Slashdot Mirror
The Outing of Pranknet
An anonymous reader writes "The Smoking Gun recently published a story on their investigation and outing of Pranknet, an online cabal that aims to take pranks to the next level. Their legacy includes thousands of dollars of damage, and many harassed souls. Many of the pranks have clear criminal implications. Reading their report may send chills down your collective spines." From the linked article: "Coalescing in an online chat room, members of the group, known as Pranknet, use the telephone to carry out cruel and outrageous hoaxes, which they broadcast live around-the-clock on the Internet. Masquerading as hotel employees, emergency service workers, and representatives of fire alarm companies, 'Dex' and his cohorts have successfully prodded unwitting victims to destroy hotel rooms and lobbies, set off sprinkler systems, activate fire alarms, and damage assorted fast food restaurants. But while Pranknet's hoaxes have caused millions of dollars in damages, it is the group's efforts to degrade and frighten targets that makes it even more odious ..."
ladies, get your pussies ready! In the meantime, you gentlemen can eat my asshole.
here we call them FELONIES!
All internet chaos comes from /i/
Hello, its me the idle troll on mainline cuntdot again. While you cuntdot fags are wasting modpoints, I'm having fun. Too bad this is only the second post.
successfully prodded unwitting victims to destroy hotel rooms and lobbies, set off sprinkler systems, activate fire alarms, and damage assorted fast food restaurants[...]Pranknet's hoaxes have caused millions of dollars in damages,
Movies cost hundreds of millions to create, market, distribute, and be consumed for the same reason: Entertainment. The difference is, movies are legal and often fictional. But does it matter to those watching? No. The deeper question here is -- why do people watch it? Why the popularity? The answer says a lot more about us, the audience, than it does about the criminals.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Thank you for demonstrating that there is still freedom in society. Remember the social fabric is delicate and total freedom from it lies in a correctional institution near you.
Please don't profit from other's trust and further from their misfortune. I doubt you have never trusted or felt misfortune, and when you did you wanted a different response than what you offer.
The economy sucks, the rich have destroyed liquidity to keep their dollars valuable... now more than ever we need community. The one thing rich and unethical people hate.
So the bottom line is, just because someone calls your business, doesn't mean they aren't in higher authority,etc or in charge of some security company. Sadly, we are gullible by nature. Sure, it may seem extreme that a guy on the other end tells you to smash the windows & set off the alarms, but better safe than sorry.
Everyone here seems to think it is a felony, I think the actions that the duped took are nearly criminal. They are negligent due to their own stupidity. Had it been to children, it would be ok, but these guys were duping grown ups, who can rationally think. Sadly these prankers just expose Americans as fools to the rest of the world.
While I don't support their actions, it blows my mind that there are people out there that fall for this staff. Like victims of scammers, I am unable to feel sorry for them.
Reading TFA it shows that this kid doesn't go to school and doesn't have a job, he just spends his days and nights mooching off his mom and finding ways to entertain himself.
One of those cases I'd file under "parents enabling the problem". Kick him out on the street where he belongs, force him to get a job and spend some of his time doing something constructive, rather than 100% of his time spent on destructive self-entertainment. There are some cases where the parents bear a significant chunk of the responsibility for their kids' behavior, and this is definitely one of them.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Okay, what a bad piece of reporting. Report a story and then pad it out with irrevelant and subjective personal details? If you want to "attack" the man verbally, your story has enough to do so without needing to comment on the state of his house or family. It's like a child's snipe at one of their ex-friends, it's appalling to think that an adult wrote it.
Yes, he's an idiot. Yes, he *will* get caught and have consequences against him if/when actual evidence turns up. Yes, he is taking advantage of gullible people but that's not entirely their fault - walk out into the street any time of day and you'll find someone that you can take advantage of somehow, if you're mean enough. But to lower yourself to personal attacks on his personal lifestyle, housing, amount of friends etc. is being no better than himself.
You know what? I couldn't make it past the first page of that personal attack - I had to skim to the end to see if there was any actual point to the story (which there didn't seem to be). Grow up.
...to see how these fine folk reacted once they were outed by TSG. Props to the folk who got the job done.
