Slashdot Mirror


'Iceman' Gets 13 Years For 2nd Hacking Offense

Hugh Pickens writes "Computerworld reports that Max Ray Butler, who used the hacker pseudonym Iceman, has been sentenced to 13 years in federal prison for hacking into financial institutions and stealing credit card account numbers, the longest known sentence ever handed down for hacking charges. This isn't Butler's first time facing a federal hacking sentence. After a promising start as a security consultant who did volunteer work for the FBI, Butler was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers — including some on federal government networks — that were susceptible to a security hole. Butler served an 18-month prison term for the crime and fell on hard times after his 2002 release. In desperation, he turned again to cybercrime and by the time of his arrest in September 2007, he had built the largest marketplace for stolen credit and debit card information in the world."

289 comments

  1. long term sentence by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And lesson we've all learned today, class? Don't crap in your own backyard.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:long term sentence by introspekt.i · · Score: 3, Funny

      But my outhouse is in my backyard!

    2. Re:long term sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bummer

      --signed Crash Override

    3. Re:long term sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was sloppy and got greedy. THAT is how these guys get caught.

      And honestly that is a n00b hacker mistake.

      Being taken down by a newbie mistake, that's harder on him than the 13 years in "you're my little bitch" prison.

    4. Re:long term sentence by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sucks that he couldn't put his abilities to better use.. Too bad for him

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    5. Re:long term sentence by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Sucks that he couldn't put his abilities to better use.."

      I think had he had abilities, he wouldn't have gotten caught.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    6. Re:long term sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the

      After a promising start as a security consultant who did volunteer work for the FBI, Butler was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers — including some on federal government networks

      will hopefully teach the DHS and some of those (in)security firms to not to put children in a room filled with sex hungry paedophiles, metaphorically speaking. Speaking of which, I wonder whether the FBI has done that literally sometimes, or would that act belong to the wonderful world of Imaginationland..

    7. Re:long term sentence by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      About the best reply.

      What makes a hacker "good" first of all is knowing one thing: How good he really is.

      There are things you can do and there are things you cannot. Maybe he even has "abilities", however you want to define them, but he certainly did not have the ability to pull this one off. The first sentence should have given it away to him...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:long term sentence by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "What makes a hacker "good" first of all is knowing one thing: How good he really is."

      Clint Eastwood put it best in a movie.

      "A man's gotta know his limitations"

    9. Re:long term sentence by oztiks · · Score: 1

      I guess his slashdot account wont be used for a while

      http://slashdot.org/~iceman

    10. Re:long term sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just called someone a "n00b". The irony.

  2. Looks like Iceman is being put on ice... by zero_out · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks like Iceman is being put on ice for 13 years. It's well-deserved, IMO.

    1. Re:Looks like Iceman is being put on ice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good thing he didn't choose Assman for his hacker pseudonym.

    2. Re:Looks like Iceman is being put on ice... by Idbar · · Score: 3, Funny

      I didn't know Horatio Caine was a slashdot poster!

    3. Re:Looks like Iceman is being put on ice... by Idbar · · Score: 1

      (I would have put the "YEAAH", but the slashdot filter doesn't allow it)

    4. Re:Looks like Iceman is being put on ice... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      When I read the title my first thought was that Ötzi had been thrown in the slammer for getting stuck the glacier.

  3. Read the Fine Print by otherniceman · · Score: 5, Funny

    12 Years, 11 months of the sentence for using the pseudonym Iceman.

    1. Re:Read the Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      His ego was writing checks that his body couldn't cash.

    2. Re:Read the Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Was his Goose cooked? And tenderized?

      Lol too soon.

    3. Re:Read the Fine Print by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 1

      Goose? Iceman? what is this, Top Gun?

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    4. Re:Read the Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOOSH!

      (Yes)

    5. Re:Read the Fine Print by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Funny

      >12 Years, 11 months of the sentence for using the pseudonym Iceman.

      And after 12 years, 11 months he'll be using the pseudonym Assman.

    6. Re:Read the Fine Print by niknatas · · Score: 3, Funny

      12 Years, 11 months of the sentence for using the pseudonym Iceman.

      I have some photos of what the "Iceman" may look like after his release.

      http://imgur.com/KJHkT.jpg

      -Cheers

    7. Re:Read the Fine Print by Binder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I still believe it is ridiculous that murderers get shorter sentences than this.

