Silk Road forums
Discussion => Security => Topic started by: kmfkewm on May 23, 2012, 03:27 am
-
People IRL tend to use cellphones. So many vulnerabilities in this. Let's say you are Bob the average lower to mid level IRL dealer. You probably sell out of your house. You probably have a lot of people coming and going to your house. They all probably carry cellphones. This pattern of heavy traffic can be passively identified. What is worse is that half of your customers are probably known drug users and this can also be identified. They might not be able to find your home with cellphone positioning technology, depending on how accurate it has gotten, but they can certainly narrow in on some restricted geographic area that has a large portion of known drug users going to it in patterns that are consistent with obtaining narcotics. Further narrowing would potentially need to be manned. This sort of attack is realistic and it probably doesn't require a warrant.
Also I can't believe how many people who sell drugs just use their regular contract cellphone to do so. I sure wouldn't want to end up as identified as someone who a substantial number of known drug users frequently call for time periods that are associated with drug deals being made. Police can legally get the entire topology of cellphone based social networks without a warrant, it isn't a wiretap if they look at who calls who and for how long, as long as they don't look at communications. It is a trap and trace / pen register and requires absolutely no warrant, and all of this information is certainly stored by phone companies and ripe for LE picking and dragnet analysis.
Give me Tor and mail any day of the week. Not to mention that from a vendors perspective none of my customers will know who the fuck I am so they can't possibly snitch on me with any info that the police can't readily get themselves, which is nothing. From a vendors perspective online drug dealing is infinitely more secure than IRL dealing.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong. This doesn't apply to the US.
-
You are wrong. US police don't need warrants to map out topology of cell phone communications networks and they probably don't need warrant to gather and analyze cell phone positioning information
-
You seem like a member who information I should respect, which I do. However, I have it hard time accepting that FBI/CIA/Local Police would invest that much money into catching a low-mid level dealer. I'm not disputing the fact that it is possible, just that it is not monetarily justifiable.
If you know of any cases that used this type of technology to gather evidence, please share!!!! I pretty sure that LE wouldn't use that evidence in court, because it is easily refutable. However, they can use it to further their investigation and get the ball rolling and get more resources to get a conviction. I'm also guessing this matters more depending on your geographic location, meaning in metropolitan areas it is more unlikely. As far as I know, the law on this type of surveillance is ambiguous, which sucks for us.
Again, I'm not saying that IRL dealing is safer then SR. I agree that IRL dealing is much riskier, but for difference reasons. Primarily because of the effectiveness of a snitch.
I think the only people that would be affected by this type of surveillance are ones that live in non metropolitan areas, and sell in neighborhoods that are populated by drug addicts and dealers.
Again, I'm saying I'm right and your wrong. I just need a little more convincing.
-
Give me Tor and mail any day of the week. Not to mention that from a vendors perspective none of my customers will know who the fuck I am so they can't possibly snitch on me with any info that the police can't readily get themselves, which is nothing. From a vendors perspective online drug dealing is infinitely more secure than IRL dealing.
Excellent threat analysis. Thanks for the logic chain.
-
However, I have it hard time accepting that FBI/CIA/Local Police would invest that much money into catching a low-mid level dealer. I'm not disputing the fact that it is possible, just that it is not monetarily justifiable.
Speculation here, but given the use of informants, I think that catching a "low-mid level dealer," or the right buyer, is a valuable source of information and then leverage up the chain.
Based on multiple accounts, LE appears to recycle their informants again and again [because why not? the informants have *no* power from which to bargain - I do not understand why Litz etc. are surprised when this happens] til they get something they consider worth their time/effort. So it seems to me that the cost/benefit ratio is pretty good, and, if not, they'll just flog that informant pony til they get something they want. Right now the cost in terms of workload/involvement on cell phone data is really, really low - Guru beat me to the links. It's close to free data for them in terms of manpower. There are just starting to be rumblings about this practice, and LE is already fussing about the increase in 'cost.'
In forfeitures alone, I would guess it's monetarily justifiable, but I would not even know where to begin to look. Give me a bit.
-
However, I have it hard time accepting that FBI/CIA/Local Police would invest that much money into catching a low-mid level dealer. I'm not disputing the fact that it is possible, just that it is not monetarily justifiable.
Speculation here, but given the use of informants, I think that catching a "low-mid level dealer," or the right buyer, is a valuable source of information and then leverage up the chain.
Based on multiple accounts, LE appears to recycle their informants again and again [because why not? the informants have *no* power from which to bargain - I do not understand why Litz etc. are surprised when this happens] til they get something they consider worth their time/effort. So it seems to me that the cost/benefit ratio is pretty good, and, if not, they'll just flog that informant pony til they get something they want. Right now the cost in terms of workload/involvement on cell phone data is really, really low - Guru beat me to the links. It's close to free data for them in terms of manpower. There are just starting to be rumblings about this practice, and LE is already fussing about the increase in 'cost.'
