Intelligence and Interrogation Processes
\n By: Master Of Impact and the Legion Of Hackers<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION:
\n =============<\/p>\n
Doing what we do best always carries the risk of someone, somewhere, wanting
\nto hold you for questioning. In this article I hope to give those persons who
\nthat are in use (and are in no ways happen to be all new), that can give you
\nthe edge you need to come away “sin faulta”. In fact, these interrogation
\npracticies are used a lot by teachers, local police, the FBI and Secret Service
\ngirlfriends, wives, parents, etc. to obtain information from you that you
\nprobably don’t want to give out.<\/p>\n
Interrogation is the art of questioning and examining a source in order to
\nobtain the maximum amount of useful information. The goal of any interrogation is to obtain useful and reliable information in a lawful manner and in a
\nminimum amount of time. The goal of any source is to deceive or hinder any
\nattempts of the interrogator to get information out of him.<\/p>\n
This article will deal primarily with the principles, techniques, and
\nprocedures of intelligence interrogation. By reading this article, one
\nwho runs the risk of being interrogated can build countermeasures for common
\ninterrogation techniques. This article has some paraphrased material from a
\ngovernment interrogation manual but the majority of the information was from
\npersonal experience and prior knowledge of the subject.<\/p>\n
You cannot hope to defeat interrogation techniques unless you first know
\nwhat they are. The ones listed herein are the most commonly used. After reading
\nthis article, you should be able to tell when you are being interrogated by
\npeople, and what technique(s) they are using when you probably would not have
\nknown before. Once you know what they are up to and how they are going to TRY
\nto accomplish it, YOU have the initiative!<\/p>\n
INITIATIVE:
\n ===========<\/p>\n
Achieving and maintaining the initiative is essential to a successful
\ninterrogation just as offense is the key to success in combat operations. The
\ninitiative in any interrogation must rest with the interrogator throughout the
\nentire interrogation. He will have certain advantages at the beginning of an
\ninterrogation which will enable him to grasp the initiative and assist in
\nmaintaining the initiative throughout the interrogation.<\/p>\n
The interrogator has a position of authority over you. You realize this
\nfact, and in some cases, believe that your future might well depend upon your
\nassociation with the interrogator. As in the case of police questioning,
\n“cooperate and we will go easy on you”. Like hell they will.<\/p>\n
The interrogator knows the purpose of the interrogation; the source does
\nnot necessarily know the exact reason, but can generally assume (especially
\nin the case of a computer hacker or phone phreak, which is what the term
\n“source” will be referring to, during this article) because he or she is most
\nusually conscious of horrible and nasty wrong-doings he or she may have been
\nresponsible for. Unfortunately for the source, he is generally very much in
\nthe dark about what’s happening to his life while it is, in fact, crumbling
\naround him (temporarily, anyway). This gives the source a not-so-illusionary
\nbehavior pattern of the proverbial chicken who’s had its head chopped off.<\/p>\n
Having gained the initial advantage which is quite an understatement,
\nseeing that, although the risks to the source during the perpetration of
\na crime are quite obvious, the possible realistic results of being caught
\naren’t quite as impressive while one is getting away with a crime than when
\none’s home is invaded by the JC Penny-suit men wearing mirrored sunglasses,
\nthe interrogator must strive to maintain the initiative applying appropriate
\ninterrogation techniques through the exercise of self-control; by taking
\nadvantage of the source’s weaknesses as they become apparent; and by
\ncontinuously displaying an attitude of confidence and self-assurance. The
\ninterrogator, however, is ‘supposed’ to never take advantage of your weaknesses
\nto`tae extent that the interrogation involves threats, insults, torture
\nor exposure to unpleasant or inhumane treatment of any kind. Remember, the
\nkeyword is supposed.<\/p>\n
It is possible for the interrogator to lose the initiative during the
\ninterrogation of a source. If this should occur, he will probably postpone the
\ninterrogation and reassess the situation. If the interrogation is resumed, a
\ndifferent interrogator will probably be introduced. Following are some examples
\nof loss of initiative:<\/p>\n
* The interrogator becomes angry and completely loses his self-control because
\n of the arrogant actions of the source (such as the unbuttoning of a jacket
\n to reveal “Secret Service Sucks” spray painted onto the source’s T-shirt.)
