Elicitation. Kit Perez wrote an article about it last week. Every one of us should read it. If you haven’t, I’ll wait while you do.
….
I hadn’t heard the term, but anybody who’s been around the Outlaw scene knows the tactic. It’s a way of getting us to snitch on friends, give away secrets, or incriminate ourselves without us fully realizing what we’re doing.
And it works off our ordinary personality traits — anything from a desire to be polite and helpful to a desire to show how smart and “with it” we are. Which is what makes it so insidious.
Kit (one of the serious up-and-comers in the freedomista world) gives an example of how somebody might foolishly give info to a “collector,” then gives examples and tips on how to detect and deflect elicitation. But she’s right to conclude that no one article can teach us … well, to keep our yaps shut.
The example she gives of foolish info-spouting does really show a fool. A braggart, perhaps. Or just somebody with no regard for other people’s security. It’s easy to look at that example and say, “Oh, I wouldn’t do that!”
Question is: Would you (or I) do something different but equally dangerous? Under slightly different circumstances? Yielding to a slightly different approach? And would we do it unconsciously or reflexively just because of our personalities?
Like any skilled con artist, a skilled elicitator is good at reading us and customizing his or her approach to who we are. Look again at Kit’s article and the 10 personality traits the FBI seeks to exploit. Every one of us can spot areas on that list where we aren’t vulnerable, but you can’t tell me that at least two or three don’t apply to you.
I can say, for example, that anybody trying to get information from me by appealing to my desire to show off is likely to be out of luck. And much though I like the idea of converting others to my opinion, I can’t imagine giving away my secrets or anybody else’s in that cause. On the other hand, I can easily see my desire to be polite and helpful or my desire to give honest answers to seemingly honest questions really screwing me up, especially in a circumstance where I don’t have much time to think (e.g. cops unexpectedly showing up at the door).
Which is why it’s a good idea to have rules in place, and to hammer those rules into our own heads, to forestall reflexive folly (“I’m sorry; I don’t talk to police” or “I’d like to help you, but I can’t”).
—–
Related to elicitation is solicitation. Not the kind for which cops bust scantily-clad women on the streets. But solicitation to commit real crimes.
Again, anybody who’s been around the Outlaw block a time or two knows all about this in theory. And they’ve known for generations. Clear back in the 1960s underground, the warning passed from person to person and cell to cell was: “You can always tell the FBI agent; he’s the one who’s forever trying to get you to blow something up.”
Yet the tactic goes on working — as we’ve seen from so many hapless jihadist wannabes getting busted by the very “friends” who helped talk them into various evil plots in the first place.
Elicitation helps make solicitation possible. Get to know you. Learn your vulnerabilities. Move from info gathering to targeting you and your friends for some faux plot or another.
—–
Both elicitation and solicitation are used all the time by Authoritah. But it doesn’t take a fed, a narc, or a professional snitch to get us in trouble.
For instance, the guy who elicits information from you might just be some n00b eager to get involved. But such a n00b, however innocent, may be dangerous, and you could encourage his folly by oversharing. Then somebody more sinister comes along and elicits your info from him.
And the weird thing is that even the smartest, most experienced, most sincere people can stumble into trouble just by … you might as well call it a glitch. A brain fart. A goof. But again, usually a goof that plays on their natural tendencies, perhaps even on their best virtues (e.g. that desire to be helpful).
A couple of years ago someone I’d known and trusted for years used open email to solicit me to commit a federal crime. Now I know that when this sort of thing happens, the first thing you have to wonder is: Is he in trouble and trying to save his backside by giving them me, instead? But in this case, I don’t think so. On the contrary, he was just trying to facilitate what he perceived to be a beneficial arrangement between friends. He was simply being helpful — which I have always known him to be. A desire to be helpful, plus a momentary brain fart, resulted in a really, really dumb move by an otherwise smart person. (For the record, I said no thanks to the crime in question.)
—–
The other day I was reading one of Michael Connelly’s Harry Bosch novels, The Black Box and I came across these words:
It was an investigative standard. The best and fastest way to break a conspiracy was to identify the weakest link in the chain and find a way to exploit it. When one link was broken, the chain would come loose.
A truism. Of course that’s how it works. It’s not news.
And even if we’re not engaged in anything that we ourselves would consider a “conspiracy,” we know we live in a world where even the most innocent actions and viewpoints are considered “extreme” or “terroristic.” We know we live in a surveillance state, where our communications are monitored by people who consider each and every one of us (especially We the Political) to be potential threats. We know our neighbors are encouraged not only to “see something, say something” but to imagine “somethings” where nothing really exists.
So it is also not news that “they” really are out to get us. And that even in our innocent actions, “they” might be looking for weak links to exploit.
Yet in being blandly confident that we ourselves are too smart to be that weak link, we overlook the fact that we carry our own weakest link within our own character. The link that could break — and potentially break us and our friends.
Our “weakest link” could be something we otherwise count as one of our best virtues (e.g. honesty or a conviction that others are honest and good). Our weakest link could be our naivete, our unpreparedness in a given situation, our momentary tiredness, our unwariness around those we trust, our desire to impress or teach or correct someone else’s errors.
So what do we do about it? Are we doomed to become sour, paranoid old curmudgeons, trusting no one, communicating only in cryptic, muttered monosyllables?
No. Not hardly.
