Discussion of Leaked FBI Report on Bitcoin- April 2012

[jgarzik]

Current top post on cryptome.org: http://cryptome.org/2012/05/fbi-bitcoin.pdf

[barbarousrelic]

I also suspect it is fake, a lot of the language sounds like it is from the Bitcointalk forums and not the FBI.

[MarketNeutral]

The language doesn't seem right. I suspect fake.

[imsaguy]

If you look at the original, they alternate between capitalizing and not capitalizing bitcoin.  Review what was actually said about MtGox and then contemplate what information you would have included about them had you written the report.

[PatrickHarnett]

It was a nice run for my OCR software - only took a few minutes to make into a proper document.

[SgtSpike]

It was a nice run for my OCR software - only took a few minutes to make into a proper document.

Post it up - let's compare. 

[SgtSpike]

If you look at the original, they alternate between capitalizing and not capitalizing bitcoin.  Review what was actually said about MtGox and then contemplate what information you would have included about them had you written the report.

See below:

(U//FOUO) This assessment will not address malicious actors outside of the cyber underground,
such as traditional organized crime groups, extremist groups, or child predators. Throughout the
paper, the term “Bitcoin,” when capitalized, refers to both the open source software used to
create the virtual currency and the P2P network formed as a result; “bitcoin” using lower case
refers to the virtual currency that is digitally traded between users.

Though they don't hold to this convention in every single case, I think it was just bad proofing on their part.  Can't make it perfect, I guess.  But I partially suspect multiple writers simply because of slight variations like this (and varied spacing in the footnote references) between the earlier and later parts of the document.

None of you who are calling fake have even explained what possible motive a person could have to fake a document like this?  Why on earth would someone spend hundreds of hours to go through the complexity and detail that is shown in this document?

Likely, the language that "comes from the forum" is because the writer(s) of the document spent a good deal of time on the forum for research.  They picked up on the lingo, such as the "stabilization" of bitcoin, etc, because that is what is talked about.  They have at least 2 endnotes that reference threads in the forum as well.

[PatrickHarnett]

It was a nice run for my OCR software - only took a few minutes to make into a proper document.

Post it up - let's compare. 

I binned it, but I'll send you a copy if you like - pm me an email and I'll ping it across.

[imsaguy]

If you look at the original, they alternate between capitalizing and not capitalizing bitcoin.  Review what was actually said about MtGox and then contemplate what information you would have included about them had you written the report.

See below:

(U//FOUO) This assessment will not address malicious actors outside of the cyber underground,
such as traditional organized crime groups, extremist groups, or child predators. Throughout the
paper, the term “Bitcoin,” when capitalized, refers to both the open source software used to
create the virtual currency and the P2P network formed as a result; “bitcoin” using lower case
refers to the virtual currency that is digitally traded between users.

Though they don't hold to this convention in every single case, I think it was just bad proofing on their part.  Can't make it perfect, I guess.  But I partially suspect multiple writers simply because of slight variations like this (and varied spacing in the footnote references) between the earlier and later parts of the document.

None of you who are calling fake have even explained what possible motive a person could have to fake a document like this?  Why on earth would someone spend hundreds of hours to go through the complexity and detail that is shown in this document?

Likely, the language that "comes from the forum" is because the writer(s) of the document spent a good deal of time on the forum for research.  They picked up on the lingo, such as the "stabilization" of bitcoin, etc, because that is what is talked about.  They have at least 2 endnotes that reference threads in the forum as well.

Ok, great.  Now how about my second point?

[SgtSpike]

If you look at the original, they alternate between capitalizing and not capitalizing bitcoin.  Review what was actually said about MtGox and then contemplate what information you would have included about them had you written the report.

See below:

(U//FOUO) This assessment will not address malicious actors outside of the cyber underground,
such as traditional organized crime groups, extremist groups, or child predators. Throughout the
paper, the term “Bitcoin,” when capitalized, refers to both the open source software used to
create the virtual currency and the P2P network formed as a result; “bitcoin” using lower case
refers to the virtual currency that is digitally traded between users.

Though they don't hold to this convention in every single case, I think it was just bad proofing on their part.  Can't make it perfect, I guess.  But I partially suspect multiple writers simply because of slight variations like this (and varied spacing in the footnote references) between the earlier and later parts of the document.

None of you who are calling fake have even explained what possible motive a person could have to fake a document like this?  Why on earth would someone spend hundreds of hours to go through the complexity and detail that is shown in this document?

Likely, the language that "comes from the forum" is because the writer(s) of the document spent a good deal of time on the forum for research.  They picked up on the lingo, such as the "stabilization" of bitcoin, etc, because that is what is talked about.  They have at least 2 endnotes that reference threads in the forum as well.

Ok, great.  Now how about my second point?

You'll have to clarify your position.  I'm not going to guess what your thoughts are about it, then try to refute those guesses.  That's just silly.  What would you have written about Mt. Gox that wasn't there?

[imsaguy]

You'll have to clarify your position.  I'm not going to guess what your thoughts are about it, then try to refute those guesses.  That's just silly.  What would you have written about Mt. Gox that wasn't there?