Tariq Malik calling the cops on reporters standing in a public way outside your flat after having posted numerous episodes of taking advantage of gullible people on youtube has to be the epitome of chutzpah. If the allegations against him and his cohorts are true (and the evidence they collected against themselves seems to back those allegations up), I hope they get to pay restitution to all the folk they tricked and spend a considerable time making up their 'pranks' to society.
Documenting your own crimes and posting them to the internet in the hope of glory seems a bit backwards to me, but hey, to each his/her own.
How about posting a list of IP addresses & timestamps of Slashdot's top trolls, and let us do the rest.
I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for grown adults who trash their hotel rooms or strip naked on the sidewalk, simply because someone on the phone told them to. As far as I'm concerned these "pranksters" are performing a public service, outing the terminally stupid. If anything in this article should be a crime it's the "victims'" gullibility.
I see a parallel here with the victims of Nigerian scammers, so recently discussed here. To what extent are the victims (perpetrators, in this case, of felonious acts; the mechanism by which they lose their own money in the other case) responsible for their own actions? To what extent is someone else responsible for bringing those actions about? A key difference here is that the Pranknet guys often rely on danger/panic scenarios: those situations when time wasted can be dangerous, and the guys at Pranknet were portraying themselves as helpers, whereas the scammers usually appeal to their victims for "help." I guess it's a difference of degree...
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Having succumbed to baser urges, Malik [...] is now stuck dealing with the messy consequences.
I find the messy consequences after succumbing to my baser urges to be quite easily cleaned up, actually. Has this guy not heard of tissues or something?
I write bullshit
I read this story, and marvel that anyone could be dimwitted enough to follow through on some of the prankster's suggestions.
How can these people go this far without once going "Hmmm, something doesn't make sense here..."?
If I was dumb enough to get tricked by these idiots I'd at least have the sense to shut up and not tell anyone.
Three Squirrels
I don't find it all that disturbing that people make these prank calls, I find it disturbing that people fall for them. It's particularly disturbing that people who my own security and well-being depends on--hotel and restaurant staff--are stupid enough to fall for these kinds of pranks. If they can be duped into peeing onto each other and drinking urine, what kinds of stupid things are they going to do with my food and my keys?
If pranknet causes these people to be more careful in the future (or to just gather a couple of Darwin awards), I'd feel safer.
Hrmm... what could we do with this piece of trash. I'm sure slashdot is a lot more competent than those goons.
It's lucky in one sense that this guy was just an immature asshole. He's obviously pretty good at manipulating people over the phone. He could probably have got away with some more high impact crimes. Luckily now he's just going to go to jail for some relatively minor stuff.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
The worst I can think of would be harassment, mischief, and maybe some kind of impersonation. Do you seriously think they'll go to jail for any of that? The people who destroyed thousands of dollars' worth of property were the braindead idiots who were targeted by the calls, not the members of PrankNet. They trashed hotel rooms and so forth of their own accord, no one made them do anything.
Perhaps those receiving the prank calls should use some critical thinking before they obey those claiming to be authority and have their best interests in mind. Still, lying to someone and then laughing when they believe you is painfully juvenile
A) these Pranknet people are asshats, and really need to be shut down. Probably for some kind of fraud (claiming they were at the front desk) or impersonating an officer (if they say they're with a fire department).
*BUT*
B) He *is* absolutely right. People are really REALLY fucking stupid. Regarding the gas prank for instance, who's going to break out windows because someone on the phone told them too? 1) Doesn't every one know that gas smells? (note the smell *is* artificial, so in Morocco for instance it doesn't...but in US it does). 2) Don't windows open? 3) And if there's a concern about sparks, I would think common sense indicates smashing the crap out of a TV is the last thing to do to *avoid* sparks. 4) Either way, who would expect some fire dept or whoever to call a room to have them smash stuff, instead of getting out and letting someone with breathing gear or whatever do it?
C) I think the movie comment by girlintraining is spot-on too. if they had someone waiting downstairs that paid for damage to the hotel and paid the prank-ees, it'd probably be on TV alongside Jackass as a comedy TV show. Honestly, even when I saw them shitting in the (display-room) toilets, I simultaneously laughed and felt bad for the store owners.. I figure Pranknet would give the same reaction.
