Slashdot Mirror


For 3 Years, Scammers Ran Truckless Trucking Company

mikesd81 writes "Wired reports Nicholas Lakes and Viachelav Berkovich are charged with computer fraud [PDF] for a man-in-the-middle attack that allegedly let them run a profitable trucking company without the hassle of driving a truck. For over three years the Russian immigrants hacked a Department of Transportation website called Safersys.org, which maintains a list of licensed interstate trucking companies and brokers. They then went on forums where brokers advertise cargo in need of transportation and negotiate a deal, for example, to transport cargo from American Canyon, California, to Jessup, Maryland, for $3,500. But instead of transporting the load, they would outsource the job to another trucking company posing as the legitimate company whose identity they'd hijacked. They would then invoice the company and take the money. When the company that owned the actual truck tried to contact the company that needed the goods delivered, they found they knew nothing about it. Over all they made nearly $500,000."

244 comments

  1. Hmmm by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds a bit like the music industry to me.

    When the time comes for the artists to get paid...

    --
    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Nah, it's the fractional reserve banking system.

    2. Re:Hmmm by iconograffiti · · Score: 1

      It reminded me more of Haliburton.

  2. Wait... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Funny

    1)Start trucking company
    2)... 3)Profit!


    So this is actually a valid business model?!?

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:Wait... by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      2) Subcontract the job out.

      It's actually a very common business model, in this case it's improper because of all the computer hacking and lying.

    2. Re:Wait... by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 2, Funny

      1)Start trucking company 2)... 3)Profit! So this is actually a valid business model?!?

      No, and you forgot the 4th step:
      4) Get arrested!

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    3. Re:Wait... by rugatero · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's improper because they didn't pay the damn subcontractors. It's incredible that they sustained it for three years.

      --
      This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
    4. Re:Wait... by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They were not subcontractors. The criminals were imitating contractors and taking money in their name. When the real contractors showed up, the goods were there, but the money had been paid to someone else.

    5. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      1)Start trucking company
      2)... 3)Profit!
      So this is actually a valid business model?!?

      Well, it worked for a couple of former Soviet Russians, but maybe not for you!

    6. Re:Wait... by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Ah...

      You mean:

      4) Get arrested.... 500k dls and 4 years later.

      --
      NO SIG
    7. Re:Wait... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No.

      The criminals imitated a legitimate trucking company, bid on and won loads, then subcontracted the actual hauling out to a second trucking company. When the load was delivered, the criminals would pocket the money. When the subcontractor that did the actual hauling would contact the legitimate company to get paid, the company wouldn't know anything about it because said company was impersonated by the criminals.

      The scam worked like this:
      Criminals hack into SaferSys.org and get the info of trucking company A.
      They would then go on a load board and bid on and win a load from company B.
      Then, as A they would contract trucking company C to haul the load for B
      When the load was delivered, B would pay the criminals thinking they were paying A.
      The criminals then disappear with the money.
      Meanwhile company C would contact A to get paid for actually hauling the load and A would have no idea what C was talking about.

      Got it?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    8. Re:Wait... by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I was wondering what made this illegal. My bandwidth providers do this all the damned time.

    9. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not quite right, from what I understand. Here's how I understand it:

      On the forum, Joe Customer makes a deal with ABC Shipping to transport some goods. What Joe doesn't know is that ABC Shipping's account has been hijacked, so he's never really talked to ABC but instead Lakes and Berkovich. Lakes and Berkovich, posing as ABC, turn around and subcontract the job to XYZ Shipping. Joe pays the fake ABC and then XYZ performs the job. When XYZ tries to get their payment from the real ABC, they get a nasty surprise because ABC has never heard of Joe Customer or his shipment.

      In this scenario, Lakes and Berkovich are the only criminals. XYZ are the victims.

    10. Re:Wait... by kingsteve612 · · Score: 0

      lol at the underpants gnome reference.

    11. Re:Wait... by Zenaku · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're incorrect. The criminals would replace the phone number of an approved contractor with their own number, and then pose as that company when the customer with goods to ship called them up to arrange a contract. They'd then turn around and, still posing as the legitimate trucking company, subcontract the job to someone else who would actually pickup the goods and deliver them.

      Thus, the customer pays the criminals to move the goods, and the criminals get the subcontractor to do it, then they just don't pay the subcontractor. If the subcontractor wants to complain, he just ends up talking to the company that the criminals were impersonating, who has not been involved at all up to that point.

      The "real contractors" never show up to ship anything -- they are just the "fall guy" who the customer and subcontractor both thought they were dealing with.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    12. Re:Wait... by gnick · · Score: 1

      If the people taking your checks never bother to pay the people actually providing you with bandwidth, that's a perfect analogy.

      There are better explanations of the scenario than available in TFS both here and here.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    13. Re:Wait... by Toll_Free · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is no hacking. Safersys.org is a website set up by the Federal Motorcarrier Safety Administration for the use of people to check out companies.

      Easy as pie, goto safersys, look at a company snapshot, and pick one to screw.

      Seems anyone able to use Google or Yahoo search engines could be called a hacker.

      The premise of the story is true. The story of hacking is bullshit.

      --Toll_Free

    14. Re:Wait... by gnick · · Score: 1

      So that's what that is!

      Now perhaps you can explain why people keep welcoming random overlords and telling me what happens in Soviet Russia?

      </smartass>
      Sorry...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    15. Re:Wait... by ozbird · · Score: 1

      4) Go to Jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $3500.

    16. Re:Wait... by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      Well, it sounds like it took a lot of work and brought them each about $83k/year. Honestly, that salary just doesn't seem worth the risk of running a highly-illegal scam.

    17. Re:Wait... by inviolet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks for that explanation.

      Has anyone noticed that these two zeebs didn't actually earn a very good living with this scam?

      Two guys laboring for three years to produce ~$500,000... that is an annual salary of $83K apiece, which is good pay for a regular low-risk job but lousy pay for a high-risk situation like this one. And lo and behold the risk occurred and stung them both.

      The more stories like this I hear about, the more I think that most criminals work too hard for their take, and ought to reconsider.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    18. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an annual salary of $83K apiece, which is good pay for a regular low-risk job

      For Russian immigrants, this is a low-risk job!</tryingtobefunny>

    19. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.
      P.S. Don't be surprised when someone will respond to this post "No, I'm New Here".

    20. Re:Wait... by billsnow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      83K per year per person is pretty lucrative for small-time criminals. They don't pay any taxes. They live in their immigrant neighborhoods, which have a low cost of living (even in cities like brooklyn). There is no such thing as high-risk to immigrant criminals, except for deportation, of course. Pretty good scam, considering they didn't need a lot of people (no credit).

      (didn't RTFA)

    21. Re:Wait... by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the contrary, where can you find a job doing anything legal which nets you $83k after taxes and lets you (a) work from home (b) not bother to work when you don't want to and (c) only requires a few hours a month (which is all they probably did). If the 83k were taxable, it would put them in the top 23% of wage earners in the US, and if you account for taxes on top of their (untaxed) 83k (i.e. payroll and income), you're solidly in the top 15% in take-home.

      Trust me, being a criminal is far less time intensive than a steady job at the same wage. Most of these guys would probably struggle to hold down a $22-30,000/yr service position in the "real world".

      Besides, now it looks like they'll get free room and board for several years.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    22. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 83,000 is tax free and probably requires working a lot less hours.

    23. Re:Wait... by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The story of hacking isn't bullshit. They changed the contact info for the companies they were impersonating to numbers they controlled. It says so in TFA. The scam may have worked without that step, but according to the article that's what they did.

      Also, it's funny that if they'd paid the subcontractor and kept the difference, they'd probably still be running the scam. They'd probably be able to rip off the brokers indefinitely if the trucking companies were happy with their pay and arrangements. It seems it was the angry trucking companies coming back on the brokers they thought hired them that caused this to break open.

      A smaller, slower take could have given them a good steady side income for years longer. If the only crime was posing as some broker and using that broker's good name to garner business, they'd get light sentences even if they were caught. If they could have ramped up to where they were stealing 3% or 4% of every broker's business, they'd have been able to live very comfortably.

    24. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, three of my friends died being new here.

    25. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell kind of job "regular low risk" job pays 83K? Where are you because I am moving to that market.

    26. Re:Wait... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, three of my friends died being new here, you insensitive clod

      FTFY

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    27. Re:Wait... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, it's funny that if they'd paid the subcontractor and kept the difference, they'd probably still be running the scam.

      I guess that would too close to "work."

    28. Re:Wait... by berashith · · Score: 4, Funny

      ya, but there is no insurance or matching 401k.

    29. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I AM new here, you insensitive clod!

    30. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Two guys laboring for three years to produce ~$500,000... that is an annual salary of $83K apiece,

      Well, not that this makes a huge difference, but this would be "tax-free" income, in all likelihood.
      So it'd be equivalent to ~110k annual salary or such, i.e. senior sw engineer level.

