Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

HOPE Speaker Rombom Charged with Witness Tampering

Posted by timothy on Mon Jul 24, 2006 01:45 PM
from the complicationism dept.
Government The Courts Security United States News
An anonymous reader writes "Steven Rombom -- a.k.a. "Steven Rambam" -- the licensed private investigator who was arrested Saturday by FBI agents minutes before his talk on privacy at the Hope Number Six hacker convention in New York -- is being charged with witness tampering and obstruction of justice in a money laundering case the government is pursuing against Albert Santoro, a former Brooklyn assistant district attorney, according to Washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog. The government alleges that Santoro hired Rombom to locate a government confidential informant whom Santoro accuses of entrapment, and that Rombom visited the informant's in-laws under the guise of an FBI agent and tried to convince them tha their son-in-law was a danger to their daughter and grandkids."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] IT: Feds Arrest Private Eye at HOPE 430 comments
An anonymous reader writes "FBI agents today arrested Steven Rambam, the owner of a company that bills itself as the largest privately held online investigative service in the United States, according to Washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog. From the story: 'Rambam was arrested this afternoon by FBI agents just moments before he was to lead a panel discussion on privacy here at the HOPE hacker conference in New York City. Rambam and three other panelists were to discuss how they dug up -- in just 4.5 hours of searching private and public databases -- more than 500 pages worth of data on HOPE attendee Rick Dakan, who agreed to be the guinea pig for the project.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

HOPE Speaker Rombom Charged with Witness Tampering 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Well at least the conspiracy theorists will be silenced a bit. Sounds like hes getting what he deserved. Its one thing to try and dig up dirt, its another to make it personal and try to ruin a guys family.

    • Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mobby_6kl (668092) on Monday July 24 2006, @01:49PM (#15771443)
      Sounds like hes getting what he deserved. Its one thing to try and dig up dirt, its another to make it personal and try to ruin a guys family.

      What makes you think it's all true and he's (note the apostrophe) guilty?

      • Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by avdp (22065) * on Monday July 24 2006, @01:57PM (#15771493)
        Of course he may be not guilty (everybody is innocent until proven guilty). However the conspiracy theorist had theorised he is being prosecuted for his activities related to the conference and a message was being sent to "hackers" out there. It turned out to be completely unrelated... Imagine that...
          • They knew he would be at the conference at an exact time, and what would be going on then. It was thus an ideal place to do it, they could plan ahead and not have to improvise.
          • Unless of course he was going to say something that someone else didn't want said

            Silly? Yes. Paranoid? Possibly.

            But if it wasn't connected to the content of his presentation, he could have taken five minutes after as easily as he could five minutes before.

            • But if it wasn't connected to the content of his presentation, he could have taken five minutes after as easily as he could five minutes before.

              Erm, why on Earth would they want to do that? Assuming that the FBI was acting in good faith, what would be the advantage in letting a suspect have a few more minutes of freedom - possibly enough for someone to figure out what was happening and warn him? Wouldn't it be their obligation to apprehend him (and theoretically remove him from public threat) as soon as possible?

              • Erm, why on Earth would they want to do that?

                Assuming the Feds acted in good faith? Well... For one thing, because they could just as easy have nabbed him as he came off the stage. This isn't the Blues Brothers - he wasn't going to vanish down a trapdoor.

                Alternatively, they might do it so that the exercise didn't appear to be an attempt to censor honest citizens. I mean if he didn't have anything sensitive to say, where was the harm in letting him talk? He could have done it handcuffed to an agent for

              • The advantage to arresting him after is that it reduces the likelihood of the event getting slashdotted. The disadvantage is that he may slip away, it wastes the arresting officers' time as the audience plays the perennial game of "spot the narc" and takes pictures of them for posting to their websites, and politically slapping down crackers in public is a desirable act to discourage other casual crackers.

