What We Do

We [FIND] things, people, places, solutions, ideas, answers, evidence, truth, etc.

[FIND] it here
[FIND] Social Media
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.

Entries in "The Economist" (3)

Tuesday
Sep202011

Interrogation - Backwards and Forwards

Police inquisitors, detectives, and interrogators have long been taught that one method of getting to the truth is to have the subject recount events in reverse order. The theory appears sound: people like to fill in the blanks in a story with constructs, thoughts or images that did not actually happen, to make a tale run smoother. Remove the linear nature of storytelling and the tendency to confabulate should decrease. The theory is so sound, in fact, that police forces in Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Norway, and Spain, to name a few, have been using reverse recall as a matter of policy for years.

I attended a seminar on interviewing where the speaker actually said that this method of interrogation was the most useful way to elicit a truthful statement from an interviewee. “They don’t have the time or the creativity to make things up in reverse-recall,” my instructor said.

Well, as with many a fine theory, when put to scientific rigor, it falls short.

A brief story in September 2, 2011 issue of The Economist details a study by Lancaster University which basically debunks this theory. The researchers showed a short film depicting a cell phone robbery. Two days later the subjects of the test were separated into three groups: 1 – recall the events freely then in reverse order, 2 – recall the robbery in reverse order first then freely, 3 - (control group) recall the events freely both times.

The researchers found that the control group recalled the events correctly 48.7 percent of the time. The group that began with reverse-recall and then recounted the story freely scored 42.2 percent accuracy. The group that started with free recall then reverse-recall scored a pathetic 38.7 percent. I think it’s important to note that eyewitness testimony has already been proven to be less than reliable on several occasions. Seriously, none of the groups achieved even 50% correct recall.

The most interesting finding, however, was that the number of mistakes made among the three groups was roughly the same, but the group that recalled events in reverse order first, actually made up (pure confabulation) recollections 600% more often than the control group.

The majority of the confabulations were observed during the reverse recall portion of the exam. This flies directly in the face of what I’ve been taught in seminars and classes about interview and interrogation.

Why people, people who have no reason whatsoever to lie, make up events when using reverse-recall is a mystery. The Economist says that this study, “…does, however, point out the dangers of taking even logically plausible ideas on trust, rather than testing them.”

Those of you who testify as expert witnesses in court proceedings might want to check out the study here. It could come in handy one day.

Tuesday
Mar012011

Sleuthing Social Sites

In September, The Economist ran an article titled "Untangling the Social Web." Pursuit Magazine recently published the first of a four-part series last month called "The Power of Social Media." PI Magazine regularly addresses this topic. Everyone--investigators, creative professionals, and entrepreneurs of all kinds--aims to harness this so-called power, but few of us know quite how.

Clearly, social media is a two-edged sword, one we professional investigators can, and must, learn to wield in both directions.

An Investigative Tool

I still find it amazing that some detectives-for-hire view technology with suspicion. A recent article in our local newspaper featured a retired DEA agent-cum-PI proudly asserting, "They call it the ol' gumshoe...no amount of technology is a substitute for knocking on doors and putting in the legwork."

Really? What about when someone doesn't want to willingly cough up the information you need? The "ol' gumshoe" isn't just about putting mileage on your feet. It's a metaphor for problem solving, which means availing yourself of the very best tools--from your mind, eyes, and ears, to electronic substitutes thereof.

Case Study - Choir Boy or Criminal?

Last year we were hired to compile a profile of a man involved in a high-stakes lawsuit. "He's a choir boy,"his family told investigators. "Always doin' good. Ain't never use drugs."

Problem: strolling the subject's neighborhood and knocking on doors was a pretty unlikely way to find out any real information about him. We would've been spotted immediately as outsiders in the community and viewed with extreme suspicion. But in the virtual neighborhood of social media, it's pretty easy to assume a believable disguise and join in the conversation.

As the subject's new online acquaintance,  a whole world opened to us. Photos and comments about the subject painted a completely different picture of his personality and habits. The mythological choir boy image didn't stand up well against a photograph of the youth proudly puffing a blunt whilst flashing a gangster pose. Using connections linked to his page, we also identified a vast list of potential witnesses, uncovered other questionable activities, and unearthed at least three other social media sites portraying the young fellow's extralegal antics.

Case Study - Globetrotting Tweeter

A client hired us to locate a person who'd left the scene of a car accident. The young woman proved elusive and failed to return numerous phone calls from an attorney. The sheriff's office had given up after trying three times to serve subpoenas to her last known address.