    31. Re:Wait... by torkus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Uhm...you're calling it a scam but it's actually just brokering loads. That's legal.

      I bid on job X for $ then find someone else to do it for $-n.
      I pocket n and pay $-n to the person doing the work.
      Repeat.

      Sub-contracting 101.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    32. Re:Wait... by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      It's only legal if you have a brokers authority.

      You need a brokers authority to do this in the United States.

      Since they didn't have the authority, and they where, in fact, scamming others by not paying them after they contracted the load, it is, in fact, a scam.

      --Toll_Free

    33. Re:Wait... by Toll_Free · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reading the affidavit, they where actually recieving less for teh loads than they where promising to pay.

      IE, they would agree to move a load for 3400 dollars. Then sub it to someone else for 4K dollars.

      Kind of hard to make money that way, eh?

      --Toll_Free

    34. Re:Wait... by guruevi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't understand. Can you repeat this with Alice, Bob, Carol and Ted?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    35. Re:Wait... by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "...If they could have ramped up to where they were stealing 3% or 4% of every broker's business, they'd have been able to live very comfortably"

      This is how the "mob" or organized crime or even street gangs work. They don't rob the businesses of everything. They take a cut. Take to big of a cut and the victims go broke or just leave. Dumb criminal are the greedy ones.

    36. Re:Wait... by kylben · · Score: 1

      if the trucking companies were happy with their pay and arrangements. [...] they could have ramped up to where they were stealing 3% or 4% of every broker's business, they'd have been able to live very comfortably.

      At that point, the only thing they'd really be stealing is the franchise fee they aren't paying to the company whose name they are doing business under. On the other hand, 3-4% smaller piece of the pie might be a worthwhile commission for them improving the real company's reputation like that, if it makes a bigger pie.

      Maybe I'll set up a company with a business model that consists of getting its name hijacked by forward-thinking Russian scammers, and monetizing the resulting reputation by selling franchise rights to everyone else.

      --
      Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
    37. Re:Wait... by droopycom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they did that:

      1) They would have to compete with other trucking company
      2) They would not be able to offer lower rate to the shipper, and higher rates to the subcontractor. (hence harder to compete)
      3) They would have made $2000 instead of $500000 (assuming they could charge a difference of 4% - and assuming they could get the same amount of business)
      4) Their only monetary benefits compared to a being a real broker would be avoiding paying taxes and whatever fees a broker needs to pay.

      So yeah... It would not work very well...

    38. Re:Wait... by iocat · · Score: 1
      Well, you lose money on a per-load basis, but you can make it up in volume.

      [that was a joke]

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    39. Re:Wait... by goga_russian · · Score: 1

      Viachelav? Vasja? that you? when you got out?

      --
      Dont Judge The situation by the Misfortunate. Goga.
    40. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot "you insensitive clod!"

    41. Re:Wait... by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      How many other scams were they running?

      How much time did it take per day to run this?

      Also, if pocketing all the cash results in a low take for the scammers, think how little the legit truckers must get in profits under normal circumstances!

    42. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHA.

      I know guys that went broke actually thinking that way...

      Oh wait, that was the people thinking they could ship a bag of dog food for free in the .com bubble :)

      Funny joke, I must say.

      --Toll_Free (posted anon so I don't go over my 25 a day)

    43. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should have gone into plumbing.

    44. Re:Wait... by billcopc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't find that incredible at all. I have relatives in the trucking industry (yeah go figure!).

      1. Contractors usually invoice with net-30 terms, meaning they only get paid a month after the job is done.

      2. Some jobs are paid upon project completion, which means you could be waiting 3-6 months or more.

      2. A lot of trucking/construction businesses are run by imbeciles with poor cashflow that pay late, and some of them are just assholes who pay late on purpose.

      3. A lot of companies go bankrupt (or vanish) and never pay.

      4. A large number of truckers are independent, so the bookkeeping is handled by either the guy himself or their spouse. Things fall through the cracks all the time.

      5. How many trucking companies are there in the US ? Enough that these crooks never had to use the same one twice. These contractors don't exactly communicate fraud information with each other, so you could scam N-2 companies and still find a pair of suckers.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    45. Re:Wait... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Yep it's a pretty ugly business. Too much competition, no solidarity whatsoever, often pulling insurance stunts or even destroying competitors' property to get an edge. They make the Chinese look like amateurs. Well no, more like peers, but still...

      Combine that with a lack of integrity among the companies that hire truckers, and how much bullshit they hear every single day. You end up with a system that is so broke, you have to wonder why these guys don't sell their trucks and go work at Subway or something.

      The fact that these Russians picked the trucking industry as their targets just makes them that much more heinous. Why couldn't they defraud the insurance industry like everyone else ?

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    46. Re:Wait... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      That 83,000 is tax free

      In some jurisdictions, crime is not 'tax free', it's just the taxman is Tony Soprano. The 'organized' piece of 'organized crime' is all the money that moves up the pyramid to the crime boss(es). So in many locales, if you steal a truck full of cigarettes there's an assumption a crime boss will get his cut, even if he had nothing to do with the crime, per se.

    47. Re:Wait... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Try congress. Any position will do. 225k a year plus benefits and you can do most everything from home whenever you want to. But you will have to lie in public every so often.

    48. Re:Wait... by iapetus · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. In this case it's got to be Anastasia, Boris, Katya and Taras.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    49. Re:Wait... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Aside from selling your soul to the devil and having to be nice to people waaaay too often, it's just too damned expensive to get elected. Though, to be honest, "become elected to the Senate" was my choice when a bunch of colleagues were discussing what you'd do if you won a $200M lottery, after you'd bought all the houses, cars, and other toys you wanted. Funny, most people expected I'd choose to be a space tourist.

      Now, though, I think I'd just blow it all trying to change IP laws, both in the court system and in the legislature.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    50. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mom's van recently was broken in to. They stole beat up used couches. The bolted down seats, steering wheel, tires with hubcaps, and a 20' roll of carpet. Selling these things used you MIGHT get 1/3d the price probably less. I think to get out the couch, seats, carpet and and tires they have needed a full moving van or a really big reno van. They needed specialized tools with some mechanical inclination. They had to do it relatively quick and quietly. They also did it without breaking the lock or damaging anything which takes training. I'm sure it took at least 2 guys a few hours. They were probably making a bit above minimum wage in a high risk position. I was very impressed if i had a business and they werent kleptos I think they would make valuable employees.

    51. Re:Wait... by Samah · · Score: 1

      You get paid $83k (I'm assuming USD) for a regular low-risk job? Hell I'm in a regular low-risk job and I don't get paid half that!!!
      * bitch-slaps HR department *

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    52. Re:Wait... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Seriously.

      That's like saying "If they had just gotten some trucks and worked driving these shipments and kept the money they wouldn't have gotten caught"

      Probably not, but that's because they'd be doing legitimate business, or something damn close to it.

    53. Re:Wait... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      We sort of think alike. Except for when you sell your soul, you get to use other people's money. That's where the lies come in handy.

      Although with 200m, I think I would use it to buy all the hot IP comming out just so I could use them as weapons to open the older IP up. Company X wants a license, Give OSS a universal license and only worry about charges on for profit IP. Then when we see the open markets drowning out the closed markets, the choice to change the laws should be obvious.

      I probably have the economics of that screwed up. To tell you the truth, it just popped into my head and if you granted an "open" license for OSS certified products, your probably going to lose your chances of defending it in court if some closed company uses it. I wonder just how much 200 million could get me?

    54. Re:Wait... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, if pocketing all the cash results in a low take for the scammers, think how little the legit truckers must get in profits under normal circumstances!

      That's a very good observation. I recall reading, a number of years ago, that since President Reagan's days there was a lot of deregulation in trucking, partly in an effort to break the Teamsters. And, as a result, the collateral damage was a large increase in longer hours behind the wheel, a marginally capable pool of 'new' immigrant drivers and the NAFTA, which had a lot of Mexican truckers, who were obviously unfamiliar with US highway driving, crossing all the way to Canada and East.

      Over the last 15 years or so the number of trucks increased about 40% but the number of miles driven nearly doubled. Also, the number of automobiles involved in fatal crashes with trucks declined by around 40%, but trucker fatalities only dropped by about 6%. I'm not saying that 'proves' anything, but it certainly looks like truckers, on average, are pulling more miles, and getting themselves killed in solo accidents, as a result. [My brain isn't hooked-up for math, tonight, but before the declines in fatalities, on the highways, in general, 2/3 of the accidents involving big trucks were caused by cars, so, if auto fatalities, in general, have declined, and they have, then truck fatalities should have also declined at a much better rate, if all things were considered equal]

      Driving a truck is no party. I used to drive a car, heheh, about 100,000 miles a year. And I remember, mid-to-late 80s or so, realizing that a fair number of trucks, out on the Interstates, late at night, seemed to do little things that they didn't do in the 'old days.' Truckers used to be the best drivers on the road, and they very well might still be. But that is one tough way to make a decent living.

