'Operation Cyber Sweep' Nets 125 Arrests

unassimilatible writes "Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday that law-enforcement agents had arrested 125 suspects in a crackdown on Internet crimes ranging from hacking and software piracy to credit card fraud and selling stolen goods over the Internet, according to Wired. The investigation, begun Oct. 1 and dubbed Operation Cyber Sweep, involved police from Ghana to Southern California and uncovered 125,000 victims who had lost more than $100 million. Seventy indictments to date have led to arrests or convictions of 125 people, with more expected as the probe continues. The cases range from a Virginia woman who sent fake e-mails to America Online customers asking them to update their credit card numbers to a disgruntled Philadelphia Phillies fan who hacked into computers nationwide and launched spam e-mails criticizing the baseball team. 'The information superhighway should be a conduit for communication, information and commerce, not an expressway for crime,' Ashcroft said."

Comments

Ah...

[danielrm26]

I guess this is why the guy in Indonesia that wanted to buy some hardware off me with a credit card suddenly stopped replying to my emails. Damn that Ashcroft; the guy wasn't even worried about price.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they catch the founders of PayPal?

Re:So...

[AndroidCat]

They haven't been able to bust the founder of Worldcom, so I shouldn't think so.

He wasn't so much fired or kicked out so much as top-down-sized.

Phew!

[MisterFancypants]

I feel much safer now!

This Homeland Security thing is really working!

People really still fall for 911 scams?

[setzman]

Authorities in Ghana and Nigeria also helped track down suspects and recover millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains.

I guess so... You would think that people would be more aware of this kind of thing now.

Re:People really still fall for 911 scams?

[setzman]

For some reason I thought the Nigerian scams were 911, but it is actually 419. Sorry about that.

Re:People really still fall for 911 scams?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of the African scammers are using the 419 letters any more. There's an awful lot of plain old credit fraud going on originating from Ghana and Nigeria often through email or internet relay phone calls.

It's amazing how many business owners don't seem to get suspicious when somebody gives them 4 or 5 different credit cards over the phone because the cards keep getting declined.

Isn't this the RIAA's job?

[Powercntrl]

I was under the impression they were the ones who policed the Internet.

Re:Isn't this the RIAA's job?

[MelodicMotives]

No, they only go after legitimate crimes, like having music before it is released.

Re:Isn't this the RIAA's job?

[ultranova]

No, they just offer "protection". See, there's these lawsuits, and they're a terrible thing if they happen... So maybe you oughta pay them a settlement, and those lawsuits don't happen, eh ? Because, you know, that personal economy, it's a fragile thing, eh ?

Why hire thugs, when hiring lawyers is so much more effective ? -- old RIAA saying

Re:Isn't this the RIAA's job?

[WeblionX]

Nice to see people making fun of Canadians instead of Italians for a change.

Wow, 125!

[MrPerfekt]

Only 2,254,364 to go for credit card fraud alone...

When you add the extra 3 million for spamming and the extra... [population of the United States] for copyright infringement, you can see they're off to a good start!

Re:Wow, 125!

[enjo13]

Funny, but unfortunately not exactly accurate. Copyright Infringement is (not yet anyways) a crime. You don't go to jail when you break copyright. It's a civil action only.

Re:Wow, 125!

[geoffspear]

Read the US Code and stop spreading ridiculous myths.

Re:Wow, 125!

[Dwonis]

Cool! What country do you live in?

Re:Wow, 125!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not quite true. The RIAA generally pursues their cases, especially those involving only petty infringements like filesharing, in civil courts because of the lesser standard of proof, but large-scale bootlegging for profit is indeed a criminal offence.

I hate to quote the RIAA overlords on this, but for once it's fairly accurate, so here goes: Where the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

(Private financial gain does not mean avoiding "potential expenses".)

Re:Wow, 125!

[acceleriter]

Wrong-o, reindeer. Google the NET (No Electronic Theft Act). If you live in the U.S., you can face felony charges for having made a few copies of Adobe software:

if the infringer has made, in any 180-day period, ten or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of $2,500, the crime is a felony entailing up to five years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.

And do you know the "Justice" Department will use the full "retail value" that no one actually pays, right?

Re:Wow, 125!

[zurab]

if the infringer has made, in any 180-day period, ten or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of $2,500, the crime is a felony entailing up to five years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.

I think that's great! SCO has surely generated more than $2500 in Linux sales; so SCO executives should be going to jail anytime now. What a relief! Thank you John Ashcroft!

Re:Wow, 125!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm sure that will make whoever gets that 160 000 000 dollar fine scream in joy. "I'll be a dept slave for the rest of my live, but I'm not a criminal ! But that bastard Bob, who beats up old ladies and steals their handbags is in prison, and will stay there for a whole year before walking away free ! I'm so happy !"

As bad as he is...

[Kilka]

I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing. He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.

-Kilka

Re:As bad as he is...

[orthogonal]

[Ashcroft]'s not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.

And notice how surprising that is.

Re:As bad as he is...

[El Cubano]

I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing. He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.

I agree. Even better: if they can publicly show that these people's rights were actually preserved, I would be very impressed.

Re:As bad as he is...

[EverDense]

I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing. He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.

You left out a word there. Here, I'll fix it for you:

I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing.
WHEN He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.

Re:As bad as he is...

[thecrackerman]

But who knows if these people actually did anything or that the Justice Dept. even had probable cause. Since the Patriot Act they don't need it. I'm sure everyone remembers the "over 100 terrorist rounded up" that turned out to be entirely people with expired Visas and no connection to terrorism. I have a feeling this is another bogus Republican media event. BTW, Ashcroft is one of the most vile evil man to hold his current position.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be very impressed.

No you won't. These are routine arrests, there is no suggestion of any problems and you're demanding to be specifically shown that their rights were "actually preserved". (I like the sneering on "actually".) At least be honest -- even if there is not a single problem with any of these arrests, it's not going to change your self-aggrandizing hysteria one iota. Not any more than discovering that not one library record subpoenaed caused anyone to stop shrieking about how we're now living in Nazi Germany.

Re:As bad as he is...

[cgranade]

Even better: if they can publicly show that these people's rights were actually preserved, I would be very impressed.
Problem is, that's proving the negative, a difficult task, if not impossible. Also, given Ashcroft's record, you'll excuse me holding out a healthly, if large, amount of distrust toward any action of his. If these actions wind up being good, then so be it. In the meantime, I will expect the worst and hope for the best.

Re:As bad as he is...

[twiddlingbits]

So many fallacies... 1) Terrorists don't fit in any age group, so what if they happen to be older than average, while they may not be planting bombs, they can send cash to the bombers or give them shelter (and many do!!). Besides overstaying your visa is breaking the law and they should be sent packing. I wonder how many people came over here on H1-Bs and now have no jobs but stayed anyway? 2) The Atty Gen's job is to ENFORCE the laws that are on the books which were MADE by CONGRESS. The Patriot Act had strong support from BOTH parties, so there is blame to share. Did you ever stop to think that some of the arrests and seizures under that act might just mean YOU or you LOVED ONES didn't die in another WTC like attack? You want to bitch about the laws talk to your ELECTED representatives, you want to bitch about lawbreakers or selective enforcement call DOJ. 3)If Ashcroft did not enforce the laws he could be removed from office. Oh, and Lest we forget about the issues from the Days of Janet Reno (Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, the Cuban kid...) who was by many measures a very bad AG. She couldn't even get elected by her own party to run for Governer of her home state! Ashcroft served with great distinction in the Senate for many years and when he was nominated he had praise from both parties. 4) Read, listen and think for yourself, and remember your history as it happened (if you are old enough) not how the media SAYS it happened years later. /. readers profess to be smarter than average, so use that brain for more than writing code. 5) You don't vote, don't bitch. You had your chance and you didn't take it. 6) Take the time to understand how our Government works (for those who live in the USA), not how someone on TV or on some news web site says how they WANTED it to work. If you are outside the USA it might do well to know something about it in case you ever visit. ...now back to your regularly scheduled SCO bashing...

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

And most importantly -- these arrests have NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act. Nothing! Even if it did allow what he imagines it does, which isn't true anyway.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Popadopolis]

I think that this can be a front to get some of his "helpful" technology out there. My prediction is that he will say that the FBI will put some new filters in everyone's computer and then use that to spy on people even more. I dont think this guy has the capasity to do good if it isnt a cover for some scheme.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh , boy. Just another ranting idiot. 1. You're right Congress is to blame as well for the unconstitutional Patriot Act. 2. The Patriot Act was written by Ashcroft and the Justice Dept. So they have an equal share of responsibility if not more as its creators. 3. True having an expired Visa is against the law. However it does not entitle the government to put in in leg irons, push you against a wall and slug you, keep you from contacting a lawyer or even your own wife and detain you for six months. The truth is the current administration cannot claim or prove that they have adverted any terrorist attacks with these tactics. 4. A democracy is not a system where just citizens have rights. Read the Declaration Of Independence. As I recall it says 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and it doesn't say anything about you having to be a citizen to have these rights. 5. Maybe you're the one that needs a history lesson. In that case do a Google search on "Japanese Interment Camps During WW II" or maybe on "How the Nazi's increased their power base by suspending the German Constitution (sound familiar)" which by the way was very similar to ours. And all of that happened because people didn't "bitch". 6. A lot of people understand how our government works on paper, however it rarely works that way in practice because people don't "bitch". 7. Voting is the most important way people express their opinions in a democracy, but its not the only way. 8. Opinions are not facts. The fact is the Patriot Act has given the Justice Dept. and the FBI the very wide ranging powers that you yourself seem worried about since you sighted the Branch Divian and Ruby Ridge cases. Cases where the Government was accused of attacking regular citizens without just cause. Well, surprise, the government can now do that and its legal. Now back to you "ignoring what the hell is really going on" attitude.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

He cannot institue any laws, and all new powers require JUDICIAL review.

The book/library search people cry about has been available to grand juries that request it for years.

Take off the tin foil hats guys.

Re:As bad as he is...

[ajakk]

Oh , boy. Just another ranting idiot.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

True having an expired Visa is against the law. However it does not entitle the government to put in in leg irons, push you against a wall and slug you, keep you from contacting a lawyer or even your own wife and detain you for six months. The truth is the current administration cannot claim or prove that they have adverted any terrorist attacks with these tactics.

Breaking the law doesn't allow them to arrest you. And entering the country illegally doesn't allow them to send you back? Actually it does. Also, you can't prove that they didn't stop any terrorist attacks, so nanny-nanny boo-boo back to you.

A democracy is not a system where just citizens have rights.

First, I am glad that I live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Second, being a democracy/republic has nothing to do with the rights of non-citizens. Also note that the Declaration of Independance is not our governing law, our constitution is. A constitution is the governing contract between all of the citizens. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Please note who is creating the Constitution: "We the Peopleof these United States"

Maybe you're the one that needs a history lesson. In that case do a Google search on "Japanese Interment Camps During WW II" or maybe on "How the Nazi's increased their power base by suspending the German Constitution (sound familiar)" which by the way was very similar to ours. And all of that happened because people didn't "bitch".

Wow, I guess the Supreme Court has left the building and the US Constitution has been suspended. Little did I know. Of course you know that the Japanese Internment Camps during WWII held US Citizens. That was the major issue. If we were holding foreign nationals, it wouldn't have been a big deal. Nice Bush/Ashcroft = Hitler comparison. I love how the facist, socialist, and/or nationalist dictators who murder their own citizens by the hundreds on a daily basis are not the ones who are equated with Hitler.

A lot of people understand how our government works on paper, however it rarely works that way in practice because people don't "bitch".

Well, you have the bitching part down, now work on the understanding part.

Cases where the Government was accused of attacking regular citizens without just cause. Well, surprise, the government can now do that and its legal.

I have read most of the Patriot Act. Please tell me where it says that the Government can attack regular citizens without just cause. Personally, I agreed with arresting the Branch Davidians and sending back Elian Gonzales, but I think that Janet Reno approached both of them in a pretty piss poor manner.

Now back to you "ignoring what the hell is really going on" attitude.

Back at ya Buckeroo!

Re:As bad as he is...

[Mononoke]

I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing. He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.

John Wayne Gacy was a nice clown, too.

Re:As bad as he is...

[zurab]

I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing. He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.

Nonsense. He is selectively enforcing the laws on behalf of the corporations that paid for those laws. I am still waiting for a day when they launch an investigation in SCO's practices and book them for criminal copyright infringement. When do you think that is going to happen?

When regular people violate corporation's copyright they are on it in no time. When corporations violate hundreds, if not thousands, of people's copyrights and sell it for profit, where is the "justice" department?

Re:As bad as he is...

[crucini]

I agree that there's too much tinfoil-hattism here, but I think there's a big difference between a Grand Jury demanding information and an FBI Agent demanding the information. Nobody can reasonably object to a judge or Grand Jury extracting private information - without that power injustice would flourish everywhere in secrecy. We worry about the executive branch silently and easily vacuuming up our personal info.

Re:As bad as he is...

[anagama]

I'll freely admit that I didn't read your entire post (format-free rants are usually not worth it anyway). I would however like to respond to one point:

• The Atty Gen's job is to ENFORCE the laws that are on the books which were MADE by CONGRESS.

It is impossible for the Office of the Attorney General to enforce every law on the books. As such, the AG in office decides which laws are to be given priority enforcement. So the truth is, the AG in power becomes the final arbiter of what the law really is in "real life" to some extent.

This is also true for other agencies or arms of the government. For example, the City of Seattle (through the initiative process) recently decided that the police are to give the lowest priority to pot possession crimes. This doesn't change a single law regarding the legality of pot, but it changes things in the real world. The existence of a law is meaningless if it is never applied.

Re:As bad as he is...

[crucini]

The validity of SCO's claims is still up in the air, and will be settled in court. Do you seriously expect the Justice Department to initiate a criminal prosecution based on an issue that is pending settlement in civil court? Can you think of any example where this happened? And just because SCO is constant front-page news here doesn't mean DOJ knows or cares about them.

