Slashdot Mirror
Portrait of an Identity Thief
Ant writes to tell us that the New York Times has a closer look and an interview with an identity theft addict. From the article: "As far back as 2002, Mr. Sharma began picking the locks on consumer credit lines using a computer, the Internet and a deep understanding of online commerce, Internet security and simple human nature, obtained through years of trading insights with like-minded thieves in online forums. And he deployed the now-common rods and reels of data theft -- e-mail solicitations and phony Web sites -- that fleece the unwitting."
The reason most people don't do it is because they're honest and want to help out the human race instead of being a drain on society.
God spoke to me.
Can anyone say... script kiddie?
The guy is clearly dumb as a rock. Who the hell takes a stolen credit card, buys stuff with it, and then has the stuff delivered to his doorstep???!!? I don't know jack about stealing identities, but this guy's MO is just plain stoopid.
Trust the mainstream media to make him sound like some kind of twisted, tortured genius.
What's this "identity theft addict" balonium? Do you call bank robbers "bank robbing addicts"? All bad behavior is not addiction. The guy is a lowlife crook who found an easy way to make money and kept coming back to it, plain and simple.
Viper is the preferred editor of the Emacs operating system.
Yeah, I got a laugh out of it. But it's kind of depressing to think about, and all too common - too many people would rather blame the tool (in this case a computer) than admit that their spouse/child/dog/whatever has done something wrong. It's sad to think that this woman might truly believe that a machine somehow corrupted her poor innocent husband and turned him to a live of evil.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
Did anyone else find this guys total lack of remorse in his actions a little...well...wrong!
Not to mention this quote
which implies that if it wasn't hard to get back in to he might consider it.
What an ass!
Anonymity of the internet is responsible for the views expressed in my post.
Fraud |= theft. In plain English, fraud does not equal theft.
It's the same as the copyright argument. You cannot steal someone's identity. You can use it frauduantly. You can pose as someone you are not. You can give false witness. But identity fraud ISN'T!
Libertas in infinitum
...is with the absence of any sense of responsibility for the consequences.
"It's an addiction, no doubt about that," said Mr. Sharma
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
There probably are bank robbers who are addicted to what they do. The concept of "addiction" is just a model for understanding destructive behavior. It's not an attempt to excuse it. In fact, the opposite is true: people who are fighting addiction, and the people who help them (often addicts themselves) will tell you that the worst thing you can do for an addict is overlook his or her misdeeds.
Stories like this really irk me, and show how the industry wants to make the notion of identity theft much scarier than it really is. This is an example of an "identity thief?" This moron used stolen credit cards and shipped the crap to his parents' house where he lived. He's an idiot. Other people with common sense wouldn't do stupid shit like what he was doing. There's no skill involved in what he did. Any waiter or someone who handles credit cards on a daily basis could do the same thing, but they don't because they're not idiots like this guy.
In the end, anybody he ripped off probably didn't have to pay, so it was the merchants that got screwed if anybody, and this is becoming harder and harder to pull off.
If there's one thing this article does point out, it's that if the feds really want to stop identity theft damages, they'd shut down Western Union. That money transfer service pretty much solely exists now to play a party to scams of this nature.
I wonder if this is almost being encouraged by the powers that be as it fosters a feeling that it's ok for them to be watching because I no longer expect the others around me to be governing their own behavior...
IMO, this devolution stems from a set of interrelated and feedback-reinforcing factors, some of which are
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I think the main reason for that is the vast array of laws that are simply to serve corporations, not the people. Nobody's going to argue that it shouldn't be illegal to kill somebody, or break into his house, rape his wife and walk out with his TV. But with laws like the DMCA and various other corporate welfare schemes, people going to jail for weed, how can any man have respect for what's law, rather than simply live by their own ideas of what's right, and simply try to avoid being caught when those two systems aren't in harmony?
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Many secular (and protestant) charities support Catholic charities.
It doesn't mean there's a hidden agenda. It merely reflects the fact that catholic charities and churches can be found in many places where it would be too expensive, dangerous, or impractical to set up another office.
If the purpose is the same, and someone else already has the infrastructure in place, it doesn't make much sense to spend money building a duplicate of that infrastructure.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
That's just it. Atheists don't make a connection between gods and charity, so yes, these are atheist charities in the sense that they are the ones atheists give to. Although I despise United Way as nothing more than another church by the way companies and football players push it - their overhead is ridiculous. Oxfam gets my money.
The mistake you're making is that you think you have to advertise your charitible giving. That's almost entirely a religious evangelistic behavior, stuffing propoganda in the thanksgiving dinner boxes when giving them out.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?