AOL Employee Arrested in Spam Scheme

LostCluster writes "The AP, Reuters, and AOL's own CNN/Money are all reporting that AOL employee Jason Smathers has been arrested and accused of taking a list of 92 million screennames from the internal AOL system, and selling it to another man, who allegedly used it 'to promote his own Internet gambling business and also sold the list to other spammers for $52,000'. Not surprisingly, Smathers has been fired."

Comments

Security?

[shadowkoder]

You would think there would be limitations on HOW an employee could access such a large database. I mean, does AOL throw out CDs with conveniently formatted lists of all the screen names of its customers?

Re:Security?

[isthisthingon]

Hmmm...just a guess, but it probably went something like this:

SELECT *
FROM customer_list
ORDER BY last_name ASC;

[zoom to scene of employee nervously looking over his shoulder and tapping his fingers impatiently]

92,213,798 rows returned.

[employee thinks to self]: "Dude! Cool! Bonus! We only had 91,125,553 last time I ran this. I'll have to thank the marketing department for sending out those CDs!"

Double standards..

[BlueLines]

..didn't a bunch of airlines admit to (basically) the same thing? no arrests there..

Re:Fired?

[EvanED]

Firing someone has a lower burden of proof (and rightly so) than a criminal conviction; if there's enough for an arrest and charges to be brought, then there's probably enough evidence to warrant a firing.

And this is the inherent problem . . .

[kfg]

with large, easily searched and copied databases of highly consolidated private data.

The primary issue to be feared is not that someone who isn't trusted with the data will get ahold of it, but that someone who is trusted with the data will turn out to be untrustworthy.

The same goes for backdoors. I'm not half so worried about some script kiddie hacking my router as I am some employee/former employee of Cisco simply walking right in.

KFG

Re:Fired?

[Motherfucking Shit]

Aren't we supposed to wait for someone to be found guilty before punishing them?

My guess, and this is only a guess, is that Mr. Smathers was almost certainly confronted by HR or security (do they still call it OpsSec?). My second guess is that he probably admitted what he did.

In any case, AOL doesn't have an opportunity to wait around and find out whether or not this guy is guilty in a court of law. This is a huge privacy breach affecting millions of people. According to CNN's version of the story, not only did the list contain screen names, it also had each user's telephone number, ZIP code, etc. AOL has no choice but to take immediate and harsh action, i.e. terminating the employee and alerting the authorities. If they hadn't fired the employee they'd be sued faster than you can say "1099 Hours Free."

There may be lawsuits anyway. Millions of people entrusted their information to AOL, and now it's floating around in the hands of who knows how many spammers.

Maybe there're more?

[oberondarksoul]

What worries me is that there could easily be many more employees doing this - not just at AOL, but at other ISPs as well. However, I'm willing to bet that AOL isn't going to hunt for any other people like this doing it. Unless they're made aware of other inside jobs of this, they'll probably stay happily oblivious to anyone else wanting to make a fast buck.

An observation.

[steve buttgereit]

An interesting way to look at this is consider the age of the people involved. The engineer was 24 and the Casino guy was 21. IT, notorious for age discrimination in favor of young, brighteyed types, may actually be introducing a greater security risk with the practice.

I remember when I was in my early 20s and lets just say I didn't have a lot to lose... and everything to gain from taking a chance here and there. By placing less mature workers into places where personal ethics and great responsibility collide, you're asking for issues just like this.

I don't mean in indict all younger workers. Certainly most are good employees; I've hired many younger people without trouble. But as a percentage of population, the younger I expect to make more 'mistakes' both simple errors and errors in judgment.

My two bits...
SCB

Re:An observation.

[Kphrak]

Why don't we put it another way? "Note that both people involved were guys. By its traditional discrimination against women (who more civilized) in favor of men (more aggressive and violent), IT is introducing a security risk since men will take more chances." It makes as much sense as the above "these damn' kids screw up all the time" rant (and before some /. feminist says "you go girl!", I should add that I'm male, 23, and consider both arguments completely idiotic).

IT is a younger field, therefore more IT guys are younger. Granted, it's been around for the last 40 years, but for about half of that time, you needed a lot of money to get a computer. The generation that got to use truly cheap computers came of age just ten years ago. It's natural that there is now an explosion of younger IT workers.

Marital, family, religious, and civic ties to society, IMHO, are much more likely to keep people honest than their age, even counting the fact that younger workers may be less experienced. And if you don't believe me, check a newspaper and see how many older, powerful men are at this moment headed to Club Fed because they weren't any better at ethics than the AOL dimwits mentioned in this article. Most of Congress is composed of older men, and I'd almost rather have Sanford Wallace (of Cyber Promotions infamy) representing me than some of these folks.

I work in a government agency, so I see a large proportion of older workers. Some are smart, hard workers; others are idiots. I see no larger proportion of idiots among younger people than I do among older ones, nor do I see any indication that the intelligence or ethics of the old have anything to do with the fact that they are old.

What a crime!

[CHaN_316]

This AOL employee only made $0.0005652174 per e-mail address he sold. Is that anywhere near the fair market list for e-mail lists? Seems a bit low, but then again IANAS (I am not a spammer).

Re:AOL's New Slogan

[frodo from middle ea]

In the context of mails previously received to/from AOL accounts..
prey explain how's this different from their previous slogan.

Re:Now do the same over at MSN/Hotmail

[Hays]

Dictionary attacks become exponentially harder as your user name becomes longer, assuming that is constructed of random characters.

The likelihood of a dictionary attack hitting a n character random string of characters and numbers is miniscule for n larger than 15 or so, even if the dictionary attacker is trying 1 million combinations a second, because there are (at least) 36^n user names in that space.

my rough calculations say that it would take 7 billion years to dictionary attack the space of 15 character random numbers of and letters, even if you could do so at a rate of one million a second.

So if your 15 character random user name gets spammed immediately after creation without ever being used, it's an inside job.

But I wouldn't be surprised if it was buried in the Hotmail terms of service that they can sell your addresses.

Appropriate penalties

[Artifakt]

First, I am not a lawyer. This is a lay opinion only.
Second, I am not a particularly vengeful person, or at least I don't really want spammers to face the death penalty, castration, or other such suggested punishments.
Jason Smathers has been charged with theft and fired by AOL. I'm assuming the actual charge is something like felony grand theft, and that the amount his co-conspirator got for the lists will be all the proof AOL will need to offer for a grand jury to agree with that charge.
According to the article, he also used another employee's ID in the act. That's probably either a separate charge or at least an aggrevating factor to the first charge. Among lots of other effects, this employee probably has standing to sue both men and a fair chance of winning, regardless of whether AOL does (with "winning" limited by the condition that they must somehow have forfitable assets after their prosecution).
It also looks like there was possibly more than one actual theft, as the article mentions the men either actually obtaining or conspiring to obtain an updated version of the list, which would imply an older version also existed in their posession. One or both men may have made fraudulent promises to a person or persons who bought the list, representing it as legally obtained.
So, Smathers could well be inditeable with three or more felonies (three strikes rules may apply), and it's possible with multiple persons accused that the whole thing could fall under RICO, either of which could easily make the overall sentence 30 years or more. Even with the usual time off for good behavior type clauses, that means serving a good solid 18 years or so.
AOL probably wants the whole thing to go away. Since they can't really get that, the next best thing is to get seriously Neolithic on his ass, and hope it has a deterrent effect.