needed help with data reporting and I sure as heck didn't come up with that title.
Then, once the interactive discussion is done and a decision is made, make sure to write it down in an email.
Covering your ass is often more important than covering your tracks.
Covering your ass is often more important than covering your tracks.
[deleted]
"They use terms to find evidence of whether someone is trying to hide their activities because evidence of a cover-up is frequently more potent than the evidence of the alleged crime"
Each of these steps towards a surveillance state would be easier to stomach if the path weren't so clearly identified in 20th century fiction.
Each of these steps towards a surveillance state would be easier to stomach if the path weren't so clearly identified in 20th century fiction.
This doesn't really sound like the surveillance state to me. This is regulators combing through the e-mails of the people they regulate who control vast swathes of the United States and global economies.
And unless you want to bug every single person's office which sounds a lot more like a surveillance state to me, I don't particularly think looking at the activities of people who are taking things offline is particularly egregious.
The funny thing is, if the people just discussed it by e-mail, they might get away if no one ctrl-f's for their terms! Ha!
And unless you want to bug every single person's office which sounds a lot more like a surveillance state to me, I don't particularly think looking at the activities of people who are taking things offline is particularly egregious.
The funny thing is, if the people just discussed it by e-mail, they might get away if no one ctrl-f's for their terms! Ha!
When investigators are sifting through e-mails they have already executed a search warrant* to get them in the first place so there is established probable cause to investigate further leads based on suspicious contents. This isn't government overreach in any way.
* Assuming the Judiciary is doing its job properly and not just rubber stamping everything and that investigators would never lie to a judge.
* Assuming the Judiciary is doing its job properly and not just rubber stamping everything and that investigators would never lie to a judge.
I think the issue raised is that it sets a bad precedent for the presumption of innocence. Do away with that, and we may as well be in China, being sentenced to life in prison for corruption by a secret court.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/asia/zhou-yongkan...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/asia/zhou-yongkan...
“Taking a conversation offline provides evidence of intent because if you’re trying to cover your tracks, you probably know what you’re doing is wrong,”
I can't tell if this is big business trying to make investigating white collar crimes harder or the federal government trying to drum up support for mass surveillance. I'm leaning towards the former based on where the article is.
I can't tell if this is big business trying to make investigating white collar crimes harder or the federal government trying to drum up support for mass surveillance. I'm leaning towards the former based on where the article is.
Why can't it be both? It's not like they're going to use one type of investigative procedure on one group and not on another.
This article is a waste of space. Clearly if your work emails are being subpoenaed by a federal investigator, you're already under suspicion (the article is talking about federal insider trading investigations). All this means is that if you refer to an out-of-band conversation, then they will look there.
What's exactly the case here? The Feds won't grab anyone who's PMing some one on Facebook "I'll call you" or "Lets talk on the phone".
This is a very specific case where Traders (that either were under suspicion directly or indirectly through suspicious dealing on an investment firm) were intentionally communicating with each other using office provided communications and constantly asking to go offline or to talk through other means.
This is nothing more than any other pattern one would find out through exploring any other media, for example one of the ways LEO's find illegal activity usually drug related is when by identifying numbers that only receive or make very short calls, this activity is then usually correlated with creating social networks of the phone numbers and what in many cases you get is a binary relationship with phones being used only to receive or make calls.
While this might sound suspicious to you, or just interesting after investigating how those criminal networks work through actual investigations criminologists identified this pattern as direct correlation to illegal activity which can be used as supporting evidence to get a wiretap or a search warrant.
There are a metric ton of various behavior patterns that might be suspicious and are usually related to some sort of a "illicit" activity if you are looking at some one who's leaking information and you have a GPS location on your suspects then some one who's driving every 3rd week out to the middle of no where might be your prime suspect, now he can be stargazing, he can be cheating on his wife, or he can be meeting with a contact or making a dead drop.
This is a very specific case where Traders (that either were under suspicion directly or indirectly through suspicious dealing on an investment firm) were intentionally communicating with each other using office provided communications and constantly asking to go offline or to talk through other means.
This is nothing more than any other pattern one would find out through exploring any other media, for example one of the ways LEO's find illegal activity usually drug related is when by identifying numbers that only receive or make very short calls, this activity is then usually correlated with creating social networks of the phone numbers and what in many cases you get is a binary relationship with phones being used only to receive or make calls.
While this might sound suspicious to you, or just interesting after investigating how those criminal networks work through actual investigations criminologists identified this pattern as direct correlation to illegal activity which can be used as supporting evidence to get a wiretap or a search warrant.
