I had to go back to the article to find the exact passage you were referring to. "Puzzled, Gomez resorted to a resource she taps only rarely: the help of friends at federal agencies, friends for whom she has done favors and who in return are willing to let her check her information against government databases. 'Their databases turn up what we call ‘trace details’ that you can’t get with the databases available to ordinary citizens,' Gomez says: phone numbers, addresses, company and individual names that have in some way been associated."
Depending on the status of the underlying civil recovery action that prompted someone to hire the bounty hunter, there may have been legal grounds for her to have that "access," especially if what she was doing was saying, "Here are some dots that I think connect in this way, can you tell me, yes or no, if this makes any sense?" But, yes, depending on the exact rules involved of what agency, and what the bounty hunter is pursuing in what case, and what was asked and answered, this could be illegal. Or not. It's not entirely sure if anything illegal was done in what was reported in that paragraph. The term "illegal search" has a much more specific meaning in legal language.
I worked for a company that required CJIS(Criminal Justice Information Systems) certification to work on their products. The software dealt with law enforcement so we occasionally had access to live criminal records.
Every year we had to re-certify and one of the major points they emphasized and re-emphasized was that it was a felony to search for anything for a friend or even out of curiosity. You only had a legal right to access and view information if you had a specific reason dealing with a current case.
So, if they let her access any of those databases it was most definitely a felony. But as others have said it could have been public record databases and not something protected under CJIS.
There is a longer discussion on the site's comment section about the legality, and the short version is that she has legal access to the databases since she is a licensed private investigator, which apparently is very easy to get in Texas.
According to Yelp[0], that's not the only illegal part...
This company is run by a bunch of crooks. They towed my legally parked vehicle for no reason from the front of my apartment. I called them to see what was up and after arguing for a while they said, "oops, our mistake." It took them over two hours to bring it back to me. The icing on the cake, when I finally got my vehicle back, it had been damaged!!!! The driver that delivered it back told me to contact their manager. The manager wanted to argue with me, claiming that they didn't damage my vehicle. So now, my vehicle is damaged, my alignment is jacked up AND I missed a day if work because of these predatory towers.
This company needs to be reported to the better business bureau. I wish I had the resources to sue these crooks.
"The most troubling lesson she learned from Mullen, Gomez says, is how readily misleading information can migrate from a posting on an Internet forum to official status. “In a second, what’s false becomes true,” she observes. “All it takes is for one person to put it on the record.” That seems to be what happened with Mullen’s Most Wanted status. A spokeswoman from the US Marshals Service told WIRED that Deputy Sheasby knew nothing about a $2 million cybertheft by Mullen until he was told by “an investigator,” and that he’d passed on the story only because he felt obliged to make other investigators aware of everything he had heard."
Looks like the barrier between social network/forums etc. & official record are pretty porous.
Skip tracing is not bounty hunting but it makes for a great article title. Skip tracing is finding a debtor for a lender. The bounty hunter gets the collection or asset from the debtor.
Her height has nothing to do with anything, but people like those sorts of details. Maybe we instinctively feel that a 4' 11' woman with the last name of Gomez gets under-estimated constantly, so it makes her success more satisfying to us.
$10k for what looks like a few months work. Looks like a successful case of outsourcing, but the thought of private law enforcement, mercenaries intruding into people's lives and chasing people with guns doesn't sit very well with me. Who is responsible if everything goes wrong?
The responsible parties. "Everything" and "wrong" are utterly vague. But, assume you mean something like Mullen tries to escape and her bodyguard shoots him in the back. It would be up to local DA if they wanted to prosecute, perhaps including bounty hunter as accomplice. Mullen's family could sue for wrongful death.
tldr; laws don't magically disappear just cause bounty hunters are involved.
The most troubling lesson she learned from Mullen, Gomez says, is how readily misleading information can migrate from a posting on an Internet forum to official status. “In a second, what’s false becomes true,” she observes. “All it takes is for one person to put it on the record.”
The more interesting story here is how he was able to confuse authorities for years by creating a slew of fictitious identities online. A good chunk of the privacy debate focuses on anonymity, but stories like these suggest that increasing the noise-to-signal ratio may be even more effective.
Yes, you're right. I mean, there's some stuff in the article about him being a master of disinformation, financial fraud, social engineering, social proofing, hacking the system and creating believable false identities, but those were nothing.
Another view is that law enforcement worries less about the thieves, and more about perpetrators of violent crimes, or crimes that cost society more than what these thieves perpetrate.
Anyone know what makes the "Mastercheck Keypad and Printer" so special? I can buy cheap magnetic toner and put it in my laser printer to get magnetic encoded checks, but my understanding is most banks don't rely on that much any more in favor of optical recognition. That was one bit that seemed a bit hyperbolic.
The images are certainly related. Under each it even gives you the reason why.
