4 ms·

As a result, about 20 customers that had purchased a specific device at sparkfun that had delivery in Georgia had their information given to the police to use i

by K2h 14y ago

As a result, about 20 customers that had purchased a specific device at sparkfun that had delivery in Georgia had their information given to the police to use in this investigation. I really want the people running the skim operation caught, but I agree with Nate (the sparkfun guy) that it is a very fine line harassing the others that are (most likely) blameless. Am I reading this correctly that then these 20 people have their info in the public record after this trial closes? wow... not sure I'd want my name on that list. At first I thought it was this[1] device, but on closer reading of the article it indicates a sparkfun silkscreen on a board, which I don't think the mag reader would have. Has anyone figured out which board was in the offending device? [1] http://www.sparkfun.com/products/8634 http://www.sparkfun.com/products/8634

MBCook 14y ago
I'm all for helping the police, I'd be pretty willing to give them information in a case like this. But I'm amazed their initial subpoena was for ALL orders from Georgia for a multi-month period. That's an amazingly wide net.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  I suspect that the police in this case have no idea how big sparkfun is or how much business they do.
  - eridius 14y ago
    More likely, they just ask for everything in the hopes that they don't miss anything, and then rely on the targeted business to try to argue down the scope of the subpoena. The police have no incentive to try and limit the scope because they don't care about protecting the privacy of the people they're investigating.
    - sirclueless 14y ago
      > they don't care about protecting the privacy of the people they're investigating. That seems like an overbroad generalization. All else being equal, I'm sure the police don't want to compromise people's privacy. To be sure it's not their top priority, and if they had to choose between missing important data and dragging too many innocent people into an investigation they will probably err on the side of too much data. Even if the police don't much care about privacy, there are a lot of people who do. For example, there's no way a court would let any of this subpoenaed evidence into the record unless it was specifically relevant to a charge being brought.
- rmc 14y ago
  The police might have thought that Sparkfun only sold credit card skimming machines. Hence asking for "all orders" doesn't sound as bad if you consider that they might be thinking that's only those parts. This matches up with reality since they seem happen when Sparkfun talks to them and they agree to only get the details for that parts.
tzs 14y ago
> Am I reading this correctly that then these 20 people have their info in the public record after this trial closes? Nope. The subpoena is in the public record. The data SparkFun sent in response to the subpoena is not in the public record. It will just go to the investigators who are trying to track down the credit card thieves. If the investigation leads to someone being charged with a crime, and that leads to a trial, the proceedings of that trial will be in the public record, but there would be no reason for the information for the customers NOT charged with the crime to be entered into the record at that trial. I doubt that anyone will be harassed over this, unless we use a very loose definition of harassment. Most likely the investigators will take the list of customers, look up these people to see if any of them have a record of prior criminal activity, and concentrate on those. If they do question the rest, mostly likely the investigators will simply ask them what they purchased the board for. The customer will then enthusiastically launch into a description of the neat gadget they built and insist on showing it to the investigator and explaining in excruciating detail exactly how it works. The investigator will see the SparkFun board, see that the device is obviously not a credit card scanner, and try to figure out how to escape the enthusiastic hobbyist without being rude to him.
- rmc 14y ago
  Most likely the investigators will take the list of customers, look up these people to see if any of them have a record of prior criminal activity, and concentrate on those. Or other things. Was someone who's name was on the list seen hanging around the places where the skimmers were installed lots? Was the money being sent (however roundabouty) to anyone on the list? etc.
ajross 14y ago
Having one's private information placed into (assuredly sealed) evidence in a criminal trial is hardly "harassment". This is what subpoenas are for: evidence exists that might constitute proof of a crime, and courts have (and have always had) the authority to demand its production. There's nothing unique here. If these were 20 paper records from a vacuum tube supplier in 1939, surely the court would have requested (and gotten) the same thing.
cullen 14y ago
"Am I reading this correctly that then these 20 people have their info in the public record after this trial closes?" Allow me to venture a guess. At some time in the future the county will auction off its surplus assets (old computers). The computer with hard drive, data & all else will be sold to the highest/only bidder for about three bucks. It is also possible that the county has data retention/destruction policy, in which case the county commissioner's brother-in-law will be paid on a contract basis to have his children / some migrant workers remove the drives and feed them into a tree shredder, and then sell the bits for scrap. Here's hoping for option two.
qbrass 14y ago
In a different case, it was their BlueSmirf module http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorial/news/SparkFun-PINScam.pdf http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorial/news/SparkFun-PINScam.pdf
- K2h 14y ago
  thanks for the link. that is exactly what i was looking for.
- makomk 14y ago
  Which is interesting, because you'd think that credit card scammers would buy Bluetooth modules in bulk from Chinese sellers that are both cheaper and harder to subpoena.