In forfeitures alone, I would guess it's monetarily justifiable, but I would not even know where to begin to look. Give me a bit.
You vastly over estimate the expenses of this sort of attack. It just requires the raw data and a powerful enough computer. Feed the computer the cell phone positioning data, out pops the locations that fit the pattern of being associated with drug dealing. Feed the computer the cell phone social network topology and out pop the numbers that a lot of known drug users are calling, or even that a lot of unknown drug users are calling in patterns that are consistent with drug dealing. Where is the unjustifiable cost in this?
You will not hear of cases where this sort of technology is used to bust someone. Because they will not mention in court "We knew to pull this person over, because our computer said they are probably a drug dealer", why would LE divulge that information if they are not required to? You will simply hear "We pulled this person over for a minor traffic violation and discovered they had narcotics, then we got a warrant to search their home and found a lot more narcotics!".
-
feds can check who I call and who calls me all they want. I have only a handful of friends and they are users too and if they call me or I call them so what. I been friends with them 20 yrs. that proves nothing. A smart dealer wont make new connections through ppl they know from someone they know. Greed is what gets dope dealers caught. Making a decent profit I e enough to cover rent and bills and maybe by some decent clothes ans keep you high is not enough. By that I mean maybe 1500 bucks a month. They want more and more and more. Eventually the law sees you as thinking you are scpecial and cool and spitting in their face. Like the song said "I fought the law and the law won" you can never beat the long arm of the law folks. You can just hope they see you as a nobody that knows nobody who is just a harmless drunk user who is no threat to society. You can't put your finger in a LEO's face and laugh cause he searched you found nothing and you walked. UH UH! Cause then he/she will make it a mission to get your ass no matter what. and really the average user has no reason to hate LEO's unless they are pricks and treat people like shit. I have actually discussed my drug usage with a cop before and explained why I did it we discussed the drug laws which he did not agree with but was sworn to uphold. he just had the attitude if I don't see it and I do not have proof a felony is going down then I ignore it cause I am not seeing a law being broken or have reason to suspect felony is being committed or a person is in danger. We shook hands bought each other a few beers and talked to some women. TReat cops nicely folks after all e are just getting high daily the whole drug thing aside they are risking their lives constantly and dealing with the scum bags of the earth. it is easy to see why many have such piss poor attitudes but Elvis said it best. "there is never a reason to be rude to people" I just wish leos would stop thinking of all of us as these hardned criminals that are terrible people cause we need a chemical to feel happy or normal. really if you think about it its not our fault in many cases no more than it is when dr;'s prescribe xanax for someone with anxiety or pain meds to some one in chronic pain or depression meds for manic depressants. think about it leos if you read this. many of us cant afford insurance or a dr and what they prescribe many times just dont work and is in place jus tto give the pharmacy companies billions in profits.I have seen so many elderly people have to be in pain and hurt cause they dont have insurance and cant afford their medication. that is the government we live under Sir/Ma'am if you are a leo. Not your fault cause you do not create the laws you just uphold them but sometimes you have to use some common sense in upholding those laws and use your good judgement on who should go to jail for having a few pills or some weed and who shouldnt. If a person has a violent past and is a bad person in general and uses drugs sure take his ass to jail where he belongs, society does not need any evil angry violent people around to plague and bother us our loved ones or our children but if they are someone like most of us and we have no history of criminal actions and are good decent human beings think about maybe saying look buddy take your weed or your pills and go straight home and make sure no one under age gets to them and enjoy your night. that is gods way of thanking you for being a good person with a good heart who would likely give that cop the shirt off his back or his last dollar if he truly needed in bad enough as most drug users are good caring people. Not ALL but most. people who are violent when dirnking or on drugs are generally mentally off in that area to begin with it is usually not the drug, Akhochol yes can make nice ppl mean but I have never seen anyone NEVER take a pain pill or smoke a joint or use MDMA and get violent or mean to anybody or drive and kill someone. yet everyday EVERYDAY it is heard on the news about booze and then forgotten about. why is that? you know if the police really seen this drug thing as a safety concern for people when all evidence points to booze killing innocent kids and ppl everyday by drunk drivers why are there not ten cop cars hidden at every night club bar in town in every state ready to get the drunks driving when they leave? WHY? but yet in such a hurry to pull someone sober over and arrest them just trying to get home and enjoy a buzz to relax after a hard long day while watching tv? I wish one LEO could answer that for me. I know they cant/wont here even though many are here reading this stuff but in real life id love to hear an answer.
-
did the enter key fuck your mother?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong. This doesn't apply to the US.
You should check out Christopher Soghoian's TED talk about Google and Big Brother.