Seems like one of the Pranknet guys (Markle) was jailed for two years for raping a five-year-old. He "warned the girl that he would kill her parents if she did not comply with him".
In style.
(Capcha is 'needless', heh)
Thats some hilarious ownage by TSG. Good job.
It all goes to show what all the 'internet tough guys' really are. Useless little bitches hiding in their parents homes. Roflmao. These kids gotta be shitting bricks now.
Altho it would be alot funnier if now that someone that pranknet has fucked with. reads all this info. Showed up at this guys house. And shot him.
Now that would be an awesome prank. And would be doing the world a huge favor.
Note. i do not advocate the shooting of douchebags in this or any other instance. it would just be really funny justice and good for the human race.
There are a lot of comments here suggesting that the victims should take most of the blame.
As food for thought, I'd recommend those commenters watch this fascinating TED talk.
He gives a number of examples where we feel that we're in control of our decisions, but the designer of the systems/situations have measurably a greater influence in what you'll do than you yourself may. His point at the end is (paraphrased):
When it comes to the physical world, we're acutely aware of our limitations, and we build systems to overcome them (e.g. stairs to climb vertically, wheels for easy transport, etc). When it comes to the mental world, we have this unreasonable view of ourselves as supermen. We think we are always in control, and that we are always responsible. We need to understand our mental limitations so that we can design systems (e.g. public/company policy, transportation systems, etc) to overcome them (and make the world a better place).
Beetle B.
Kudos to TSG for breaking the story. But how is it that a small, independent online news outlet was able to figure out who was pulling pranks garnering national attention and a government with far greater resources was not?
I do think that this is his phone number and address.. Maybe someone should give him a call and explain how stupid he is. Suite 3 1980 Tuscarora St Windsor, ON (519) 419-2944
Off-topic, seriously? He was participating in the conversation, and had a good point.
I hope you like your mother then, she's the only lady you'll ever know.
I opened that article knowing what had happened: Some arrogant assholes wreaking havoc with social engineering.
Quickly after this, the text (loaded with references to nasty brown-skinned terrorists and evil computer nerds) had almost managed to make me sympathize with them. Wow, you loitered outside the guy's apartment until he called the police on you. That'll make you look like the good guys.
...to terrorism charges in 3, 2, 1.
The 11 year old boy part of my brain thinks this is pretty cool but the adult side of my brain understands that real damage is being done here. Still, there's no way these people are terrorists though I am completely convinced that "terror" will find it's way in to the charges once a case involving one of these people is brought before a court.
here rules the bragadoccio of internet dweebs who think that spouting tired cliches makes them tough hombres.
Yes, let's have more people on the streets.
THAT's a GREAT solution.
Of course, its not meant to be... its just more people sniffing their own farts in satisfaction.
"But while Pranknet's hoaxes have caused millions of dollars in damages, it is the group's efforts to degrade and frighten targets that makes it even more odious..." ... because as we all know, what people think of you is far more important than millions of dollars worth of damage.
WTF? Are they pranking /. with this?
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Now this Malik guy is an internet celebrity, which is exactly what the article states is his desire. All of his actions have suddenly been validated, because hey, he's an internet star. Visits to prankster.com (or whatever, I don't know) probably just went through the roof, generating some ad revenue for him to pay for another full body massage at the corner-shop. Hundreds of jackass 15 year old imitators are already foaming at the mouth to copy these douchebags. While the article was hilarious in pointing out the creepy people behind prankster, they did them a huge favor by introducing them to the rest of the world.
This reminds me of the following self-videotaped paintball drive-by attack "pranks" for which the perpetrators were rightfully given jail sentences and in some cases mandatory psychiatric treatment:
3 Teens (Anthony Skoblar, Javier Perez and Malcolm Boyd) Face Prison in Paintball Attacks committed in 1996(some of you might remember watching this on TV as it got a lot of coverage)
The Anchorage paintball attacks committed in 2001 by Charles Deane Wiseman and two juveniles whose names were not released
good. now somebody can visit the guys. Let's see how smart they are. It would be nice to see a live web cam of them being drug from their beds and beaten like a Somoli shop lifter.