There are a metric ton of various behavior patterns that might be suspicious and are usually related to some sort of a "illicit" activity if you are looking at some one who's leaking information and you have a GPS location on your suspects then some one who's driving every 3rd week out to the middle of no where might be your prime suspect, now he can be stargazing, he can be cheating on his wife, or he can be meeting with a contact or making a dead drop.
I usually defer to a different mode of communication when it's more convenient or appropriate to the discussion. Instead of trying to type a novel to explain something, I'd prefer to engage in a conversation in order to identify parts of the topic that can be skipped. This usually reduces the time cost to communication.
Well, if you cross paths with this new breed of prosecutor, it will be incumbent upon you to prove your innocence. It appears that they no longer need evidence of a crime, just perceived intent. This may be starting in the financial services industry, but it will obviously spread to become a pervasive "best practice" in the future. Couple this with machine learning and the tone of your conversation may eventually be sufficient "proof" of intent.
Did you read the article Todd?
And I quote: "Simply highlighting suggestive phrases isn’t enough, of course."
If someone starts talking about Jihad, you can't charge them with a crime, but they're probably the person you want to look into when it comes to investigating terrorism. It's the same vein.
Why would you expect prosecutors to look blindly?
And I quote: "Simply highlighting suggestive phrases isn’t enough, of course."
If someone starts talking about Jihad, you can't charge them with a crime, but they're probably the person you want to look into when it comes to investigating terrorism. It's the same vein.
Why would you expect prosecutors to look blindly?
Yes, I did read the article. You make a valid point. The context is important. My point was that they are suggesting that these phrases are indicators of guilt. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see how this can be applied across all communications channels, and used as indicators of intent, such that they are eventually used prior to having a warrant and, indeed, used as sufficient "evidence" to secure a warrant.
These types of things help establish precedents. Once their utility is demonstrated, and tools developed to make the technique more effective, they will begin to be deployed elsewhere.
These types of things help establish precedents. Once their utility is demonstrated, and tools developed to make the technique more effective, they will begin to be deployed elsewhere.
This is just insane. Email communication is completely open, it is like writing on the postcard.
Anyone conspiring to commit criminal acts should remember what Martin Lomasney said[1] about 100 years ago about the importance of discretion:
Never write if you can speak;
never speak if you can nod;
never nod if you can wink.
Privacy implies guilt. Otherwise, you'd have nothing to hide.
This isn't "privacy" this is a pattern if a trader communicated with 50 other traders but only asks 2 others to go offline every time they talk and they do the same that's an artifact that anyone with half a brain would think is worth looking into while investigating financial misconduct.
And then you think you're clever and use "call my CP" (for cell phone) and the feds come confiscate all of your hard drives
Why not use PGP?
Because the average person has no idea how to use it?
Because both parties have to have it set up for it to work?
Because setting it up wrong will grant you no protection?
Because it just encrypts the communications in transit but when you're already under suspicion they can grab your computer, which has the unencrypted files on it?
Because in a setting like this (trader's work computers) you're often not even allowed to install any software?
Because both parties have to have it set up for it to work?
Because setting it up wrong will grant you no protection?
Because it just encrypts the communications in transit but when you're already under suspicion they can grab your computer, which has the unencrypted files on it?
Because in a setting like this (trader's work computers) you're often not even allowed to install any software?
Surely using PGP would also be a big "investigate me" signal in this context.
When I was a child I loved USA, thought it was great country, and dreamed of visiting it one day. Now, when I'm grown up and finally I can afford intercontinental travel I am seriously afraid to even enter USA. I might be arrested for no reason, or have my cash forfeitured, also for no reason... I think that few remaining free countries in the world are Switzerland, Singapore, Australia, and maybe Hong Kong
Citing Singapore and Hong Kong just make you sound a bit silly.
This is just one of tons of reasons why email is overused. Live, interactive, two-way conversations are better for most things. Making better use of interactive conversations does require some planning and discipline, to keep a list of what you need to discuss sorted by person. But the benefits of that practice are numerous, and increased privacy and plausible deniability is a comparatively minor benefit.
A few reasons to prefer interactive discussion to email:
- plausible deniability and increased security
- reduced chance of misunderstanding
- less time spent and potentially wasted carefully crafting the perfect message, because you can monitor your recipients reactions in real time and dynamically alter your delivery depending on which parts are immediately understood and agreed upon
- collaborate on the ideas interactively and rapidly, rather than a simple one way transfer
Email is good for some things, but it's seriously overused.