      I only drove a cab for a few years, a piece of cake compared to a transport truck, and even that was a bit rough. I leased my car 24/7, and there were plenty of times I could drive, but not walk (not without a great deal of discomfort). No doubt truckers are suffering a lot of physical ailments, besides having to avoid a-holes cruising in their blind spots, and all the other crazy shit that cars and their drivers come up with.

      I know how tempting it is to be more amused at the two Russians' clever little scam, but driving long hauls, and not getting compensated, because of a couple of scumbags? If there's any justice Vlad and his pal will end up in a joint, on a block with some Teamsters. I guarantee they won't be laughing and feeling so fucking smart then.

    55. Re:Wait... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      They needed specialized tools with some mechanical inclination. They had to do it relatively quick and quietly.

      Wow, you just reminded me of something with that story and comment. Back in 1965, my dad's best War buddy, Pete, had a '64 Corvette (Pete had taken me out for a long drive, and it was incredible). Anyway, in summer of '65, I heard them tell a story, that Pete and his wife Marlies had been out on the town, and drove home (Orinda, CA), parked the 'Vette, and went inside to call it a night.

      Not even 15 minutes after they'd gone inside, Marlies thought she'd left something in the car, opened the door from the house to the garage, and 4 bikers just scrambled right out of the garage.

      Pete told me that when he heard his wife yelling, he ran out there, and the guys (Angels, Oakland) had a winch system on a big apparatus, with chains wrapped around the bottom of the engine, and it was already completely, cleanly disconnected; all they needed to do was crank the winch and they would have been rolling out into the cul-de-sac with Pete's Vette engine. A close call, but that took discipline and some know-how.

    56. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually studies have shown that, even excepting the time wasted in prison, the average criminal would make a lot more money per time using their existing skills in legitimate work - without the paranoia.

    57. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be too much work

    58. Re:Wait... by R_Dorothy · · Score: 1

      Surely the Navitron Autodrive does the driving anyway?

      --
      Stupid flounders!
    59. Re:Wait... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Too bad their business model was to undercut everybody else and then offer $+n to the subcontractors.

      That doesn't work too well if you actually plan on paying your bills. If you want to be a legitimate broker you suddenly need to compete against all those other commodity legitimate brokers.

      That's like opening up a hardware store across from Home Depot.

    60. Re:Wait... by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Volume!

    61. Re:Wait... by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

      Where do I find a job like this?

      --
      I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    62. Re:Wait... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      The phrase "taxes whatever fees" includes taxes, advertising, insurance, bonding payments in some states, regulatory approval from a number of agencies, background checks, registered agents in all the states in which they do business, and probably more not coming to mind right now.

      Once they get the call to move the load, there is no competition. The broker can bid it out to multiple trucking companies and take the lowest bid. They could promise one known-crooked, unlicensed, unregistered trucking operation all the business at a very low rate.

      Yes, their take would have been much lower. Their risk of getting caught would have been much lower, too. A bunch of low-risk scams or low-risk scams over a broader market make up for risk in volume. You do increase your risk as you ramp up the volume, but not by as much as outright not paying your subcontractors.

    63. Re:Wait... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      That's the real reason right there. Despite all the other reasons given as responses why they had to take a higher-risk route to this, the most likely reason is that this was the quickest and lowest- effort way to run this scam.

    64. Re:Wait... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      They could have undercut other brokers by just a bit, not paid bigger portions to the trucking companies, and could have filed complaints about damaged loads and such to claim insurance back or to short-pay the trucking operations.

      The whole idea of offering more than they quoted the customer was just an easier way to land the business once they had already decided they weren't going to pay the carriers. Impersonating the brokers could still work without that part of the plan at all. It'd just be a lot less lucrative in the short term.

    65. Re:Wait... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, there are very few places in the world where regular, low-risk jobs earn you $83k a year.

    66. Re:Wait... by steeviant · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like Bagdad.

    67. Re:Wait... by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      The problem was that that was not what they were doing:

      They bid on job X for $ then find someone else who will do it for $.
      They pocket $ and don't pay the person doing the work anything.
      Repeat.

    68. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mr mischief,

      if they paid the subcontractor, it wouldnt be a scam. they would be a legitimate company.
      they were not stealing from the brokers, they were stealing from the subcontractors.
      they would take 30-40% advance up front from the broker & if they got paid the rest it is even bigger bonus.
      the subcontractor would do all the work & not get paid by the original broker.

  3. Give them a Job by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

    Wait - they're already employed by someone else. And probably making comparable salaries to their BRILLIANT business scheme.

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  4. And, as usual... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 4, Funny

    The true middle man, Keyser Soze, gets off scot free.

    1. Re:And, as usual... by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's not real!

  5. More Info! by Mikkeles · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would like to subscribe to their newsletter; does anyone know their address?

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:More Info! by Coraon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure I'll add you to the newsletter, for $50.00 (In actuality I wont, I'll get someone else to write the newsletter and when he goes looking for these guys who are supposed to be writing it I'll get off scott free)

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    2. Re:More Info! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Inmate #3L33T3
      P.M.I.T.A Prison
      Dontdropthesoap, CA, 10101-1010

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:More Info! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, +5 Informative!

    4. Re:More Info! by m1ss1ontomars2k4 · · Score: 1

      Actually, California's ZIP codes are all over 90000.

    5. Re:More Info! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I suppose you have a citation that proves that Dontdropthesoap California's zip code is not 10101-1010?

      I'll wait.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:More Info! by maxume · · Score: 1

      It is funny because they are going to get raped.

      Ha ha.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:More Info! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear SatanicPuppy,

      Please cease and desist from soliciting inmate penpal correspondence at this address. Your random ZIP code generator still needs some work.

      Sincerely,

      AngelicKitten
      P.O. Box 1010
      New York, NY 10101

    8. Re:More Info! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown_zip.jsp

      10101 is reserved for New York City, NY, a long way from Dontdropthesoap CA.

    9. Re:More Info! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inmate #3L33T3
      P.M.I.T.A Prison
      Dontdropthesoap, CA, 10101-1010

      California doesn't have any zipcodes that start with 1. Are you trying to misdirect us?

  6. These people should be considered heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The most environmentally friendly trucking company EVER.

    1. Re:These people should be considered heroes by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that it wasn't environmentally friendly because a truck still rolled with a load. The load got delivered, but the pay for the delivery was stolen. And, chances are the "company" that delivered the load and didn't get paid was an independent trucker, and loosing that money could put them out of business.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:These people should be considered heroes by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...at which point there's one less truck driving around, and the environment is just a little bit happier. :-p

    3. Re:These people should be considered heroes by maxume · · Score: 1

      It pays to be tight with your money.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:These people should be considered heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that you Buzz Killington ?

    5. Re:These people should be considered heroes by afidel · · Score: 1

      If your margins are so thin you can't afford to absorb one lost shipment you are already out of business and just don't know it. My dad has customers file bankruptcy on a semi-regular basis and it never puts him out of business, it's just factored into his margin. Unless you have a single customer who accounts for more than 50% of your sales (like Walmart for many companies) the loss of payment from a single source shouldn't put you out of business.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:These people should be considered heroes by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      It is part of the economic problems.

      The margins have only become that slim in the last year as the price of diesel has skyrocketed but the rate for a load has barely risen. Two years ago, something like this wouldn't put an owner/operator out of business, but between low freight pay, high fuel costs, and tight credit, something like this can be devastating for and o/o.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    7. Re:These people should be considered heroes by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was a bit wigged out by something I saw the other day, while regular gas had fallen to $2.30/gal diesel was still almost $4! Not sure why the truckers are getting shafted but at some point they need to collectively decide that their increased costs are going to get passed on because their customers have little alternative for moving their goods. That would be bad in the short term for my dad because transportation is already one of his largest costs after raw materials but he'd adjust and pass along the cost to his customers.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:These people should be considered heroes by Uncle+Rummy · · Score: 1

      at some point they need to collectively decide that their increased costs are going to get passed on because their customers have little alternative for moving their goods.

      This might work, except for those pesky antitrust laws.

    9. Re:These people should be considered heroes by pluther · · Score: 1

      We still have those?

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    10. Re:These people should be considered heroes by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Diesel always trails gasoline. Diesel is normally more expense than gas, but not to long ago gas was more expensive because prices went up so fast.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    11. Re:These people should be considered heroes by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep. That's why I don't trust anyone. It's illegal.

    12. Re:These people should be considered heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every one you take down, two more will take its place.

  7. yro? by TastyCakes · · Score: 4, Funny

    What does yro mean? It has been driving me nuts...