There's a very strong norm against publishing phone numbers, addresses, etc in journalism (esp. criminal and political journalism). I readily agree with this norm -- it seems that publishing such information can invite vigilantism and generate life-long problems for the accused without the benefit of a fair trial. I would generally expect journalists to abide this norm in news reports on robbery, drug trafficking, arson, embezzlement, etc.
Never-the-less, I felt a twinge of satisfaction while reading phone numbers and street addresses in TSG's article. I wouldn't mind if these serial harassers received a series of harassing phone calls.
Then again, TSG accuses Pranknet of systematically violating the informal norms that their victims rely on; is it proper for TSG to turn around and break an informal norm of journalism?
I'd like to better understand the ethical question here. Perhaps TSG's approach is the only way to deal with Pranknet? Perhaps it's poetic justice? Has TSG made a special ethical judgement regarding Pranknet? On what basis? Does TSG habitually violate journalistic ethics? Do the participants in Pranknet deserve worse treatment than anyone else accused of crime? How would our opinion change if TSG had presented the story differently?
I suspect he is a member of myg0t, I wouldn't suprise if he is a neo-nazi.
New Economic Perspectives
You guys are saying he's a crazed sociopath who deserves bad things to happen to him? You're nuts. This guy talked a guy into trashing a hotel room. That shit had me ROFLing.
Sounds to me that this reporter is just butt hurt that he got pranked in the past, and now is begging everybody, "Please remove Dex from your friend list, he's a total douchebag." Whatever anonymous "reporter". Grow some fucking balls instead of trying to trick everyone into ganging up on pranknet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dqz1rO5EJg&feature=related
I would love for The Smoking Gun or maybe someone who lives in the area to find the unsecured wi-fi connections and help those folks secure it. I get the impression that without those connections the loser would have no internet.
But I thought that pranks want to be free!
Oops...
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
welcome our new sociopath overlords.
The problem is that most of the pranks involve convincing people there is imminent danger. Given even 30 seconds to think about it, all but the dumbest people would realize what they are being asked to do is stupid. Having to make a split second decision in what they believe is a life and death situation, and in the absence of any other information, a lot of people will tend to just do what they are told, regardless of how outrageous it sounds.
> It's not like the indictments are going to somehow hide the illegal warrants regularly being obtained at that PD, and it isn't like NOT indicting the guys will kill an investigation into the rest of the department.
They probably felt that these officers were getting scape-goated to placate the public and shift focus away from the systematically illegal operations of the police department in Atlanta. I don't know enough about the situation there to fully understand why they felt that way. I can only assume that quote is missing some context (e.g. perhaps it was made after they *did* kill the investigation into the rest of the department).
Sometimes, especially when you don't know all the circumstances, it's more reasonable to assume that people aren't completely crazy. I'm not saying you should rule out crazy as the explanation, but people usually have some reason and it's often the people who know the least who give others the least credit for knowing what's going on.
but from what i understand, unless you are juvenile, if criminal charges are filed against you, its a matter of public record. and by public record, that means the public and the press have a legal right to access it
now you could wax and wane philosophical about vigilante justice and such, but i think the presumption of vigilantism all the time is just as noxious as the presumption of no vigilantism possilbe
so the real answer to your questions about making this information public is that there should be guidelines, and it should be case-by-case. not no information provided all the time, and not all information provided all the time. but the presumption of vigilantism everywhere, which seems a way you lean, is just as naive as the presumption of no vigilantism possible
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What a pussy! He's 25 AND lives at home with his MOM? He wouldn't come out of his room? AND he thinks he's 'cool' because he can make prank phone calls? What a fucking weenie!
Let me see if I get it right. Malik:
Is 25 years old,
Lives at home with his mom,
Stays in his blacked out bedroom,
Hides in his bedroom when reporters knock on his door like a little pussy,
And gets his jollies making prank calls.
This neutered "guy" is the personification of "pussy", "coward", and "retard".
I dare him to track me down and "get me".
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Lots of people use the "personal responsiblity" defence for these kinds of pranks. Unfortunately, your brain is hard wired practically from birth to listen to authority.
Want to know the best way to mug someone? Just ask for their wallet. Con artists have relied on the fact that all it takes to rip off most people is the confidence to pull off the scams.
Pranknet causes property damage, so TSG endangers the lives of Pranknet contributors, throws childish insults (would be living in her basement, if she had one!), and implies that one might be gay.