                Unfortunately, I now expect that oh-so-Confidential-Informant to have their name and personal details s
                • "Then why not nab him at home or the office, why wait until 5 minutes before he's due to speak at a grey hat hacker conference? It's sending a political message. Also, you HOPE and DEFCONers, keep in mind that just because the feds haven't shut it down and arrested everyone don't mean this won't be the year they do."

                  Holy Christ you give the FBI a lot of credit - but really they aren't that smart. They got him because they knew where he was going to be at a certain time, nothing else. I am a tin foil hat w
            • When you impersonate a federal agent, you give up the choice of deciding where, how, and when you will be taken in. About the only way to have control over that is to give yourself up as part of a deal.

              • Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)

                by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday July 24 2006, @03:15PM (#15772066) Journal
                The easiest way to catch a guy is if you know he's going to be some place at a specific time. That's what happened here. They are under no obligation to let him speak, but they are under an obligation as Federal agents and law inforcement officers to enforce arrest warrants.
              • It's not like he was an immediate threat, and they might've learned something from the presentation.
                ...and then by the time they call him back to the stage recieve first prize for his presentation, he'll have snuck off to a convent, and then across the mountains to Switzerland, and freedom! ...Dude! Snap out of it! You're having another one of your bad Sound of Music trips!

    • Well at least the conspiracy theorists will be silenced a bit. Sounds like hes getting what he deserved. Its one thing to try and dig up dirt, its another to make it personal and try to ruin a guys family.

      Oh country air! This is just the thing to fuel conspiracy theorists. Can't you see how preposterous and convoluted this tale is? It's like something out of TV, ffs! The Man jumped the shark by having it cooked up by a former hollywood hack writer. All this to keep Rambam from speaking.

      In all seri

  • Before the details came out, I was a little concerned with FBI heavyhanded tactics. Now that the details are out, sounds like this Rambam guy will be spending time in the Slamslam.

    • Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172) * on Monday July 24 2006, @01:52PM (#15771455)
      Now that the details are out . . .

      The details are not yet out. Only the accusation is out.

      KFG

      • Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Omnifarious (11933) * on Monday July 24 2006, @01:56PM (#15771485) Homepage Journal

        The revealed details certainly don't justify a conviction, but they definitely do justify an arrest if there's sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. I was withholding judgement of the FBI's tactics until I learned what he was accused of. Now that I know, I'm not unhappy with them.

        • From everything I read, the FBI performed this arrest in a way that I wish *all* law enforcement would follow. They tracked him well enough to know where he would be in a public place, and they quietly went in and arrested him. No big show, no breaking down doors with guns blazing and cameras following.

          • It would've been really nice if they had let him give his talk first though. :-) But yes, I agree.

          • Re:Oops (Score:4, Funny)

            by Ian Wolf (171633) on Monday July 24 2006, @02:44PM (#15771844) Homepage
            Not me I was hoping for a big Waco-esque showdown with guns, tear gas, bullhorns, and dead bodies strewn all over the dais. What a bummer. I guess I can't spend all day bitchin' about the guv'ment all day on /.

            Nothing to see here.
  • He's probably lucky he never was able to locate the witness... What do you think would have happened to the witness if he did? Maybe I watch too much sopranos, but I would assume since this was all related to a drug dealers money laundrying... The witness would have been "whacked" and Rambam would have been facing conspiracy / murder charges as well...

    • I don't know if simply hunting down a witness for someone is sufficient. I suspect that they would have to prove that he knew that the person who hired him intended harm to the witness.

  • You know, this just adds fuel to the argument "If you don't have anything to hide, why worry about your privacy?"

    Obviously, he had plenty to hide.

    • Re:Give me my privacy! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by russ1337 (938915) on Monday July 24 2006, @02:32PM (#15771756)
      Obviously, he had plenty to hide

      Can you please post your name, address, DOB, mothers maiden name, social, credit card no, and expiry date (and that little 3 digit code on the back)

      or do you have something to hide...
  • I think all the Conspiracy Theorists from the last thread owe the rest of us a big apology.