    1. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Rights Online

    2. Re:yro? by pak9rabid · · Score: 0

      yro = Your Rights Online

    3. Re:yro? by corychristison · · Score: 0

      Your Rights Online

    4. Re:yro? by Trev311 · · Score: 1

      What does yro mean? It has been driving me nuts...

      if you are serious... it means your rights online

    5. Re:yro? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yaks Receive Oscar

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    6. Re:yro? by symes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why modded troll?? Seems harsh for a genuine question.

    7. Re:yro? by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Yipping Reactionary's Office

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    8. Re:yro? by TinFoilMan · · Score: 1

      Why was this modded offtopic for an honest question about the tag?

      --
      In my other life, I eat cats.
    9. Re:yro? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Agreed - this does not seem to be a Troll post. This seems to be more of a (-1 JFGI) post. The first hit through google, here, has the answer at the top (assuming that you can pick the correct answer between "Ottawa/Rockcliffe Airport, the IATA airport code" and "A Slashdot sub-section on politics, Your Rights Online").

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me someone is modding this guy troll and then offtopic and then back again - why?

    11. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This seems to be more of a (-1 JFGI) post.

      So, uhh, what does JFGI mean?

    12. Re:yro? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      So what, then, does JFGI stand for?

    13. Re:yro? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Do a google search on "JFGI" and the top hit is: http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/

    14. Re:yro? by gnick · · Score: 1

      So, uhh, what does JFGI mean?

      Joe Frasier gargles iodine?
      Jesus freaks garner insight?
      Junk freighters glow intensely?
      Jumpy frogs goad Indians?
      Jerky fondu goodness I?
      Jane Fonda gambles irresponsibly?

      There must be some way to find out...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    15. Re:yro? by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 0, Redundant

      JFGI and you'll have your answer.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    16. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the front page, Slashdot says "Your Rights Online" with the title of every article in this category. Ignorance of this cannot "drive anyone nuts".

      I don't think the original poster was even honestly stupid.

    17. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me someone is modding this guy troll and then offtopic and then back again - why?

      The ones that mod as troll or off topic do so because they are aware that it is impossible to be "driven nuts" by ignorance of what is proclaimed so fully on the front page of Slashdot.

      The ones that mod this thread higher value stupidity as a human right, and perhaps may wish to enshrine this right in the constitution.

    18. Re:yro? by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      yodeling retarded opera?

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    19. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why modded troll?? Seems harsh for a genuine question.

      But every article in this category says, "Your Rights Online" in the title on the front page of Slashdot. Anyone who says that ignorance of what this category means is "driving me nuts" is not even being honestly stupid. Do you still think that this is "a genuine question"?.

    20. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your rights online. Seems like people on /. just cannot answer a simple question.

    21. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Rights Online.

    22. Re:yro? by gemada · · Score: 3, Funny

      it is the name of the money they use in yrope!

    23. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know what this meant, and had not yet GI (although I was about to), but when I realised I laughed for a good few minutes. Something is always funnier when you don't get it for a few seconds. Or even funnier when someone *pretends* to get something, and then when you ask them to explain the joke they can't.

    24. Re:yro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yer Rights Online is what it means

  8. Don't forget to pay your subcontractors by Krelnor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So the moral of the story is to pay your subcontractors, right?

    1. Re:Don't forget to pay your subcontractors by gnick · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't believe how much thinner your profit margin gets when you start actually paying the people doing the work.

      Although that business model does allow for more flexible retirement opportunities (sans free room and board).

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  9. Government safety system make things less safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure they were most concerned with collecting fines/fees. The actual safety of this safety reporting clearing house probably didn't matter.

    I suspect al queda will use the same system to ship their dirty bombs at taxpayer expense.

    Perhaps we need to take out a loan to fund a major infrastructure upgrade so we can expand the quality work of the feds to more and more places and localities.

  10. I was scammed by these guys by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nice guys, they're very persuasive in person. Vitaly is loud, boisterous, always wants to have a good time. He wears fine suits and a lot of gold. Vlade is quieter, and he seems to have some sort of brooding intensity. He was always wearing track suits and listening to Run-DMC.

    I honestly believed that these were best guys for transporting my adult novelties across state lines. This can be illegal in some jurisdictions (like Texas) and you need someone who knows how to run an illegal business. Since they are Russian, I knew they could handle it.

    They kept telling me that the merchadise was seized at the Texas border by Davy Crockett and Ed Meese, and I believed them for a long time. Finally, after the 3rd shipment I started to suspect something. All of a sudden, the phone stopped ringing. Those Russians had played me for a fool!

    That's when I knew I had to become a symbol. A creature of the night, to frighten away criminal scum like these Russians. I prayed to Jesus, and he transformed me into...the Bat-Man!

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:I was scammed by these guys by SkunkPussy · · Score: 5, Informative

      informative?

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    2. Re:I was scammed by these guys by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2

      What, do you think I'm making this up? Or maybe you're criminal Russian scum trying to snuff this story, too! All I can say is...beware the Bat-Man!

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    3. Re:I was scammed by these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Funny?

    4. Re:I was scammed by these guys by alxkit · · Score: 1, Funny

      is this the plot for GTA 5?

    5. Re:I was scammed by these guys by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      As you said, "informative?"

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    6. Re:I was scammed by these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting.

    7. Re:I was scammed by these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really Funny??? This is the Russian Mafia asking you!

      Want to know how funny it can be??

      There, I scared for a second. What I do not understand is - why these criminals with this much thinking ...Why they do not start a real business? Are they impatient for money???

  11. Well.... by dedazo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Illegal or not, I have to grudgingly admit I'm impressed by this. After all, they were just acting as middle men and taking a slice off the top.

    Slick, however you look at it.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    1. Re:Well.... by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently a 100% slice. That's the problem.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Well.... by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, if that's what they were doing they could have set up a legitimate business and possibly been successful.

      They weren't "taking a slice off the top" - They were taking the whole pie, having the sub-contractors haul the loads they'd committed to, and then leaving the drivers uncompensated because they had in fact been hired by scammers rather than a legitimate contracting firm. Contacting the actual contracting firms did no good because they had no knowledge of the contract and the $$ had gone to the Russians.

      I admit that the summary was a little hard to follow - I had to read it a couple of times too - TFA makes the situation much more clear.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Well.... by dedazo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, I got that from the summary as well, my bad. Thanks for the clarification.

      In that case I grudgingly admire nothing whatsoever about this =)

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  12. Computer fraud? Or just plain fraud by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In earlier years, this kind of fraud could have been executed over the telephone, or through the mail. Why does the medium that was used affect the specific criminal charge applied -- "computer fraud"? Just plain fraud would do nicely.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  13. That's all they made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    500 grand? Pikers. I say ship their asses back to Moscow. In fact, based on a number of Russian expats I work and deal with on a daily basis, there are a quite a few Russian immigrants that should be shipped out. Not because I don't like Russians, some of them are very warm and engaging people, but a because they're degenerates. Give 'em all a psych screening test and deport the ones that exhibit delusional arrogance and criminal tendencies. Family persecuted by the Communists? Harrassed because of your religious beliefs? If you're a degenerate, tough shit, I want your fucking ass out of here.

  14. Communication problem by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    I guess the problem was that the folks who didn't get paid couldn't communicate well enough with the company who paid the money out. If that company had just cooperated then the funds could have been tracked to see where they were deposited, which would then lead to the criminals. I suspect that's what finally happened in the end.

  15. I don't see the problem here by UncleMantis · · Score: 0

    Company needs merch shipped.

    Fake company offers services as XYZ.

    Fake XYZ makes the run.

    Company pays Fake XYZ.

    Both parties are happy.
    XYZ is confused. That's it. So what is the deal?

    --
    Uncle Mantis
    1. Re:I don't see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No...

      Hackers, pretending to be company A, agree to transport goods for company B.

      Then the hackers, pretending to be company B, get company C to actually transport the goods.

      Company B pays the hackers (as company A) for transporting the goods.

      Company C, believing it was hired by company B, tries to collect from company B, but company B knows nothing about company C.

      The hackers get all the money, and company C, who did the actual work, gets nothing.

  16. Crime does not pay by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All that work by several people over three years to make $500K? There were apparently more people involved than the two indicted, and they had some operating costs. So they might have made $50K/year per participant, if they were lucky. And they had all the hassles of running a business. Even without the "going to jail" part, this was a lose.

    They probably would have done better running a legit trucking brokerage, which they clearly knew how to do. They had to do all the selling and paperwork a real broker would do. Worse, their scam model didn't allow for much repeat business, so they had to keep hustling to find new customers.

  17. Re:Wait... EXACTLY. It took 3 years to shut down? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just another example of how the FBI is failing the people of the USA. There is no way this should have taken 3 years to shut down.

    It's not even an example where the FBI helped a company but would not help individuals. Most (if not all) of the victims were companies.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  18. In Other News... by TheNecromancer · · Score: 1

    Truckers ran a scamming operation unnoticed for 3 years...

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
    1. Re:In Other News... by gnick · · Score: 1

      There's a distinction between these guys and truckers.