We surmised that the demographic in question (women, mid-twenties) can scarcely evacuate their bowels these days without documenting said activities on Facebook and Twitter. It didn't take much techno-gumshoe poking around to discover her Facebook page and Twitter feed. Conveniently, the young lady enjoyed tweeting incessantly on the subject of her location and future travel plans. Cozumel, Isla Mujeres, L.A. (including her actual street address! She checked in on FourSquare.) I forwarded her Twitter handle to the client, and he had her served in California two days later...on the first try.

Observations

A typical skip trace might run a search via IRB and Tracers Info. The address would've turned up nothing except for the house her father maintained while serving five for insurance fraud. The sheriff's office didn't find her there, and neither would a social-media-phobic investigator. Our tweeting sweetheart hadn't been there in years.

Case Study - FCPA Due Diligence

One case promised to take us to exotic, sunny locales to perform clandestine shenanigans for fun and profit. Unfortunately, we were able to pull together enough information using databases, law enforcement sources, and a healthy dose of Facebook revelations to convince our client not to do business with this subject. If it weren't for social media, we'd have a lot more stamps in our passports right now, and our client would be out several grand in travel expenses.

Conclusions

I could go on and on, but you get the point. I understand that canvassing and in-person interviews are valuable tools. But to exclude new and innovative methods of analysis isn't just short sighted, it borders on crazy. New technology isn't an excuse to avoid old-school detective work. It's an opportunity to use the ol' gumshoe skills virtually, in a global neighborhood. It allows an investigator's eyes and ears to blanket the world.

Coming Soon, check out Part Two: Marketing in a Social Media Age

Thursday
Apr292010

TMI – Information Overload


I’m a reader. I tear through a magazine in a couple of hours, reading, consuming, and drinking in information. I like to discover what others are thinking, what topics are hot, what’s happening in the greater world…outside of our little burg of Nashville. I surf industry related blogs. I subscribe to several business related magazines. I try to blaze through a good fiction novel every other week or so. I consume information. I’m a reader.

 

Boarding a plane for Jacksonville, FL in March, I picked up a copy of "The Economist," a magazine that appeals to the marketing nerd in me. The cover of the February/March, 2010 issue bore, in a typically inoffensive British font, the title, “The Data Deluge.” So I boarded my flight, eager to learn what this uber-smart Anglo rag had to say about Too Much Information.

The first example of exactly how much data we’re dealing with came in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this 14-page special report: “When the Sloan Digital Sky Survey started work in 2000, its telescope in New Mexico collected more data in its first few weeks than had been amassed in the entire history of astronomy.” A newer telescope in Chile, scheduled to come online in 2016, will gather, “the same quantity of data every five days.”

 

What to do with all this data? (Or is it “these” data?)

Bytes, megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes, we’re even up to petabytes (seriously??) at the commercial and government level, and world-wide there exist today about 1.2 zettabytes of raw data stored (1,000 times 10 billion copies of The Economist magazine). Yottabytes are just around the corner (no one has come up with a way to imagine this number yet.) The point is, there’s a lot of information out there and it’s growing…fast.

However, data is not knowledge. In its now rare singular form, the word “datum” means “a piece of information” – in other words, a single observation or occurrence. “Data,” as a plural noun or singular mass noun (the latter being more commonly used), refers to items of information or a body of information.

If you’ll bear with my brief epistemological rant, in the end, it’s really not data we’re after, but knowledge. Like the hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings of Douglas Adams’s “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” series, we often doggedly pursue the former, all the while hoping for the latter to magically spring forth, like Athena from Zeus’s head.

If you’re new to the “HHTTG” series, the pan-dimensional beings create a supercomputer called “Deep Thought” to calculate the “Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.” After 7.5 million years, Deep Thought spits out the answer: which is, simply, 42. Deep Thought explains, in typically sci-fi earnest computer logic, that the question is really the crux of the issue, and that he is unable to compute it.

Knowledge requires a human element. The word's definition includes a nod to a familiarity with facts or data, but it suggests something greater than mere information storage. It suggests understanding, which can only be gained by experience.

Knowledge is the narrative we construct to tie together and explain the data we’ve collected. Which means…sometimes it’s wrong.

 

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

The highlight for me of that issue of The Economist was the phrase, “Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.” I had a nice chuckle over that one, and then it set me to thinking about the potential pitfalls of collecting all this information. A computer may be able to store yottabytes of the stuff, but we humans possess a far inferior capacity to comb through it all, figure out what it means, and translate it into something coherent. To turn it into knowledge, in other words.