    8. Re:Read the Fine Print by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean: Goatse-man?

    9. Re:Read the Fine Print by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      I expect he'll look more like this.

    10. Re:Read the Fine Print by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      I hope i don't get his vanity license plate by mistake.

    11. Re:Read the Fine Print by precariousgray · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At first, I thought they were referring to whom I consider to be the real Iceman.

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    12. Re:Read the Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and after the last one month he'll be... Asthma?

    13. Re:Read the Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You goddamn pilots made me spill my coffee with that low flyby.

    14. Re:Read the Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha priceless

  4. Good. by AnotherUsername · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope that he has to serve the full sentence, and doesn't get out on parole. Credit card fraud is not fun. I can only hope that more people convicted of credit card fraud receive sentences like this.

    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    1. Re:Good. by girlintraining · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hope that he has to serve the full sentence, and doesn't get out on parole. Credit card fraud is not fun. I can only hope that more people convicted of credit card fraud receive sentences like this.

      Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system designed to dispense cash based solely on a 4 digit number; That makes sense. Credit card fraud wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if financial institutions had designed the system to be more resiliant to attack. And by more resiliant, I mean doing something other than coating the cash in BBQ sauce and waving it in front of the hungry and unemployed masses while chanting "Hell no, we won't upgrade!"

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Good. by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system...

      Um, yes. That does make sense.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is the criminals' fault for exploiting it, moron. It's the financial institutions fault for not securing it.

    4. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not all banks limit to 4 digit numbers, my bank required a minimum of 6, suggest 8 and supported upto 10 digits for your pin.

      The downside to this was that banks that only used the 4 digit system wouldn't allow you to use your ATM card to withdraw cash.

      It was almost impossible to find a place in North Carolina that would accept over 4 digit pins back when I was there...

    5. Re:Good. by AnotherUsername · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Credit card fraud wouldn't happen if criminals weren't breaking the law.

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    6. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system designed to dispense cash based solely on a 4 digit number; That makes sense. Credit card fraud wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if financial institutions had designed the system to be more resiliant to attack.

      Each person must be responsible for his or her own actions. Blaming the victim only reinforces the Just World Phenomenon.

    7. Re:Good. by elgaard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, that would like blaming burglers for breaking into houses protected by only wooden doors and glass windows. Burglary wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if house-owners designed their houses with steel doors and bullet-proof glass windows.

    8. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you're not a retard in training?

    9. Re:Good. by GIL_Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I absolutely blame the criminal. After all, many of us here on slashdot have the technical ability (or could get it easily: some of these folks are really smart) to do this same type of criminal activity. They don't do it because they aren't criminals. Who the heck else would we blame but the person responsible for committing the crime? Now, if you want to talk about "the system" (justice system, not the banking system) and how unfortunate it is that it is nearly impossible to get a job after being in prison once - yes, that is tough and the summary alludes to the "hard times" iceman fell on probably due to the stigma of his earlier crime and resulting prison sentence. This can, and often is, extremely difficult to overcome and can mean years of living on handouts from relatives, living in campgrounds, etc. (can you tell I have a brother in law who has been through this?). However, the fact remains that the crime is the responsibility of the criminal and not the banking system. If the credit card system was more secure, this criminal would have went after the next most lucrative thing.

    10. Re:Good. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Ah, that's a much nicer analogy than the one I was thinking off.

      Human beings are so fragile. Yeah, blame the murderer for killing someone... /eyeroll

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    11. Re:Good. by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I often find myself agreeing with your posts but not this one. While I do agree that the PCI (Payment Card Industry) needs some major overhaul, people are still responsible for their crimes. Yes, I do blame criminals for being criminals.

    12. Re:Good. by elnyka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope that he has to serve the full sentence, and doesn't get out on parole. Credit card fraud is not fun. I can only hope that more people convicted of credit card fraud receive sentences like this.

      Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system designed to dispense cash based solely on a 4 digit number; That makes sense. Credit card fraud wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if financial institutions had designed the system to be more resiliant to attack. And by more resiliant, I mean doing something other than coating the cash in BBQ sauce and waving it in front of the hungry and unemployed masses while chanting "Hell no, we won't upgrade!"

      Oh wow, so I guess by your logic, I should not blame the person who broke into my car and stole just because the lock wasn't designed against simple lock-picking (it isn't hard to pick a lock.)