\n As a result, the interrogator loses sight of his objective and concentrates
\n his efforts on humbling the source.<\/p>\n
* During the interrogation the interrogator fails to note significant
\n discrepancies in the source’s story. The interrogator may lose his initiative
\n as the source gains confidence from his success and resorts to further
\n deception, leading the interrogator away from his objective.<\/p>\n
* The interrogator becomes overly friendly with the source and allows him to
\n lead the interrogation. The source reports only what he believes to be
\n important and neglects several significant items of info which could have
\n been obtained had the interrogator maintained the initiative.<\/p>\n
PHASES OF INTERROGATION:
\n ========================<\/p>\n
Approach Phase:
\n —————<\/p>\n
Regardless of the type of source you are and your outward personality, you
\ndo possess weaknesses which, if recognized by the interrogator, can be
\nexploited. A human being is likely to:<\/p>\n
o Talk, especially after harrowing experiences
\n o Show deference when confronted by superior authority
\n o Rationalize acts about which he feels guilty
\n o Lack the ability to apply or to remember lessons he may have been
\n taught regarding security if confronted with a disorganized or a
\n strange situation.
\n o Cooperate with those who have control over him
\n o Attach less importance to a topic which the interrogator demonstrates
\n identical or related experiences and knowledge
\n o Appreciate flattery and exoneration from guilt
\n o Cooperate readily when given material rewards
\n o Cooperate readily when treated as an equal<\/p>\n
TECHNIQUES:
\n ===========<\/p>\n
“File and Dossier”
\n —————-<\/p>\n
The interrogator prepares a dossier containing all available info obtained
\nfrom records and docs concerning you. Careful arrangement of the material with-
\nin the file may give the illusion that it contains more data than is actually
\nthere. The file may be “padded” with extra paper, if necessary. Index tabs with
\ntitles such as “education”, “employment”, “criminal record”, “bulletin boards”,
\n“violated computer systems”, and others are particularly effective for this
\npurpose. The interrogtor will confront you with the dossier at the beginning of
\nthe interrogation and explain that “intelligence” has provided a complete
\nrecord of every significant happening in your life; therefore, it would
\nbe useless to resist interrogation. The interrogator may read a few selected
\nbits of known data to further impress you. If the technique is successful, you
\nwill be impressed with and more importantly, terrified by the “voluminous”
\nfile, conclude that everything is known, and resign to complete cooperation.<\/p>\n
“We know ALL”
\n ———–<\/p>\n
This technique may be employed in conjunction with the above or by itself.
\nThe interrogator must first become thoroughly familiar with the available data
\nconcerning you. To begin the interrogation, the interrogator asks questions
\nbased on his known data. When you hesitate, refuse to answer, or provide an
\nincomplete or incorrect reply, the interrogator himself provides the detailed
\nanswer. Through the careful use of the limited number of known details, the
\ninterrogator may convince you that all the info is already known; therefore,
\nyour answers to the questions are of no consequence. When you begin to give
\naccurate and complete information, the interrogator interjects questions
\ndesigned to gain the needed info. Questions to which answers are already known
\nare also asked to test you and to maintain the deception that all the info is
\nalready known. A VERY effective technique I might add.<\/p>\n
“Rapid Fire<\/p>\n
This approach technique involves a psychological ploy based on the principles
\nthat:<\/p>\n
* Everyone likes to be heard when they speak; and<\/p>\n
* It is confusing to be interrupted in mid-sentence with an unrelated
\n question.<\/p>\n
This technique may be used with one, or simultaneously by two or more
\ninterrogators in questioning the same source. In employing this technique the
\ninterrogator asks a series of questions in such a manner that you do not have
\ntime to answer a question completely before the next question is asked. This
\ntends to confuse you and you are apt to contradict yourself, as you have little
\ntime to prepare your answers. The interrogator then confronts you with the
\ninconsistencies, causing further contradictions. In many instances you
\nwill begin to talk freely in an attempt to explain yourself and deny the
\ninconsistencies pointed out by the interrogator. In attempting to explain your
\nanswers, you are likely to reveal more than you intend, thus creating
\nadditional leads for the interrogator.<\/p>\n
“Mutt and Jeff”
\n ————-<\/p>\n
This technique involves a psychological ploy which takes advantage of the
\nnatural uncertainty and guilt which a source has as a result of being detained
\nand questioned. Use of this technique necessitates the employment of two
\nexperienced interrogators who are convincing as actors. Basically, the two
\ninterrogators will display opposing personalities and attitudes towards you.