Fuck you, TSG.
I see a lot worse going on in our government with tax payers dollars
yet nothing happens to those criminals
"And domestically, so he flushed money down the bankster hole... okay, that might have been smart or dumb, not sure yet. But healthcare reform? Seriously, THAT'S what you'd fight to STOP? We here in NZ look at American-style healthcare as a Very Very Bad Idea which we flirted with in the 1980s-90s, and thank goodness we didn't completely go that route. It looks like hell, and we're so glad we don't have the mess you now have to fix."
He flushed an amount fairly close to our yearly GNP down the bankster hole and specifically banksters he had connections with. If we count the type of fraud these Prankster people did as criminal, then what Obama has done (following what Bush started, building on the foundation laid by Clinton...) has to count fairly high on the felony scale.
But the biggest thing is that you misunderstand something critical about American politics and why many of us strongly resist "reform". Reform here means changing the rules so that your cronies will profit instead of someone else's cronies. It has been that way since at least the '60s, probably longer and is largely true of both major parties. Health care "reform" means booting the folks who currently have control of healthcare out and putting your people in all the while leaving the actual *citizens* with less power. Each change of regime results in the pendulum swinging further into insanity with each administration trying to top the criminal aspirations of the previous. That is how they now get away with the House passing a 1000+ page bill that no one had read because it hadn't even been completed at the time of the vote ("Cap and Trade"). The memos and briefs coming out of the Obama Justice Department read word for word similar to those from Bush's with statements about how indefinite detention without charge (or even cause) is fine, the accused have no rights because of the severity of the accusation, and we don't really need to tell anyone, even a judge, who we are wiretapping or having followed. Obama's defense budget still has more money in cost overruns and blatant pay-offs (to mostly the same people as usual) than the GDPs of many countries. So it is not really a matter of what the subject of the bill is these days but rather that it is prudent to not let ANYTHING pass right now [at the Federal level] because we cannot control the time bombs they are writing into them until we get firmer legislation at the State level to protect ourselves from Federal overreach, stupidity, and corruption. I would rather have Ghengis Khan in control of my health options at the moment than a Congressional-appointed committee.
It is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. I believe Democrats to be wrong about the best way to run the country, but I believe most of them are on the level. I, myself, am a Republican because I look back to ideals the party was actually founded to promote... like personal responsibility, personal charity, and freedom. But the core ideals are not promoted by the top levels of *either* party and grass roots efforts to actually change something are quickly co-opted by monied interests, pork, riders, and 'oversights' in the legislation until they do much more damage than if the problems had been left alone. There is a deep racket here where the 'leadership' treats the citizens exactly like those Pranksters, as if they are useless sheep who can be paid off in bright baubles and trinkets to look the other way... and cheating them isn't really immoral. That attitude infects the citizenry just the same, who try to emulate their 'betters' by making their own racket and trying to get a piece of the pie... and cheating The System isn't really immoral... so in a way, the attitude of the leadership ends up being accurate. That's how we end up with people in charge of liberal policies and promote using our tax money to "help others" who have not paid their own taxes in many years and people do not really find it odd.
Health care 'reform,' if it passes will do no better than utility 'reform' or the many Defense-Industrial budg
Are you kidding? So far the majority of stories involving someone acting like a sociopathic prick online, have attracted a number of wannabe sociopathic pricks that lionized the perp on one or more of the following grounds:
- muahahaha, now we're the ones with the power. Phear us! Payback time for the former school bully... and the cheerleader who didn't want to be my GF... and the jock who got her as a GF... and that geography teacher who got me bored to death... (Basically as if having been a victim once is all the reason and rationalization needed for victimizing others in turn. Newsflash: if anyone wasn't a bully just because they lacked the power and/or balls, but turns into one as soon as they can, they never had a moral high ground to start with.)
- OMG, if they were too stupid to defend themselves, they deserved it. (A.k.a., "might makes right.")
- more generally, if it's high tech and not everyone can do it, then it's right to do it if you can. (A.k.a., "might makes right.")
- It's just bits and bytes, and information wants to be free!! (Especially when said information is someone else's credit card number;))
- if it slips through some loophole of an existing law, despite being blatantly against its spirit, then it's morally right. The proposed new amendment against it is blatantly an attempt to control more people by criminalizing something as benign as terrorizing others. Cue quotes out of context from Richelieu and Ayn Rand.