Can you find a single criminal attorney in the US, either prosecutor or defender, who believes there is a solid criminal case against SCO or some of their employees? Remember, DOJ is run by lawyers, not geeks. They only pursue cases that they think they can win. What is your basis for thinking they could win such a case? What would the charges be exactly?

Even if SCO loses, I doubt that they will be prosecuted for copyright infringement, because they arguably acted in good faith. They distributed code which they thought they owned. Copyright infringement must be wilful to be criminal.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Alex Belits]

Breaking the law doesn't allow them to arrest you. And entering the country illegally doesn't allow them to send you back? Actually it does. Also, you can't prove that they didn't stop any terrorist attacks, so nanny-nanny boo-boo back to you.

Send back -- yes. Imprisoning -- certainly no. What is the most interesting, detaining people before the trial (or hearing) without a bail is supposed to PREVENT THEM FROM LEAVING THE COUNTRY. If the worst that those people face is BEING DEPORTED FROM THE COUNTRY, it should be the stupidest thing ever.

Re:As bad as he is...

[zurab]

Well, you are right that SCO vs. IBM is a contractual dispute; and there are some pieces of code that SCO is arguing IBM has improperly copied. However, that's not what I was referring to.

SCO is also distributing the rest of Linux kernel and related software (that's not being in dispute) without following and honoring the GPL. Linux is copyrighted software, and SCO has zero rights to distribute it, unless they read and follow the GPL. If they cannot follow the GPL because they believe they have some claim in some parts of the software, then they must not distribute the undisputed copyrighted parts at all (i.e. most of Linux kernel). SCO is not only distributing the copyrighted software without authorization, they are selling it. That would be similar to a Joe Pirate selling bootleg Windows XP ISOs openly in public, issuing press releases every week, and suing MS for some obscure copyright infringement.

Just because Joe Pirate has a civil dispute with MS with regards to some part of his code, that dispute is not a free ride for him to sell his own bootleg Windows XP ISOs. That would amount to a criminal infringement (depending on his actual sales), and he would be prosecuted and sent to jail. Likewise, SCO vs. IBM will be resolved in civil court, that doesn't free SCO from respecting others' copyrighted software - who don't have anything to do either with IBM or SCO (i.e. other organizations and individuals that have contributed to Linux kernel). Their civil case againt IBM is no excuse or a free ride for SCO to infringe on everyone else's copyrights for their financial gain. In fact, SCO claims they have few million (whatever number) OpenServer installations - only few of those sales would amount to a criminal infringement with today's laws and should promptly be investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement like they would do with any other Joe Pirate.

How realistic is that this will happen? How realistic is that laws will be equally applied to every person or legal entity? Not realistic at all, if you ask me. Most of the times, laws are enforced on behalf of "special interests" who paid for them in the first place.

Re:As bad as he is...

[crucini]

Your argument makes sense. Unfortunately, SCO seems to be saying that GPL'd code is effectively in the public domain. If so, that would also constitute their defense against copyright infringement. So it seems to make sense to evaluate that argument just once, not in two different courts.

Where I completely disagree with you is your assumption that the government operates only at the behest of special interests. Some people are so politically tied-in that they could be shielded from prosecution. Darl McBride is not one of them.

Prosecutors want to put people in prison. If they could put someone in prison with five minutes work, they would do it, whether that person is Linus Torvalds or Darl McBride. But if they have to devote huge resources to a conviction that carries a light sentence, they'd rather skip it and work on easier cases.

Have any Linux authors complained to their local US attorney's office? I think that generally the victim has to take the initiative and complain, rather than waiting for the feds to magically figure out the situation.

Re:As bad as he is...

[zurab]

Your argument makes sense. Unfortunately, SCO seems to be saying that GPL'd code is effectively in the public domain. If so, that would also constitute their defense against copyright infringement. So it seems to make sense to evaluate that argument just once, not in two different courts.

Well, that's not a viable defense. Can I go around and claim Windows XP is also public domain and sell bootleg ISOs legally? Can I claim all RIAA songs are public domain, and sell bootleg CDs that way? That's no "defense" - that's a crime by today's laws.

As far as courts, I also disagree. SCO vs. IBM is a civil contractual dispute - i.e. the judge in that case will rule on that subject matter - their contract. The case may be appealed numerous times or maybe even settled out of court. The judge may never rule on GPL at all - so it wouldn't make sense to wait for that trial when SCO is in criminal violation right now towards unrelated parties. Law enforcement does not usually wait for civil cases to end before charging someone with a crime; on the contrary, it's usually the other way around.

Where I completely disagree with you is your assumption that the government operates only at the behest of special interests. Some people are so politically tied-in that they could be shielded from prosecution. Darl McBride is not one of them.

That is not really an assumption but rather an observation. They can prove me otherwise by going after SCO and branding them as "pirates" too.

Prosecutors want to put people in prison. If they could put someone in prison with five minutes work, they would do it, whether that person is Linus Torvalds or Darl McBride. But if they have to devote huge resources to a conviction that carries a light sentence, they'd rather skip it and work on easier cases.

The scope of the violation or the crime also has to be considered. If they can track down few bootleg ISOs of Adobe's software and prosecute the "pirate" they should definitely investigate SCO's criminal copyright infringement on behalf of hundreds (if not thousands) of organizations and individuals.

Have any Linux authors complained to their local US attorney's office? I think that generally the victim has to take the initiative and complain, rather than waiting for the feds to magically figure out the situation.

Well, the situation being so public and so persistent, it doesn't take a magician to figure that out. Authors filing complaints would be nice but is not required. Justice department's IP lawyers would be literally blind and deaf not to have heard about SCO vs. IBM and related facts. It is their job to investigate, charge, and prosecute.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

When my Visa expired I got a MasterCard. No crime. No problem. No victim. Bad capitalization changes everything. I think you meant that their visas expired, not that their "Visas" were expired, which means something totally different. Rights are "in"-alienable, not "un"-alienable. Camps are for internment, and not interment, which I think means a place of burial. Cases are "cited" and not "sighted," those people in Texas were Davidians, not Davians, and I think you meant "it's legal" and not "its legal."

OMG, now I'm a spelling and grammar Nazi. So be it. And if you put one (or two) html break tokens before each of your numbers, they will format most persuasively on the page.

I'll shut up now.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is, you've been watching too much Fox.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to find out, most Slashdot readers are republicans. No wonder they prefer Windows.

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember one thing: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, there is no way in hell i would read a post formatted like this. life is just too short.

Re:As bad as he is...

[crucini]

Can I claim all RIAA songs are public domain, and sell bootleg CDs that way?

No. But if there is one song on an RIAA album which you claim to own, you can sue the record company. During the lawsuit, both you and the record company could continue to distribute the song unless the judge issues an injunction barring one of the parties from doing so. Once the case is decided, the infringing party could be liable for damages. But if you lose the case, I don't think you could be prosecuted criminally. That requires willful infringement, but since you were actively asserting your purported rights via the lawsuit, it looks like you acted in good faith.

Law enforcement does not usually wait for civil cases to end before charging someone with a crime; on the contrary, it's usually the other way around.

Can you give me some examples? Specifically, when have they charged the plaintiff in a lawsuit with a crime that is factually equivalent to losing the lawsuit? If neighbors Smith and Jones are embroiled in a lawsuit over a road between their properties, do the authorities ever charge Smith or Jones with trespassing for using that road?

If they can track down few bootleg ISOs of Adobe's software and prosecute the "pirate" they should definitely investigate SCO's criminal copyright infringement on behalf of hundreds (if not thousands) of organizations and individuals.

I wonder how such an investigation actually begins. I'm guessing that it begins with a complaint from Adobe, and that a certain amount of expertise might be needed to make the complaint compelling. There are a lot of former prosecutors in private practice. It would probably cost about $200 to get some clues on the complaint process, or to be told why it won't work.

Well, the situation being so public and so persistent, it doesn't take a magician to figure that out. Authors filing complaints would be nice but is not required.

I don't agree at all. If someone is publicly reputed to have murdered his wife, and the wife is missing, maybe the authorities would take the initiative. Although even there, the story usually starts with someone phoning the police to report the missing person. In this case, a casual read of any SCO story in the papers does not reveal any criminal actions. I think you are too close to this story to see it objectively. There are many lawsuits in the courts, and almost all of them cause great hatred. Almost everyone embroiled in a lawsuit would like to see his adversaries thrown in prison. You may be able to construct a valid theory for prosecution of SCO, but it's a reach. It should be constructed by a criminal attorney and patiently explained to the relevant authorities. I tend to think that if it can be done, IBM's
lawyers will do it.

I share your evident desire to see McBride severely punished for his actions. And don't forget co-conspirators Ralph Yarrow and Chris Sontag. I just don't see any realistic hope for it, as the legal system has not adapted yet to handle this kind of abuse. These people are criminals in all but name, but since their chosen weapon is the lawsuit rather than the gun, they are probably immune to prosecution. I think they will lose their suit, but land on their feet with enough money for a modest retirement.

Re:As bad as he is...

[zurab]

No. But if there is one song on an RIAA album which you claim to own, you can sue the record company. During the lawsuit, both you and the record company could continue to distribute the song unless the judge issues an injunction barring one of the parties from doing so. Once the case is decided, the infringing party could be liable for damages. But if you lose the case, I don't think you could be prosecuted criminally. That requires willful infringement, but since you were actively asserting your purported rights via the lawsuit, it looks like you acted in good faith.

Well, go back and read my posts. That's exactly what I am saying as well, just from different standpoint. SCO can distribute the disputed code until the matter is resolved in courts, but they have no rights to distribute the rest of the kernel. They are in clear violation there.

If I was disputing copyright of 1 song from RIAA, this does not give me free ride to distribute and sell the whole CD with 15 other songs included copyright RIAA.

Can you give me some examples? Specifically, when have they charged the plaintiff in a lawsuit with a crime that is factually equivalent to losing the lawsuit? If neighbors Smith and Jones are embroiled in a lawsuit over a road between their properties, do the authorities ever charge Smith or Jones with trespassing for using that road?

Look up any of the cases against "pirates". Most of them are being prosecuted first before any civil matters/actions against them. Mostly because after they have been convicted, civil lawsuits are much easier to prove.

I wonder how such an investigation actually begins. I'm guessing that it begins with a complaint from Adobe, and that a certain amount of expertise might be needed to make the complaint compelling. There are a lot of former prosecutors in private practice. It would probably cost about $200 to get some clues on the complaint process, or to be told why it won't work.

I don't know these details, but if police department heard about shooting in the news, they wouldn't wait for someone to call in for help, would they? SCO's violations are literally in the news every week. I'm sure Adobe doesn't tip off all "pirates" to the FBI either. They don't have to - FBI has its own investigative teams that have more powers than Adobe, and they do their own investigations - that's their job.

In this case, a casual read of any SCO story in the papers does not reveal any criminal actions. I think you are too close to this story to see it objectively. There are many lawsuits in the courts, and almost all of them cause great hatred. Almost everyone embroiled in a lawsuit would like to see his adversaries thrown in prison. You may be able to construct a valid theory for prosecution of SCO, but it's a reach. It should be constructed by a criminal attorney and patiently explained to the relevant authorities. I tend to think that if it can be done, IBM's lawyers will do it.

Well, that's what I'm hoping too. But I was also hoping that FBI or other law enforcement authorities would lauch their own investigations as well. I don't know why when someone infringes Adobe's copyrights it's a clear-cut case, but when SCO does the same to Linux it's a "reach". I think they are exactly the same. I also don't think IBM is the right party to file the complaint since they are in civil contractual dispute with SCO. Linus, or any other major contributor(s) unrelated to SCO or their contracts would have a perfect case for themselves. And, here I am assuming that nobody has done that already.

I share your evident desire to see McBride severely punished for his actions. And don't forget co-conspirators Ralph Yarrow and Chris Sontag. I just don't see any realistic hope for it, as the legal system has not adapted yet to handle this kind of abuse. These people are criminals in a

Re:As bad as he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems to have summed up things nicely. The Patriot Act is a dangerous precedent and they're just isn't anyway around that. Its has wrong headed as taking money from the middle class and giving it to the upper class. Of course, all of this is the past trying to kill the future. Neo-Cons are really all about trying to protect a way of life that is dying and should be. It doesn't work anymore.

Ashcroft rocks.

[Guano_Jim]

I, for one, welcome our new Pentacostal overlords, and would like to remind them as a barely-known Slashdot personality, might be useful in rounding up others to work in their underground Bible camps.

Re:Ashcroft rocks.

[fishbonez]

You may welcome them. But have you been anointed into your sacred duty as Holy Informer of the Slashdot? Ashcroft was anointed with oil by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after being sworn in as Attorney General.

Perhaps Ashcroft could anoint you with cooking oil or some monitor cleaning fluid. Or at least give you a blast in the forehead with one of those duster cans. Although you might want to close your eyes before being blasted.

"Ahhhh, my eyes! I'm blind," you scream.
"Blinded by the rapture of the Lord. Now speak in tongues lest ye get another blast," says Ashcroft.

Re:Ashcroft rocks.

[SubtleNuance]

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Re:Ashcroft rocks.

[frycarson]

Those air duster cans burn your eyes pretty bad, but are neat for freezing flies. BUT THEY BURN SO FRICKIN BAD IN THE EYES!!!

Frycarson, I don't need grammar

Re:Ashcroft rocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too fucking funny. The sad thing is that Guano Jim is possibly not that far off the mark, but I'll laugh today. I'm personally very scared of Ashcroft. I hope that George II gets voted out next year and Ashcroft is banished to the "Fundie" lecture curcuit where his damage is limited to his own kind.

I see your Fans and Freaks list growing.

Re:I don't think I'm alone in saying this, so

[Brian Dennehy]

... GO STRAIGHT TO HELL, that is...

asdf asdf asdf asdf asdf

Software Piracy

[LPetrazickis]

Are we talking about real software pirates (ones that actually sell their illgotten goods on the street and prevent legimate profits) or pimply-faced teenagers proud of having two hundred copies of Photoshop on their hard drive? IMHO, saying that actual money was lost in the latter case is absurd.