    Lets take a look at some of the gems.

    nothing like a public arrest to keep the populac in line.
    I'm not saying that this arrest was for those purposes, but if you have large gathering of people who are all on the fringes of the law, a not so sutble way to remind them that they are being watched is arresting someone with a relatively high profile within the group.

    And this classic:

    Don't be a fruitcake. Given the present a

    • How is it that they owe us an apology? Clearly the TIMING of this arrest is the for purposes you quoted.
      • Unless that was the FBI's best chance for knowing where he would be at what time.
        • Unless that was the FBI's best chance for knowing where he would be at what time.

          They have to rely on his scheduled appearances to catch up to him? Y

          What was the point of illegally tapping his phone, recording all his internet activty, and monitoring his bank and credit card transactions if they can't even use it to find they guy?

          Clearly the administration needs to start implanting RFID tags in all Americans, and visitors. They'll never catch up to the terr'ists if they have to wait until they have schedule
  • Geez, all the analysis from a few days ago sounded like poor Rombom was arrested for doing private investigator stuff on a willing "victim" and that the FBI was stupidly overreacting.

    That, friends, is why it's a bad idea to get worked up before you know both sides of an issue. It's too stressful to work up a righteous indignation only to find out that the other side had a valid point you didn't know about.

    • . . .the other side had a valid point you didn't know about.

      Among the evidence accumulated against him so far; a bumper sticker on Steve's car that reads:

      What would Jim Rockford do?

      KFG
      • I agree with what you've said here and elsewhere in this topic, but you have to admit that witness tampering is at least a legitimate crime, and not as stupid as the straw man charges that Slashdotters were inventing and then disproving a few days ago. Maybe he's innocent (and we have to presume that he is), but at least we know that the crimes they're accusing him of could possibly be real.

        Again, not saying the FBI is right, and he still deserves a presumption of innocence, but it looks like they're not

        • >Maybe he's innocent (and we have to presume that he is)
          fooey, that seams to be what the P.C. crowd here thinks has to be said.
          When that nigerian whats a $50 to free his $10 million property, do I have to assume he is innocent until proven guily by taking my money? only within the criminal courtroom do we have to assume some innocence. Heck they better have presented some proof that he was guilty before they grabbed and locked him up, so I am going to assume him guilty (perhaps of some complete B.S. ch

    • Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dafz1 (604262) on Monday July 24 2006, @02:20PM (#15771653)
      This is Slashdot, we live on righteous indignation.

      If this account by the FBI is true, Rombom(Rambam, whatever)did a really horrible thing to the witness and his family. Was it worthy of the public arrest? Even Al Capone got to go quietly.

      The sad thing is such shakedowns happen all of the time. When the FBI does it, it's called "gathering evidence". When a PI does, it's called "witness tampering". The difference? One has a REAL badge.

      • Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mrxak (727974) on Monday July 24 2006, @02:58PM (#15771961)
        Uh, the difference is that impersonating a federal officer is a crime, and that being an actual federal officer is not. And the FBI didn't walk in and tell everyone that Rambam is dangerous, they simply arrested him. What this PI allegedly did was illegal, arresting him for that illegal activity in a public place shouldn't be illegal.

  • Simpsons quote: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kenja (541830) on Monday July 24 2006, @01:59PM (#15771502)
    "This reporter promises to be more trusting and less vigilant in the future."

  • Presumption of Innocence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msparshatt (877862) on Monday July 24 2006, @02:02PM (#15771523)
    It seems that most of the people who are replying to this story haven't heard the expression "Innocent until proven guilty" We know what he's been charged with but we still have no idea whether he did it or not. So the people assuming he got what he deserved are just as guilty of jumping the gun as the people who assumed it was a conspiracy.
    • > "Innocent until proven guilty"

      Incorrect. Its 'Presumed innocent until proven guilty'. This statement is meant to infer that the courts should 'presume innocence' and let the evidence convince the judge/jury of the accusations. If you were innocent until proven guilty, then only innocent people would be convicted of crimes.

      I know its sounds nit-pickish, but its obvious some people really don't understand this.

