Slashdot Mirror
FBI Warns: Many Tsunami Relief Pleas Are Fake
lgrinberg writes "Even in the face of terrible disasters such as the Tsunami that hit South East Asia and Africa in late December, many are finding ways to take advantage of it and make money off of it. An example is fake websites that claim to be non-profit charitable organizations that help out the victims when they really take all the money for themselves. Other instances are emails or websites written by people who claim to be survivors of the disaster and are asking for help. The FBI warns that many of these are fake and recommends people to help via known non-profit organizations."
It's news because people forget and need to be reminded that goodwill shouldn't overpower good sense.
-mkb
I have seen reports that many of the well known charites and nonprofits spend a egregious amount of money on so-called administrative costs, with only a small percent eventually going to those in need.
Apparently these "administrative costs" are often things like new cars and fat bonuses for the nonprofits' management...
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I feel the same way about most religions who take money from their parishioners and buy gold alters and the like while still claiming to be charitable organizations.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
And let's not forget all those "legitimate" charities that spend as much as 80% of their contributions on their own "expenses". (The standard of the "charity industry" is supposed to be 25% overhead -- but I find even that much repulsive.) Which is why, when I reach for my own wallet, I examine the organization I'm giving to as carefully as the cause they're raising funds for.
Aaaaaargh! Why on earth is the UN nowadays viewed as some kind of evil empire in the US? Is the reason still the opposition to the Iraq war to destroy Husseins WMDs (which can't be found but that's an other story)? I mean I know the UN has its problems, but still it is the only forum where nations can talk there problems over easily. Also I feel that a little bit of cordination wouldn't probably be a bad idea during catastrophis that affect many countries.
Nethack is no longer the king
Yeah, but why don't they have that page locked? It doesn't really make sense to let anyone add a link...
Oh great, now people won't give money to the grassroots organisations who are actually doing good stuff. Instead they'll stick to the big charities like Oxfam who spend most of their money on advertising and administration.
Warning - cynical views ahead.
You forget one important matter - public schools don't exist to benefit the students, they exist to benefit the society. If they also happen to benefit their students, good, but that's more or less a side effect.
Now then, lets think on this a little:
Don't get me wrong; public schools are a great idea. They ensure everyone can at least read, write and count to ten (at least they should; don't know if they actually do). In this way, they, together with public libraries, give everyone access to the collective knowledge of human race. However, they are also extremely vulnerable to abuse, and any goings-on in schools, public or otherwise, should be interpreted with a healthy dose of paranoia.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Since when is "hoarding your money" a crime? He earned it, he can keep it or give it away in any way he pleases. Some people are going to starve to death and some people are going to be filthy rich, it's just how capitalism works, but it's the best system we've got. The majority of the middle people live relatively decent lives.
The Red Cross has a patent on that logo, and they aggressively defend it, even against other philanthropic, non-profit, and medical organizations.
And rightly so... if it were to become diluted, you'd get situations like hospital ships being fair game in combat.
The problem that people have with the UN is that it's more than a place for nations can easily discuss problems.
It's a controlling entity, itself. It's from the issues stemming from this that many people take issue with the UN. Well, that, and it's filled with liberal US-haters.
Hating the UN goes back much farther than discussion of invading Iraq under George W. Bush.
During 9/11, people were shocked that street vendors sold water for $20 a bottle and nearby jewelry stores were robbed. I always thought "Well, if the disaster was of a much bigger magnitude, people would probably not do this."
Now, 150,000 dead, and we still have assholes trying to make a buck off it. What does it take for these people to learn morals? Is the extra cash worth that much when there's now several thousand orphans? Do we need, what, a nuclear holocaust to get assholes to knock it off?
I don't follow the logic of that at all.
Why would heartless vultures stop being opportunistic thieves because something bad happened to other people? They lead lives where they constantly look for their next victim, they routinely inflict misery on others, and you, somehow, expect them to suddenly stop being leeches because an unrellated event killed a lot of people at once?
I seriously don't understand how anyone could be surprised that thieves keep on thieving, even when you're upset. If someone has no empathy for the people he/she routinely con in person, there is no reason to expect them to have empathy for the faceless dead, no matter how numerous.
You can't take the sky from me...