      Blame the faults of the implementation of a technology, and absolve the criminal of his own personal and moral responsibility. Awesome display of stupidity.

    13. Re:Good. by HungryHobo · · Score: 2

      You make a good point that the credit card system is retarded but the poeple who steal CC numbers are still filth.

    14. Re:Good. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you really want to reduce fraud, make the banks financially responsible for it. As it is, there's little incentive for the industry to increase their security.

      I'm not saying this guy shouldn't be in jail. We should absolutely punish those who take unfair advantage of the system. But if we really want results, we should fix the system.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Good. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Similarly, we blame the murderer for exploiting a system that relies on numerous single points of failure to keep a person alive. This comment deserves every -1 Troll mod it gets.

    16. Re:Good. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      So to boil it down to a quick soundbyte... (and to brazenly steal from our arm's bearing soundbyte-makers)

      Computers don't hack people, People do.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    17. Re:Good. by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or rather, we should nix the fallacy that ONE bad act can earn blame on just ONE person.

      Think about this. If a criminal broke into a storage unit because the guard was asleep, the guard doesn't get off scot-free, right? Even though the criminal gets the blame?

      They both contributed to the theft. The thief by actually doing it, and the guard for letting it happen.

      The crooks actually doing the fraud should get nailed. But I think the banks have plenty of blame themselves for trying to weasel out of security.

    18. Re:Good. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which is rather like saying "It wasn't the murderer's fault Bob got killed, it was Bob's own fault for not walking around in a kevlar vest!"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Good. by taoye · · Score: 1

      But no matter how much education or whatever you give them, some people will try, indefinitely, no matter what you do or say. So it'd be a good idea if the system were set up to make it as hard as possible for them to defraud credit card holders in the first place.

      Basically from a security perspective, you've got to layer on as many different kinds of protection as possible. Criminals should be prevented from becoming criminals, the system itself should be more secure, consumers should be more educated and aware... etc.

    20. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, blame the murders for shooting people with skulls not designed to withstand thousands of foot-pounds of direct force, That makes sense. Murder wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if evolution had designed the human body to be more resiliant to attack. And by more resiliant, I mean doing something other than growing skin over the skull and pretending bullets won't penetrate both.\

      Shall I do one for rape as well?

    21. Re:Good. by shentino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Saying the banking system is innocent of neglecting security is like saying a security guard who happens to fall asleep on duty isn't responsible if there's a break in.

    22. Re:Good. by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet the scumbags at AIG and the financial institutions robbed most americans blind and they were given end of the year bonuses!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    23. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the banks already are financially responsible for it.

    24. Re:Good. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system

      Yeah, that's like blaming the murderer for shooting people. The real culprit is clearly the gun. Or maybe the victims' lack of body armor.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    25. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps we should blame both the person who broke into your car as well as the user of the lock for the break-in. You incorrectly assume that blaming the perpetrator and blaming the victim are mutually exclusive.

    26. Re:Good. by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope that he has to serve the full sentence, and doesn't get out on parole. Credit card fraud is not fun. I can only hope that more people convicted of credit card fraud receive sentences like this.

      Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system designed to dispense cash based solely on a 4 digit number; That makes sense. Credit card fraud wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if financial institutions had designed the system to be more resiliant to attack. And by more resiliant, I mean doing something other than coating the cash in BBQ sauce and waving it in front of the hungry and unemployed masses while chanting "Hell no, we won't upgrade!"

      Oh wow, so I guess by your logic, I should not blame the person who broke into my car and stole just because the lock wasn't designed against simple lock-picking (it isn't hard to pick a lock.)

      Blame the faults of the implementation of a technology, and absolve the criminal of his own personal and moral responsibility. Awesome display of stupidity.

      This is often refered to as 'the poor victim mentality' over here, and seems to work from the basic premise that the criminal has become a criminal because society at large has failed him/her somehow... it's a lot of vawing hands and requests to ignore the man behind the curtain, but somehow the criminal commits crime as a plea for help. This is the same logic that lays behind blaming the rape victim for the fact that the rapist raped them - if they hadn't shown so much naked skin, the poor, misunderstood rapist would have been able to control himself...