Re:Software Piracy

[Yartrebo]

Probably not. It's so much easier to get a bank of burners and manufacture your own copies than to get a speedboat and a hardy crew to capture a freighter carrying CDs, and there's that slight ethic problem of stealing that goes with taking what is not yours. Carrying away the loot isn't that easy either.

While some may argue that piracy refers to some other act, which I do not need to name, that term was originally coined by the great-granddaddy of the RIAA in England, and I don't respect a term if it's 250 years old just because it's a 250 year old dysphemism

Re:Software Piracy

[jdkincad]

No, they were just downloading Linux distro's.

//Pissed because his school threated to suspended his network access after he downloaded Mandrake 9.2.

Re:Software Piracy

[ameoba]

Even the pirates (ie warez types) themselves have proudly used the term since the mid-80s. You a few decades too late to argue against the adoption of hopelessly loaded terminonology. Get over it. ...I don't care what RMS told you.

Re:Software Piracy

[Powercntrl]

English is a living language. If enough people decide "Googling" means to search the Internet, then guess what, that's what it means. Certainly everyone who complains about "spam" filling up his or her e-mail box is not refering to it being clogged with a meatlike substance. Yes, piracy used to mean looting and plundering on the high seas, and depending on the context of the subject matter, it still can. However, in the context of unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works, it is still appropriate.

If you still don't believe me, the next time you're in a really good mood, tell everyone you're gay and see how they react. Its original meaning was "happy", afterall.

Re:Software Piracy

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't respect a term if it's 250 years old just because it's a 250 year old dysphemism

What if it's 330 years old? (man do I love the OED)

Re:Software Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

..pimply-faced teenagers proud of having two hundred copies of Photoshop on their hard drive?

I don't mean to nitpick or anything but why would anyone have 200 copies of a pirated program on their hardrive? Seems like a waste of space if you ask me. One copy of each version I could understand but 200 of the exact same program?! Am I missing the joke or something?

Don't get me wrong, your point came across clear but that particular part confuses me a bit.

In 2003 Cyber sweep was beginning...

[RLiegh]

All your rights are belong to Ashcroft

#include (standardslashdotresponse.h)

[Chairboy]

Dear slashdot,

I for one am outraged about (subject matter)! This is just another instance of (the government/corporation name) sticking it to those of us who still care about (music/freedom/software)!

In conclusion, stop (subject matter) now!

Regards,
Chairboy

PS, does (subject matter) (run on linux/support OGG Vorbis)? Because if it doesn't, I'm (not buying it/further upset)!

Re:#include (standardslashdotresponse.h)

[ifwm]

Slashdot Mad Libs! I'll play I for one am outraged about Bill Gates! This is just another instance of Satan sticking it to those of us who still care about Linux running on every damned thing that ever had any kind of circuit in it ever! In conclusion, stop Microsoft now! Also, you can use George Bush instead of Bill Gates, and Republicans instead of Microsoft. Satan stays however.

Re:#include (standardslashdotresponse.h)

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what i expected make wouldn't find but instead it compiled fine and here I am runing a stable version of ashcroft's pr. He should still go shoot himself.

Re:"an expressway for crime"

[orthogonal]

Thanks to Asscroft, most citizens can be accused of commiting crimes ["terrorism"] at any arbitary point in time.

Now that's just unfair. John Ashcroft's a great Christian Attorney General.

And 'Operation Cyber Thought Crime Sweep' doesn't start until next week, you commie pinko medical-marijuana-using atheist Muslim non-Allegiance-pledging bong-selling Democrat terrorist.

Ineffectual

[epcraig]

I don't see a decrease in spam.

Re:People really still fall for 911 scams? (519)

[ericspinder]

I belive that they are called 519 scams. Good it is about time that these spammers are getting their due. It has always befuddled me that they could get away with what is clearly fraud. Perhaps the J-dept is finally getting their act together on the Internet. Of course knowning Ashcroft his next target will be porn, but at least that guy is swinging the bat in the right direction for now.

Finally !!

[Tensor]

I took them this long to shift from copyrights violators to actual, real theft.

Kudos ! Its nice to see them focusing on "real" crime with "real" victims, with tangible losses for a change.

Re:Finally !!

[Pavan_Gupta]

I took them this long to shift from copyrights violators to actual, real theft.

Last time I checked, "shifting" wasn't allowed. I believe the term has changed to: "alted."

Re:Finally !!

[Popadopolis]

I worry about them going more after the honest 'white hats,' because the real criminals are harder to catch. Time will tell, I guess.

Re:Finally !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which gets the worse punishment? Stealing from the RIAA or stealing someones identity?

Re:Finally !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice sig.

Re:Finally !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know that the Justice Department and the RIAA are two separate entities?

Actually it's called...

[macdaddy]

a 419 Scam, Nigerian Money Scam, or an Advance Fee Fraud Scam. This US Secret Service page spells it out nicely.

911 only came into the picture after 9/11/01 when the scam morphed to use US soldiers in a foreign land in a post-911 conflict instead of a Nigerian Doctor or governmental official.

Re:Actually it's called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, thats my area code. So that explains the boiler room in town and the cash advance shop that just opened up. Who knew

Subject category

[momerath2003]

I'm glad the editors didn't classify this story as "Your Rights Online" and turn it into another anti-Ashcroft-fest. To stay on topic, identity thieves and the like are the right people to go after. Maybe the salaries for the RIAA's lawyers should go to fighting crime like that.

Re:Subject category

[Peyna]

Of course, attorney's general (whether federal or state) tend to choose to pursue those crimes that will make them look the best in the light of the public for political reasons. Therefore you will more often see them go after high profile things like this, (ooo, cyber-crime, people will think we're doing good if we do that), or murders, rapes, those kinds of things that really piss people off, but affect very few of us.

All of this while they ignore nearly all white-collar crime. Why? Because people are worried about violent crime, and could care less if some CEO cheated us all out of a few billion.

This is a rare instance where you will see someone in his position pursuing something other than drugs or violent crime with vigor. I chalk it up to the newness of the cyber-crime initiative, and that it can be thrown around as a buzzword to make people think they give a damn about it.

Re:Subject category

[Anonymous Coward]

are you for real? this shit is coming out now to inject some positive news about the white house this week. Hint: read the british press this week.

Re:Subject category

[placeclicker]

It would be in YRO if MICHAEL got to post it.

Re:Subject category

[momerath2003]

Correct; I was going to say something to that effect (I chose not to for fear of having the post modded down, in which case no one would hear a response like this). Do you read Anti-Slash?

Nut- they right it is 419

[ericspinder]

Damn it.

The power of money

[jdifool]

Hi,

let's make some maths together.

• There have been roughly 125 000 people scammed by the 125 arrested scammers. If we just stick to the hypothesis that the average scam lasts for one year (if anyone has more information about that, welcome), it makes a difference of 47 000 (125 000 - 4*3*58000) between the scammed people and the number of complaints.
• Given that the overall loss is estimated to 100 million US, and making a real nice average calculation, we can just imagine that 37,6 million (47 000/125 000*100 million) dollars have not been claimed.

Where will that money go ?

Regards,
jdif

Re:The power of money

[Otter]

Re #1: I think you're applying too much precision (and I don't follow your logic, anyway). There were about 50,000 complaints last year and they expect about 80,000 this year. 125,000 people had credit card files stolen or got conned into giving up AOL passwords or something like that by these 125 people. The numbers seem roughly plausible to me.

Re #2: I very much doubt if anything remotely like $62 million has been actually recovered. I'd be amazed if they got $6 million back.

Re:The power of money

[svallarian]

1. Local Porn shop/strip club.
2. Local Best Buy.
3. Local Beer Mart.

At least that's where my $395 went when I got ripped off went. (and still haven't seen a penny in 4 years of waiting for court-ordered restitution)

Steven V.

Thank You Ashcroft!

[Pavan_Gupta]

I'm not an Ashcroft fan, but this situation has allowed me to grow a slight bit less angry with this tyrant -- and for good reason. See, the Internet is much like the "wild west" with vigilantes trying to police the deserts (spam prevention organizations, SpyBot Search and Destroy, security groups, etc), but the problem is, our once epic vigilante is dwarfed by a simple DDoS in the virtual world of the internet. The real world is where the problem stems from, and it's a waste of time to stop attacks launched from "the real world" on the internet. It's about time our government stepped up and put a stop to aggregious crimes happening on the internet.

I see this as a first step in the right direction. People need to learn to stop rampant abuse of an amazing tool. Ashcroft should stamp on illegal filesharers too. It's about time people started playing the game of life legally again. Come on now, leave the blackmarket for IRC.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[SpaceLifeForm]

Be careful by what you read into his comments.

'The information superhighway should be a conduit for communication, information and commerce, not an expressway for crime,' Ashcroft said."

Communication - What they want you to hear, read, and see.

Information - What information they can collect on you.

Commerce - What money they can extract from you.

See GOP - Greedy Old Party.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[1lus10n]

YEAH ! because crime in the real world doesnt exist or cause anyone problems.

We cant keep our troops from getting killed, we cant stop people from ramming planes into buildings and we cant stop CHILDREN from doing drugs, shooting each other, and "sharing" copyrighted materials. yet somehow arresting far less than 1% of the "cyber" criminals out there is somehow a great thing. right. somehow i fail to be amazed.

why dont we take the money they spent on this nice government action and put it to some good use, like education.

The government (any)cannot and should not police the internet since the internet is NOT owned by the government.

i personally think an international organization seperate from real world government should be created from elected (prefferably knowledgeable, unlike the people currently trying to ruin/run the internet) people who then govern cyber space. using a universal set of laws to prosecute people. its the only way this will be fair to all 6 billion people on this planet.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[themanwhoknowsmostth]

Hmm, without being too cynical, it sounds like you want to create a UN for the Internet? I'm not sure it would work any better than the current UN.

Although it's difficult for a government to "police" the Internet, I think things like this story are a small, yet important, drop in the bucket.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[DaEMoN128]

YEAH ! because crime in the real world doesnt exist or cause anyone problems. We cant keep our troops from getting killed I dont know if you are trying to be sarcastic here. Please forgive this flame if you are only being sarcastic.

If you aren't expieriencing the fire over here in the desert with the rest of us, you have absolutely no rum to talk. I have seen the people that we "liberated", and for the most part they are thankful. I have seen the cruelties that they lived under while Saddam was in charge. We did the right thing over here, wheather our reasons were accurate or not.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful?

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[SiliBelgian]

The government (any) cannot and should not police the internet since the internet is NOT owned by the government.

Wrong.
If the Internet is used by a criminal to steal from people by means of credit card fraud, the government can and should prosecute that criminal. Criminals have to be punished, no matter what channel of communication or infrastructure is used in the crime. How would you react to credit card fraud if it happened to you? "Damned, I got robbed. But hey, it happened over the Internet and the Internet is free, so I can't and won't do anything about it." ? I think not.

The government should try to find a subtle balance, punishing real cyber crimes that harm honest internet-user, while still respecting civil rights like privacy and free speech.

We cant keep our troops from getting killed, we cant stop people from ramming planes into buildings and we cant stop CHILDREN from doing drugs, shooting each other, and "sharing" copyrighted materials. yet somehow arresting far less than 1% of the "cyber" criminals out there is somehow a great thing.

Wrong again.
You simply can't solve society's problems by focusing on them one by one, starting with the great ones. You could begin by establishing world peace and putting all your resources in that, but then the people being robbed on the street would feel abandoned by the government, not doing anything about petty crime. (Wait, isn't that happening already?) The only way to deal with problems is when they arise, and, as impractical as it may sound, all at once. And cyber crime is a real problem.

why dont we take the money they spent on this nice government action and put it to some good use, like education.

Excellent plan. Allow me to make small adaptation:
Why don't we take the money they spend on the military and put it to some good use, like education?
The Pentagon is the only institution in the US that gets more than 1 billion dollars a year. On top of that, it is also the only institution that doesn't have to open the books for auditing. They spend the money, no questions asked...

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[1lus10n]

"We did the right thing over here, wheather our reasons were accurate or not."

No argument about weather we did the "right thing" or not, because that is a matter of perspective.

The united states gov't is not the worlds police, and they shouldnt have done this without world wide support simply because we ARE NOT the worlds police and it seems mighty hypocritical to go and overthrow oil boy (saddam) while letting cigar boy (castro) run an outfit for longer than saddam only 300 miles off our shore. not to mention the hundreds of other corrupt governments in africa and south america or the pacific rim.

but to get back on topic ..... I never said anything detrimental about the US, i simply stated a fact. We (being the US) cannot keep our own troops or citizens from being killed. so we dedicate resources that could be better used elsewhere to stop spam and credit card fraud ? This was a political move, and i am calling it such because that is exactly WHY they did this. saying "We are saving people from murder, and terrorism" doesnt have the buzz it once did, so they move to this instead ...... never having solved this first problem.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[1lus10n]

"If the Internet is used by a criminal to steal from people by means of credit card fraud, the government can and should prosecute that criminal. Criminals have to be punished, no matter what channel of communication or infrastructure is used in the crime. "

I think your missing the point, i dont think brick-and-mortar governments know enough about cyber space to police it, as such something should be done to create a body, legislative, legal or other to police the internet. No government should try to police the internet because the internet is alot more qide reaching than any government. Think of it in terms of international waters or airspace, they aren't subject to one governments obscure and retarded laws, they are subject to the internationally agreed upon laws because the area is internationally used.

"The government should try to find a subtle balance, punishing real cyber crimes that harm honest internet-user, while still respecting civil rights like privacy and free speech."

maybe before the government went "senator for rent" on us this would have been possible, but now this wont happen. to much money to be made from selling peoples private information.

"You simply can't solve society's problems by focusing on them one by one, starting with the great ones. You could begin by establishing world peace and putting all your resources in that, but then the people being robbed on the street would feel abandoned by the government, not doing anything about petty crime. (Wait, isn't that happening already?) The only way to deal with problems is when they arise, and, as impractical as it may sound, all at once. And cyber crime is a real problem."