    • It seems like most of the replies are saying, "see, it's best to reserve judgment." Very few posters are accusing him of being guilty, the vast majority are simply pointing out that perhaps indeed the government had a perfectly valid reason for arresting Rombom and he's not just a victim carefully chosen by the government to make an example and help control the populace.

  • Obviously I don't know about witness tampering.

    Once he'd ID'd the confidential informant, wouldn't you expect him to search various records for embarrassing stuff, and then bribe, blackmail, or discredit the informant?

    How does lying to the in-laws help obstruct justice? The closest thing to an explanation that comes to mind would be trying to convince the informant that the FBI was abusive and untrustworthy and that he should stop working with them.

    Scummy is understandable, but only when it's goal-directed.
    • Anything that potentially induces a witness to fail to testify, or to alter their testimony, qualifies at witness tampering. In this case lying to the in-laws was intended to create consequences for the witness if he were to proceed as a witness for the prosecution. The expectation on the witness's part would be that if he continued with testifying that the consequences would escalate, possibly to violence.

      I'm surprised they're not also charging him with impersonating a federal agent which is a serious crim

    • Re:I don't understand how this all works (Score:5, Informative)

      by Valdrax (32670) on Monday July 24 2006, @04:04PM (#15772381)
      How does lying to the in-laws help obstruct justice?

      Specifically, opening up a witness to intimidation by relaying his personal details to the people the FBI is trying to hide him from is obstruction of justice because it might cause him not to testify.

      Scummy is understandable, but only when it's goal-directed.

      When the goal is exposing a witness under federal protection to the very criminals they're trying to hide him from, you better be happy that people can be arrested for that.

  • the FBI... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pulse2600 (625694) on Monday July 24 2006, @02:08PM (#15771556)
    The FBI did 2600 a favor by doing this during the convention...I'm sure this arrest will bring more attention to 2600 and the HOPE conventions, watch how much the attendance goes up for the next con due to the added publicity.
  • "The government alleges that Santoro hired Rombom to locate a government confidential informant whom Santoro accuses of entrapment, and that Rombom visited the informant's in-laws under the guise of an FBI agent and tried to convince them tha their son-in-law was a danger to their daughter and grandkids."

    It's an enigma wrapped up in a paradox made into a riddle.
    If anyone can figure out exactly what he is being charged with, please call his lawyers immediately.

    • Re:lost in translation (Score:4, Informative)

      by jjohnson (62583) on Monday July 24 2006, @02:25PM (#15771692) Homepage
      He's being charged with Witness Tampering. What's not clear? The defendent (allegedly) had Rombom locate the government's CI against him, and then try to intimidate the informant by turning his in-laws against him; exerting any pressure on a witness is illegal. I'm surprised they're not charging him with impersonating a law enforcement officer, too.
  • Perhaps this incident will inspire a new Kinky Friedman novel. If it gives Linux some publicity, so much the better.

  • The Kinky angle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stereoroid (234317) on Monday July 24 2006, @04:34PM (#15772593) Homepage Journal
    Here's some conspiracy fodder for y'all: anyone who's read any of Kinky Friedman's [kinkyfriedman.com] books will recognize the name Rambam. He's a longtime personal friend of the Kinkster, and appears in his books, as one of the few characters who doesn't need a checkup from the neck up. Could this arrest be an attempt to discredit Kinky, who is running for a political office this year? The same office once held by George W Bush: Governor of Texas. I smell a Ratso..!

    • Re:So what did he actually do?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172) * on Monday July 24 2006, @02:02PM (#15771522)
      Seriously canyou be charged with witness tampering, by not even issuing a threat, to either the witness or his family?

      You can be charged with anything, at any time. Think about that. Think about it really, really hard. The Framers did. Now think about the fact that these days you don't even really need to be charged, only "suspected" to be whisked away in the night.

      I think, perhaps, the real question at issue in this case is can you be converted into a government witness by being charged with a crime?

      KFG

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.