Killer Paid Online Data Broker for Material Obtained Through Trickery

January 4, 2002 6:07 AM

Killer Paid Online Data Broker for Material Obtained Through Trickery A stalker who eventually murdered his victim acquired her home address via a company named Docusearch. However, Docusearch didn't get it via database mining, but through a process they call "pretexting" (aka "human engineering" or "pretending to be someone else"). Docusearch, on the stalkers behalf, called the victim's business associates posing as an insurance rep or some such, and tricked the colleagues into giving over the victim's address. Legal? Perfectly legal. Ethical? Maybe. It's a tried and true investigative technique employed by private investigators for decades. It reminds us once again that the human dufus at the next desk over is the biggest security risk. However, this is an issue of an investigative firm exercising a typical, long-standing investigative practice for a purpose that, unfortunately, turned nefarious. Given that, why did the Post put the online data broker spin on the article?
posted by monkey-mind (20 comments total)

The killer in this case published a Web site beforehand detailing his intentions, though no one found it until after the fact. The victim's family has mirrored it.
posted by rcade at 6:21 AM on January 4, 2002

A tangential observation of further disintegration of the English language and American ethics: "pretexting" is described in the article as trickery, ruse, ploy, deception, and invading privacy. Let's be honest and call it fraud.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:23 AM on January 4, 2002

Didn't you all know, the internet is EVIL. Before the internet, there were never any invasions of privacy, no identity theft, no credit card fraud, no child pornography, no mail-order bomb making kits, etc.

Seriously, this kind of misattribution is nothing new, really. Books were evil. Then radio and records (45's). Then it was TV.

There's a shallow mentality out there that can't separate media/format from content/activity, and misattribute characteristics of the content/activity to the media/format. [sorry for the awkward language]

Why does this misattribution occur? Well, its kind of like this: imagine a semi-dark landscape. To a casual observer, only a few features are visible. To a determined investigator with a flashlight, there's many more features, including "hidden" vistas available for anyone determined enough to look. Then suddenly the landscape gets brighter - and the casual observer now sees more. The lazy minded casual observer will think that the light created the new things. Rather than cope with the new things on their own terms, it's easier to blame the light, and perhaps to try and dim that light.
[another apology for the overextended metaphor]
posted by yesster at 6:50 AM on January 4, 2002

Media paranoia about the Internet aside, the following from Youens website:

I found an internet site to [find her address], and to my surprize everything else under the Sun. Most importantly: her current employment. It's accually obsene what you can find out about a person on the internet.
posted by jpoulos at 7:09 AM on January 4, 2002

His weblog is really rather creepy, though lacks any kind of humor or imagination. If I were to edit his entries, I'd have him write down his trips to the supermarket, and how this lady cut him off at the freeway exit or why the war in afghanistan is all wrong and make him link to salon.com many times.

Remember that one mst3k episode? "Tamper in gods domain, Wednesday - pickup OJ and milk at the grocer"
posted by tiaka at 7:13 AM on January 4, 2002

"...why did the Post put the online data broker spin on the article?"

My guesses: it's a WashTech story--this reporter's "beat" is technology--so an on-line spin is natural; we the people are both enraptured by and terrified of the Internet; all the personal data on the Web is providing snoopers (private and government) with new, nefarious ways of spying on individuals.
posted by Carol Anne at 7:17 AM on January 4, 2002

The mirrored site is proof positive that people who center all their text are nuts
posted by Outlawyr at 7:25 AM on January 4, 2002

What are you trying to say?
posted by sexymofo at 7:33 AM on January 4, 2002

I blame Kottke.
posted by dong_resin at 7:58 AM on January 4, 2002

Non-angle on an old story. The truth is, you could get all this sort of information on people well before the internet, and more besides. And "pretexting"? We investigative reporter types used to call it "social engineering" or "working a phoney" back in the day. Tried and true method of information gathering, one of the standard tools in the reporter's belt.
posted by UncleFes at 8:01 AM on January 4, 2002

Carol Anne - Fraud is very close, but to this English major (degree holder, actually) the gain must be material and enabled by the deceit and come from the defrauded. This deception yields only information, and the money paid is the motivation to deceive (not the result of the deception) and the money does not comes from the victim, so the victim is not defrauded in this direct process.

If no one is defrauded, then no fraud has occured.

