Bitcoin FBI Report April 2012

[Matthew N. Wright]

In light of new evidence, I'm inclined to believe that the document is real and the source who wants to remain anonymous is unwilling to explain publicly. It is however still possible that the source is lying and just made it himself and doesn't want to be persecuted publicly. Either way, I think his job is at risk by coming clean either way so I'll just say that without proof directly from the FBI I would still recommend that journalists with any self respect at least mention that this PDF is suspect and unverified and not quote it directly as if the FBI handed it to you themselves like Wired did.

[1715031690]

1715031690

[1715031690]

1715031690

[1715031690]

1715031690

[SgtSpike]

Sorry to quote this from earlier, but I think this pretty much sums it up. The style of writing is the biggest give-away here! It is completely off. Plus the insider-bitcoiner references. I wonder if someone here is pretending to subjectively comment on this when in fact they made it themselves. 

Yeah, I think SgtSpike made this all up so that he could earn 10 BTC by "retyping" it. 

No, but that would have been a clever idea!

I still stand by the sheer amount of time spent on this.  Again, if it was a troll/fake, whoever made it still did spend 100's of hours compiling it all together.  I certainly wouldn't do that for only 10 BTC!

...much less for the lulz...

Exactly - that's Matthew's job. 

Either way, I think his job is at risk by coming clean either way so I'll just say that without proof directly from the FBI I would still recommend that journalists with any self respect at least mention that this PDF is suspect and unverified and not quote it directly as if the FBI handed it to you themselves like Wired did.

Agreed.  Unless they actually did verify it, but I doubt that...

[MarketNeutral]

Don't assume rational behavior. Economists do, and that's why they can never explain anything.

ALso, the language of this document simply doesn't strike me as being bureaucratic and self-important enough.

And as a counterpoint to the "too much time to fake it" argument, I attest that over the course of my life, there have been many occasions I've spent more time and energy on school projects, work projects, pranks, and other endeavors that yielded far less profit and lulz relative to the effort necessary to accomplish them than the author of this document has possibly gained.

[SgtSpike]

And as a counterpoint to the "too much time to fake it" argument, I attest that over the course of my life, there have been many occasions I've spent more time and energy on school projects, work projects, pranks, and other endeavors that yielded far less profit and lulz relative to the effort necessary to accomplish them than the author of this document has possibly gained.

Fair enough. 

I disagree on the language thing.  My guess is they had to make sure the language wasn't too fancy, and the overview on Bitcoin wasn't too complex, because the intention of this document was to inform the law enforcement of the rest of the world about the current and potential criminal uses of Bitcoins.  Even though it appears as though all of the agencies on the distribution list speak English (I didn't look up what the acronym'd ones are though), they might still be concerned about minor language differences between the different cultures causing confusion, misunderstandings, etc.  Better to be safe by using simple and consistent language.

I also wouldn't expect an FBI paper to be as bureaucratic as, say, a propose bill from congress.  I was a bit surprised at how "unbureaucractic" it sounded myself, but it makes sense given that the FBI doesn't need to use lawyerly talk in documents like this.

[moocow1452]

Guys, the Big Lion Watermark doesn't do anything for you guys? Looks more like a community college mascot then the real mccoy, since the head is floating in space.

[JusticeForYou]

In light of new evidence, I'm inclined to believe that the document is real and the source who wants to remain anonymous is unwilling to explain publicly. It is however still possible that the source is lying and just made it himself and doesn't want to be persecuted publicly. Either way, I think his job is at risk by coming clean either way so I'll just say that without proof directly from the FBI I would still recommend that journalists with any self respect at least mention that this PDF is suspect and unverified and not quote it directly as if the FBI handed it to you themselves like Wired did.

I still don't believe in its authenticity as presented in the original document simply because of the artifacts on the 1st page in the originally presented document. The transcribed document used by Wired and the other news sources that reference Wired shouldn't be presented as an original (props to Sgt). The originally released document might have been altered for presentation effect but the basis of the report correct.

A distribution list has been published at the end of the document. The RCMP and New Zealand Police would probably tell a News Agency if they have received a similar document and could confirm the authenticity as presented before a FOIA Request would respond.

I must admit the 'report' did a better job sourcing than many news reports do today. I really would wish that this reputable agency would put a basic sourcing claimer at the bottom of their stories. Something simple: A source from <Insert Agency> here has confirmed.

Because of the way the story is being presented in the press: The FBI Fears Bitcoin, it will do more good than harm to Bitcoin and draw a lot of people to BTC. So, I would expect the FBI to make some statement about the report if it is false.

btw: A method of detecting leak sources is to slightly alter the distributed documents to each agency. So if a leak occurs, it is immediately determined within a reasonable suspicion which agency has the leak.

I assumed people have checked, the original document, for government approved font type.

[SgtSpike]

In light of new evidence, I'm inclined to believe that the document is real and the source who wants to remain anonymous is unwilling to explain publicly. It is however still possible that the source is lying and just made it himself and doesn't want to be persecuted publicly. Either way, I think his job is at risk by coming clean either way so I'll just say that without proof directly from the FBI I would still recommend that journalists with any self respect at least mention that this PDF is suspect and unverified and not quote it directly as if the FBI handed it to you themselves like Wired did.

I still don't believe in its authenticity as presented in the original document simply because of the artifacts on the 1st page in the originally presented document. The transcribed document used by Wired and the other news sources that reference Wired shouldn't be presented as an original (props to Sgt). The originally released document might have been altered for presentation effect but the basis of the report correct.

