• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

How a drug dealer’s IP was found out by package tracking

SteamboatBillJr

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
552
ArsTechnica said:
How a drug dealer’s IP was found out by package tracking
Suspect routinely checked tracking on shipments of methylone from China.

by Cyrus Farivar - May 15, 2015 7:10 pm UTC




A federal drug case in Massachusetts has shed new light on how the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) law enforcement unit uses something as simple as IP logs on the postal tracking website to investigate crimes.

According to a December 2013 affidavit of an ongoing federal criminal case in Rockland, Massachusetts, one alleged drug dealer named Harold Bates was found out simply by the digital trail he left on the USPS' Track n’ Confirm website. The affidavit was added to the court docket in January 2015, and the case was first reported by Motherboard.

Bates was charged back in March 2014 with conspiracy to import methylone (also known as "molly"), importation of methylone, and possession with intent to distribute methylone, among other crimes. Last month, the judge in the case ruled against Bates in his attempt to supress evidence seized in those packages.

The judge’s memorandum and order explains that postal investigators found 500 grams of a substance that turned out to be methylone in a package to be delivered in Hollywood, Florida. That statement could suggest that investigators found the suspicious package first and then manually checked IP logs to see if anyone had been searching for tracking information. Once they located Bates’ IP address, they may have checked to see if it had been used to search for other packages.

But in the affidavit, United States Postal inspector Stephen Dowd seems to imply that this link happened in a more automated fashion.

As he wrote, "The USPS database reflected that an individual using a computer or other device with IP address 75.67.6.214 accessed the USPS Track 'n Confirm website to track the progress of both the Florida Parcel and Bates Parcel #1."

Neither the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) nor Bates’ attorneys responded to Ars’ multiple requests for comment.

Ahmed Ghappour, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, told Ars that he has never seen a case like this before. "What’s most bizarre about this case is the tip-off by algorithm," he said. "It seems that the investigation was triggered by a system that mines Track N’ Confirm user-data in order to detect suspicious activity."

"The Dowd affidavit is very clear that Postal Inspectors discovered a connection between packages delivered to Florida and Massachusetts before initiating contact and obtaining consent to search the Florida package," Ghappour said. "The affidavit is not clear whether the mere act of tracking packages addressed to different cities was sufficient to trigger the investigation or whether other factors, such as foreign return address, came into play."


You’ve got mail from China

The affidavit provides further detail on how Bates was investigated.

Once the USPIS found the matching IP addresses, it quickly determined that they belonged to a Comcast IP block. After requesting Comcast to hand over subscriber data, investigators found that the subscriber linked to the IP address at the time was someone named Matthew Demaggio of Rockland, Massachusetts.

After checking further records, the USPIS determined that Demaggio has been in jail in Massachusetts since September 2013 due to an armed robbery conviction. The USPIS then checked what postal mail was being delivered to the Rockland address and found that it was being addressed to Bates.

I have verified through a USPS letter carrier that Bates regularly received mail at the Bates Residence for at least the past six months through the present. I also reviewed records maintained at the Rockland Post Office and determined that five prior Express Mail parcels from either China or Hong Kong had arrived addressed to Bates at the Bates Residence since October 21, 2013.

For three of those packages, Bates had called ahead to the post office and arranged to come pick them up in person rather than wait for them to be delivered. So Dowd and his colleagues anticipated that he might do this again.

On November 13, 2013, Bates Parcel #1 arrived at the Rockland post office, and Dowd arranged for a controlled delivery—he secretly watched Bates arrive in the building and pick it up.


A dog named Lucky

There, Bates picked up his package and paid for a postal scale with $50 in cash. He and a woman that he was with drove to East Water Street in Rockland, where Massachusetts State Police (MSP) were surveilling his residence. The MSP watched as Bates placed two large white plastic garbage bags in a dumpster behind his building. Once Bates and the woman drove away, the MSP retrieved the bags.

Inside the bags was a host of evidence suggesting that Bates was involved in some sort of business from China.

By December 2013, the two USPIS packages from China had arrived, and both had been tracked with the same Comcast IP address. Updates were being sent to the e-mail address [email protected], the address previously associated with package tracking.

Dowd called an officer in the nearby Braintree Police Department to bring his drug-sniffing dog "Lucky."

I traveled with the two parcels to the USPS facility in Braintree, Massachusetts, where I placed the Parcel #2 and Parcel #3 at different ends of a large loading dock. I also placed six other innocent parcels among the two suspect parcels as controls.

Officer Seibert advised that upon reaching Parcel #2 and Parcel #3, "Lucky" reacted in a positive manner for the scent of controlled substances. No further indications were observed in the search area. Based on my training and experience, I know that a positive alert means that the parcels contain narcotics or were recently in close proximity to narcotics.

Dowd then "assumed the role of letter carrier" and attempted to deliver the packages to a woman named Julie Carlozzi at a different address on Maple Street, just a half mile away from Bates’ East Water Street residence. When Carlozzi didn’t respond, Dowd left a notice of a missed delivery. Less than an hour later, Carlozzi called the post office and said she would come pick them up in person.