- if it's already illegal, that law is blatantly an attempt to control more people by criminalizing something as benign as terrorizing others. Cue quotes out of context from Richelieu and Ayn Rand.
Etc.
In fact, my best guess is that now the majority opinion is against it only because it was _social_ engineering, and we don't relate that well to that. It involves talking to people and... eew ;) If it were about slipping someone a trojan to terrorize them via their computer, you'd see 200+ posts just defending the perp and blaming the victims.
So maybe it is stuff that matters. Reminding more wannabe sociopaths that doing it over the internet is no shield, is a good thing.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
And why was I seemingly born 20yrs to soon for these sort of LULZ!?
This sounds like a destructive version of shoutcast streams I used to listen in on at #prankradio on efnet. That was about 10 years ago, though.
/getoffmylawn
Well, I dunno about at home or at a hotel, but from my experience with corporations, a lot of people seem to intentionally shut off their brains at work. If you just apply the rules, no matter how dumb, usually the worst that can happen is that you're skipped for promotion. If you do something original, you're to blame if it goes wrong. And often you're to blame if it goes right and makes the PHB who ordered otherwise look bad. Plus, if you think too much about all the stupid decisions and rules and stuff, you (A) end up very unhappy, and (B) you might pipe up and be seen as the malcontent who rocks the boat.
There's a whole class of managers whose whole job is to avoid taking any decision, and not rock the boat until pension. You know, the kind that'll count the pixels and complain that the kerning of "lore ipsum" on the site viewed in IE is different from the concept art done in Photoshop, just because that's just about the only thing they can do without showing any personal initiative or get into technical details that would require a personal decision. Or the kind who'll ship an extra manual for a printer in a box the size of the whole printer, just because some rule said "use box type 14 for that printer model." Etc.
Honestly, in some places I've seen, if a phone call came from the management requiring one to break the windows or destroy a monitor or whatnot... it wouldn't even be too far off from the normal idiocy coming from above.
I mean, think about it. I've been in an "urgent" project in December before, which got promptly cancelled on the 2nd of January, just because a department had some money to burn at the end of the year and they'd get their budget for next year cut if they didn't burn the last cent of it. So they deliberately blew their remaining budget on something they knew in advance that they don't need or want. Planned waste. Or there have been places where after a mild winter, people have been instructed to leave the heating and lights on overnight, because if they don't use their heating budget in full this year, you guessed, they'll get said budget cut next year when there might be a real winter. Etc.
If you were one of the people working in one of those places, and had just spent the spring turning heating _up_ when you leave and turning it back off in the morning, just because your department needs to waste some money... would you be particularly inclined to think twice, if someone called and asked that you break a window so they can use that bit of budget? Heck, would you be inclined to think twice about any other stupidity? Or, like everyone else, would you back up into a more comfortable, "not my business to worry about that kind of thing" attitude?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
someone with the handle "adult film producer" is the last person you want to be talking about this subject matter with
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Exploiting people's greed and uglier sides may be funny, exploiting people's trust and naivite is just your usual scummy criminal at work.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Kudos to TSG, this article is quite remarkable. Talk about in depth reporting. And all the details they uncovered, they've had to have had some very dedicated folks rooting out this sort of stuff... and here I thought true reporting was no longer a reality... Well done!
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Here is the crux of the situation- it's not illegal to be stupid, in fact you can willingly forego any notion of higher education if you wanted to. Sorry, but as a person in the world, you need to deal with this. What IS illegal, is if you take advantage of them to perform illegal acts. It's the same situation if you 'tricked them' into shooting someone. The person who GIVES orders is just as responsible, or even more responsible, then the one who follows them.
The first rule about Project Mayhem is you don't ask questions!
I suspect that you're entirely right. There's nothing shameful about believing lies that are being fed to you in an emergency situation.
Actually.... It would appear there is.
I can't wait to read the stories about these peoples houses being burned down in pranks, that will be funny.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
It's peculiar how your comment history oscillates between "X, Funny" and "-1 Troll".