Still super slimy, though.
posted by NortonDC at 8:04 AM on January 4, 2002

for Carole Anne: I doubt that a company that deals with seamy business practices that these searchers do will refer to their operations as Fraud. Pretexting sounds so much nicer--sort of like digging up things before they issue a text for a client. My ex wife often refers to herself as previously married (rather than divorced), and in mint condtion.
Fraud that really counts is that which can be get a money settlement through the legal system (court)...the rest is merely cheating, as in adultery.
posted by Postroad at 8:22 AM on January 4, 2002

Jeez, are we still so jumpy about the word "online"? It's only used twice in the whole article (and once in the headline). I don't think this is unreasonable given the push to have local governments put property, tax, and criminal records online. There may not be a strong ethical difference between looking that data up via your browser and calling someone to tell you from their own database, but there's a strong practical difference in the ease of privacy violation, and we have to consider that carefully: how much does the need for transparent government, or the need for efficient (say) title or background searches, override personal privacy? This is not a null question and we don't need to pooh-pooh the article calling it "old news".
posted by dhartung at 8:48 AM on January 4, 2002

"The fact that we're being sued for providing generally public information is absurd," he said. "It's not a secret where she works. Her neighbors, her friends, know where she worked."

What kind of defense is this? Her friends and neighbors knew.. and? This doesn't mean it was public information. It means that she shared confidences with people she trusted - not that she publically broadcasted it. She wasn't a public figure.

I think the brokers need to verify the users of their services to make sure it isn't going to be used for unlawful purposes, and should be held accountable when it is used unlawfully.
posted by rich at 10:47 AM on January 4, 2002

I think the brokers need to verify the users of their services to make sure it isn't going to be used for unlawful purposes, and should be held accountable when it is used unlawfully.

Sorry, but that is asinine. How are they supposed to determine that? Have him sign some document? What if he lies about his intentions - are they still liable?

Information can be used for good or evil, much like anything else. If they knew he was using this for stalking - and you can prove this - then I'm all for them being held accountable. Otherwise they simply provided a service.

The evil here is not this company - it is the person who committed murder. Trying to outlaw everything that could be put to an evil use - or worse yet, make the manufacturer/provider of that item held accountable for the use - is so outrageous that it would be laughable if it were not so dangerous to our freedoms.
posted by hadashi at 11:08 AM on January 4, 2002

Trying to outlaw everything that could be put to an evil use - or worse yet, make the manufacturer/provider of that item held accountable for the use - is so outrageous that it would be laughable if it were not so dangerous to our freedoms.

As a matter of fact we already do that, but selectively. Witness the DEA's outlawing of hemp food products (links: 1 | 2 | 3) while opium poppies and their seeds are openly for sale.

Seems to me the nanny state is these days what we call a "bipartisan" movement.
posted by retrofut at 11:38 AM on January 4, 2002

The evil here is not this company - it is the person who committed murder. Trying to outlaw everything that could be put to an evil use - or worse yet, make the manufacturer/provider of that item held accountable for the use - is so outrageous that it would be laughable if it were not so dangerous to our freedoms.

But shouldn't the freedom not to be stalked and murdered be more important than a company's freedom to lie to people so they can gather information for inept stalkers?
posted by rcade at 11:59 AM on January 4, 2002

freedom not to be stalked and murdered

How does the latter guarantee the former? Information gathering is a bit older than the internet. Last I read, so is murder. Murder is as old as mankind itself. It is difficult for a company to determine a persons motive.
posted by UncleFes at 12:16 PM on January 4, 2002

How does the latter guarantee the former?

Reading Liam Youens' web site, it seems clear that the guy was too much of a maroon to find this girl without the help of the company and its "pretexting." What I don't understand is how DocuSearch's employee is not a criminally liable accessory to the crime. If I helped a buddy find his ex-girlfriend and he murdered her, I'm pretty sure the police would be knocking on my door.
posted by rcade at 7:49 AM on January 6, 2002

Verifying users of services;

Hmm.. well, let's see.. isn't this an investigative company?

Shouldn't they ahve a simple resources to do a background check on some maroon? Gee, look, he has an order of protection against him from this girl that he's trying to get an address for.

Maybe make it so only lawyers or licensed peopled (PI's, police, etc) can request the service. Sure, you're not gonna cut down on all abuses, but it would make it a lot harder, without restricting access to people who need the information for the 'right' purposes.
posted by rich at 6:44 AM on January 7, 2002