      Truckers drive trucks.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:In Other News... by winomonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      And wear special hats ... "trucker hats," I believe they are called. A little bit of help from wardrobe, some minor social engineering, a little bit of that Ashton Kutcher flair, and it was time to start Punking the real truckers.

  19. 500k isnt that much by bobjr94 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That sounds like alot of work for 500,000 over 3 years.

    1. Re:500k isnt that much by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Funny

      500k should be enough for everybody.

    2. Re:500k isnt that much by skelly33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You scooped me. I was going to mention the same. Two hackers, $500K over 3 years is $83K/year. They could have made better money working for Google. Waste of time and prison sentence.

    3. Re:500k isnt that much by Aedrin · · Score: 1

      They did nothing more than make a few phone calls every now and then. Yes, for a real job where you do actual work 500k for 3 guys wouldn't be that much. But that would mean they were actually doing the job they were paid for. And then it wouldn't be news worthy.

    4. Re:500k isnt that much by yuriyg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $500,000 tax-free is more like a $750,000 before taxes. Between the two of them that would be a $125,000 annual salary each for not doing much.
      Besides we only know about this scam, who know what other "businesses" these guys were running.

    5. Re:500k isnt that much by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Running this scam was much easier than getting a job at Google is.

    6. Re:500k isnt that much by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Two hackers, $500K over 3 years is $83K/year. They could have made better money working for Google. Waste of time and prison sentence.

      Crime is an entry-level job, open to anyone who is motivated and capable.

      Getting a high paying job in IT, however, is a huge PITA, and until you have 10 years of continuous work experience, it depends a lot on being an insider, rather than skill.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:500k isnt that much by line-bundle · · Score: 1

      Why is this marked insightful!! Do you realize how hard it is to get a job at Google??

  20. Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Toll_Free · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been going on for years.

    I OWN a trucking company now, and have been dealing with assholes like this for years.

    Whats becoming even MORE of a problem is the illegals who go out and steal (borrow) an MC and/or DOT number and slap it on the side of their truck. Then they "go to work".

    What with my insurance costing me > 1200 A MONTH, PER TRUCK, it is easy to see why someone would want to "run illegally". It's fairly hard to get caught, unless you run across state lines. Hence, most of the people don't.

    If your truck is titled, with a sticker for the correct weight, you don't go over it, and you don't have any other reason for a scale to flag you, then they don't pull you in. You don't get pulled in, you don't get busted.

    At the risk of being called a racist, the BIGGEST Lusers of this type of behavior, are mexicans. Period. And, this isn't a local trend (California), this is a NATIONAL trend.

    Whats sad is this: The idiots doing THIS scam didn't have to hack anything. All they had to do is look up a legit DOT / MC number for a BROKER, and then go into business with the same business name.

    And brokers licenses are CHEAP. Instead of my insurance rates (600/month liability (1 million dollars), 1000/6 months Cargo, 500/month basic liability (the 600 a month liability doesn't cover you, unless you have a loaded trailer or a load in the "box truck")). For a brokers license, you need a basic 10K dollar insurance policy. Costs, at most, about 250 a month, if you go to the right insurance agent. BOC3 filings cost another 100 a year.

    These people are the reasons trucking businesses are going out of business. It's hard enough having to make 3.00 a mile, when most freight will pay you 1.50 to 2.00 a mile. Then you get the .ru faggots in there stealing business, etc.

    They went even farther than that. According to the Owner / Operator Independant Drivers Association (http://www.ooida.org), they have pulled Russian's out of trucks who didn't speak A WORD OF ENGLISH, where UNABLE to properly identify 3 road signs, etc., and WHERE BEHIND THE WHEEL OF 80,000 to 120,000 pound trucks. However, if you REALLY research it, you can / will find that most people who are running illegally, carry names like Jose, Manuel, etc.

    Sad state of affairs, having to try to make money while people operating illegally are competing with you. Even sadder state of affairs when legal companies are getting profits skimmed off them from illegal brokers, and having to deal with Hose-A and Hose-B running illegally.

    Thank GOD I had dedicated accounts who paid me regularly, and everything else was handled COD.

    This isn't going to stop, nor is it going to go away. It's a fact of life, and until they do PrePass on EVERY truck (somewhat like RFID, but uses EasyTag type devices in the trucks), everyone who operates on the road has to deal with people like this.

    --Toll_Free

    (disclaimer: I took a motorcycle into a wall at 130MPH 6 or so months ago. My company closed at that time, so read into this what you will. Unfortunately, this WAS work related, the motorcycle was a customers, and the throttle cable stuck in a 3/4 gear shift getting the bike to my trailer.)

    1. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mods- please mod parent up

    2. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why didn't you just press the kill switch or pull in the clutch?

    3. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      80,000 to 120,000 pound trucks.

      I assume you were doing heavy permit hauling since the weight limit on the U.S. national highway system is 80,000 pounds.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    4. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Toll_Free · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why didn't you just press the kill switch or pull in the clutch?

      Kawasaki 750 turbo motorcycle. Gets moving PRETTY quick, especially when I found out the original owner had done the "race mode" modification of changing two wires on the ECU. Turns off the wastegate on the turbo, so basically, as much boost as that little hairdryer would spool, is what I was running at. From noticing the problem to the accident was all of about 2 seconds. Not a whole lot of time.

      Went from 50 to 130 in about a couple carlengths.

      Was trying to get the throttle unstuck, as I was on a straightaway.

      Problem is / was, when I tried to "unstick" the throttle, the right grip came off, instead of "unsticking" the throttle. My right hand fell, because of the imbalance, my left hand lurched forward, and in the instant that happened, the left hand pushed the bike into a HARD rt hand turn.

      I ran straight into a construction barricade, thrown > 100 yards down an embankment. Rt leg in 4 pieces, triple compound fracture (2 of the "compounds" consisted of nothing more than bone frags that shot out, one at my knee, one under my ankle), shattered rt hip and a broken rt shoulder.

      The ONLY reason I'm alive is that an ambulance SAW the accident, and had lifeflight in the air before they got to me.

      If anyone attending Stanford is reading this, please give Dr. Desmund my regards, or, more to the point, the entire "red" ortho team from UC Stanford. They brought me back, as well as lifeflight. I owe them my life, as well as so do my kids.

      Funny thing, I don't remember as well as I used to lol.

      --Toll_Free

      Disclaimer: I have ridden, this year, 20 years. When California enacted the helmet law, I parked my bike. Has been non-opped for nearly 10 years now. I HATED helmets. I still think it shouldn't be mandatory, but thank you that it was, otherwise I NEVER would have had one on. Helmets can, and DO, save lives.

    5. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Rossman · · Score: 1

      Your post would be more credible without the thinly veiled racism. The point of your post is that "Sad state of affairs, having to try to make money while people operating illegally are competing with you." This has nothing to do with race, just leave that shit out as it makes you look like a bigot and cheapens your point which is actually valid!

    6. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Toll_Free · · Score: 3, Interesting

      80,000 to 120,000 pound trucks.

      I assume you were doing heavy permit hauling since the weight limit on the U.S. national highway system is 80,000 pounds.

      No, I own a hotshot company. 33K pounds and less.

      I was talking of someone operating illegally, as indicated on ooida.org.

      And although you can go up to 80K pounds INTERSTATE, INTRASTATE commerce (within the state lines) is governed by the state DOT.

      IE, you can go up 100K pounds in Oregon, and their length laws are different.

      Each state has their own operating laws. California is a bunch of bitches, considering they say it's to keep the highways "nice", and the highways here SUCK, for lack of better terms.

      I have, in the past, hauled heavy permits. I have friends that have hauled close to a million pounds. Takes LOTS of dollies (those things like you see the BIG cranes going down the road using)... I've seen on highway 80, over 150 tires on the road, both sides of the freeway shut down, and state trooper / highway patrol units escorting. They usually have 1 "control" truck, and many other trucks that either push or pull the load. At least 1 "spare" truck is also in the lineup so that they can keep under way if something happens.

      Gotta keep them highways open. It's wierd, though, to see some HUGE tank coming at you, with a bunch of trucks pulling it, and they take every offramp they can. The freeway will be stopped RIGHT before an overpass, the truck coming at you exits, comes back on the entrance, and you get to go past them while they are exited.

      --Toll_Free

    7. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Trucks will all be driven by computer in a few (10-20?) years. That will force a change in business models for everyone involved in trucking.

      Likely, people who own trucks will get them retrofitted and then someone will create a site where shipping jobs are auctioned off. The truck owners will bid on the jobs and then send their trucks off to do the work. Capital will flow into the industry such that the rate of return one can get on owning an autonomous truck matches every other low margin business out there.

    8. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      Racist or not, the fact remains.

      Yes, I am racist. Towards ANYONE operating illegally.

      Unfortunately, it's usually either Mexicans (I'm in California, So Cal, to be closer), or Russians.

      Learn to read the premise of a story, not find a fault with it.

