Slashdot Mirror
The SEC and Fake Investment Sites
An anonymous reader sent in: "Our web-based challenge for the day: find the SEC's fake investment sites! The SEC claims to have seeded the web with fake investment sites in order to teach naive web users and investors about the dangers of believing all you read and investing without research. These sites have telltale signs of online investment fraud, and if people manage to overlook or ignore those issues and attempt to invest money, informs them that they have made an unwise decision. The SEC says that these sites are intended to encourage wise investing decisions, or in more casual terms, to attempt to slap fools upside the head with a cluestick before they lose their money in a real scam. It's an interesting use of the web by a government-related agency."
http://www.enron.com/corp/
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Shouldn't be too hard to find.
Registrant:
SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
Domain Name: MCWHORTLE.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
SEC
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
SEC Computers Catch Fire After During Hacker Attack
By Joe Snuffy
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, January 30, 2002; 2:45 P.M.
The SEC headquarters was evacuated today after a form of the denial of service hacking attack, commonly known as "slashdotting" caused their servers to halt and catch fire. The FBI refuses to confirm that it may be seeking one Rob "Commander Taco" Malda for questioning in this terrorist attack on America's financial structure.
Best Slashdot Co
http://www.gppf.org/events/oswindle.htm Shows the FTC doing the exact same thing and discussing it in the 1990's. Sheesh, stuff from 3-5 years ago isn't exactly new :-)
Pre-IPO Investment Oversubscribed!
McWhortle Enterprises has had to stop accepting investors for Stage 1 of its Pre-IPO investment after the program was over-subscribed by nearly 200%. Because of the enormous demand, we will, for a very limited time, accept new investors into this program.
Darn it, I was all ready to sign up, but I guess the rest of the slashdot community got to it before me.
Funny, Bush didn't mention the increased funding for the War on Stupidity last night...
Here are the results of the domains owned by the SEC according to the whois database at network solutions:
WINDHANDEL.COM
SEC-CIVIL.COM
SECRECRUITMENT.COM
SEC-NL.COM
OPERATIONDESERTFOX.COM
DOUZALS.COM
SEC (SE463-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET 619 487 7988
MCWHORTLE.COM
Tricking someone into acting illegally isn't necessarily entrapment. Otherwise there would be no sting operations. Entrapment requires harassment or continual provocation -- that is, forcing someone into doing something they normally would not.
First, this isn't entrapment - they're not going to prosecute people for trying to give money to these fake sites.
Second, the theoretical FBI tactic you describe sounds very much like entrapment (IANAL), which is very illegal.
Frankly, I'm amazed and gratified to see a government agency making such good use of the web.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
I gave up trying to figure this out years ago, and now content myself to just reading whatever
interesting stuff happens to make it through the filter, and posting an occasional diatribe or two.
The reasoning (or lack there of) behind what stories get accepted or rejected from Slashdot is not actually all that hard to understand. Like anything in PR, it's a crapshoot.
Here are my views (I always submit as AC, due to some particular personal reasons, but have a fairly decent acceptance rate.)
Submitting a story to Slashdot involves creating a mini press release. You are promoting your "version" of the story, so that it gets chosen over all other "versions." Creating an effective press release is frickin' hard. I've seen cases in which a 2-page, double-spaced press release took two-three weeks to produce.
As with any press release, you increase your chances by focusing on certain aspects.
1. Engaging language. You are selling your summary to the editor who reviews it. They probably go through dozens of submissions a day, and yours has to catch their eye and engage their attention.
2. Interesting topic, which could give rise to a ongoing discussion. When looking back on most of my failed submissions, they did not meet #2. If it is interesting, but probably won't create much of a discussion, it is worthless for Slashdot's purposes. This is not a news site, it is a discussion site. Even if you believe it would generate a discussion, posing a jumping off point for that discussion increases your chances.
But still, things will be rejected, as thousands of press releases around the world are thrown into thousands of trash cans every day. Other versions of the same thing may be accepted because the language/discussion points appeal more to the editor who reviews it. This can be a problem at times, because an incorrect and more controversial version which provides a jumping off point for argument will probably be accepted over a summary which is technically correct and dry. But this is not a problem with this site alone--it is a problem throughout the news world. Where do you think that the news sites get some of their incorrect yet controversial information about technical issues? Badly written press releases whose information may be incorrect, but has the "gotcha" factor.
And there's always the editor factor. Maybe editor A couldn't give a damn about the subject and rejected submission A because it didn't interest him. Then submission B comes around a day later and is reviewed by editor B, who loves the information provided. Therefore, B is accepted over A. This too, is not a problem limited to this news site. Once more than one person is involved consistancy goes straight out the window, no matter how hard you strive for it.
Submitting to Slashdot is a crapshoot. There are ways that you can improve your odds, but if your summary is reviewed by an editor who believes it is uninteresting, or believes it will not stimulate discussion, it gets rejected.
I don't think the SEC really gets it. I've been wrong lots of times before and I might be here. Personally, whenever I see a website that contains something that I'm even moderately curious about, I click on their "order here" button even if I'm not going to order anything. My hopes is that they might have some additional piece of critical information that wasn't obvious in the rest of their sight (for example shipping costs, payment options, etc). The point is that I generally investigate a site pretty thoroughly before I commit to sending any of *my* information to them.
I doubt that I'm alone in this practice. What this means is that clicking on the "gotcha link" at McWhortle.com isn't really a gotcha. It's just part of trying to find out additional information about the company. If you really want to implement the "gotcha" I would think you'd have to delay the "gotcha" right up until someone actually is really ready to bid/purchase/whatever. You got to get to the point, I'd think, where people are actually thinking about doing this, and *then* hit them with the "gotcha". Otherwise, anyone who gets to the current "gotcha page" is going to dismiss it with, "Well, yeah I kinda thought this wasn't right. Glad I don't get caught by these things. Glad I don't have to worry about these kind of scams... on the other hand, check out this other site! Wow, investments in working cold fusion?"
I would think if you're trying to convince someone that they are too gullible, you got to catch them in the process of actually having taken the bait. Otherwise, they're not likely to learn.
$.02. Am I off my rocker?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.