We just need to know our own weaknesses a little better than most of us generally do, particularly our weaknesses where communication and trust are involved. Then set up some behavioral rules for ourselves — rules that will stand us in good stead when our natural inclinations might trip us up. Never talk to cops. Never discuss subject X unless it’s a clear “need to know” situation. Encrypt, but never fully trust encryption (because encryption’s weakest link is the humans using it). Never go along with the guy who’s most eager to turn violent, no matter how friendly, appealing, or persuasive he is. And so on.
We all slip up. Lord knows I have. But knowing ourselves and imposing a few well-defined rules to compensate for our personal weak links can go a long way to keep human fallibility from becoming outright disaster.
Three keys:
- Know ourselves.
- Be candid with ourselves about our specific vulnerabilities.
- Establish rules that can kick in during specific situations and/or moments when we may not have time to think on our feet.
—–
H/T TSO and JB for links and inspiration
Thinking out loud here.
I do understand, Claire, and I feel the surveillance eye closing in on us all. The advice that Kit Perez gave is a good study.
But sometimes I think we do ourselves an injustice by becoming suspicious and cynical which (I believe) are directly opposite from human nature. I blame governments – *and* anthropologists/sociologists – everywhere for altering the course of what might have been our natural history, including human character and personality, by pressuring humans into a false sense of ourselves. We’re not as smart as we think we are, but neither are we as “gullible” as governments want us to be.
Just as the War on Terror has terrorized everyone – when in fact, it’s only governments who are truly afraid – so interpreter “experts” have convinced most of us that we “ought to be” on guard at all times against… everything and everybody; and that the world is _a priori_ dangerous – when in fact the world is simply doing its thing, and the dangerous parts are the “experts” themselves.
Most people cannot differentiate whom to trust, or why. The reason is not “naivete,” (though that’s what we call it), but in our nature to work together. Being anti-social is not “natural,” yet that’s what freedomistas force on themselves (or, I do understand that government is forcing on them) when we become “paranoid” and suspicious. It’s a shame, really, when we could accomplish so much, and do so much good for each other, by working together.
End of thinking out loud.
Of course, it helps immensely if you really are a sour, paranoid old curmudgeon, like me.
Beyond a certain age, position in life, and state of health, sometimes the best use you can imagine being to the freedom movement is “Mine Canary”. I always felt that was MBV’s intent in being so public and in so many faces: when they finally stepped on him, the quiet ones would know the game was on. I suppose I’m edging into that myself, although I’ve got miles to go to earn Mike’s stripes.
Of course, it helps immensely if you really are a sour, paranoid old curmudgeon, like me.
Present!
And OpSec requires that I not discuss my particular vulnerabilities here. 🙂 Main thing that comes to mind is that eternal vigilance thing.
Rusty, sometimes I wonder whether the PTB let the canaries continue to operate, as monitoring those particular fora and websites is a good way for them to gather intelligence. There’s one particular, popular site I no longer visit for that specific reason (did I just out myself?), after a particularly egregious post there. Though I suppose it’s already too late for me to duck my head.
Do you ever wonder whether some reactionary web sites are being run by agents of the state, specifically to hoover up as much data as they can?
The techniques Kit described (very well) are one-on-one. If someone really wants to elicit, get in with a group of people who trust each other.
I watched it happen last weekend, during a break in a class I was taking. In a group of people my age, one person asked another person which doctor did his knee surgery. In ten minutes you could have written complete medical histories on everyone there.
“Do you ever wonder whether some reactionary web sites are being run by agents of the state, specifically to hoover up as much data as they can?”
I’m sure some are, and they will tend to have the most inflammatory rhetoric. It’s important, though, to remember that government works in predictable cycles, and somebody’s promotion from GS-11 to GS-12 is riding on favorable results from Operation Mine Canary within the current fiscal year, and sooner or later the agency will need to tap some low-hanging fruit to distract from senior management’s latest embarrassment. Sooner or later they will scoop you up, and everyone else will connect the dots.
Do you ever wonder whether some reactionary web sites are being run by agents of the state, specifically to hoover up as much data as they can?
Given the data already available, why? The fedgove problem is that they have several orders of magnitude more data than they can process.
I could see them running baited sites, seeing if they can find suckers they can encourage into planning operations they can bust.
It would be interesting, for instance, to know how many of the web’s 15-year-old Lolitas are actually 40-something vice detectives.
***
“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I’ve a many curious things to show when you are there.”
“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair
-can ne’er come down again.”
“I’m sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?” said the Spider to the Fly.
“There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I’ll snugly tuck you in!”
“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “for I’ve often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!”
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, “Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I ‘ve always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that’s nice;
I’m sure you’re very welcome — will you please to take a slice?”
“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “kind Sir, that cannot be,
I’ve heard what’s in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!”
“Sweet creature!” said the Spider, “you’re witty and you’re wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I’ve a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you’ll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself.”
“I thank you, gentle sir,” she said, “for what you ‘re pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I’ll call another day.”
The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
“Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple — there’s a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!”
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue —
Thinking only of her crested head — poor foolish thing!
At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour — but she ne’er came out again!
And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne’er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.
Mary Howitt, 1829
Thanks, Larry A. I had never read it, just heard about it, and of course only heard a spinoff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0CSs4Nf-64 It’s tacky (like pretty much everything they did), but I did really like the microphone line.
This little girl was a weak link. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/12/mother-idaho-girl-raped-refugees-authorities-withholding-police-report-family/
LarryA, everyone has heard the first line of that poem but I’ve never seen the entire thing. Thanks for posting it.