\nFor example the first interrogator is very formal and displays an unsympathetic
\nattitude. This is to make you feel cut off from your friends. At the time when
\nyou act hopeless and alone, the second interrogator appears (having received
\nhis cue by a signal, and is hidden from you), scolds the first interrogator for
\nhis harsh behavior and orders him from the room. He then apologizes to soothe
\nyou, perhaps offering coffee and a cigarette. He explains that the actions of
\nthe first interrogator were largely the result of an inferior intellect and
\nlack of human sensitivity. The inference is created that the other interrogator
\nand you have in common a high degree of intelligence and an awareness of human
\nsensitivity, above and beyond that of the first interrogator. You are normally
\ninclined to have a feeling of gratitude towards the second interrogator, who
\ncontinues to show a sympathetic attitude in an effort to increase the rapport
\nand control for the questioning which will follow. Should your cooperativeness
\nbegin to fade, the second interrogator can hint that since he is of high rank,
\nhaving many other duties, he cannot afford to waste time on an uncooperative
\nsource. He may broadly infer that the first interrogator might return to
\ncontinue the questioning. When used against the proper source, this trick will
\nnormally gain complete cooperation for the interrogation.<\/p>\n
“Repetition”
\n ———-<\/p>\n
Repetition is used to induce cooperation from a hostile source. The inter-
\nrogator listens carefully to your answer to a question, and then repeats both
\nthe question and answer several times. He does this with each succeeding
\nquestion until you become so bored with the procedure that you answer the
\nquestion fully and truthfully to satisfy the interrogator and to gain relief
\nfrom the monotony of this method of questioning. The repetition technique will
\ngenerally not work when employed against introverted sources or those having
\ngreat self control.<\/p>\n
“Pride and Ego”
\n ————-<\/p>\n
This technique works effectively on many phreaks and hackers due to the fact
\nthat many are so damn egotistical. The strategy is to trick you into revealing
\ndesired information by flattering you. It is effective with sources who have
\ndisplayed weaknesses or feelings of inferiority. The interrogator accuses you
\nof weakness or implies that you are unable to do a certain thing. The proud or
\negotistical source will jump to the defensive. An example of an opening
\nquestion for this technique may be: “Why would you own a blue box when you
\nhave absolutely no idea how to use one?” or, “Why do you hack VMS systems if
\nyou can’t do a damn thing once you’re inside of one?” It provides you with the
\nopportunity to show someone that you have “brains” and in doing so, you give
\nthe interrogator more information than you should have.<\/p>\n
“Silent”
\n ——<\/p>\n
The Silent technique may be successful when used against either the nervous,
\nor the confident-type source. When employing this technique, the interrogator
\nsays nothing to you, but looks you squarely in the eye, probably with a slight
\nsmile on his face. It is important for the interrogator not to look away from
\nyou, but force you to break eye contact first. You will become nervous, begin
\nto shift around in your chair, and look away. If you ask questions the
\ninterrogator probably will not answer them until he is ready to break the
\nsilence. A source may blurt out questions such as, “What the hell do you want
\nwith me”. When the interrogator is ready to break the silence, he may do so
\nwith some quite nonchalant questions such as, “You’ve been logging on to our
\nsystem for a long time now, haven’t you? Did you hack the passwords yourself?”.<\/p>\n
In some cases the interrogator will use several approach techniques
\nconcurrently, or in succession.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS:
\n ==========<\/p>\n
There are various questions that the interrogator may ask you:<\/p>\n