Really ? haven't we been doing it that way since the begining of civilization ? isnt it about time for a change ? last time i checked we were all suffering because our government fucked up something at somepoint and thats acceptable to a certain point. But the US gov't was founded with the idea that it would always try to improve itself and serve its citizens. I for one DO NOT feel very served. As a matter of fact i feel more violated and betrayed everyday BECAUSE of the government. Most people who pay attention to the laws being passed and the bullshit flowing out of washington feel the same way unless they are upper class.

"Why don't we take the money they spend on the military and put it to some good use, like education? The Pentagon is the only institution in the US that gets more than 1 billion dollars a year. On top of that, it is also the only institution that doesn't have to open the books for auditing. They spend the money, no questions asked..."

Well i agree here, the military should open its books and have a severly reduced budget. However let me add another few things to reduce/reconfigure to that list:
1. The NSA.
2. the FBI.
3. The CIA
All three of their budgets are considered "black Budgets" and are hence classified just like the military and the homeland security department (which will be on that list as soon as they start full operations). But you know what the kicker is ? According to an article in the NYT back in '94 the budgets were allocated something like this:

$3.1 billion for the CIA
$10.4 billion for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines special-operations units
$13.2 billion for the NSA/NRO/DIA

How scary is it that the NSA (which is arguably the most "top secret" agency in the world) had a budget of close to or more than the military ? (margin for error was +/- 4bill).

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[Anonymous Coward]

why dont we take the money they spent on this nice government action and put it to some good use, like education.
I Balive en publik skoolse.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[Anonymous Coward]

why dont we take the money they spent on this nice government action and put it to some good use, like education.

Guess which school system spends the most per pupil on education? (Hint, it's the worse public school system in the country.)

Give up? Washington D.C. at over $7,000 per student. Why is the knee-jerk reaction to any problem always to throw more money at it?

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[MindSlap]

"why dont we take the money they spent on this nice government action and put it to some good use, like education.

Excellent plan. Allow me to make small adaptation:
Why don't we take the money they spend on the military and put it to some good use, like education?
The Pentagon is the only institution in the US that gets more than 1 billion dollars a year. On top of that, it is also the only institution that doesn't have to open the books for auditing. They spend the money, no questions asked..."

====================

Offtopic...but I'm getting sick of the 'education card'..

Education?
Pfftt..at 12K per student I dont think so..
Folks whine that 'we need more money'..
Bzzt.. NOT.
This country used to turn out far more educated students in the days of the "little red shoolhouse' that cost a fraction of what it costs today, yet we now turn out 'graduates' that can bearly read, have no knowledge of the country's history..yet have been fully indoctrinated in the 'diversity' brainwashing...
Merit based programs for teachers? Pfft..unions shot that down..God forbid teachers have to demonstrate some kind of knowledge..
Vouchers? Pfft.. Letting PARENTS make a choice as to where/how thier kids are educatated? Again, teachers unions are against this..they'll lose power. (They say 'its for the children'..Nope..its for their own worthless butts..)

So..enough of this 'more money for education'..
Its a lie..
You want to fix education? Start with the unions and giving the PARENTS the ability choose how to education THEIR children...

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[MindSlap]

"The Pentagon is the only institution in the US that gets more than 1 billion dollars a year. On top of that, it is also the only institution that doesn't have to open the books for auditing. They spend the money, no questions asked..." ============= Oh and to address that silly remark... The pentagon IS suject to autiting by the General Accounting office..

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[Performer Guy]

A crime is a crime. If someone robs me I damned well want to be able to report a crime and have it investigated, and hopefully the perpetrators caught. Last I checked theft and fraud were illegal.

As for spending this on education; money needs to be spent in many areas not just your area of most concern. It's less than ideal if by educating kids if you let society in general go to hell in a handbasket through lawlessness.

$100 million in crime has a serious deliterious effect on the economy and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cyber crime.

I can't imagine why anyone would think this enforcement is a bad thing, cybercrime is rifa nad international in scope, often knows no borders and the laws against theft & fraud need to be enforced to curtail it.

Re:Thank You Ashcroft!

[symbolic]

I'm not an Ashcroft fan, but this situation has allowed me to grow a slight bit less angry with this tyrant -- and for good reason.

Ever heard of the "dangling carrot" or "throwing someone a bone"? So now, like good little Americans we sit back, breath a HUGE sigh of relief, and accept the way things have become because, "oh, they caught a few people carrying out e-mail scams. Isn't the government WONDERFUL!" Meanwhile, our rights continue to be undermined by PATRIOT, and other bad legislation.

Re:"an expressway for crime"

[ifwm]

You two are acquainted?

Nice link...

[jdifool]

if you want to get into the details(pdf file)

Regards,
jdif

Way to go!

[fox8118]

I like the idea that the government is finally taking action towards these kind of criminals. This may sound like preaching, but the internet should be a place where I don't have to filter through 30+ emails a day dealing with everything from smuggling money from some dead South African leader to petty virus emails.

About Time

[NeoMoose]

Crackdowns like this should happen on a much more regular basis. It's too bad that the resources required in order to police something as huge as the internet are beyond measure. Fortunately, every step taken that helps to prevent these kinds of things from happening is a step in the right direction.

Re:How long...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. How long until slashdotters realize that Ashcroft doesn't make laws anyway?

We still need to know more...

[Trillian_1138]

How were they tracked down? Was it with previously available tools, or were formerly impossible acts made possible under the PATRIOT act? Good old detective sluething, or warrant-less email tracking? How will they be charged? With charges that fit the crime, ot as cyber-terrorists? Because while hacking computers is a real concern, sending out annoying messages about baseball shouldn't be at the top of Ashcroft's list.

I'm not accusing Ashcroft of anything. Yet. But I am VERY VERY suspicious of anything that he touches, or anything fro his department. This is hopefully a step in the right direction. People who con others out of their credit cards or hijacks other computers should be prosecuted. But I think the public needs to closely examine what exactly is going on behind the scenes.

-Trillian

Re:We still need to know more...

[drinkypoo]

If they tracked down scammers under the patriot act, the average citizen is only going to think that it is justified. In that case, we would prefer them not to know :)

Re:We still need to know more...

[Chatmag]

There is another post on this topic that links to the report from The Internet Fraud Complaint Center.

This is where all the original complaints were filed, and checking the graphs, only 24.9 percent of people had reported the crime to other law enforcement agencies prior to contacting the IFCC. This is not a case of AG Ashcroft misusing his office, rather it is the system in action, and I'd like to see more of these criminals brought to justice.

Re:We still need to know more...

[Trillian_1138]

I wasn't trying to say he was missusing his office. I certainly hope Ashcroft makes an effort to stop "cyber-criminals" or whatever the buzzword is for people doing illegal things (scamming people, hijacking computers, etc) through the 'net. They're costing people money and invading people's privacy, and should be stopped.

But, I don't think Ashcroft, Bush, et al, have a very good track record (in _MY_ opinion, and seemingly the opinion of many other people on slashdot) of keeping people's rights in mind while they persue criminals and 'terrorists.' So I'd like more information from Ashcroft before I cry "hurray" about this crackdown.

And I looked at the link you provided, which doesn't really address my concerns. I'm completely ready to believe that the crimes were _reported_ through the proper chanels. I just want a guarantee that these people, who ARE criminals, aren't being labled "terrorists" or having their email read or some other exciting ability granted by Ashcroft and/or the PATRIOT act.

All I'm saying is this is an arena where Ashcroft has the ability to abuse his powers, and I want a guarantee it isn't happening. Until I get that guarantee (and I'm not holding my breath...) I'm going to stay skeptical.

-Trillian

Re:We still need to know more...

[Chatmag]

I understand your concerns. I'm one of the people who regularly contribute emails that I have received to both the IFCC and the National Infrastructure Protection Center. Most of the emails are scam operations, such as fraudulent MLM, or the Nigerian scam. Others are links to child porn sites, and various other illegal activities. I'd like to think that by forwarding those emails, I'm helping in a small way to shut down criminal activities. I doubt that the FBI and others are abusing their powers, rather that they are doing the job they are charged with. When one of these alleged criminals are brought to justice, they have every right to be defended by an attorney, who should be competent enough to challenge the evidence against their clients.

Ashcroft is not all bad

[soft_guy]

When I lived in Missouri I once had a problem with being slammed by various telephone companies (mostly from Texas.)

Slamming is where they change your long distance service from your preferred service to a different one (usually one that charges a very high rate) without your permission.

I didn't know what to do about it and Southwestern Bell's answer was that I should just pay my bill and shut up. So, I called John Ashcroft's office because he was one of my US Senators. Someone at his office made a call to SW Bell on my behalf and voila my problem was solved.

In this case, he has captured people who were actually out comitting crimes against people. These crimes had victims and real consequences. I, for one, applaud this news.

Tomorrow I can go back to fuming about the patriot act. Today, I say "Thank you very much Attorney General Ashcroft for getting some criminals off the internet!"

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

[being slammed by various telephone companies] Anyone can put a lock on LD service (without calling an elected official). Common sense dude.

[actually out comitting crimes against people] Who else are crimes comitted against?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you however, The People should THINK and protect themselves. The government was never created to hold one's hand and protect them as they walk down the dark streets.

That's what I do with my small child.

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

And so like I was on the phone making a drug deal, and like it went beep-beep-beep-beep from all the tapping, and then the police broke down my door. I got another phone call (one), but it was to my lawyer and wasn't as good. And it was a good drug deal...

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[applemasker]

Let's not forget that this guy lost an election to someone who had died before we nominate him for any humanitarian awards.

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

He lost an election to the dead guy's wife.

Don't let facts stand in your way.

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that this guy lost an election to someone who had died before we nominate him for any humanitarian awards.

After he pulled all his ads and ceased all campaign activities the day after the crash. He was polling ahead five points when that happened.

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is *all* bad, but I for one do not want that loonie in my goverment.

He and the rest of his right wing religious zelots have made it their personal agenda to do whatever it takes, and mostly that means ripping apart the Bill of Rights, to enforce their religious views upon all of the US.

Whatever small amount of good he may have ever done in his life, including this, will never outweigh his crimes to the American people for thinking that his religous views are the only ones that matter.

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[Grizzlysmit]

Nobody is *all* bad, but I for one do not want that loonie in my goverment.

He and the rest of his right wing religious zelots have made it their personal agenda to do whatever it takes, and mostly that means ripping apart the Bill of Rights, to enforce their religious views upon all of the US.

Whatever small amount of good he may have ever done in his life, including this, will never outweigh his crimes to the American people for thinking that his religous views are the only ones that matter.

I'm a Commited Penticostal Christian (Hillsong Church), and I'd have to totally with you, except he's not in my goverment (I'm Aussie we have his Cronnies in :'( ), really as a Christian I can only say, Bush and Ashcruft are to Christianity as al Qaeda is to the Muslim faith, i.e. a pain in the ass that we could do without, thankyou very much.

P.S. I must add that I don't accept them as Chritian brothers, the bible says "by their fruits you will know them" so clearly Small Treey thing (Bush :-D ) and Ashcruft are children of Satan.
As are Howard and co here.

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[Just Some Guy]

I have a similar story. When I was in the Navy, I bought some stuff from the Navy Exchange on their "home layaway plan" (basically, a credit line). After I'd been out of the service for a few years, I received a letter that I still owed like $700 for some furniture. They gave me a 1-800 number to call back on, so I gathered my cancelled checks (yeah, I keep all of 'em) and my discharge papers that showed where the Exchange had signed off that I owed them no money.

They never answered the phone through about 20-30 calls.

About a month later, I got a certified letter that they would be garnishing my income tax returns to pay back the debt, and gave me another 1-800 number. Same deal: noone would answer the phone.

In a panic, I photocopied everything and sent it, along with an explanatory letter, to then-Senator Ashcroft.

Within two weeks I received a personal call at home from a Navy Read Admiral in charge of the Navy Exchange, apologizing profusely for any inconvenience I might've suffered. I also received a certified letter stating that my debt was paid in full before I was discharged and that I had fulfilled my contract in good standing.

I know that a lot of Slashdotters don't like Mr. Ashcroft, but personally, I'll never forget that a letter to his office resulted in a Navy Admiral kissing my butt and begging for forgiveness. What can I say - I like the guy.

Re:Ashcroft is not all bad

[MindSlap]

" Let's not forget that this guy lost an election to someone who had died before we nominate him for any humanitarian awards."

===========

That just proves that liberals continue to vote for braindead candidates.. :D

Info on the Phillies "Fan"...

[dameron]

"Mikkke Schmidt", as he called himself, has plagued alt.sport.baseball.phila-phillies for some years now. Have a read and imagine the FBI busting your favorite troll...

Some samples of his "work".

The charges.

Apparently he's not the sharpest spoon in the drawer as he not only "email bombed" the Phillies management with rants such as this one, but also, obviously, posted the exact material to Usenet.

Read some, there's some quality trollin' ('though not as refined as the infamous "cordial boy" or King Tut).

-dameron

Re:Info on the Phillies "Fan"...

[csnydermvpsoft]

He also went by the nickname of Travis Lee. Here's another example of his work. That was my dad he was pretending to be, causing him to get involved, and give the FBI some information on the guy. It was a relief to finally see him caught.

Re:Info on the Phillies "Fan"...

[Anonymous Coward]

so you're travis lee's son?

how's he like it in tampa?

tell marlon anderson i said hi.

Re:Info on the Phillies "Fan"...

[KjetilK]

Wow. He spammed me really bad even here in Norway... I have had to add four specialized filters to me SpamAssassin setup, and one of them was "Phillies", just for him. So that means I can remove that, and I guess at least one of the people they got was a vermin.

Re:Info on the Phillies "Fan"...

[jeffy124]

of all the things Philly fans have done over the years, that was certainly a first. We've already:

• booed Santa Claus (though he deserved it - if anyone wants the history I'll give it)
• ripped apart Connie Mack Stadium while the last game was still going on
• had a then-District-Attorney-now-PA-Governer dare someone into throwing snowballs at an Eagles game
• jumped Tie Domi in the penalty box
• gave JD Drew a bunch of D-cell batteries

Who'da thunk that hacking & spamming would join that list?