      I guess stealing at least 27.5 million US dollars (the amounth he has to reimburse the victims with) and setting up a online shop for selling credit card information is a very, very loud plea for help. Or possible a sign of a well developed sence of greed and a belief in that you couldn't be caught - if we were to blame the criminal, that is.

      And off course the criminal is to blame. After all, most of us don't break the laws - even if we have the knowledge to do so. The ones who do break them break them willingly and with intent; most of them with a reasonable knowledge that what they are doing is wrong and will be punished.

      Which is not to say that the credit card companies shouldn't try to improve the security of their cards. Over here most - if not all - banks and credit card companies will send you a code-dongle (BankID - use an online translater to read it if you don't speak Norwegian) that is considered safe - so safe in fact that the banks say they wont hold you responsible if your card is abused online. Downside is off course that it's only supported within Norway, so if I buy something from a non-norwegian online shop I still have to rely on the older, less secure solutions.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    27. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The criminal is to blame, but that doesn't mean an unfair justice system that perpetuates crime is free from guilt either.

      The fact is if you are sentence to 18-months, you should have served your debt after 18 months. But no - the punishment continues far after that in the inability to feed yourself, and it does nothing but create far more crime.

      Businesses should be required special liscences - and good reasons - to perform background checks. No criminal is free from guilt - but that in no way absolves an injust system.

    28. Re:Good. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      If you leave your car unlocked while you go back into the house to grab something is then your fault if I walk up and grab things out of it?

      Someone making a mistake isn't a licence to commit a crime. I do think companies should be held responsible for their flaws but doing that doesn't involve letting people run rampant and causing damage for innocent people.

    29. Re:Good. by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Saying the banking system is innocent of neglecting security is like saying a security guard who happens to fall asleep on duty isn't responsible if there's a break in.

      True, but this does not absolve the criminal from doing the time. No different than saying that rape is okay because the victim was "asking for it, all dressed up like that".

      In an ideal system, the CC companies would have to eat the responsibili- oh, wait... they already do; CC fraud is usually something the CC company has to eat the costs of (after a certain liability point, anyway).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    30. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Security is a parameter. It must be chosen in order to optimize certain characteristics.

      For example, I have the most secure server in world. It's on the floor in my closet, disconnected from both power and network. No hacker has broken into it yet. It also has the characteristic of being completely useless to everyone (including me).

      Realize that the banks do not pay the costs for security and security breaches. They pass that cost onto their consumers. They carefully weigh the costs of prevention, detection, and impact of security defects against other factors like ease-of-use of their products, and then they make an offering. You are free to have faith in the business analysts at the bank, and open an account there. You are also free to start your own credit union, where security is the highest priority.

      Everybody responsible for their own actions. It works.

    31. Re:Good. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      After all, many of us here on slashdot have the technical ability (or could get it easily: some of these folks are really smart) to do this same type of criminal activity. They don't do it because they aren't criminals.

      I expect most all of us would break almost any law if the life of someone we cared about was on the line. So, now that we've established that we're all criminals, the only question is one of how much motivation one person needs, versus another...

      Crimes always increase when the economy gets worse, and fall when the economy improves. Though I don't claim to know the percentage, there's clearly a large chunk of the population that are upstanding citizens when times are good, and criminals if given just a bit of proper motivation...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    32. Re:Good. by the_hellspawn · · Score: 0

      yep and now wake me when my shift is over.

      --
      "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    33. Re:Good. by digit1001 · · Score: 1

      ...They don't do it because they aren't criminals...

      I wouldn't be too confident in that statement. I'm pretty sure I'm stealing from my employer right now reading /. instead of working...

    34. Re:Good. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Ya, it is the crimials fault. I might forget to lock my door, that doesn't make it any more ok for people to steal from me.

    35. Re:Good. by gravesb · · Score: 1

      Which is why banks have to cover losses in some instances.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    36. Re:Good. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Short version:
      People respond to incentives.

    37. Re:Good. by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A sleeping gaurd does not contribute to theft. They fail in their job function, but they didn't do anything to cause the other person to steal either (unless you're claiming they were working together, which you don't seem to be doing). Following your logic, I would be contributing to my own home being burgurlized because I DIDN'T even hire a guard.

    38. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's more like it's Bob's fault that he was jumping up and down waving his arms in front of a mean-looking guy with a gun.