      Yeah, I'm racist. Racist against anyone else fucking me or fucking me over. Get over it. I'm not here to make friends in a thread about someone screwing me over.

      Point taken, but I'm not about to change my verbage to make others happy.

      Facts is facts, and the facts are (according to OOIDA.org and the FMCSA) that the mexicans running trucks here are, for the most part, illegal.

      Don't believe me, check into the Long Beach Port Authority and CHP.... Hell, almost one third of the trucks checked where supposed to have 18 wheels touching the ground. Of all the people found operating illegally (using 4 tires, instead of the 8 needed on the trailer), all where "HISPANIC".

      Long Beach Port Authority now inspects people, and Matson Shipping Lines actually requires a special permit to haul ANYTHING of theirs, as well as an inspection before and after you pick up a load.

      A spade is a spade, even if you call it a shovel.

      --Toll_Free

    9. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Trucks will all be driven by computer in a few (10-20?) years.

      HAHAHA hahaha haha HAHAHAHA hahaha
      Whooo! Sorry for the derision, but that was all the talk 20 years ago (except it was "2001" then). Light passenger cars might be computer driven (more likely assisted, like auto-braking for safety) in special cases after 25 years, but 40 ton trucks should be the province of a human until computers can think like people. There's extra training needed to pilot a big rig correctly; that means it would be doubly hard for a computer to handle unforeseen scenarios.

    10. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by jger_13 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah - but who's going to compete with Optimus Prime for a contract?

    11. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      His point is that being hispanic does not cause or otherwise predilect a person to illegally operate a truck.

      It should be obvious when you consider that 99.99% of hispanics in the USA don't even drive shipping trucks to begin with. But, even if you ignore that, consider how many hispanics are legal operators of trucks. I don't know the number, but I'd be willing to bet that the ratio is at least 10:1 legal to criminal, probably significantly more.

      So even if 100% of all illegal truck operators are hispanic, that's no more relevant than saying that 100% of all illegal truck operators are male, or are over the age of 20, or wear pants.

    12. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a random question dude, but how DO trucking companies make a profit? I understand a trucker usually gets around $50k/year, but they have to pay their fuel costs out of pocket until if/when they get compensated. How???

    13. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

      Stupid pants wearers! Those communists are keeping me from being free!

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    14. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite into your numbers game.

      Where, pray tell, did you come up with the 99.99 percent number.

      Because, out here, it's more like 50 percent of the local inTRAstate drivers are hispanic.

      And Channel 5 news in LA (KTLA) reported that over 50 percent of the drivers stopped, hispanic, where operating illegally. (Long Beach Port Authority).

      I'm not politically correct, and don't care if you want me to be. I will talk the way I feel, and if it offends you, then so be it.

      Anywho,

      --Toll_Free

    15. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      1. A lot of trucks are moved by train now, and only locally on the roads.
      2. A lot of load boards are already doing this.

      --Toll_Free

    16. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Lightzout · · Score: 1

      First off, congratulations for seemingly defying the laws of physics by not getting obliterated in the crash. Assuming what you say is true perhaps you could further illuminate another aspect of trucking I find shocking. I want to preface this by saying I love Mexico as a place to visit and have always worked with Mexicans here in CA so race isn't an issue. There are cultural differences that do matter. Isn't true that after NAFTA rigs from Mexico could enter the US? They may not be leaving the border area but their trucks can't possibly have the same safety standards, right? There was a devastating fuel tanker that crashed in Oakland closing the freeway a few years ago and another one crashed today. I thought there were stringent inspections without stopping at scales. How are these guys getting away with driving illegally in unsafe rigs?

    17. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      1. Thanks for the congrats. I attribute my survival to actually, at the last split second, jumping off the bike. My RT leg was caught between the bike and the construction barricade, causing me to get, literally, bent over a barrel (those orange barrels you see in construction areas). That's what caused the damage to my shoulder and hip. Otherwise, I'd be dead.

      2. I grew up going to Revolucion every weekend. San Diego, born and raised. At least half my relationships have been with hispanic women, so anyone that calls me racist is full of shit themselves. Words are just that. Also, most of my friends are black or mexican (http://www.bigradios.com/tollfree Check out the shootout competition pages and see).

      3. Yes, NAFTA brought trucks into our border regions. I have seen, literally, trucks from Ensanada at the Castaic Pilot Station (near Magic Mountain, a little north of the Scalehouse on I-5) that would scrape their bumpers coming in. THEY ACTUALLY HEATED THE FRONT SPRINGS OF THE FUCKING TRUCK TO LOWER IT. Yeah, it looked really cool. Wonder about the tensile rating of the friggin springs.

      4. I have seen trucks with MX (mexican registered, with FMCSA) numbers as far as Oregon, right before my accident, so they are going farther and farther.... Although California is typically where they end up.

      5. SUPPOSEDLY, they are brought to the same standards as "American" trucks. See #3.

      6. They do have "spot inspections". All you need is a CB radio to get around these. Yes, it is illegal to attempt to circumvent any scale house or inspection, but if your illegally operating, I'm sure you will not try to circumvent getting caught. This, typically, is how it happens.

      I have friends that work the Mojave scalehouse on highay 58. It's one of the busiest trucking corridors in the US. The scale is always open, unless it's for maintenance. So much, in fact, that there is SLEEPING areas for the employees, so they don't have to close the scales ever (unless for weather).

      It's insane, what NAFTA did to trucking, and the transport industry as a whole. The only people still making the same amount is the railroads.

      A lot of drivers also operate illegally by running the same types of trucks I have, 'hotshots'... Duallies with BIG trailers. Safe, as safe as anything else (we are weight limited, based upon a number of things, but you can only haul X amount of pounds if unloaded you weight Y amount of pounds... It is formulary). Since your in California (not sure where), next time you drive by a scale, take a look at the sign that says "NO PICKUPS ALLOWED". lol. There is the legal loophole. 33K pounds running down the road, and they don't WANT them to scale.

      The guys in bigrigs just go around the scale. The scale mentioned above, you can get around fairly easily by just taking a VERY simple detour. I'm not sure why, but most of the people you see taking that detour are pulling produce, and I've not run across a SINGLE one that was on Channel 19, 17 or 15 (the local trucking channels in the So Cal area)... They are on Channel 7 or channel 5... Spanish only channels. I am fluent, and most of the talk on them is either where the best looking pussy is, or where the inspections have been spotted.

      Shame, really. The west is becoming 3rd world because of a class of people (not a race, a class) that are bringing it down to the level they are used to. 15 years ago, my x pa in law would be able to claim between 10 and 30K dollars in profit, a month, from his car hauling business. 5 years post NAFTA, his business is closed. He stopped pulling funds from it the last year, and it caused him to personally go bancrupt. He figured eventually they would crack down. Now, cracking down is called racial profiling, since most of the people operating illegally are ethnic of some sort or other.

      --Toll_Free

      (also, it bears mentioning, most of the "other" guys (Pakistani, Arab, etc. (middle east, or south or central Asia) are NOT operating illegally. So, it's not a racial thing, it's a race thing. People in Mexico don't respect the law or the laws there, why should they just because they crossed that line in the sand just south of San Diego?)

    18. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Where, pray tell, did you come up with the 99.99 percent number.

      A quick and dirty rough estimate. Roughly 1.8 million legal truckers in the USA, add a very generous swag of 50% more for illegal truckers to bring the number to 2.7m out of a population of 305m which makes 99.2% of the general population not truckers. Figure in that the trucker population is aging while the hispanic population tends to the younger side suggests that the number is upwards of 99.2% but 99.99% or 99.2% not really all that big of a difference -- 0.79% in fact.

      Because, out here, it's more like 50 percent of the local inTRAstate drivers are hispanic.
      And Channel 5 news in LA (KTLA) reported that over 50 percent of the drivers stopped, hispanic, where operating illegally. (Long Beach Port Authority).

      Are you saying that 50% of intrastate TRUCKERS are hispanic? Because the number of truckers, not just drivers, is the only number that matters when we are talking about truckers.

      But lets say you really do mean truckers. Using the 2.7m estimate for total truckers in the country, legal and illegal, that would be 1.35m truckers are hispanic. Out of a total hispanic population of roughly 46m. Thus you are looking at ~3% of all hispanics in the USA are truckers by your observation.

      So, tell me, in your opinion does the fact that at least 97% of hispanics are neither legal nor illegal truckers suggest any sort of correlation between being hispanic and being an illegal trucker?

      I'm not politically correct, and don't care if you want me to be. I will talk the way I feel, and if it offends you, then so be it.

      Public racism does not offend me. Rather, I encourage it because it is a way for people to self-identify that they are so strongly biased that it inhibits them from doing simple math and thus any other math-based claims they make should be given more than normal scrutiny.

    19. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Light passenger cars might be computer driven (more likely assisted, like auto-braking for safety) in special cases after 25 years,

      Auto-braking under special cases has been done on production vehicles for the last couple of years.