However, if you are arguing that the images are ineffective I might agree. It looks like this article was included in the Print edition so I'd imagine the photos were chosen to match with the article's layout there as opposed to the online version.
The most troubling lesson she learned from Mullen, Gomez says, is how readily misleading information can migrate from a posting on an Internet forum to official status. “In a second, what’s false becomes true,” she observes. “All it takes is for one person to put it on the record.”
I guess everyone finally learned that information on the internet can be false. :-)
[+] [-] latj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
Depending on the status of the underlying civil recovery action that prompted someone to hire the bounty hunter, there may have been legal grounds for her to have that "access," especially if what she was doing was saying, "Here are some dots that I think connect in this way, can you tell me, yes or no, if this makes any sense?" But, yes, depending on the exact rules involved of what agency, and what the bounty hunter is pursuing in what case, and what was asked and answered, this could be illegal. Or not. It's not entirely sure if anything illegal was done in what was reported in that paragraph. The term "illegal search" has a much more specific meaning in legal language.
[+] [-] JRobertson|12 years ago|reply
Every year we had to re-certify and one of the major points they emphasized and re-emphasized was that it was a felony to search for anything for a friend or even out of curiosity. You only had a legal right to access and view information if you had a specific reason dealing with a current case.
So, if they let her access any of those databases it was most definitely a felony. But as others have said it could have been public record databases and not something protected under CJIS.
[+] [-] Systemic33|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enjo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelwww|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwnna|12 years ago|reply
Or not. I suppose.
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atmosx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yarou|12 years ago|reply
http://blog.izs.me/post/72990767417/a-member-of-our-communit...
[+] [-] girvo|12 years ago|reply
This company is run by a bunch of crooks. They towed my legally parked vehicle for no reason from the front of my apartment. I called them to see what was up and after arguing for a while they said, "oops, our mistake." It took them over two hours to bring it back to me. The icing on the cake, when I finally got my vehicle back, it had been damaged!!!! The driver that delivered it back told me to contact their manager. The manager wanted to argue with me, claiming that they didn't damage my vehicle. So now, my vehicle is damaged, my alignment is jacked up AND I missed a day if work because of these predatory towers.
This company needs to be reported to the better business bureau. I wish I had the resources to sue these crooks.
[0] http://www.yelp.com.au/biz/unlimited-recovery-raleigh
[+] [-] bostonpete|12 years ago|reply
In other news, the estranged wife of a Peruvian crime boss turned up dead at 8:30 this morning...
[+] [-] sequoia|12 years ago|reply
"The most troubling lesson she learned from Mullen, Gomez says, is how readily misleading information can migrate from a posting on an Internet forum to official status. “In a second, what’s false becomes true,” she observes. “All it takes is for one person to put it on the record.” That seems to be what happened with Mullen’s Most Wanted status. A spokeswoman from the US Marshals Service told WIRED that Deputy Sheasby knew nothing about a $2 million cybertheft by Mullen until he was told by “an investigator,” and that he’d passed on the story only because he felt obliged to make other investigators aware of everything he had heard."
Looks like the barrier between social network/forums etc. & official record are pretty porous.
[+] [-] larrydag|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmorici|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfmercer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelwww|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wellpast|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|12 years ago|reply
Success rate relative to cost or time taken?
[+] [-] CamperBob2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobeat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|12 years ago|reply
The responsible parties. "Everything" and "wrong" are utterly vague. But, assume you mean something like Mullen tries to escape and her bodyguard shoots him in the back. It would be up to local DA if they wanted to prosecute, perhaps including bounty hunter as accomplice. Mullen's family could sue for wrongful death.
tldr; laws don't magically disappear just cause bounty hunters are involved.
[+] [-] run4_too|12 years ago|reply
You could do pretty much the same thing with a law degree and earn a ton more.
[+] [-] drivingmissm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coupdejarnac|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevewillows|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alextingle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polskibus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ableal|12 years ago|reply
The most troubling lesson she learned from Mullen, Gomez says, is how readily misleading information can migrate from a posting on an Internet forum to official status. “In a second, what’s false becomes true,” she observes. “All it takes is for one person to put it on the record.”
P.S. Wired's comments are worth a look.
[+] [-] anonymouscowar1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewfong|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runjake|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrandonMarc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JimA|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gscott|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiderPig|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrandonMarc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thret|12 years ago|reply
Good stories do not need to be embellished with images of apartment windows or empty parking lots.
[+] [-] JoblessWonder|12 years ago|reply
However, if you are arguing that the images are ineffective I might agree. It looks like this article was included in the Print edition so I'd imagine the photos were chosen to match with the article's layout there as opposed to the online version.
[+] [-] vaadu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
I guess everyone finally learned that information on the internet can be false. :-)
[+] [-] js2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abhi3188|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ballard|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squirejons|12 years ago|reply