When she picked up the packages, she was followed by undercover law enforcement. She drove to a nearby Rite Aid where she met Bates, who took the packages from her and put them in his car.

Based on these observations, the authorities sought and received a sealed warrant to search Bates’ packages and his home, and USPIS planned for a controlled delivery of two more packages for Carlozzi.

The bust took place the next day, on December 7, 2013. Carlozzi picked up her packages and drove to the same Rite Aid, where she again met Bates. The surveillance tail lost Carlozzi while another group stayed with Bates. After he stopped for gas, law enforcement made their move to arrest him.

Bates was arrested and taken to the Rockland Police Department, where he was interviewed. He waived his Miranda Rights and told the officers that he "received an e-mail from someone in China" and began ordering molly from that person; he paid for it with Western Union money transfers. He also consented to a search of his laptop and iPhone and gave officers the passwords to his e-mail and Skype accounts.

Bates’ trial is set to begin in federal court in Boston on August 10, 2015.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/how-the-usps-targeted-a-drug-dealer-via-his-ip-address/
 
People should have it in their heads by now: don't do anything like this without masking your IP address.
 
People should have it in their heads by now: don't do anything like this without masking your IP address.

Checking tracking with proxies such as TOR is worse. USPS (and presumably other companies) flag communication from suspicious IP addresses. Additionally they keep records of phone numbers accessing the 1-800 numbers and because computers process the items they have records of sender/recipient data on every address. As bad as the aforementioned is the big threat is the NSAs continuing surveillance and the governments other programs, for example the Special Operations Division.

Occasionally specific surveillance is warranted. Dragnet surveillance used in limiting my peaceful political dissent and/or my activities in the privacy of my home isn't. My government uses these weapons against people such as me because I peacefully obtain psychedelics and they are the only tool I could use in getting well from schizophrenia, or people treating pain and anorexia with marijuana, or PTSD with MDMA. I thought in representative democracy people controlled the government. Though in this country the government controls the people in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dea#Special_Operations_Division_fabricated_evidence_trails
 
Why in the world would they use the usps?

Good lord that is allot of tax payer money for 500grams, I could understand multi kg's but 500g's?
 
now that's an interesting bit. probably very close to truth for many parts of the u.s.

I know, right? And the guy waived his miranda rights and SAID he was importing molly.. so sad.. I wonder if he even knows what the difference (legal and chemical) is between bk-MDMA and MDMA

Why in the world would they use the usps?

Good lord that is allot of tax payer money for 500grams, I could understand multi kg's but 500g's?

There were multiple packages so it was probably over a kg in total. Plus, once it was flagged and they investigated, it's hard to stop and investigation, if you know he's doing ANYTHING illegal, it's hard to stop.
 
Based on my training and experience, I know that a positive alert means that the parcels contain narcotics or were recently in close proximity to narcotics.

Sounds like some bs to me.

Bates was arrested and taken to the Rockland Police Department, where he was interviewed. He waived his Miranda Rights and told the officers that he "received an e-mail from someone in China" and began ordering molly from that person; he paid for it with Western Union money transfers. He also consented to a search of his laptop and iPhone and gave officers the passwords to his e-mail and Skype accounts.

Folded big time!
What an idiot, good bye freedom.
 
I'm wondering if he ACTUALLY consented to any of that. For all we know they just tased and beat it out of him.
 
Folded big time!
What an idiot, good bye freedom.

For sure. I wonder if he told them about his impure thoughts of his older sister, that he sometimes cried when he watched chick flicks, and how often he ignores the speed limit while driving.

I'm wondering if he ACTUALLY consented to any of that. For all we know they just tased and beat it out of him.

He for sure did, very few police departments use physical violence (this part refers to after arresting a suspect) anymore, especially when many people are stupid enough to waive their miranda rights (or say anything at all) and basically build an entire case against themselves in a few sentences. There is no reason to be physically abusive, you can be far more devious and manipulative with kindness making the person feel at ease. Through suggestion and 'acting' you can convince the individual that the crime they committed is no big deal - then after they spill their guts you slap them with the 10 felonies.

They would also destroy their prosecution, coerced confessions are inadmissible, being abusive would get the charges dropped in a second, beating and tasering someone for that confession would also get them a hefty amount of money after they file their seven figure lawsuit against whatever agencies are involved.

Police using excessive force is quite prevalent especially against minorities and the poor, but in these situations usually small amounts of force are justified and the amount administered is left up to the individuals personal judgement. This is far more easily defended against from the law enforcement perspective (stepping on their neck and compressing their chest/hitting them after they've given up even though they stopped resisting, though they were resisting arrest before). What almost never happens is physical abuse to coerce a confession, it doesn't happen because it almost never works (without being caught anyway), makes information gained inadmissible and is a crime in and of itself. This is especially true in large police departments where there are several people always present/involved in interrogation and charging, if it ever happens it will be in small rural agencies where they are far more likely to know the handful of people who make up the whole department as well as be friendly with judges/prosecutors.
 
Top