      There's extra training needed to pilot a big rig correctly; that means it would be doubly hard for a computer to handle unforeseen scenarios.

      No, it only means that driving a big rig is different from driving a car. A computer doesn't care that they are different, it only knows what it has been programmed to.

    20. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what. the. hell. there are unlicensed, illiterate, hauling enough weight to crush me moving 0 mph, unable to identify road sign truckers on my roads? I travel too much for this dammit.

    21. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      If your left hand pushed the left bar forward, you would have turned left. Basic countersteering. So your story doesn't jive. Possibly you meant to say that you were pulling on both bars (makes sense given wind resistance at that speed) and when the right hand came off, the left hand pulled you into a right hand turn?

    22. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like a Mexican bike with a Russian throttle cable. I stick to good ol' US of A built parts.

    23. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      There is always someone who will whine about racism whenever a race is mentioned. The O.P. probably has legitimate points. Do you know for a fact that it is NOT predominantly people of one or another country of origin that perpetuate the crimes that the O.P. mentioned? If you do, please share. If not, then exactly what grounds to you have for saying that the O.P.'s points are racially biased? If he had said that most people who commit this crime are male (which seems like it MUST be true given the general ratio of male:female truck drivers) would you say his remarks were sexist as well?

    24. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      He might not remember the actual incident - since the brain cells involved might have died at the 130 to zero.

      I'm not surprised a 750cc turbo bike can go 50-130 in 2 seconds.

      Thing is, for most cars your brakes (when warmed up) are stronger than your engine. So if you stomp on both brakes and throttle, your car should still stop.

      Is that true for bikes?

      --
    25. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Looks like he bit off more than he could chew, eh?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    26. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Classic.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    27. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry all you want, but if you manage to keep your job "clean", while the skammers push up the marketprice of a job, you will actually be able to ride for a higher rate while this is going on. If the marketprices and thus profit rates would be lower, skammers wouldn't be too interested.

    28. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Rossman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow, uh, way to be proud of being a racist piece of shit. I hope you go out of business because stupid, ignorant fucks like you deserve it. You're so stupid you don't understand that if you weren't racist more people would sympathize with your real problem, which is illegal trucking (regardless of what race or sex the people are). Dumbass.

    29. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      Knight Industries. Haven't you seen what the new KITT can transform into?

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    30. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Okay, got it; I misread your original post.

      Not many of us drivers on Slashdot. I'm a Class A driver, also based in California. I used to run hotshot frieght with a co-driver between L.A. and the East Coast and back a couple of times a week. We'd eat in the truck and only stop for fuel so we'd go cross-country in an average 52 hours.

      I still drive seasonally, but mostly stay on company property now.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    31. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. brakes are always stronger.

    32. Re:Owner of a trucking company speaks out. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      If he had said that most people who commit this crime are male (which seems like it MUST be true given the general ratio of male:female truck drivers) would you say his remarks were sexist as well?

      YES. Because being male has NOTHING to do with being an illegal trucker. So making a big deal about the fact that most illegal truckers are male would be sexist.

      You've heard it before - correlation is not causation. Racism and all the other kinds of false stereotyping are fundamentally an inability to distinguish between correlation and causation, usually rooted in willful innumeracy.

  21. Almost legitimate by Bob-taro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except for the fact that they were stealing another company's identity, that's not a bad idea. If they'd started something called, say, "truck-bay" and allowed people to take bids from trucking companies on specific delivery jobs (tacking on a service fee of their own of course), they'd have a perfectly legitimate business.

    --
    Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  22. Quick Calculator by Trojan35 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    500k / 2 people = $250k per person / 3 years = $80k/yr

    I really can't see how that's worth it. Get a job (you obviously have computer skills), avoid the prison time, get paid about as much or more.

    1. Re:Quick Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The probably also didn't pay any taxes on that $80k/year and it's unlikely they worked a full eight hours every day.

    2. Re:Quick Calculator by Uncle+Rummy · · Score: 1

      it's unlikely they worked a full eight hours every day

      As opposed to those of us posting on Slashdot on a Wednesday afternoon.

  23. Re:Computer fraud? Or just plain fraud by gnick · · Score: 1

    They do that with just about every category of fraud. I believe that it's partially related to scope and entities responsible for enforcement (different folks handle the case depending on whether I sell you a Rollex from my coat, mail fake credit card applications from my state to yours to gain personal information, or call you from Nigeria to get you to help me with a tricky financial situation). Another reason is probably related to the perceived impact to society at large (can this type of fraud easily swindle large amounts of money from many people or is this just a $1 at a time, 1 person at a time game of 3-card Monte) and the identity of the victims (single voter vs. deep-pocketed insurance company).

    So, we wind up with computer fraud, phone fraud, insurance fraud, mail fraud, credit card fraud, charity fraud, etc...

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  24. Wooosh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hint: see how GP was modded "Funny". It was a joke. Laugh.

  25. Re:Computer fraud? Or just plain fraud by Ren+Hoak · · Score: 1

    I know, I'll get modded offtopic, but...

    Every Slashdotter needs this app [openendsoftware.com].
    Ummmm... why does "every" slashdotter need a Mac OS X-only application? Even giving you the liberty that by "every" you just mean "many", I'm guessing your math is seriously off.


    Ok, to pretend that I'm really on topic... I agree that this is just plain fraud, there's nothing special here due to computer use.

  26. Sounds like you guys need a PKI by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    Sign all your communications with trusted keys...

  27. How is this a scam? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Companies do this all the time. THey dot have drivers/trucks so they lease them. Some even stick their company logo over the rental logo.

    No different then drop shipping sales from some other company.

    They were the VAR in the loop.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:How is this a scam? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the criminals were impersonating a company, sub-contracting the load to a third party, then absconding with the payment for the load so that the third party never got paid.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:How is this a scam? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, if they'd just paid their sub, they'd never get caught.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:How is this a scam? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Defeats the purpose of stealing all the money. Also, chances are they are offering the sub more than they are getting paid.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  28. Crime is Tough to Follow by mfh · · Score: 1

    I admit that the summary was a little hard to follow - I had to read it a couple of times too - TFA makes the situation much more clear.

    The crimes that are tough to catch a crook at are the ones you can't really explain in a paragraph. I'm surprised they stayed in this for so long. Seems like they were itching to get caught.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  29. New Tag: by red_blue_yellow · · Score: 1

    itsnotabigtruck

    --
    A neutral communications medium is essential. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.
  30. But... But... But it runs on IIS! by ericferris · · Score: 3, Funny

    Safersys.org runs IIS on Windows Server 2003.

    I really wonder how these hackers managed to crack they way into such a well-known paragon of security and reliability.

    --
    Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are very few (if any) known security vulnerabilities in that particular version of IIS. So your sarcastic point is actually valid in reality.

      What you'll probably find is that the application is of Government Subcontractor Quality. And we all know what that's like.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    2. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 1

      What you'll probably find is that the application is of Government Subcontractor Quality. And we all know what that's like.

      The same people that complain about subcontractor quality also seem to be the same that complain when the work is done in house if they are labor union represented workers.

    3. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I'm actually an in-house government worker for another country (not US) - and from the outside it's my impression that you let your unions get away with WAY too much.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    4. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 1

      Does your country have fully paid healthcare? Very few non-union jobs in the US do. The standard number of vacation days in the US is 13. Japan has 25, Canada 26, UK 28, Germany and France have 35 and 36 respectively, and Italy has 42.

    5. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by ericferris · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I have lately seen several breaches where the security of the server wasn't the issue. The source of the problem seemed to be that a Windows client machine in the office was infected with a keylogger Trojan that faithfully sent all login credentials to its master.

      By logging onto a server with a priviledged account, an employee unwillingly let the keylogger sniff the uid/password, and in due time, this data was exploited.

      There are only two protections against that:
      1. Ban Windows clients and use Mac or Linux machines only (since almost all keyloggers are written against Windows)
      or
      2. Use a cryptographic fob for each user and authentify each logging with the pseudo-random digit sequence it provides.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    6. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Yes. Healthcare is govt funded, vacation days is 28, sick days is 14 (for a total of 42).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Option 1 doesn't really solve the issue - after all, even you said it: almost all. Change the exposure so that there's more Mac than Windows and we'll likely start seeing keyloggers for it (after all, it only needs userland access to work). Option 2 for high security environments is best.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    8. Re:But... But... But it runs on IIS! by ericferris · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Even so, there are conceptual attacks against the crypto fob. The simplest is this: Say your Windows client is infected with a keylogger that transmits sniffed data in real time to a hostile remote machine. The hostile machine can duplicate your credentials and open a session to your server, and keep it active until its human owner emerges from its vodka-induced snooze to come and exploit your hapless machine.

      So I don't have a solution right now, except maybe refuse connection from external IP addresses, which means no more legit remote access or working from home.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
  31. My favourite scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favourite scam from the uk was a couple of guys that set up a fake junk mail delivery company.
    They made a fortune by pretending to deliver junk mail for companies but just dumped the lot in a skip.