You know the feeling when you hate something that no one else seems to hate? Next time your anger issues threaten to surface, why not use one of those, instead of one of your standard expletives?
Viz:
Hey, Buffy, "stupid" is relative, and criminals are criminals.
That way, you'll still feel the sweet satisfaction of handing one out while people won't be so distracted by the verbal abuse because they actually like or are at least ambivalent to your address. This, in turn, will lead to them not modding you Troll so much, which will make you feel more loved which, again, might help you with your anger issues and make you want to use your standard expletives less. This is what we in the know call a "virtuous circle". Try it.
Uh, wait—
assfuck
Did you try to do this already?
Since I've not seen anyone else point it out yet, I just thought I'd point out that the 'pranksters' are simply exercising Foot-in-the-door technique. They probably aren't, necessarily always, stupid people that get duped by these situations. The actions they are being instructed to conduct are all reasonable - in relation to the one they just finished completing. The 'big picture' isn't as readily available as you might thing.
I hesitate to point this out, because it could empower other 'pranksters', but the formula is basically:
A) Get them to do something innocuous
B) Get them to do something logical
C) Get them to do something slightly/somewhat less logical
D) Continue escalating requests until something breaks
The 'humor' is often found at the ridiculousness of 'D)'.
Look at the hotel scenarios:
A) Get them out of bed thinking there is an emergency
B) Get them to line the underside of the doors, etc
C) Get them to 'open' a window, by force if necessary
D) Get them to break the TV (since force was already used on the window)
No one calls them up and goes straight to 'D)', and THAT alone is why it works.
The best defense against this would be to keep 'A)' in mind at all times. The leap from 'A)' to the end should also make sense without the intermediary steps...
FTFA,
For example, a bizarre July 20 prank ended with a hotel worker actually sipping from a urine sample provided by a guest at a Homewood Suites in Kentucky. Additionally, at least twice this year, fast food workers--fearing that they would suffer burns after being doused by chemicals from a fire suppression system--stripped off their clothes on the sidewalk outside their respective restaurants.
You know, without Audio and Video; this stuff sounds like a very funny story. Did CNN, or the BBC cover any of these stories? Based on ACTUAL pranks, my favorite is from the Touch Tone Terrorists, specifically the incident where the "Coke Junky", "burns", the clients Diamond Ring. "Scooter", you ROCK!
I read the entire Smoking Gun article linked, and found a disturbing lack of evidence presented as to the identity of Dex, the leader of Pranknet.
According to this Windsor Star article, Smoking Gun sent Dex an e-mail with some custom crafted URLs claiming they were public articles on the Smoking Gun website. When he allegedly clicked on the link, they supposedly had his IP address.
Never mind the fact that that is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and the real Dex would almost surely have been wise to it, but the article leaves out a critical detail. According to the Star article, after obtaining Dex's supposed IP address, Smoking Gun investigators then went to his home address, and looked through server logs, etc. What they fail to mention is how they obtained his name and home address from the IP address. I don't know too many ISPs who hand over such information to private investigative firms. Some are even reluctant to hand over this information to law enforcement without a warrant. So how did Smoking Gun get this information? Which server logs did they subsequently investigate and how did they get access to them? And most importantly, according to Smoking Gun's own article, Dex apparently never paid for his Internet access, but rather found open Wi-Fi access points to obtain Internet access. If that is the case, how did Smoking Gun map his IP address to to name and address? This all sounds very suspicious. The Windsor Star even refused to print his name and address, because they were unable to independently verify any of this.
Yet, reading the above posts, it appears that many Slashdotters take it is a given that the identity of Dex revealed in the Smoking Gun article is correct. Aren't such people exhibiting the same kind of mentality of many of Pranknet's victims?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I have one of these pricknets that live by me. I've been tempted to do something rash but not yet. Here's the local article. http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/08/06/luf_prankster.html He's actually named in the "smoking gun" article.
I'm here to kick a$$ and chew bubble gum...and I'm all out of bubble gum!
The Pranknet guys look like dorks. Two are felons.
One has is a sex offender for taking pictures of his on family.
These guys are pure scum.