It has been my policy over the years never to deal with anyone who can't manage to render his ideas in passable English. Any legitimate operation is at least going to hire somebody to keep an eye on their official verbiage. And anyone smart enough to speak and write decent English is probably not going to need an illegal means of earning a living. This policy has served me well and has been virtually foolproof.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
The moral qualms, really, come into play when you get there with your water to sell. OK, so you've hatched up this plan to sell water in the disaster areas. You go there with your water and a money box. When you're there, can you really look into the eyes of the victims, some clinging to the brink of death, and say, I won't give you this basic need of life unless you pay me up? A lot of people can't, I think myself included, and this really should be the root of why the practice draws any moral discomfort. However, if someone can do that, while we might say that this could reflect badly on their general moral characteristics, they are, again, still doing more to help than someone who does nothing at all.
In case someone jumps me on this - no, I don't think relief efforts should be privatized, or whatever. Governments put forth large efforts to get basic commodities and needs into areas, and I certainly have no problem with that, and am glad of it. I'd want it if some kind of natural disaster struck me. But governments can't do as much as governments and individuals can do combined, and if you are outraged at water sellers, you should be even more outraged at every individual out there who hasn't contributed to the relief efforts. Yes, just as outraged at every one.
Saying something is "lame," by the way, isn't a very coherent argument towards showing that it's "wrong."
Real Numbers - writing with a quantita
ahhhh geez, that art is in a large sense communal.
spurn the church's patronage of art and you spurn michelangelo, donatello, and all the rest of the ninja turtles. seriously, people forget that though science and society seems to have outgrown the need for dogma, the church through history propped up the infant institutions of art, and most especially reading education (you learning-worshippers, you. pre-gutenberg writing was often religion's.) i would venture to say that the majority of venerated art though world history has been at least in part religious.
Alright. Substitute a "Gold Altar" (which, by the way I have never seen, and i've been around a few times. the worth of such an altar would suggest a high profile target for theft) for "a staff of 30,000 (pulled from my ass statistic) workers who must be compensated in some way.
/me prepares for the onslaught of -1 (Troll) mods
Get this: Gold Altars are not in high demand among any major religion. Funds to procure such altars are scarce. You are pulling information out of your ass. Information pulled from your ass is equally well refuted by information pulled from mine.
So in that vein, I'd like to see these gold altars you claim to be so common.
I realise there are charities that exist which do not pay their volunteers. but there are so many more that do than there are that do not, you've got no grounds for complaint.
Mod me a troll if you must, but consider: There is no evidence (apart from anecdotal) to support the outrageous claim that any (arbitrary) religious "charities" pocket their income to buy "Gold Alters" (misspellings included) and donate only the leftovers to help those in need.
Mere disagreement between you and a few members of a particular religion is not conclusive proof that the religion in question squanders funds donated for charitable causes. Get the records if you want, and get back to me.
I can't vouch for your donations, but in all the churches i've attended, financing records are available to anybody who dares to question them.
If what you say is true, then Uncle Sam must not care that we're buying Gold Altars with those funds we declared would be sent to relief aid for those tsunami victims.
How about a banner link for the genuine Tsunami charities on Slashdot?
I remember one for 9/11, so why not now?
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
This would be a perfect instance in which to use a BGP blacklist of known scamming sites to keep your unwitting users from getting caught up in the scam. nbar is a wonderful thing after all.
I think you're being too cynical. Perhaps PR was a factor, but does it not help relief efforts to give relief efforts a large fraction of their valuable screen real-estate? I mean, it amounts to a tremendous amount of free advertising.
For example, for days after the tsunami, Apple replaced their entire 5-section news/ads, which takes up almost all their main page, with links to relief organizations. Amazon also had large redirection signs. Google added tsunami-relief links to their home page. Sure, these made the companies look good, but they also must have brought in hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in contributions.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
'No' because it wasn't a real non-profit organization if i remember correctly you have to get some sort of ID number from the non-profit organization to put on your tax form to be able to deduct it
I've been working with AID (aidindia.org) for 5 days so far. It's been a crazy time - the amount of stuff coming in and going out has been incredible. Primary problem being that stuff comes in small lots, but has to go out in big lots, with first priority going to whatever is the immediate need on the field.
If anyone is still interested in donating, I'd suggest they look up aidindia.org and the daily reports filed by the field volunteers.
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!