* Prepared questions: When the topic under inquiry is very technical or when
\n legal aspects of the interrogation require preciseness, the interrogator will
\n have a list of prepared questions to follow during the interrogation.<\/p>\n
* Control questions: To maintain control and to check on the truthfulness of
\n a source, the normal questions will be mixed with control questions-those
\n with known answers. If you fail to answer these questions, or answer wrong,
\n it will indicate that you are either not knowledgeable in the topic or that
\n you are lying.<\/p>\n
* Nonpertinent questions: Sometimes it is necessary for the interrogator to
\n keep the true objective of the interrogation from you. By carefully blending
\n pertinent questions with nonpertinent questions, the interrogator can conceal
\n the true purpose of the inquiry.<\/p>\n
* Direct and leading questions: The manner in which the questions are worded
\n has a direct bearing on your response. A question may be posed in a number
\n of ways:<\/p>\n
o “What system did you hack into on 11\/11\/86?”<\/p>\n
o “Did you break into General Dynamics’ computer on 11\/11\/86?”<\/p>\n
o “You did break into GD’s computer on 11\/11\/86?”<\/p>\n
o “You didn’t break into GD’S computer on 11\/11\/86, did you?”<\/p>\n
PSYCHOLOGY IN INTERROGATION:
\n ============================<\/p>\n
The interrogator will watch for various psychological responses from you during
\nan interrogation. Some of these are:<\/p>\n
* Rationalization: Creating plausible excuses or explanations for one’s acts
\n without being aware that these excuses or explanations are way off the
\n [obvious] reality.<\/p>\n
* Identification: To identify with and mimic a mental image of some one
\n important to you.<\/p>\n
* Compensation: Trying to make up for a psychological weakness by building
\n up or exaggerating a psychological strength.<\/p>\n
* Exhibitionism: Showing off, bragging, etc.<\/p>\n
* Fear, Anger, Frustration, etc.<\/p>\n
Of course when being interrogated, you should remain as emotionless as possible
\nand never show anger, or get upset (NEVER inflict physical abuse upon the
\nunsuspecting interrogator. This only creates tension between both the inter-
\nrogator and yourself). Your every move, every response, every action is noted
\nand used by the interrogator to get you to screw up and give him what he wants.<\/p>\n
There can be two main objectives that you can obtain when being interrogated.
\nThe first is to find ways to force the interrogator to lose his initiative. You
\ncan do this in many ways. A few that come to mind are: Repeat everything the
\ninterrogator says. Mimic the interrogator. Laugh at the interrogator. Basically
\npiss the interrogator off and make him so mad that he loses sight of his
\nobjective. This may however, get you in deeper trouble, but it may give you
\nextra time while another interrogator is found.<\/p>\n
Lie like hell to the interrogator and piss him off. Such as the pathological
\nliar gimmick: “I broke into the NSA’s computer, yeah, and then used their
\nnetwork to get into the presidents private computer yeah that’s it, the
\npassword was uh…Bonzo, yeah, and then used it to take control of a satellite
\nused for Star Wars, and made it land right on top of the Kremlin, yeah that’s
\nthe ticket!”<\/p>\n
You can also change the subject over and over again to totally unrelated things
\nsuch as: its a nice day out today, hows the wife and kids, how about some food,
\nwho do you think is going to the superbowl, etc.<\/p>\n
The other and probably better objective is simply to pretend to fall for any of
\nthe various techniques used against you and feed the interrogator more and more
\nbullshit, of course being very sincere. This way he gets totally bogus
\ninformation while thinking you are cooperating fully.<\/p>\n
Well, I hope you never have to put this article to use in a legal manner, but
\nyou would be surprised how everyday you are interrogated without even
\nrealizing it by normal people who probably don’t realize they are interrogating
\nyou!<\/p>\n