Re:Info on the Phillies "Fan"...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was one guy (singular) that threw a battery (again, singular) at J.D. Drew. Compare that to the way Eric Lindros was treated in his first game in Quebec, where several fans threw pacifiers and pennies (which could injure their own players) onto the ice. And the Tie Domi thing was funny, heh. That guy got more than he bargained for when the glass gave way.

Re:Info on the Phillies "Fan"...

[Dr. Cody]

Read some, there's some quality trollin' ('though not as refined as the infamous "cordial boy" or King Tut)

Who are they?

Names

[Kohath]

What are the names of the citizens who were accused by Ashcroft of terrorism and later turned out to be innocent?

Not trolling, not rhetorical. I actually really want to know if there are any.

Re:Names

[Anonymous Coward]

See the thing is that we don't know. We don't have any evidence, we don't even give the guys lawyers who can talk to said suspects. We just have to take Ashroft's word for it. Of course I'm sure Padilla and the rest of "those people" are guilty of whatever they say said people are guilty of... so no worries mate. The whole due process thing was too much of a hassle anyways.

Re:Names

[fenix down]

They've let a whole pile out of Gitmo since they started that thing up. Some of them are just getting sent to Saudi Arabia or wherever to get their nuts set on fire, but most of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, none of them have ever been accused of terrorism, the only accusation anybody at Gitmo specifically gets is "you're the worst of the worst". The 13 year olds and the 15 year old Canadian they sent along for buttsex are still in there though, so don't worry.

And then there was this one. And of course, although Ashcroft wasn't in charge yet back then, I doubt he'd be more rational than the last guy.

Re:Names

[Mike Hawk]

Good try, but the question was "citizens". That would be US citizens. Since the people you mentioned were not US citizens, our Constitution does not provide them any rights. Care to try again?

And remember, the question was Ashcroft. Begin your list here:

Re:Names

[hughk]

Technically, they are *not* guilty or innocent until they go in front of a court of law. They are not being charged with anything or being accused of anything.

Re:Names

[Alex Belits]

Constitution applies to everybody under US jurisdiction, citizen or not. If it didn't, US would be chock-full of foreign slaves.

And Guantanamo first and foremost violates international treaties, that appliy to the actions of US government regardless of the location.

Re:Names

[nilenico]

Yes, but surely the US cannot arbitrarily hold foreign nationals indefinetly, without charges, either?

The people held are citizens somewhere (well, a lot of 'em, anyway), and holding anyone, without any rights, charges, no access to legal councel or whatever can't excatly be something a country should do?
At least not if you expect to be someone whose example others should follow...

One of the ones stuck is Swedish - imagine the outrage if Sweden did something similar to a US citizen!

Re:Names

[Kohath]

Beyond questions of constitutionality, there's a good reason to restrict the question to citizens.

I'm a citizen. If Ashcroft is no danger to citizens, but his actions help protect us from genuine terrorists, then it would be reasonable to conclude that his actions are a net benefit to someone like me.

There seems to be a lot of non-specific malice directed towards Ashcroft, among others. It would be useful to know if there's a practical foundation for any of it, or it's simple opposition by people on other politcal and religious sides.

Re:Names

[Alex Belits]

Beyond questions of constitutionality, there's a good reason to restrict the question to citizens.

This is not your (or Ashcroft's) call to make -- US is subject to international treaties and convention, and this is the only thing that protects Americans abroad from other governments.

Re:Names

[fenix down]

Well, you also have to balance the extra protection against the new terrorists being a fuckhead creates. Maybe nuking Mecca would prevent 6 terrorist attacks, it's not a great idea if it inspires 5,000.

Look at it this way. China starts arresting Americans they think might be agitators or something, and announce they will keep doing this until Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward MenTM. How long before the US invades? Now take away the US army and replace it with a guy with a goat, and come up with a plan to get them back that doesn't involve terrorism before a crazy Texan goes ahead with the terrorism plan.

It doesn't matter whether you think that's a good analogy. There's 6 billion people out there and enough of them do to fuck you over pretty good.

Re:Names

[Kohath]

Ok. But the attacks on the US were unprovoked. So all the 'not fighting terrorism' led to attacks against the US. Now you're saying that fighting terrorism leads to attacks. What's the solution then?

When the US was attacked, some response was in order. I've yet to hear anything from any of you to suggest the US response went overboard.

No one's mentioned any names. Where are Ashcroft's innocent victims?

Re:People really still fall for 911 scams? (519)

[LordKronos]

Or possibly you are thinking of 419

and

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't this cover ATM machines as well... it's a transaction over a network...

bunk

Re:and

[IM6100]

Well, ATM machines are on a different network.

Though, if we're going to address all networks, I have this string of Christmas lights that are all networked together.... hmmm...

GOD BLESS YOU AS YOU RESPOND

[Anonymous Coward]

Fresh out of my mailbox!

FROM JOSEPH MOBUTU

You may be suprise to receive this email since you do not know me.
I am the son of the late president of Democratic Republic Of Zaire,President Mobutu Sese Seko, ( now The Republic Of Congo, under the leadership of the son of Mr. Laurent Kabila ). I presume you are aware there is a financial dispute between my family ( THE MOBUTU ) and the present civilian Government. This is based on what they believe as bad and corrupt governance on my late father's part. May his soul rest in perfect peace.As you might have heard how a lot of my father's bank account in Switzerland and North America have been frozen.
Following the above named reasons, I am soliciting for your humble and confidential assistance to take custody of THIRTY Million United States Dollars ( US$30,000,000.00 ), also to front for me in the areas of business you desire profitable.

These funds have secretly been deposited into a confidential Security Company, where it can easily be withdrawn or paid to a recommended beneficiary. The funds will be released to you by the Security Company, based on my recommendations, on that note, you will be presented as my partner who will be fronting for me and my family in any subsequent ventures. Myself and my mother have decided to give 20% to you if you are able to help us claim this consignment.We have also decided to give you any money spent on phone calls or travelling expenses in the course of this transaction.
Please, I need your entire support and co-operation for the success of this transaction, your utmost confidentiality and secrecy is highly required, due to my family's present predicament.
I sincerely will appreciate your willingness to assist us as soon as possible.
I am presently in the refugee camp here in the Netherlands under the united nations refugee camp in Netherlands and I can be reached on phone number +31-630-325-549 or via my email address josephmobutu2000@netscape.net more information on how we can proceed in this transaction.
Please indicate your interest by sending your telephone and fax numbers or call me up at anytime. I sincerely will appreciate your acknowledgement as soon as possible.
Warmest regards,

Joseph Mobutu Sese-Seko

Re:Dude

[danielrm26]

"Why are you talking shit about Indonesian people? "

Easy there, killer. I wasn't talking shit about anyone. This is for real, and the guy told *me* he was in Indonesia. I just happened to find the news ironic after being told by numerous people (who do online retaling with ebay and such) that I should be very careful about Indonesia in particular because there is a lot of credit card fraud coming from there.

This is not somthing I came up with; I just found the shit out for myself today.

My experience of online crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a small web site that has unfortunately attracted the attention of a persistent credit card fraudster. He seems to be a kid who thinks he's anonymous but I know enough about him for any police officer to find him in minutes. I warned him that I would report him to the police if he didn't stop what he was doing but he continued so I had no option but to file a police report. (It would have been illegal for me not to report him.)

After all of the formalities had taken place I spoke to the officer who would be handling the case and I asked how long it would take to process because all the time I was losing money to some stupid kid. The officer was very understanding and sympathetic but this was roughly his reply:

"I've got a pile of reports on drugs offences. They generally take a year to process. This report will go on the bottom of that pile."

It seems to me that the reality of crime on the Internet, with the possible exception of child abuse/pornography, is that most criminals will either get away with it entirely or they'll have months, maybe years, to rip-off as many people as they want, before the law eventually catches up with them and delivers a light slap on the wrist.

ps. Wouldn't it be great if you order something over the Internet, legitimately, using your own credit card, receive the product or service but never pay a single penny? Well you can, it's easy, every online retailer knows how it's done and credit card companies have no interest in preventing it. Ask any retailer who is to blame for credit card fraud and the answer will be the same: Credit card companies. I'm not an expert on the subject but I feel confident in saying that with a change of policy from credit card issuers, upwards of 90% of online card fraud could be stopped over-night. I also feel confident in saying that this change of policy will not happen.

Re:My experience of online crime

[IM6100]

The folks who will expedite investigation of credit card fraud are the credit card companies. They have people you should contact, rather than going direct to the police themselves.

Re:My experience of online crime

[Anonymous Coward]

card issuers are up front about how cardholders are not liable. credit fraud?? no problem! charge-back!

it annoys me how these same credit card companies claim they lose money on this kind of fraud. especially when you consider that the merchant is the one who is out the money and has to pay all of the charge-back fees.

sometimes people will even admit that they incurred a charge but that they don't feel they should pay for it...and they'll just charge-back.

the big winners in this kind of fraud are the credit card companies.

why should it change? the credit card companies have too much money and are too powerful. they have too much to gain from this fraud.

Re:My experience of online crime

[SiliBelgian]

ps. Wouldn't it be great if you order something over the Internet, legitimately, using your own credit card, receive the product or service but never pay a single penny? Well you can, it's easy, every online retailer knows how it's done and credit card companies have no interest in preventing it. Ask any retailer who is to blame for credit card fraud and the answer will be the same: Credit card companies. I'm not an expert on the subject but I feel confident in saying that with a change of policy from credit card issuers, upwards of 90% of online card fraud could be stopped over-night. I also feel confident in saying that this change of policy will not happen.

In Europa, this is going to change with the introduction of the credit card with a chip in it and a PIN-number needed for authentication. For more information about it, visit these sites.

As usual, the good old USA is falling behind again ;)

Re:My experience of online crime

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europa, this is going to change with the introduction of the credit card with a chip in it and a PIN-number needed for authentication.

Alas the chip/pin won't affect this particular fraud because the person uses their own credit card. The chip/pin helps to prove that the person is who they claim to be, but as they need to be the legal card holder for the fraud to work, it won't help at all.

Re:My experience of online crime

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europa, this is going to change with the introduction of the credit card with a chip in it and a PIN-number needed for authentication.

...Which despite giving a few people a warm-fuzzy feeling, will do precisely zero to combat credit card fraud.

Cards here in the USA already have a CCV2 number (3 or 4 digits on the back). The idea is that you have to be in physical possession of the card in order to know what that number is, so just having the credit card number isn't enough. That's all well and good, until someone mails out a fake "PayPal account update" bait, asking people for their credit card numbers and CVV2's.

A 4-digit PIN isn't going to cut out any fraud. People will just give the scammers their PIN.

Re:My experience of online crime

[Simple-Simmian]

I tell yyou what you call your elected city representaive member of county superviors office and relate what you just related and I can almost assure you that you will get some results if you refuse to take no for a answer. If that won't work call teh newspaper and TV/radio stations they love this stuff your problem will be solved pretty fast. Cops don't like a stink it shows how little effect all the money they spend effects actual crime.

Re:My experience of online crime

[hughk]

Ask any retailer who is to blame for credit card fraud and the answer will be the same: Credit card companies.

It is expensive to chase after CC fraudsters, particularly if they are from another country. Any one merchant may only see a single crime from one fraudster and it may not even be enough to be interesting for the FBI. That single fraudster is typically comitting frauds against many merchants but it is only really the credit card companies who have the resources to go after these people.

I'm not an expert on the subject but I feel confident in saying that with a change of policy from credit card issuers, upwards of 90% of online card fraud could be stopped over-night. I also feel confident in saying that this change of policy will not happen.

Unless something moves the responsibility for dealing with fraud back on the card supplier, I agree with you.

Re:My experience of online crime

[ddent]

Absoloutely!

One thing I would add to that, however, is that fortunately, things are changing -- and as you suggest, not due to the credit card issuers. There is an EU directive that is going to hold the banks responsible for CC fraud, and guess what? They are responding. There are initiatives such as 'Verified by Visa' and similar ones for MasterCard etc, where basically you will have a password for your credit card, that doesn't get sent to the merchants, but straight to the banks. Card-not-present merchants, a new era is coming... and a very good one, I think.

Re:My experience of online crime

[Shimbo]

Cards here in the USA already have a CCV2 number (3 or 4 digits on the back). A 4-digit PIN isn't going to cut out any fraud. People will just give the scammers their PIN.

We have CCV2 numbers too. The big difference is that a legitimate vendor will never ask you to provide a PIN.

Re:My experience of online crime

[Gannoc]

ps. Wouldn't it be great if you order something over the Internet, legitimately, using your own credit card, receive the product or service but never pay a single penny? Well you can, it's easy, every online retailer knows how it's done and credit card companies have no interest in preventing it.

Well dammit man, tell us how to do it! I did some math, and if I don't have to pay money, I can get a LOT more stuff!

Long sentences confuse me

[mcd7756]

"...a Virginia woman who sent fake e-mails to America Online customers asking them to update their credit card numbers to a disgruntled Philadelphia Phillies fan..."

I'm not a baseball fan. Was it supposed to make him feel better about their season?

Re:"an expressway for crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Slandering John Ashcroft by calling him "Asscroft", or "Asscrotch", is now a federal offense.

I am NOT joking about this shit. You don't get away with commiting treason against the Dept of Father Security and get away with it! "American's ought to watch what they say"

Re:Dude

[danielrm26]

By the way,

raghead overlords?

How are you going to call someone out for supposedly "talking shit" about someone when you yourself speak in such a way?

Odd.

Re:A Proclamation

[badman99]

Hmmm Free Love

Re:Software Piracy and Mandrake

[khym]

Was this because of the bandwidth used, or did they actually acuse you of piracy?

Normal hubris - as insubstantial as can be

[tagishsimon]

Given that the indictment was laid against the Philly spammer before the supposed start date of the supposed operation...

http://www.cybercrime.gov/carlsonArrest.htm ... I'd venture to say that the probability is that operation cyber sweep is little more than a PR exercise to link together various extant cases to make it look as though serious co-ordinated action is taking place.