A distribution list has been published at the end of the document. The RCMP and New Zealand Police would probably tell a News Agency if they have received a similar document and could confirm the authenticity as presented before a FOIA Request would respond.

I must admit the 'report' did a better job sourcing than many news reports do today. I really would wish that this reputable agency would put a basic sourcing claimer at the bottom of their stories. Something simple: A source from <Insert Agency> here has confirmed.

Because of the way the story is being presented in the press: The FBI Fears Bitcoin, it will do more good than harm to Bitcoin and draw a lot of people to BTC. So, I would expect the FBI to make some statement about the report if it is false.

btw: A method of detecting leak sources is to slightly alter the distributed documents to each agency. So if a leak occurs, it is immediately determined within a reasonable suspicion which agency has the leak.

I assumed people have checked, the original document, for government approved font type.

I am curious, what artifacts on the first page of the original document are you speaking of?  Not trying to challenge that it is fake or real, but just want to know what you saw.

The original document was completely Times New Roman, and I did mine to match.  Font was size 12 or 10 throughout the entire document, with the exception of the superscripts (duh) and the front page.

The one thing that I noticed that did seem curious was the (U) in the largest font on the front page didn't seem to quite match the (U) on my front page.  Mine seemed a bit wider.  Couldn't figure out why that was, even though I played with the font for a while...

EDIT:  It's almost as though the kerning was changed on that largest font to move all the letters closer to each other.  Though, it could just be something about the way the original was rendered to a PDF...

EDIT2:  Lol, just found two rather major mistakes as I was looking back through my document again... the footnotes on pages 4 and 5 are completely the wrong font!  It was defaulting to Calibri, and I thought I had changes all of it to times, but I must've missed those two pages... oops.  I guess anyone who wants to prove to wired that they don't have the original can now do so.   

[JusticeForYou]

Sgt,

Referencing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/92797476/FBI-Bitcoin-Report-April-2012 as the original. The logo ridged edges around the boarders. This could easily be solved but was not. Anyone printing and/or seeing it would immediately see the Cut/Paste of the logo which would seem very, Unofficial, Unprofessional, and very Unclassified. But it might have just been an 'intern' creating the document, since there really wasn't any useful information in the report for the agencies in which it was distributed. I can imagine people at those agencies after reading it saying: "Geesh Thanks, next time just send a link to bitcointalk.org and save some tax payer dollars." OR "Hey fellas, we have 'another' FBI report; lunch time."

But as said, the contents might be correct and things added later.

[SgtSpike]

Aren't the ridged edges of the Bitcoin logo simply due to the low quality of the entire document though?

[JusticeForYou]

Aren't the ridged edges of the Bitcoin logo simply due to the low quality of the entire document though?

Oh, you mean the edges were even more clear?

I suppose it could be tested.

Meh... Not really that concerned as to the report.

I am more impressed with your work and speed in transcribing then the original authors efforts put into the report.

::Props::

[SgtSpike]

Aren't the ridged edges of the Bitcoin logo simply due to the low quality of the entire document though?

Oh, you mean the edges were even more clear?

I suppose it could be tested.

Meh... Not really that concerned as to the report.

I am more impressed with your work and speed in transcribing then the original authors efforts put into the report.

::Props::

Yeah, it'd be difficult to test without having the better-quality original to test with.

Haha, thanks.  I really wanted that bounty, and had some competition, so I had to do it quick!

[julz]

Well it now looks like it was authentic.
Adrianne Jeffries of BetaBeat reports that she has confirmed it with the FBI.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81787.0

The report was not classified, but it was marked “for official use only.” Betabeat, Wired, and a number of blogs ran with the story without confirming the report’s authenticity, but today we got a call back from the FBI. “It is legitimate, but it was not leaked by the government,” an FBI representative told Betabeat.

[Raoul Duke]

Well it now looks like it was authentic.
Adrianne Jeffries of BetaBeat reports that she has confirmed it with the FBI.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81787.0

The report was not classified, but it was marked “for official use only.” Betabeat, Wired, and a number of blogs ran with the story without confirming the report’s authenticity, but today we got a call back from the FBI. “It is legitimate, but it was not leaked by the government,” an FBI representative told Betabeat.

So much for the naysayers...

How stupid do you all look now?

[nybble41]

Don't assume rational behavior. Economists do, and that's why they can never explain anything.

The only sense in which economics "assume" rational behavior is, in fact, a tautological axiom. The axiom states that given a choice between two or more goods, an actor will choose the good which is highest on his or her internal scale of preferences. The scale itself, however, is an unknown and unknowable element outside of the individual's own psyche; they are probably not even consciously aware of all their preferences at any given moment. Preferences can also change over time. All one can know of another person's preferences are the snapshots revealed through their choices. Therefore, there is no way that any set of observed choices could possibly contradict the axiom. Given the choice, it is simply more productive to think of action in terms of objectively rational choices between subjectively-valued goods than vise-versa.

The well-founded economic models take the subjective theory of value as a given, being careful not to exclude non-material goods, and consequently are able make perfectly good predictions. The less-well-founded (e.g. utilitarian) models assume objective relations between the values of various goods, based on unreliable indicators such as historical prices, surveys, and "common sense", and are left trying to explain why people seem to behave "irrationally".