The 25-year-old’s alleged actions in the days after the attack suggest he was not exactly a criminal mastermind. The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Council conducted a series of suspicious internet searches, for phrases like “SECGOV hack,” “telegram swap,” “how can I know for sure if I am being investigated by the FBI,” and “What are the signs you are under investigation by law enforcement or the FBI even if you have not been contacted by them.”
Clickbait title. Makes it sound like he was arrested for searching the term. He was arrested for hacking the SEC account. He later searched for “how do I know if the FBI is investigating me”.
Yeah. It’s likely that the terms only came up with a wider investigation of the device/network data that the hack originated from.
No it doesn’t sound like that at all. It sounds like they’re having a bit of a laugh at the fact that he was in fact being investigated by the FBI when he did that search.
Yes it does sound like that. The title doesn’t suggest that he actually committed crimes. Sorry!
I recently saw a thread fawning over regular posters without much critical thought to standards for editors in the age of meme-based reporting. The 90s yutes, upset about their aunts’ chain mail emails’ claims about artificial sweeteners and theology, ran to the Internet in search of Truth but stumbled into a breeding ground for misinformation. Oop!
I did read the article before I posted it. Hence my putting something from way down in the article in the body of my post.
And the headline might be a bit deceptive, but it’s not inaccurate.
The article was both amusing and it fit the criteria of news, so what’s the problem?
A better title would have been "Man arrested by FBI for SEC hack had searched ‘How to know for sure if you are being investigated by the FBI’."That would eliminate the incorrect implication.
I don’t disagree that there could have been a better headline. As I said, it’s deceptive. But it’s also not inaccurate.
OP used the title from the article. Is that not convention?
Yes, it is. But when the article’s title is bad, that’s more than enough reason to break convention.
Standards for reporting on Internet forums are the same as for the grocery store tabloids that agitated the forum dwellers to begin with
What are you even talking about now?
You’re on a forum. You are a “forum dweller.”
I’m still talking about standards of reporting, and pointing out that Internet culture tends to be especially vocal about truth and science while amplifying the same ol’ sensationalism and romanticism.
Okay? Well I wasn’t doing that. I was posting a bit of news that I thought people would find amusing. It was clear from the headline that it was basically fluff news. You could easily have just skipped it.
The FOX standard 😂 news when it humiliates the opposition, levity in between
Welp! Now he knows for sure!
That was really nice of them to answer the question personally
Okay, but how do you know? Anyone want to google it?
I’m guessing if you have to Google it, either you are or you won’t be easily convinced you aren’t.
I’m just gonna directly ask the FBI agent investigating me straight up right here.
Yo! Are you investigating me?
Um, no! *(giggles in fed)
That giggling requires massive amounts of paperwork. Hope it was worth it
The people we investigate pay for our giggling paperwork with their taxes, which makes it doubly funny.
I’m just curious because I’ve made some jokes in a thread about snipers before and I wonder if that triggered anything. But now with this article I realize that even if that one didn’t, my recent comment “I wish I could know if I have ever been investigated by the FBI” might have. And if neither did, then maybe this new one might.
Crap, I might go as well and say “hey FBI, investigate me”. So that I can now be sure.
…unless Lemmy is still out of their automatic tools?
I considered adding more to the joke here but got afraid it would be going too far. I think I’ll write a short story about someone who gets so paranoid about knowing if he’s on the FBI list or not that they end up actually doing some terrorism act just to be sure they are.
I’m guessing some government department has a file on all of us based on what Snowden revealed.
Better the devil you know.
If you really think you’re the subject of a criminal investigation and think there is some utility in engaging with it before it comes to you, retain a criminal defense attorney and let them start making phone calls and sending letters
I tried and it’s just a bunch of legal firms offering advice. There is also a result by the FBI themselves, trying to sell you a copy of your rap sheet lol
If you search it, and they show up, you are indeed under investigation
This is EXACTLY what Yahoo Answers was for!
Apart from providing material for the McElroy brothers, of course.
So, I guess now we need a control group to do those searches without having hacked into government-owned social media accounts.
Any volunteers?
I volunteer you as tribute!
After that student got arrested in the EU for making a joke in his Snapchat group of friends before boarding a flight, I’ve always wanted to see someone do exactly this experiment to check which messaging apps are actually E2E secure lol.
It’d be interesting to try a phone call group too.
A person of the group chat simply reported it. There is no way for them to somehow monitor that chat.
I mean you can go to the FBI website and request their data on you.
I did it myself. It was empty. But now its probably not empty.
Do it again, if it’s empty, then it might not be because of the two tries. You’ll have to continue to ask for your data until you die of old age
Definitely not a bag full of drugs
Not the answer he wanted, but it’s the answer he got.
What a ding dong.
Tech-savvy enough to “hack” the SEC, has to Google “How do I know if the FBI is on to me?”.
Being tech savvy doesn’t automatically bestow knowledge of good opsec.
I wouldn’t assume that a guy who builds top-fuel dragster engines could tell me how to avoid a speed trap.
He should. But no, you shouldn’t assume he does.
The wicked flee when none persueth.
so that’s how.
deleted by creator