What a wonderful country the US is..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything for a buck, eh.

Where's the brotherly love gone?

[WIAKywbfatw]

...a disgruntled Philadelphia Phillies fan who hacked into computers nationwide and launched spam e-mails criticizing the baseball team...

Jeez, those Philly fans never give up do they? I don't think they'd be satisfied even if their teams won the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup and the NBA Championship. They'd still find something to complain about - haven't these guys heard of rooting for the home team? No wonder the old Veteran's Stadium had a courthouse and jail added to its basement.

Re:Where's the brotherly love gone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for all citizens of Philadelphia when I say:

Booooooo.

Philadelphia's not going to win a championship every year, or even every few years, which is what's turned the place into a city of seemingly cynical, ungrateful fans. But we live by the sword and die by the sword. Fans hate losing and they LOVE winning. Ever heard of Mike Schmidt? He's cheered like a rock star and the man's been retired from baseball for over a decade. Pete Rose? Whitey Ashburn? Larry Bowa? Harry Kalas?

You probably don't know, but what did former Phillies great Tug McGraw do when he won the 1980 World Series, when he took the mike after the parade down Broad Street? He took a potshot at New York. Because the Mets suck, yes, but mostly because it was this glimpse of success that New York grew accustomed to, with its big-market glitz and glammer, that Philly earned with blood, sweat and tears.

That's what it's like, that's what the outsiders will never understand. The Vet, which I will be extremely sad to see go in February, is the embodiment of the city. Yes, it's a dump, but it's OUR dump. Yeah, the fans are ravenous and crude and threw snowballs at a Santa Claus and batteries at JD Drew but they're PASSIONATE fans who entered the concrete donut of Veterans' Stadium closer to their home team than any beat writer could've accurately described. The Vet is a perfect symbol of Philly fandom, because it bleeds Philly character in a way those who really understand the city can appreciate.

Don't judge Philly sports - especially its fans - based on the actions of a few.

Re:"an expressway for crime"

[Glock27]

I'm Outta Here!

Thank you, and please don't let the (virtual) door hit you in the...

Re:Software Piracy and Mandrake

[jdkincad]

I was sent a form email pointing out that I could face disciplinary action for downloading copyrighted material. I suspect this was triggered by the 500kBs+ I was getting via Bittorrent. Paticularly since I rarely use other p2p software.

I'm only going to sing this one more time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh,
If you want to be plural, it's just "e-y-s",
And if you want to make it possessive, it's "e-y-apostrophe-s".
Scalawag!

Refunds anyone?

[SiliBelgian]

Authorities in Ghana and Nigeria also helped track down suspects and recover millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains.

Slightly offtopic here, but will those funds be repayed to the fools who were stupid enough to fall for the scam?
Or will they just spend it on military equipment, as seems to happen with all excess money ?

Just curious.

Re:Refunds anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

the people taht fell for it. they dont deserve their money back.
and quite frankly im glad they lost it.

stupid people dont deserve to have money.

this wasnt some super tricky stock scam. this was stupidity and greed combined to form a nice punishment,

think of it as evolution, weeding out the idiotic rich people.

Re:Refunds anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Authorities in Ghana and Nigeria also helped track down suspects and recover millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains.

Slightly offtopic here, but will those funds be repayed to the fools who were stupid enough to fall for the scam? Or will they just spend it on military equipment, as seems to happen with all excess money ?

No, they will be stored in a numbered bank account that only a select few trustworthy people know about. Once one of them dies, you get to help his widow by transferring those moneys out of the country. If you are lucky, you'll make 25% of the deal.

Re:Refunds anyone?

[Eccles]

the people taht fell for it. they dont deserve their money back.

At one time or another, "we're all bozos on this bus." Someone forwarded me the fake PayPal scam the other day; it would have been very easy to fall for it.

Many of those who fall for these schemes are the elderly with deteriorated mental skills. Grandma deserves the fruit of her labor of forty years in the twenty years of her retirement.

stupid people dont deserve to have money.

Would that include ones that can't type, can't use apostrophes, and can't capitalize the appropriate words?

Re:Refunds anyone?

[hesiod]

> > stupid people dont deserve to have money.
> Would that include ones that can't type, can't use apostrophes, and can't capitalize the appropriate words?

He said "stupid people." Not "lazy people."

Good to see..

[Large Green Mallard]

Good to see that finally they're stopping hiding behind the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.. I mean, arrested and convicted.. same thing, let's lump them in together, right? :)

"Seventy indictments to date have led to arrests or convictions of 125 people"

Re:"an expressway for crime"

[TPFH]

Slandering John Ashcroft by calling him "Asscroft", or "Asscrotch", is now a federal offense.

What about calling him Ashcrack?

Operation what?

[vistic]

Commence Operation.... Vacu-suck!

Way to go Ashcroft !

[Petronius]

I see you're focusing on the important stuff: disgruntled baseball fans & small time crooks. Next decade, when you get a chance, try prosecuting Ken Lay for the billions he stole or some real terrorists, now that you have that Patriot Act.

Have a nice day.

Hook, this is line, Sinker, Line this is hook.

[SubtleNuance]

Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday that law-enforcement agents had arrested 125 suspects in a crackdown on Internet crimes ranging from hacking and software piracy to credit card fraud and selling stolen goods over the Internet, according to Wired. The investigation, begun Oct. 1 and dubbed Operation Cyber Sweep, involved police from Ghana to Southern California and uncovered 125,000 victims who had lost more than $100 million.

So, is this worthwhile effort? Who else smells the propaganda? How much does a bs operation like this cost these governments?

Instead of pursuing violent street criminals or corporate whores who bankrupt whole billion-dollar companies with lies and theft leaving tens-of-thousands of pensioners and unemployed?

Instead John Ascroft spends his time constructing a ruse to set up as chimera for the Coprorate Media to parrot in order to scare the population straight -- wouldnt want lawlessness would we?

So, what does it cost to construct this kind of psy-op on the American public? Is the media aware before the event? How much is spent on post-'operation' press, PR, Cops /FBI/insvestigators/staff during the operation, flights/calls/meetings for higher-ups to organize the event, press-invitations, etc etc etc vs. the actual amount of $ stolen? How much fear and ominous sounding threats against the free-intellect of the public will the American public endour before they tell these plutocratic whores to re-adjust their priorities?

What is more important or what should government's attention/resources be spent? Helping an elderly women on a declining social-insurance in a cold tenament -- or -- making sure the Visa Board of Directors keeps profit up in order that they may share $500Million salary between 12 people?

Re:Hook, this is line, Sinker, Line this is hook.

[Artifakt]

This is something that can be criticised either way. If the AG goes after a bunch of petty criminals, and it costs more to prosecute them than the average take, its a publicity stunt. If his office focuses on crimes with high enough consequences to be cost effective, well that $150,000 per count for copyright violation makes that one of the laws worth enforcing. As long as some rather trivial offenses have such big penalties, challenging these actions on cost effectiveness grounds is not even approximately challenging them on ethical grounds. If you let "them" turn it into an economic arguement, the system is rigged against you. It can give you what you said you wanted and still not prosecute violent crime, big corporate fraud, or people who don't maintain their furnaces when they rent to little old ladies.

TIPS FOR ARGUING FOREVERYONE

[proj_2501]

OK, there, bucko.

(2) Learn to format your postings, please.
(3) Learn to spell.
(5) Don't assume that anyone who complains didn't vote.I voted. I complain.
(7) The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress at a time when any deviation from the President probably would have resulted in a ridiculous political backlash.
(11) Don't assume that anyone who complains is ignorant. It makes you look pompous, not intelligent.
(13) Lists are more fun if they're not based on the counting numbers!

Re:TIPS FOR ARGUING FOREVERYONE

[Lord_Slepnir]

Did anyone else notice that he used the first 6 prime numbers for numbering his list? Damn, I feel like a geek now

Re:TIPS FOR ARGUING FOREVERYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

He specifically drew attention to it as one of his list items, so it would be pretty sad if no-one else noticed. Kudos to you for oh-so-cleverly figuring it out though.

Re:TIPS FOR ARGUING FOREVERYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

Primes are sooo yesterday. I was hoping for the Fibonacci sequence.

Re:TIPS FOR ARGUING FOREVERYONE

[gibbdog]

Did anyone else notice that he used the first 6 prime numbers for numbering his list? Damn, I feel like a geek now

Isn't 1 also prime? If he used the first 6 prime numbers he would've started with 1.

Anyway, the original poster also posted in all prime number. 4 and 6 are actually prime, they're just embarassed about being prime and repress their primeness very well.

"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[John Jorsett]

I would urge you to exercise independent judgement before concluding that he's "one of the worst people in high places." Such pronouncements come from George Bush's political opposition, who are hardly objective in their criticisms. To begin with, ask youself why terrorists are blowing up overseas targets and not any in the U.S. Do you think that's their first choice? No. Could it be because Bush/Ashcroft/Ridge have managed to cripple the U.S. operations of terrorists (while getting their ankles chewed on by people more interested in scoring political points than protecting us)? I think the answer is yes. And they're managing to do it without sending people to the ovens, despite the picture their political opponents are trying to paint.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[TGK]

Uhhhh.... this is an example of assuming causality. Because there have been very few terrorist attacks in the United States since Sept 11, 2001 the Bush administration must be doing a good job combating terrorism.

This assumes a few things.

1 - Legions of bloodthirsty terrorists wish nothing more than to see the United States reduced to a smoking abrasion in the earth's crust.

2 - These people have decided that the best time to act on these urges would be right now, while the Bush Administration is hunting for them.

3 - These terrorists are being found, tried, and convicted in secret military courts while the president's approval ratings sink ever lower as the US population grows more and more convinced that the world isn't nearly as dangerous as Mr Ashcroft would have us think.

It also has, implicit in it, at least one conclusion that those that advance it probably won't like.

1 - Three acts of terrorism have occurred in the United States since Pres. Bush took power. (9-11, Anthrax, Sniper). Thus Bush averages 1 attack per year (3 years in office, 3 attacks). Clinton, in comparison averages 1 every 4 years (World Trade Center Bombing and Oklahoma City). By the parent post's logic Clinton did a better job of protecting against terrorism.

But let's not get into that particular quagmire. The real question is this. At what cost? Terrorism isn't the leading cause of death in this country. More people die from pretty much everything than die in terrorist attacks. Want to protect the US Citizenry? Sink that $87 Billion for Iraq into Cancer research.

Ok... lets go with Cancer though. Apparently this country is unwilling to use the stem cells from a fetus that was aborted to try to cure cancer. I can accept a religious problem with that.

So here's the (hypothetical) trade. A cure for cancer, today. The price: The government gets to tap your phone, confiscate property without due process, track your internet usage, spy on you without judicial oversight, conduct secret searches of your home, and check up on your library readings. Oh, they also get to use your car to spy on you and can detain you indefinitely in a military base with no hope of appeal or civilian trial. Is it worth it? Remember, we're talking about curing cancer here... one of the biggest killers of US citizens of any age.

Gut feeling, if you're not willing to give up the rights of a bunch of dead tissue that someone didn't want to carry to birth to cure this disease you're probably not willing to give us a bunch of your own personal rights to do the same. So why is it that what Ashcroft is doing is so great? Why is it that for the POSSIBILITY of preventing terrorism we're willing to let this man and his minions trample upon our civil liberties?

I don't have an easy answer for this question. I can tell you that people with the attitude expressed in the parent post are part of the problem, not the solution. Ben Franklin was right, "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

Cripple terrorism? Plunk pool chlorine tablets into a two liter of coke and twist on the cap and you've got a chemical munition. Nothing Ashcroft does can prevent a desperate individual willing to die for his cause. We're throwing our freedoms away for the tattered remnants of a dream.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 2 acts of terrorism under the Clinton admin?

I stopped reading right there.

How about the embassy bombings in Africa?

How about the Cole?

If the sniper guy counts as a terrorist act then we'll have to toss in a few other domestic terrorists under Clinton as well.

You may have had a point in there some where but you lost it when you lied.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - Three acts of terrorism have occurred in the United States since Pres. Bush took power. (9-11, Anthrax, Sniper). Thus Bush averages 1 attack per year (3 years in office, 3 attacks).

Um... that's another example of "assuming causality", which you just gave a lesson in.

And this old, tired line about Bush/Ashrcoft/etc. eroding our civil liberties doesn't wash either. Americans have exactly the same rights now that they had on September 10, 2001.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[crucini]

Even though I really don't care about Ashcroft or his critics, this annoyed me enough to reply. You point out correctly that terrorism is a vanishingly small problem. Then you drag out the tired cliche of Ashcroft "trampling on our civil liberties." Any such trampling is also vanishingly small. Want to see serious trampling? The war on drugs. That has had vastly more impact on people's lives than the current terrorism panic.

Nothing Ashcroft does can prevent a desperate individual willing to die for his cause.

Except imprisoning or deporting that individual before he can act. But I think your logic could be applied to all law enforcement efforts, ending in the conclusion that no laws should be enforced.

The saddest thing is that so many otherwise intelligent people are hypnotized by the Republican-Democrat pingpong, and try to politicize even mundane governmental functions like catching crooks. Ashcroft is a bogey man to the left, yet I doubt that he is doing his job any differently from any other Attorney General. In fact, I doubt that the AG has much impact on Justice - he's just a short-term figurehead who represents career civil servants to the public.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Were these on American soil? No? Then stfu. Or else we get the Saudi, Turkish bombings too. And that's just the last 2 weeks !!!!

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Alex Belits]

Except imprisoning or deporting that individual before he can act. But I think your logic could be applied to all law enforcement efforts, ending in the conclusion that no laws should be enforced.

And what are the chance for that to happen? You really expect that a foreigner's visa will just happen to run out few days before he will get pissed off by something US government does? That a box cutter sale will be interpreted as a part of preparation to a plane hijacking? That for some magical reason the same US government that can't stop domestic murderers, robbers, thieves, etc. will do anything against people that are at least a notch more skilled and far more determined than those?