For a case study in too much information and a complete human failure to turn it into knowledge, let’s look to Northwest Flight 253, in which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his crotch with a DIY thong bomb. In the post-operation analysis, it came to light that his parents had warned US officials that their odd son likely posed a threat to US national security. Those officials keyed his name into their huge database, containing over 550,000 people who “posed a threat.”

The database is rife with redundancy, typos, mis-filings, and it’s not at all unusual for a single name to get lost in the dross. No one connected the dots. No one really knew how. Robert Jervis, of the Boston Globe wrote in a January 2010 article, “The problems with our intelligence system aren’t primarily problems with information; they are problems with how we think.” They are problems with knowledge, and how we create it.

Jervis contends that we, as human beings, tend to “…excel at perceiving patterns and making up stories that bring the coherence that we need in order to act.” This seems like a good thing, a survival mechanism, an innate ability to quickly get our minds around a problem and do something. Problem is, once we see a pattern, we tend to get kinda stuck on that idea. We “see patterns quite quickly and then tend to ignore information that might disprove them.” This tendency to get stuck on an idea is known in psychological circles as “premature cognitive closure.” This is the exact type of intelligence process that lead the CIA into “knowing” that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when, as we all know now, there were none.

One interesting observation that Jervis makes about the WMD snafu in Iraq is that the analysts ignored the fact that a substantial amount of information that should have been there, had Iraq been in possession of WMD’s, was missing. Think Sherlock Holmes making note of the dog “not barking” as the most important clue in a case.

The final point that Jervis makes is that the CIA’s conclusions, “often rest on assumptions that are not readily testable,” assumptions that may even be immune to dispute. If you assume that the lack of evidence pointing to WMD’s is a massive deception or cover-up on the part of Saddam’s regime, then the WMD program, like any negative, becomes virtually impossible to disprove.

Interestingly, people expect the government to have a perfect understanding of what the bad guys are doing, all of the bad guys at once, and yet people are, as Jervis notes, “often surprised to discover that their own spouses have been cheating on them.”

 

Data, Knowledge, and the Private Investigator

Fortunately, we private investigators usually don’t have to sift through yottabytes of data to identify suspected miscreants from a list of thousands. Our clients often supply us with that information up front, leaving us free to focus on a single target or person of interest. If we’re lucky, the client may be able to help paint a picture of the target’s activities and lifestyle, such a favorite bar or hangout or a subject’s typical daily schedule.

Our data gathering looks a little different (and more mundane) than the CIA’s does. We wade through records, pull trash, surf the usual social networking haunts, spend hours, days, or weeks quietly observing a subject’s behavior and activities, and we organize all of that intelligence for you.

For one case a few years back, we assembled two three-ring binders full of well-organized receipts, printed web pages, business cards, and personal correspondence, all pointing to the fact that the client’s spouse was having an extramarital relationship.  In addition to observing the subject (and paramour) and documenting their behavior with video and photographs, we were able to show our client (and subsequently the mediator) a certain amount of money that the cheating spouse had been spending on the paramour over the past several months. How much impact do you think that had on alimony?

Mostly, a private investigator’s job is just what I’ve described: to collect and organize data for his clients. But sometimes, a client needs something more: knowledge.

Often, our clients have hired us because they’ve found themselves in a bewildering and painful personal situation: a betrayal of some kind, by a spouse or business partner, say. These are situations in which the human factor, that magic x-factor that interprets data and sculpts it into a story that enlightens us, often leads us astray. When people are in the kind of emotional state that usually accompanies betrayal by a spouse, friend, or colleague, it’s particularly difficult to interpret facts objectively; we flawed humans tend to torture the information until it tells us what we want to hear, or what we have already convinced ourselves is true.

That’s why sometimes, a distraught client might need a little help on the knowledge front – an independent, experienced, objective third-party observer who can offer alternate interpretations of the facts at hand, uncolored by personal interest or emotion. A private investigator is your very own personal operative, the person you can rely on to gather the pertinent information and help you put it together in a meaningful way.

As PIs, we have to be very cautious about offering interpretations and opinions. However, it is certainly our job, and our responsibility, to test and question our clients’ assumptions, and to sometimes serve as our clients’ guide through the difficult and painful minefield of turning facts into knowledge. And it’s absolutely our job to be sure that we gather the facts necessary to support that knowledge beyond any reasonable doubt or refutation.