The elite (rich person) does not go "all over town setting soup kitchens and churches on fire" but is largely responsible for the need for soup kitchens. When 5% of the population has over 50% of the wealth, there's a deeply unfair distribution of money, property, and opportunity. This apportionment takes necessities from the poor to provide luxuries for the rich. The rich don't think "community sucks" but rather don't think about the community at all. Your example of how rich people act is a ridiculous straw man. If you're unaware of the effects of class distinctions then you live in the same isolated environment as this guy who talks about his world view as a corporate executive versus the reality of his decisions and actions.
Maybe people shouldn't be so stupid as to listen to anything someone tells them on the phone and demand to see someone in person if it's as serious as they are being told? I sure as hell would tell anyone calling me on a phone to go fuck themselves if they even hinted at wanting me to do anything which I could be held liable for.
I am sure that the world has no shortage of people who are less intelligent than you.
My question to you us, are you blaming the victim? As in, placing fault on the victim for a failure to make good choices? If you are, then you are arguing, "The stupid deserve to suffer, and other people have the right to abuse them for being stupid." Which is exactly the argument that people who bilk money from elderly people on fixed incomes use. It's the argument that psychopaths use.
It is evil and illegal to deprive people of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud no matter how stupid they are and no matter how much the predator enjoys it. People who do that to others, no matter how stupid the victim is, deserve to be prosecuted by the state and preferably incarcerated where they can't harm others.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
If the idiots in the theatre trample each other in a mad rush from a fire that doesnâ(TM)t even exist, it was their own stupidity and lack of clearheadedness that killed them, not the person shouting fire. If your reaction to the mere threat of danger is to hurt others, you are the culprit.
For example, think of George Costanza in the episode of Seinfeld where he throws the old ladies in their rockers to the ground in order to rush to the door. Are you going to tell me it was the messengerâ(TM)s fault? NO. His behaviour was deplorable and his panic was his own fault for being a non-clear-headed individual willing to hurt others just to preserve himself.
If someone tells me there is a fire, I am going to at least look for smoke so I can figure out what direction to flee. And I am not going to trample people unless I actually see a real fire about to burn me up and itâ(TM)s me or them. But trampling people just to get out when thereâ(TM)s no actual fire? Simply because of a panic? I think thatâ(TM)s far worse than yelling âfireâ(TM).
I know I am unique in my extreme opinion.
I think painting speech as potentially physically harmful has a chilling effect: Just look at the whole Cartoon Mohammad thing for an example of that.
âoeWords can hurt, so you canâ(TM)t say words [or draw cartoons] that hurt.â
The censoring of Mohammad in this weekâ(TM)s South Park was a perfect example.
Anyway: Words donâ(TM)t hurt people. People hurt people.
Learn to think for yourself, and mere words will never be able to physically hurt you.
The idea that everyone must mindlessly follow whatever words they hear, in and of itself is a dangerous idea. Should we panic just because someone told us to? No. Should we panic if the loudspeaker tells us to? Maybe. Should we panic if Fox News tells us to? Quite likely. But before you go tramping people to death (and thus tramping our free speech rights by being too much of a moron to think for yourself), consider whether you are actually on fire. Dumbass.
Edit, 9/12/2007, comment from below incorporated into this post:
Fyngyrs (http://slashdot.org/~fyngyrz) says:
âoeThere is no harm in yelling fire. There is no harm in filing out of a building that isnâ(TM)t burning, There is no harm in filing back in. These are the acts of reasonable people. In fact, the practice would do people some good. We used to do it all the time in school. The fire alarm would go off, and out weâ(TM)d go, not knowing if there was a fire, or not. No one ever got trampled. The theatre owner has, as an owner of a private business, the option to no longer serve that customer. Of course, should one patron fail to file out reasonably, and in the process trample another, then a crime has been committed, that of assault by that patron upon another. The idea that it is acceptable for people to trample one another â" or that it somehow âoeisnâ(TM)t their faultâ â" is just one of the things that is wrong with the cliche, aside from the initial, completely incorrect, idea that one could not yell fire â" or anything else â" in a crowded theater. Itâ(TM)s socially retarded, and if it were *my* theatre, itâ(TM)d be the last time you ever got in the door, but other than that, there you go. Free speech trumps all. Every time. Thatâ(TM)s the basis of liberty.â
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
i pasted it from here, where it's properly formatted: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2006/04/14/294/
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com