It's pointless. Don't constantly piss off the rest of the world, and deal with real problems at home -- it works great for most of the world.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And this old, tired line about Bush/Ashrcoft/etc. eroding our civil liberties doesn't wash either. Americans have exactly the same rights now that they had on September 10, 2001."

True and the government presently has the additional powers to supress, suspend and repress those rights. So please don't give us your "old, tired line" and expect any consideration from us. We see the changes you see only the status quo.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

True and the government presently has the additional powers to supress, suspend and repress those rights.

Those are not new, additional powers. There is no period in American history when the government has not had those powers. To suggest that this is something new and unprecedented suggests a seriously flawed understanding of American history.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point. The parent is trying to show why this logic is faulty by comparing Clinton to Bush with it. Clearly this isn't a valid comparison because the two held office at different times and we can't assume that the intentions and motivations of terrorist threats were the same under Clinton as under Bush.

By the same token, it's not September of 2001 anymore, and it's not logical to assume that someone is going to try to fly a jet into a building this week and chalk the absence of that occurance up to Bush's policy.

As for your 2nd statement.

1.) Americans had a set of n rights on Sept 10, 2001
2.) The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. bill was passed after Sept 11, 2001
3.) The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act removes limitations on the power of the government.
4.) The liberties of the people and the power of their government to infrige upon those liberties is a zero sum game. (Locke, Rousseau)
5.) The people therefore have fewer rights than they did on Sept 10, 2001.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[CowboyMeal]

IANA International Diplomat, but I believe our foreign embassies are technically American soil. Or maybe I've just watched "Bart vs Australia" too many times.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[SimpsonsQuoteTroll]

Bart: Hey, G.I.Joe: your sign's broken. We're already in Australia.
Marine: Actually, Sir, the embassy is considered American soil, Sir!
Homer: Really? Look, boy, now I'm in Australia...[hops over the line]
Now I'm in America...Australia! America!
Bart: I get it, Dad.
Homer: Australia! America!
Marge: Homer, that's enough!
Homer: Australia! America! [gets punched] Ow!
Marine: Here in America we don't tolerate that kind of crap, Sir!

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great liberal response, we understand, you don't, trust us not yourself.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,

Clinton did a better job on terrorism?

Bubba passed up on having Bin Laden passed over to the US three times.

Bubba did a good job bombing aspirin factories in Iraq to distract from Monica.

Bubba didn't even come to New York after the first World Trade Center bombing (it was all treated as a plain criminal case), and didn't do jack about the USS Cole.

Yeah, Clinton did a much better job fighting terrorism.

You just better hope that John Ashcroft doesn't bring drug testing to you.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[kir]

Dude. Why do you even try? TGK responds with some idiotic diatribe suggesting "blood thirsty terrorists" don't want to kill Americans and that Pres. Clinton had a good track record defending America against terrorism (TGK conveniently forgets several terrorists acts that happened during Pres. Clinton's time in office - dishonest?). TGK's post then gets a +5, Insightful.

Insightful! Wow. Slashdot is starting to get more and more like kuro5hin everyday. The libs are taking over another tech/geek website. Ahh... what am I saying. They took this place over a long time ago.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[stuntpope]

If you are going to include the DC area sniper shootings in your terrorism count, you may as well include all other multiple/mass murders that take place in America. So, on which president's watch did, say, the Green River killings take place?

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[putch]

yet I doubt that he is doing his job any differently from any other Attorney General. In fact, I doubt that the AG has much impact on Justice - he's just a short-term figurehead who represents career civil servants to the public.

I must say you are dead wrong here. As the chief administrator of the DOJ he sets the agenda. Yes, career civil servants go about their jobs largely as usual. But you're also forgetting the sweeping reforms that Ashcroft has instigated in the DOJ. His policies, combined with the PATRIOT ACT have handed Justice and the FBI broad sweeping powers that they haven't had since the days of Hoover. Powers that were deliberately revoked WITH CAUSE.

There are often comments flying around such as "This is just business as usual, as all politicians Democrat or Republican" to defend the Bush Administration. Yes, cronyism, partisanship and an attempt to further your own suporters' interests is not new.

WHAT IS NEW are the radical measures that the administration has taken in economic and tax policy, foreign policy and the sweeping changes in the Justice dpeartment. The Bush administration is seemingly inent on destroying almost 60 years of advances made on all three of these fronts.

These "reforms" were instigated WITHOUT a mandate from the people. Adolf Hitler and the NAZI party was at least wildly popular in early 30's Germany!

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Tackhead]

> So here's the (hypothetical) trade. A cure for cancer, today. The price: The government gets to tap your phone, confiscate property without due process, track your internet usage, spy on you without judicial oversight, conduct secret searches of your home, and check up on your library readings. Oh, they also get to use your car to spy on you and can detain you indefinitely in a military base with no hope of appeal or civilian trial. Is it worth it? Remember, we're talking about curing cancer here... one of the biggest killers of US citizens of any age.

I wish your trade wasn't hypothetical, because at least we'd have our cure for cancer! :)

> Cripple terrorism? Plunk pool chlorine tablets into a two liter of coke and twist on the cap and you've got a chemical munition.

If those were the only weapons the terrorists had any reasonable probability of gaining access to, you'd be right. Screw the security state, we'll take our chances with the terrorists.

But in case you haven't noticed, however, these fuckers are going for the brass ring, the creme-de-la-creme. 9/11 (if you imagine it as originally planned, namely four cruise missiles delivered on time and on target) wasn't an attempt to kill 50,000 people, it was an attempted decapitation strike at the US government and economic base.

I can be as cynical as anyone when it comes to the motives of that government. I'll start with that kind of cynicism, in fact, for the first duty of any government is to keep itself in power. Your life, my life, and yes, these "freedoms" of which you speak, are all secondary in importance. (I'm a patriot, not an idealist :)

Suppose we decide to keep this "liberty" of which you speak at the cost of further negligence when it comes to the security of our government. We're all geeks here, we know what that means - leave a hole around long enough, and it WILL get exploited. By taking your tack, we ensure that one of these days, we'll be pwn3d.

So, Good Morning. Something happened last night. Both houses of Congress have been obliterated, along with half the Executive branch. Simultaneously, another weapon has taken out, not just an office building, but all of lower Manhattan. Third and fourth weapons take out other major seaport cities, delivering a significant blow to a continent-wide food processing and distribution system that relies on imports and just-in-time inventory processes.

When (if?) it reopens, the Dow is off 4000 (kiss your retirement goodbye). Bonds off 20% (good luck getting a mortgage). Gold is trading at $500 but, good luck getting food in exchange for photocopies of your account statement proving your ownership of 1500 ounces of fallout currently raining into the Atlantic. (The physical metal won't help you in the cities. Even if you have the other two precious metals - lead and copper - in sufficient quantities to keep your gold, no matter how good a shot you are, the street gangs have more lead, copper, and manpower than you.)

And do you think that the provisional government, cobbled together in 24 hours, run by third-rank undersecretaries of the Department of Backwaters, and backed up by scared-shitless National Guard recruits worried about where their families are gonna get their loaf of bread for the day, would preserve your much-vaunted freedoms in a way that's somehow preferable to the present government?

The only reason you, I, or Joe Sixpack down the block are still alive is because someone in government has decided to let us live. The price can be pretty high - 40% of your income if you've got a job like I do. The price can be absurdly low - if you don't have a job, all you have to do is vote for whichever party will give you more of my money.

So I'll take the tapped phones, confiscated property (hey, it's like taxation, but more honest!), network traffic logging (hi guys!), secret searches, car bugs, and disappearances of the S

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Eccles]

Only 2 acts of terrorism under the Clinton admin?

The criteria included the act being in the U.S. Otherwise we'd have to count Blackhawks and other 'copters going down, and many other myriad attacks. The Kenya bombing did hit the U.S. embassy -- so on a technicality it counts -- but the attack itself may have come from outside U.S. territory.

I wouldn't count it or the sniper myself.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[TGK]

I'm just curious. How did we get from "I don't like the direction Bush/Ashcroft/et allia are taking the government" to "it would really suck not to have a government"?

The system's not without problems, but I'm certainly not advocating overthrowing the entire damn thing and starting over from scratch.

What I am saying is that the weapons of mass destruction we keep hearing about are laughably easy to make. Nukes... not so much, but chemical and biological weapons can be assembled easily and without much expense. Granted, these aren't suitable for battlefeild use, but you can put a big notch in the population of LA with this kind of stuff.

There comes a point where the government is doing more harm than good by "protecting" us from the terrorists. I think we've passed that point.

Watch the airports? Fine
Better cockpit security? Fine
Tighter customs control? Fine
Imprisoning people without trial or hope of appeal outside the relm of judicial oversight? Not fine.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Tackhead]

> What I am saying is that the weapons of mass destruction we keep hearing about are laughably easy to make. Nukes... not so much, but chemical and biological weapons can be assembled easily and without much expense. Granted, these aren't suitable for battlefeild use, but you can put a big notch in the population of LA with this kind of stuff.

Disagree. If what you suggest is true, it would have happened by now. Dispersal is a tough problem for chemical and biological weapons that are intended for battlefield use.

> The system's not without problems, but I'm certainly not advocating overthrowing the entire damn thing and starting over from scratch.

No, you aren't. But the terrorists are. They can't overthrow the government and the society that depends on it in an "honest" fight (in the way that we plan to do with the government of Iraq). They can't destroy us through cultural imperialism because (gang rape of teenage girls, "honor" killings of your children, homicide bombings to celebrate their "holy" month) frankly, their culture sucks camel ass. But they can (and I believe they intend to) destroy us with a decapitation strike against select political and economic targets, knowing full well that the day after nobody knows Who's In Charge, everyone from Thugz tha Mad Gangsta, to Officer Friendly, to Montana Max the Survivalist Liberkookian, will tear down whatever's left of Western Civilization in an orgy of looting, violence, and starvation.

> There comes a point where the government is doing more harm than good by "protecting" us from the terrorists. I think we've passed that point.

They're not interested in protecting you from terrorists. They're interested in protecting themselves from terrorists. On the grounds that my survival (and yours) are inextricably linked to the continued survival of that government, I think the recent trend is a Good Thing. (Perhaps you have more faith in your countrymen to function without strong leadership than I do, but I told you I was cynical in my first reply :)

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[John Jorsett]

Don't constantly piss off the rest of the world, and deal with real problems at home

And how do you suggest the U.S. not "piss off the rest of the world," when all that's necessary for that is its mere existence? Perhaps in some fantasy plane the U.S. could withdraw behind its borders and adopt a "don't bother us and we won't bother you" stance, but that isn't going to work in the increasingly interdependent world that's what we actually have.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[QuackQuack]

1 - Three acts of terrorism have occurred in the United States since Pres. Bush took power. (9-11, Anthrax, Sniper). Thus Bush averages 1 attack per year (3 years in office, 3 attacks). Clinton, in comparison averages 1 every 4 years (World Trade Center Bombing and Oklahoma City). By the parent post's logic Clinton did a better job of protecting against terrorism.

Whoa... You consider the sniper a terrorist act, then surely you must consider Columbine (Clinton), Edgewater (Mass consulting firm) shootings (Clinton). Olympic Park Bombing? (Clinton) What about Waco? EgyptAir crash? That's 1 terrorist act for each Clinton Year

Of course this line of reasoning is off base, since the effort has been to stop Al Qaeda. There hasn't been one since 9/11 on US soil. Now whether that's because of the Administration's effort, or simply because Al Qaeda hasn't tried is what's debateable.

So why is it that what Ashcroft is doing is so great? Why is it that for the POSSIBILITY of preventing terrorism we're willing to let this man and his minions trample upon our civil liberties?

Most of the stuff posted on ./ about Ashcroft is paranoid fantasy. I'm not going to claim he's the best AG ever or anything like that, but check a site like spinsanity (which tries to cut through the rhetoric on both the left and right), and you discover that Ashcroft is nowhere near the monster that he is portrayed by his political opponents. He's suffered the same type of smear campaign from the Left that the Right did to Clinton

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[QuackQuack]

To be fair to Bubba, he was ready to go to war against Iraq in '98 over the WMD issue, alone, without UN approval, before Koffi Anan talked him out of it.

But the Left forgets this. They want us to believe that Bush/Blair manufactured this whole WMD issue.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Alex Belits]

US certainly can do all that -- it's just then it should abandon some blatantly parasitic policies, which "mere existence" would be threatened by the lack of massive military presence all over the world. Many other countries went through this over the course of history, there is nothing special about US, other than being the current largest-empire-in-decline.

Re:"... worst people in high places"? Hardly.

[Anonymous Coward]

"1 - Legions of bloodthirsty terrorists wish nothing more than to see the United States reduced to a smoking abrasion in the earth's crust."

If you DO NOT believe that's true, you're a fucking idiot.

Moderators, parent is funny damn it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a clue, not every good quote has to come from The Simpsons, Futurama, Austin Powers, Real Genius or the Princess Bride.

guess a Spaceballs quote just doesn't cut it...

Real time pictures of the effect of the arrests

[Anonymous Coward]

Picture this:
This is a drop ..... this is an ocean...

Re-read every five minutes for an update on the ongoing effect these arrests will have on internet crime.

Spam, telemarket and generally harass this fucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Tel 808-944-1964 or Toll Free 1800-944-2093 Fax 808-944-8791 email : webmaster@hawaiipackage.com url : http://www.hawaiipackage.com/

And the problem?

[YrWrstNtmr]

70 indictments led to arrests of 125 people, and some of those have already been convicted in a court of law.

All it means is that some cases have progressed further than others.

OBTW, that's not a Justice Department quote, but rather text from Wired.

Who is dispensing with 'innocent until proven guilty"?

Re:And the problem?

[Large Green Mallard]

Who is dispensing with 'innocent until proven guilty"?

Those who assume that because someone has been arrested, they will be tried and convicted, and thus should be counted in the same group as those who have already been convicted.