by K2h 14y ago

MBCook 14y ago

I'm all for helping the police, I'd be pretty willing to give them information in a case like this. But I'm amazed their initial subpoena was for ALL orders from Georgia for a multi-month period. That's an amazingly wide net.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
I suspect that the police in this case have no idea how big sparkfun is or how much business they do.
- eridius 14y ago
  More likely, they just ask for everything in the hopes that they don't miss anything, and then rely on the targeted business to try to argue down the scope of the subpoena. The police have no incentive to try and limit the scope because they don't care about protecting the privacy of the people they're investigating.
  - sirclueless 14y ago
    > they don't care about protecting the privacy of the people they're investigating. That seems like an overbroad generalization. All else being equal, I'm sure the police don't want to compromise people's privacy. To be sure it's not their top priority, and if they had to choose between missing important data and dragging too many innocent people into an investigation they will probably err on the side of too much data. Even if the police don't much care about privacy, there are a lot of people who do. For example, there's no way a court would let any of this subpoenaed evidence into the record unless it was specifically relevant to a charge being brought.
rmc 14y ago
The police might have thought that Sparkfun only sold credit card skimming machines. Hence asking for "all orders" doesn't sound as bad if you consider that they might be thinking that's only those parts. This matches up with reality since they seem happen when Sparkfun talks to them and they agree to only get the details for that parts.

tzs 14y ago

> Am I reading this correctly that then these 20 people have their info in the public record after this trial closes? Nope. The subpoena is in the public record. The data SparkFun sent in response to the subpoena is not in the public record. It will just go to the investigators who are trying to track down the credit card thieves. If the investigation leads to someone being charged with a crime, and that leads to a trial, the proceedings of that trial will be in the public record, but there would be no reason for the information for the customers NOT charged with the crime to be entered into the record at that trial. I doubt that anyone will be harassed over this, unless we use a very loose definition of harassment. Most likely the investigators will take the list of customers, look up these people to see if any of them have a record of prior criminal activity, and concentrate on those. If they do question the rest, mostly likely the investigators will simply ask them what they purchased the board for. The customer will then enthusiastically launch into a description of the neat gadget they built and insist on showing it to the investigator and explaining in excruciating detail exactly how it works. The investigator will see the SparkFun board, see that the device is obviously not a credit card scanner, and try to figure out how to escape the enthusiastic hobbyist without being rude to him.

rmc 14y ago
Most likely the investigators will take the list of customers, look up these people to see if any of them have a record of prior criminal activity, and concentrate on those. Or other things. Was someone who's name was on the list seen hanging around the places where the skimmers were installed lots? Was the money being sent (however roundabouty) to anyone on the list? etc.

ajross 14y ago

Having one's private information placed into (assuredly sealed) evidence in a criminal trial is hardly "harassment". This is what subpoenas are for: evidence exists that might constitute proof of a crime, and courts have (and have always had) the authority to demand its production. There's nothing unique here. If these were 20 paper records from a vacuum tube supplier in 1939, surely the court would have requested (and gotten) the same thing.

cullen 14y ago

"Am I reading this correctly that then these 20 people have their info in the public record after this trial closes?" Allow me to venture a guess. At some time in the future the county will auction off its surplus assets (old computers). The computer with hard drive, data & all else will be sold to the highest/only bidder for about three bucks. It is also possible that the county has data retention/destruction policy, in which case the county commissioner's brother-in-law will be paid on a contract basis to have his children / some migrant workers remove the drives and feed them into a tree shredder, and then sell the bits for scrap. Here's hoping for option two.

qbrass 14y ago

In a different case, it was their BlueSmirf module http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorial/news/SparkFun-PINScam.pdf http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorial/news/SparkFun-PINScam.pdf

K2h 14y ago
thanks for the link. that is exactly what i was looking for.
makomk 14y ago
Which is interesting, because you'd think that credit card scammers would buy Bluetooth modules in bulk from Chinese sellers that are both cheaper and harder to subpoena.