    It my favourite because they made their money just saving everyone the bother of doing what they were going to do with it anyway :)

  32. In Soviet Russia by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    Truckers run scamless scamming companies.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  33. I've gotta say... by seandiggity · · Score: 1

    ...this sounds like something Joe The Plumber® might be involved in.

    *ducks*

    --
    Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
  34. Ironic punishment time by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    For punishment, a different part of their body should be sent to each destination at which they scammed people. Because we're good sports we'll let them decide which part of their body goes where.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  35. Ermm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why were you loading a motorcycle in 4th gear at 130 mph? Next time, bail out!

  36. Not exactly by NereusRen · · Score: 1

    It's a little complicated so I don't blame you if you didn't follow exactly what the scam was. They were acting like ebay... except they were keeping the entire final bid and disappearing to leave the bidder and seller to argue about payment.

    1. Re:Not exactly by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      They were acting like ebay... except they were keeping the entire final bid and disappearing to leave the bidder and seller to argue about payment.

      You're right, I did miss that ...

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  37. Re:Wait... EXACTLY. It took 3 years to shut down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you think it's so easy to catch cyber-criminals, particularly when the companies involved were probably far to busy pointing figures at each other and there not being much paper trail, or the fact that kept changing companies, etc.

    perhaps you, Sherlock, should be applying to the FBI?

  38. Too Much Supply... by sweatyboatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...Chasing too little demand.

    Not that I don't sympathize with the plight of the trucking industry, but it sounds like the business model you're describing is no longer profitable.

    The problem with the trucking industry is not illegal immigrants or unscrupulous competitors. The business you describe should, in theory, be able to attract clients willing to pay more for licensed drivers and adequate insurance. And yet they are still operating with razor thin (and even negative) margins. Most likely because their are just too many legal operations in competition for too little business.

    Singling out "mexicans" (ignoring the varied origins of the local Latino population) strikes me as being quite explicitly racist in this context. You are using people of a different cultural background and physical appearance as a scapegoat for problems caused by the inherent weaknesses in your industry.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:Too Much Supply... by Toll_Free · · Score: 2

      lol. Spoken like someone that came here on a boat, probably from Cuba, or somewhere else (to make a racial slur, from your moniker here).

      Anywho, 10 years ago, it was a VERY profitable venture, operating a trucking company.

      NAFTA broke a lot of the companies that where making a LOT of money, especially on the border states.

      Most places don't CARE how the freight gets there, just as long as it DOES. Legal or not, if it arrives, who cares.

      Then you have the current problem with oil prices. Diesel prices are exhorbinant, and unruly. You can't CREATE gasoline without having diesel as a byproduct. Bottom line, oil companies have figured out how much they want to make, per mile, and are charging accordingly (as has the other fuel industries. Ethanol doesn't produce as much power per liter / gallon as diesel / gasoline. AMAZINGLY, the cost difference reflects that. About 30 percent less power, takes about 20 to 30 percent more fuel to get somewhere, and it costs, MAGICALLY, about 30 percent less.

      It has nothing to do with the business model. It has EVERYTHING to do with the people operating illegally. Legal companies are still making a profit, but the smaller businesses that need a larger margin are getting shoved out of that business because of the people operating like the article is describing (I've seen MC #s on trucks that don't go back to the original companies, nor even to the state the company is licensed in!!!).

      People shipping 40K pounds generally don't fall into these traps, as it's pretty hard to do in interstate commerce, as most states ports of entry will flag you as you come into their state, if you don't have a license (or tag, as it's commonly called) in that state. If you only operate INTRASTATE (in your own state), then it's pretty hard to get caught.

      Most of the guys I know that are getting hit really hard are "hotshot" drivers. Duallies, 1 1/2 ton, 2 ton chassis with large gooseneck style trailers. These are called "expediters", because typically, you put your load on that truck and pay a premium because it needs to be there AT THIS TIME (think of this business model as what FedEx started as.... WHICH THEY DID). They get to charge a premium, because you are doing a premium service. Half the time, your trailer isn't 100 percent full. Hence, you make all your money on that load, instead of a full trailer. Since your way under weight, nobody flags you. The illegal operators figured this out, and started hotshots like crazy.

      Big Rigs will sit until they get full, and it isn't hard to do. That way, they make money, too. Big Rigs are more apt to get pulled in, scaled and inspected than a hotshot.

      It's a problem (at least, here in the 11 western states) that is VERY bad. Don't believe me, or think I'm being racist, do some simple searches on some of the loadboards. Do some searches on OOIDA.org. USHIP.com, stopillegaltrucking.com or the other "load boards".. (disclaimer, lots of them won't let you into their forums without registering, but that's what google's cache is nice for :) ).

      Yup, I'm racist. Against anyone operating illegally, without authority or insurance. Because if they kill my kids or me or my wife, I can't even recover the cost of the equipment, since they don't have insurance.

      The biggest ones I like are the guys that try to work for me that FAX me a copy of their auto insurance, claiming it's 'JUST AS GOOD, MANG' as my commercial liability policy. UH HUH, thats why they AREN'T COMMERCIAL policies, huh?

      Maybe on the East Coast it isn't Mexicans, but out here, California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon (limited, they get Canadians as well), Colorado and Washington...... They have SERIOUS problems with illegal operators, and according to the websites dedicated to trucking, it's typically people of hispanic descent.

      Like it, hate it, doesn't matter. Statistics are what count.

      --Toll_Free

      (similiar to calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant". BULLSHIT, illegal should be called illegal. Euphamisms are for pussies.)

    2. Re:Too Much Supply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually believe the orig poster. The rules for driving changed recently. They need MORE drivers they have less driving they can do per day. So that they are hiring illegals does not surprise me. Do not treat a trucker as stupid they usually make more than most programmers/electronic geeks. Ive known dudes who make 120k per year. They are VERY sharp and know the rules. Grab one and ask them what they think of the new dot driving rules from a couple of years ago. You will get a an earful if they make money by the mile.

    3. Re:Too Much Supply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I'm racist. Against anyone operating illegally, without authority or insurance.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  39. You bet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> That's when I knew I had to become a symbol. A creature of the night, to frighten away criminal scum like these Russians. I prayed to Jesus, and he transformed me into...the Bat-Man!

    > informative?

    Of course it's informative! Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find out the Bat-Man's real identity!?

  40. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illegal or no, this served them right.

  41. Too Much Microsoft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The problem with the trucking industry is not illegal immigrants or unscrupulous competitors. The business you describe should, in theory, be able to attract clients willing to pay more for licensed drivers and adequate insurance. And yet they are still operating with razor thin (and even negative) margins. Most likely because their are just too many legal operations in competition for too little business."

    Can you all say, MSCE? I knew you could.

  42. Re:Wait... EXACTLY. It took 3 years to shut down? by tedu_again · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When was the FBI contacted?

  43. Crumby Ventures Again by rdawson · · Score: 1

    Its Natural, No Mr. Natural. Keep on Truckin'

  44. What payment method were they using? by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    I am wondering how they billed . . . only thing that comes to mind is cash . . . does anyone know? I am amazed it took that long for them to be caught. Moe

    --
    SARAVA!
  45. Following Bush Administration's rules... by lpq · · Score: 1

    This is exactly what the Bush administration has been doing with their contractors -- and so far no one has said it is illegal -- they hire 1 contractor who knows nothing about doing whatever it is they are contracted to do -- then they hire other contractors to do the work -- skimming big bucks off the middle
    for acting as the go-between between Bush Bush-buddy Bush-buddy's contractor friends.

    If this is illegal, when they gonna hit up Washington, because this has been the well documented way of doing almost all contracts in DC since Bush took office.

    Sounds like a constitutional issue -- unfair/unequal application of the law...

    1. Re:Following Bush Administration's rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your tin foil hat is on too tight. Loosen that up a bit will ya?

  46. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    So the two scammers made $500K over 3 years, from which they had to pay other trucking companies for the work. This strikes me as a massively inefficient and stupid scam.

    1. Re:Subject by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      So the two scammers made $500K over 3 years, from which they didn't pay other trucking companies for the work.

      That was kinda the whole scam.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    2. Re:Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Oops. I did RTFA, but no one told me I also had to pay attention to what it said...

  47. Why not just go legit? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Pay the trucking company. Keep a 5 or so percent skim as a finders fee or whatever they want to call it.

    Then, instead of criminals they would be called "entrepreneurs."

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  48. Odd that diesel doesn't lag price increases... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it.

  49. Re:Computer fraud? Or just plain fraud by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

    Because it was patented that way.

  50. Re:Computer fraud? Or just plain fraud by Leolo · · Score: 1

    Computer fraud is like computer errors. A computer error is any error that happens and there is a computer in the room. There is always a computer in the room. Hence, all errors are computer errors.