The lack of any real observations that MtGox is based overseas, complicating any potential US actions.

[SgtSpike]

You'll have to clarify your position.  I'm not going to guess what your thoughts are about it, then try to refute those guesses.  That's just silly.  What would you have written about Mt. Gox that wasn't there?

The lack of any real observations that MtGox is based overseas, complicating any potential US actions.

You have a point, but I never saw them really making Mt. Gox a target in the first place.  I saw them making Mt. Gox a cooperative entity in a fight against criminal behaviors.  For example, in the excerpt below, they identify Mt. Gox as a platform to potentially gather more personal details about criminals.

I didn't get the impression at all that the FBI was looking to shut down Bitcoin entirely.  To me, the paper was about how to combat criminals who utilize Bitcoin, not at all about criminalizing people who use Bitcoin.

(U//FOUO) Law enforcement might have opportunities to discover real user identifying information from some
third-party Bitcoin services because users must provide the services with real payment account information to
buy, sell, trade, and convert their bitcoins. For example, the Terms of Service for the third-party bitcoin trading
platform Mt. Gox states “members agree to provide Mt. Gox with accurate, current and complete information
about themselves as promoted by the registration process, and keep such information updated.”

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yeah I think people are mistaking the scope and intent of the report.

This isn't a briefing for operating "fast & furious coins" it is a Bitcoin for dummies (law enforcement edition).

Now everyone is the FBI can read it and have at least a basic understanding of what it is, how it works, why people use it, and what complications it presents law enforcement.  It wasn't intended to make anyone a Bitcoin expert, or look for flaws in the protocol.   At least in meetings people won't go "Bitcoin what?" and the meeting goes way off track. 

Your tax dollars hard at work.  I worked on more than one of those: (INSERT TOPIC HERE) for dummies - Defense Agency Edition.

[barbarousrelic]

I would not think the FBI would ever refer to US dollars as "fiat currency." Indeed a Google search for "fiat currency" site:fbi.gov comes back with zero hits. Same goes for the CIA and the DOJ websites.

[Raoul Duke]

I would not think the FBI would ever refer to US dollars as "fiat currency." Indeed a Google search for "fiat currency" site:fbi.gov comes back with zero hits. Same goes for the CIA and the DOJ websites.

They even explained what fiat currency is by giving examples: USD and EUR. And rightly so, because that report was also to be distributed to foreign agencies, and focus on something that has world impact, impact which they emphasize several times on the report. USD and US are just a small part.

I love how you guys have such a selective reading, leaving out whatever doesn't fit your original assumptions.

Current top post on cryptome.org: http://cryptome.org/2012/05/fbi-bitcoin.pdf

Someone should advise Mr. Young that Bitcoin donations would suit his "business" very well, seeing as he complaints that a $30 donation costs him $15

[barbarousrelic]

Another odd thing, this report refers to US dollars as "Federal Reserve Notes." A Google search of that phrase on fbi.gov returns three relevant hits from the 50s through 1972. So the FBI has not publicly used that phrase for 40 years, since there were US notes in circulation which they needed to differentiate from. Very unusual.

"Federal Reserve Notes" and "fiat currency" are almost never used by the government to refer to US dollars (by anyone except Ron Paul) and they are very commonly used amongst libertarians, supporters of Austrian economics, and supporters of Bitcoin like many on this forum.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well there is one way to find out for sure if it is authentic.  

Someone needs to file a freedom of information act request.  We should know in 10 to 50 years.

http://www.fbi.gov/foia/requesting-fbi-records

[SgtSpike]

I would not think the FBI would ever refer to US dollars as "fiat currency." Indeed a Google search for "fiat currency" site:fbi.gov comes back with zero hits. Same goes for the CIA and the DOJ websites.

Then again, they haven't really had to differentiate between a fiat currency and a non-fiat currency before, so there was no need to really define the term.  And a google search likely wouldn't have access to any FOUO documents, and certainly not any classified ones.

Well there is one way to find out for sure if it is authentic.  

Someone needs to file a freedom of information act request.  We should know in 10 to 50 years.

http://www.fbi.gov/foia/requesting-fbi-records

Or just call the phone numbers listed, and ask if they generated the document.

Those phone numbers are listed on other FBI documents, so they are legitimate FBI phone numbers.  Someone just call up and ask!  I doubt the FBI would have reason to lie and claim it as their own if it really was not...

[DeathAndTaxes]

Those phone numbers are listed on other FBI documents, so they are legitimate FBI phone numbers.  Someone just call up and ask!  I doubt the FBI would have reason to lie and claim it as their own if it really was not...

The proper response would be "we don't comment on internal documents or validate the legitimacy of unverified leaks".  Maybe someone will get lucky and a noob agent will slip up though.  Social engineering for the winz.

[SgtSpike]

Those phone numbers are listed on other FBI documents, so they are legitimate FBI phone numbers.  Someone just call up and ask!  I doubt the FBI would have reason to lie and claim it as their own if it really was not...

The proper response would be "we don't comment on internal documents or validate the legitimacy of unverified leaks".  Maybe someone will get lucky and a noob agent will slip up though.  Social engineering for the winz.

Lol, I suppose that's probably true.