4 ms·
> Oh wow, providing a tracking number, huge OPSEC mistake Double mistake: he habitually used the same postbox to mail his packages. He might have had better l
by CharlesColeman 8y ago
> Oh wow, providing a tracking number, huge OPSEC mistake
Double mistake: he habitually used the same postbox to mail his packages. He might have had better luck if he drove well out of his way to mail them.
Though I'm kinda surprised the police weren't able to get a firmer lead on him from the tracking numbers. Is it really possible to get those anonymously issued? I'd assumed they'd at least be able to track him back to a store with security camera footage.
- jopsen 8y agoProbably he could use a stolen identity to buy postage online. > Double mistake: he habitually used the same postbox to mail his packages. I suppose the problem here is scale and habit. To avoid using the same postbox you'd need to drive far, and send a lot at once. If you do small transactions like 120 USD it'll take a long time to make real money. Maybe you could use a mail relay service in another country, but still.. That said, look at the resources this operation took, how likely was it that he would be caught? Most small fish like him probably won't be.
- JimboOmega 8y agoThe article mentioned that he mailed them from a box across from a police station, not a store. And basically yes. You get the tracking number when you create the shipping label, and the info is generated when it's first scanned, no need to be physically present when that occurs
- theNJR 8y agoI miss the dark net subreddits where people would talk about OPSEC like this. Until right now, I forgot they got banned and stopped showing up in my feed.