Efficiency

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Wow...125,000 victims, 125 criminals. That's a 1000:1 ratio. You know, that's really sad. Back in the day it would have taken thousands of criminals to bilk that many people. So right off the bat there are a lot of criminals out of work. Factor in the lost revenue to the government (stamps, telephone taxes), and to companies like the phone company, stationery stores, typewriter ribbon manufacturers and it's clear that this whole "computer revolution" has been a "bad thing". And to top it off, lawyers seem to have even more work than ever. It's bizarro world I'm telling you...black is white, up is down...

Peanuts Compaired to Wall StreetWhite Collar Crime

[berwyn]

Open up to the financial pages of any newspaper this week and start adding up the financial scams from some of the most respected financial institutions in America. Add that to the Enron and all the other incidents that were suppose to reform the business world.

Gee no wonder I felt safer

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I felt safer. I can deal with anthrax spreading pyschos, and Osama, but software pirates just scare the hell out of me. Thank God for Ashcroft.(If only the terrorists could steal some music from the RIAA!)

Theorical managements

[jdifool]

Hi,

I don't think we disagree on the core subject : I'm not strictly following my logic either... :0
It was meant to follow a theorical assertion, that seems justified to me(I can't see where you disagree with me on the figures), and inspect where it can lead.

I didn't say the whole money would obviously be brought back, even if I think that it can be. I just wanted to underline that maybe this was a greedy operation, and that's it.

Regards,
Jdif

125K arrested or convicted

[NewFrigginAccount]

[The investigation, begun Oct. 1 and dubbed Operation Cyber Sweep, involved police from Ghana to Southern California and uncovered 125,000 victims who had lost more than $100 million, he told a news conference. Seventy indictments to date have led to arrests or convictions of 125 people, with more expected as the probe continues.] Give me a break! The govment can't count to 125K in 45 days let alone arrest and convict. Who's bs'n who?

Re:Software Piracy and Mandrake

[khym]

I was sent a form email pointing out that I could face disciplinary action for downloading copyrighted material.

Heh. Don't you do this every time you access a web page? I mean, all written material is copyrighted by default unless it's explicitly placed into the public domain.

This reminds me of the story of the student who was facing disciplinary action for playing Nethack, because the adminstration thought that it had something to do with breaking into comptuers.

Pirates and Terrorists

[xQuarkDS9x]

I thought I felt safer. I can deal with anthrax spreading pyschos, and Osama, but software pirates just scare the hell out of me. Thank God for Ashcroft.(If only the terrorists could steal some music from the RIAA!)

Software pirates are a lot less harmful then terrorists bombing the WTC towers. The only people pirates harm (and even then you wonder how much) is the greedy software companies who put high prices on software to begin with.

Re:Pirates and Terrorists

[(void*)]

Are all software companies greedy?

Re:Pirates and Terrorists

[kliment]

no, but they tend to overprice, underperform, and oversue, therefore they are the ones who suffer most from software piracy.

Re:Pirates and Terrorists

[(void*)]

How of overpriced is attributed to our pecuniariness? How much over underperformance is due to overexpectations, and how muchy of oversue is due to ones own inability to assert one's rights? Why tar software companies with one big brush? I can think of a few software companies offhand that aren't like that. Wolfram Research is one.

Re:Pirates and Terrorists

[kliment]

apparently it wasn't clear from my response, but the comment was referring to the greedy software companies, which is a subset of all software companies. Sorry for the unclear response. And I have to agree about Wolfram. I admire them. I only wish I could afford to not have to go to school everytime I need to use their stuff (or ssh, but it gets slow at home)

Uh, John, when you're done with this...

[bzim]

I mean I think it's great you're getting tough on some guys who copped a free copy of MSOffice, and of course that Phillies guy had to be stopped before he annoyed again, but--when you're not so busy--there are these guys in Utah who might be perpetrating one of the biggest frauds in history.

I just wonder...

[Alex Belits]

...how many of those arrested people are real scammers, and how many are victims of pedophile baiting, file-swappers, skr1pt kiddies and other small fish/minor offense or plain innocent.

Re:Dude

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? Indonesia is pretty "anti-Islamist." Only 15% of the people there supported any tougher Islamic law.

Re:Phew! ----- something a frenchy would say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, French Muslims aren't that bad. I think it cancels out.

Re:"an expressway for crime"

[rossz]

Jeez, someone doesn't have a sense of humor.

One wonders

[Kelz]

how many slashdotters were of that 125? More than 40% I'd bet.

Re:Phew! ----- something a frenchy would say.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they are different animals, it ads up in a weird ways like 1+i. but that doesnt matter either way because obviously they "hate freedom"

My unpopular opinion

[Mustang Matt]

While I agree that the patriot act is a scary thing, I think John Ashcroft is an honest person and won't abuse the power. What I'm more worried about is who gains that power through the years.

John Ashcroft did great things for Missouri. The only complaint I ever heard about him from someone I actually knew was that he stopped some state officials from receiving their raises. I can't remember the exact situation but it sounded like he did Missourians a huge favor to prevent already over-inflated salaries from getting even larger.

I know there are a lot of liberals on here, but give the guy a chance. I think history will show that he will make a positive impact on our country.

Re:My unpopular opinion

[mojoNYC]

ummmm.....your opinion must be unpopular in MO, considering that Ashcroft lost his last election race there to a dead candidate's wife (Jean Carnahan, wife of the late Mel Carnahan)...

fyi, if you consider Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the writers of our Constitution to be 'liberals,' you can add me to the list (but back in the days before name-calling those who would dare disagree , i was just an 'independent')

Cowboy Neal

[Barkmullz]

Has anyone seen CowboyNeal lately?

I first I thought.

[Simple-Simmian]

At first I thought the first URL in the article said John Asswipe not John Ashcroft :-)

'ass-burglar'...?

[Anonymous Coward]

eminem certainly has nothing to worry about from you in the wit department, now does he?

What the DOJ does

[crucini]

The DOJ doesn't generally prosecute violent crime.

And they are weak at white-collar crime, not for sinister reasons but because these cases are very hard and expensive to try. A prosecutor would rather put five people in prison, and let one go, than spend all his time putting that guy in prison and let five go.

NSA budget

[crucini]

I have no idea if your figures are correct, but there's no way you can simply look at a number and scream "too much!" You have to understand what is bought for that number.

Sun Tzu wrote something like "It is cheaper to pay the best spies lavishly than to pay the worst army stingily." NSA earned its huge budget by producing priceless intelligence that advanced US interests and saved US lives. The history of signals intelligence shows that it is a good investment for nations.

Re:How long...

[ultranova]

If you're hit with a steel rod for a couple million times, you'll die.

It bears noting...

[Sangloth]

I'd blame Clinton's lackluster stance on terrorism on our current situation, but there's no real point in arguing this, and I don't think you meant the comparison to be taken seriously.

I'm not a particular fan of Ashcroft. Much of what he's done isn't defensible. I don't believe we should sacrifice personal liberties for safety. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make strong efforts to combat terrorism.

So I do take issue with is your stance of "At what cost?" where you compare Cancer to Terrorism. Yes, cancer, drunk driving, and slipping in the shower have killed more Americans then terrorist attacks have so far. But....

9-11 showed us that terrorists were not incompetent, and not limited by any restraint. If weapons of mass destruction fell into the hands of terrorists, it could very well mean the destruction of our civilization. This scenario is catastrophic, and much more probable then most other armageddon scenarios.

Cancer, Automobile Accidents, and most other ways to die are at a set level. They don't really have a potential to blossom into a much more serious threat. Terrorism does.

Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.

Re:It bears noting...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cancer, Automobile Accidents, and most other ways to die are at a set level. They don't really have a potential to blossom into a much more serious threat. Terrorism does."

That is the preception but arguably not the reality. Terrorism is just like any of the other circumstances you cited. It all comes down to managing the cause and the risk. If you allow lapses in drunk driving and unsafe drivers and vehicles automobile fatalities will "blossom." If you leave companies to their own devices and allow them to reward themselves for missdeeds, they will maximize their profit margins and the expenses to citizens and government will "blossom". Think the Ford Pinto equations if you _must_ equate these costs in human lives.

I too abhore Clinton's lackluster preformance on terrorism issues but I also blame the lack of sources and methods on the agencies under him. That means that Bush senior also did not do enough to combat terrorism durring his term in office and Regan before him can't be let off either despite his preformance on bigger issues of his day like the cold war. Being in a position to have the extensive sources and methods to beat terrorists using the cell system takes decades. Hind sight is twenty twenty but foresight is sixty fourty at best. Them's the breaks. If you think I am being unfair to either Bush Sr. or Regan remeber a leader is expected not just to manage through present problems but also to chart the road ahead.

"If weapons of mass destruction fell into the hands of terrorists, it could very well mean the destruction of our civilization. This scenario is catastrophic, and much more probable then most other armageddon scenarios."

Define your term weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Do you mean the likes of weaponized smallpox and thermonuclear suitcase bombs OR does your deffinition include dirty bombs and poision gass like sarin as deployed in the Tokyo subway incident? If it is the former then your threats are either going to come from nations and terrorists backed by nations with extensive labs and funding. If you include the latter then my apologies but you will have to fear your neighbor as much as Bin Laden.

Combating either of these potentials is about minimizing risk and weighing the potential cost of ones actions with the potential benefit. The problem many left leaning Americans have with the present administration is that they believe that neither of these potentials is being addressed properly. It now seems obvious that American sources and methods were once again flawed OR ignored OR twisted. Afghanistan is still a powder keg and it has been since before Moby Dick. Iraq may have been the wrong place at the wrong time. I say this not to parrot the right but also because the fact that lessons learned from Iraq are troubling because they are not merely ours but the world's as well.

Now every piss ant dictator sees that in order to be credible they must have Weapons of Mass Destruction AND be ready to use them in order to preserve their ruling and hides. That is of course if they do not want to be bought out by America and tow the American line. If you think that is harsh find out how many of our tax dollars are going to pay for bribes to warlords and relocation of supporters. Ask yourself why our government is not destroying the popies that fund warlords, international crime syndicates and yes terrorists.

The most probable and effective armageddon scenario is the one that we are neither prepared for nor see comming. The dinosaurs are proof of this no matter what track you take caused their extinction.

pingmeep

Re:It bears noting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Bush heeded Clinton's warning when he took office about the terrorist threat that was looming. Let's not forget how much Bush did to fight terrorism in his first year in office... Oh yeah, NOTHING. The current US terrorism programs got ignored by Bush in his first year in office. Then of course, they blew up the WTC. So what's Bush's reaction? Destroy america's freedoms (thereby letting the terrorists win, but of course you can't see that) and throw my generation into even more debt in order to piss off the rest of the planet and create more terrorists.

You're a dumbass.

Re:Phew! ----- something a frenchy would say.

[Captain Poopypants]

Hey, leave the man alone. Shame on you for picking on someone because of his name...

Not so fast.

[Anonymous Coward]

An arab who got Swedish citizenship or a Swede?

Re:Not so fast.

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF difference does it make? You think there are a lot of American citizens who weren't originally from somewhere else? Racist crap... They're (mostly) all citizens of somewhere, and I hope their countries raise holy hell. It's wrong to hold them, and it's against US law-- which soon the Supreme Court will sort out. Whew.

Am I the only one

[soccerisgod]

Am I the only one who stopped reading the article after about 2 seconds because of that megaannoying Absolute Vodka add with music?

If that's the new trend someone has to modify mozilla to allow for blocking not only of images but also of flash files :<

Re:Am I the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

One step ahead of you.

Re:Am I the only one

[soccerisgod]

Cheers mate :)

Fraud

[phrostie]

but did they arrest Darl McBride yet?

Obligatory...

[mog007]

But did they nab the software engineers at Microsoft?

Ashcroft is the epitomy of being 2 faced

[cybrthng]

Ashcroft is pure evil.

I even have photos of him shaking hands with Sadamm whenever he was with the Reagan administration secretly supplying Iraq with "materials" to try and destry Iran in ther iran/iraq conflict much the same way Reagan/Bush SR. supplied afghanistan with training/missles/weapons to defeat those dreaded russians!

This guy is the biggest liar i have ever seen

Re:Ashcroft is the epitomy of being 2 faced

[DeadScreenSky]

You are probably referring to Rumsfeld (or maybe Cheney). Ashcroft never did any of that international stuff, AFAIK.

I'll give you something to be mad about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not too sure what I'm mad about,

He kidnapped the Lindbergh baby!

And you know who's responsible for the Silver Panic of 1893, don't you? Bush!

Re:Phew! ----- something a frenchy would say.

[Anonymous Coward]

do you know any? I know two - they don't "hate freedom"

Holy Shit, Ashcroft did something Right?

[deemaunik]

Wow, he's going after Monetary thieves for once? I feel more comfortable knowing that the Attorney General is now paying attention to the crimes that actually Harm people.

37.6 MILLIONS USD.

[Pebble]

Dear CEO.

My reserch has proved you to be a persons of trust on whome we can trust.

I represent the offices of Jhon Ashcroft. A recent internet sting operation was over funded by $37,600,000 (Thirty seven point 6 missions USD). You may have read about this. This was deliberate. We now seek a persons of trust for whome we can reliy. We need a persons to set up a zero balance offshor account whos name we can put the money in. And for this service we are willing to pay 20% of the $37,6000,000.

Please God willing you a safe person who knows how to keep a secret. Please the sake of my sister who is in a refrugee camp and mother is dying. This monye will save our lives. God be with you kind CEO.

Dr Romeo Tango. (Minisry of internet fraud).

(Yeah I know it should be all caps but i wanted to save your eyes!).

Re:Phew! ----- something a frenchy would say.

[hesiod]

> do you know any? I know two - they don't "hate freedom"

Of COURSE they don't hate freedom. They just hate freedom in America.

It was very unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a lot of scandal involved in carnahan's election. It may not have made a difference either way, but there were documented cases of polling places stuffing the box for good old Mel.

I wish he hadn't died because Mel would have done a heck of a better job that his wife. She wasn't qualified at all for the position. If he wasn't dead he wouldn't have gotten the sympathy vote either.

As some would say the baby killer got what he deserved.