    39. Re:Good. by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      ${parent//wooden/paper}

      --
      404: sig not found.
    40. Re:Good. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      True, but this does not absolve the criminal from doing the time. No different than saying that rape is okay because the victim was "asking for it, all dressed up like that".

      Actually it is different; in one case, the guard was PAID to do something, and he didn't, which is wrong. The woman just dressed how she wanted to. There's nothing inherently wrong with any particular style of dress, but people like to pretend certain styles of dress are more moral than others.

    41. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally don't think he should be any less liable for what he did because of how lousy credit card security is. I just think that the credit card companies should get just as much blame. The security of credit cards is abominable. Creating a decently secure electronic system with a private key that never gets sent in the clear, hashed somehow against the time of the transaction would have been as easy as making a pocket calculator. That was technology available at least in the early 1980s. It would have been bulkier than a credit card, but If the credit card companies got together to implement an industry standard on something like that, there's no reason that one such device could have been all of your credit cards, or could have been used in combination with your cards as an authentication device. It could have worked just fine with the old credit card impression devices too, just have it show an authentication code on a small calculator style lcd screen and write it in with a pen. That's what we should have had for decades.
      These days, we should have credit card sized smart cards with the pin pad built into them with a gigabyte or two of random data, mirrored on the banks servers, to be used as a one time pad for transaction-level encryption that's unbreakable to anyone who doesn't either hack a super-secured server at the credit card company, or take it from the card. Combine that with at least one other form of encryption/authentication on the card that requires a pin that's part of the encryption key and you have a secure system that's unlikely to be broken by anything other than coercion (no computer security scheme can beat a $5 wrench applied violently to the victim) without an effort on the part of the thief that's likely to be more trouble than the reward is worth. You could put all of your credit cards on such a device, and if it's lost or stolen, the $20 or so it would take to replace it could be spread among all of those credit card companies, probably costing them about the same individually as it would have if you'd lost your whole wallet full of standard credit cards. It should save consumers and financial institutions alike many billions of dollars dealing with fraud and identity theft.
      Strangely, for some reason, we don't have this. All we have is another three or four digits printed on the back of the card. Ooh, ahh, so much more secure. It makes you wonder what the real reason is that we don't have something better. I can think of only two broad possibilities: incompetence or malice. Incompetence is the one you're supposed to assume in order to be polite. A combination of not invented here syndrome, general cluelessness and greed (no-one wants to agree on an open standard in greedy industries like banking, rather everyone would want to live in the fantasy world where they push their own standard and "win" and everyone pays them license fees) and just overall inability of the various financial institutions to work together certainly could explain it in terms of incompetence. The other possibility is malice. In this context that would translate as the credit card companies not caring about all the fraud hurting their customers because in one way or another they manage to break even or even profit from all the fraud by: denying that fraud has been committed when a customer claims it has, or simply transferring blame to the customer ("the credit card agreement says you won't disclose your pin and you couldn't have been robbed if you hadn't disclosed it, therefore not our problem") and charging interest on fraudulent transactions; charging interest on all the fraudulent transactions customers never notice and report; selling customers various forms of fraud insurance and extra security measures, making fraud a profit center rather than a parasitic drain (on the credit card companies at least), etc. Personally I lean towards believing it's a combination of the incompetence and the malice explanations.

    42. Re:Good. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well of course, if they were all just a little Building and Loan, then Old Man Potter wouldn't have stolen Uncle Billy's deposit. Let's go give Old Man Potter the Nobel Prize and kick Uncle Billy in the balls!

      (Tune in next week when we explain why Oliver Twist was really the villain!)

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    43. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry. Parole on the federal level was abolished 25 years ago. He's in for the long haul.

    44. Re:Good. by elnyka · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should blame both the person who broke into your car as well as the user of the lock for the break-in. You incorrectly assume that blaming the perpetrator and blaming the victim are mutually exclusive.

      There is nothing in my post that says I consider them to be mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the post that I was replying to does exactly just that, by implication, by shifting the blame to an industrial flaw while simultaneously omitting the personal blame that squarely falls on Iceman.

      And this is while ignoring the fact that a discussion on the personal and moral blame of executing a malicious and criminal act (which is what he did) does not require a simultaneous cause/effect or correlation discussion on an industrial flaw that whose moral nature is questionable and debatable at best (given that it is more a matter of incompetence).

      Only on /. you can find that type of argument where finding blame on the technological incompetence (or lack of moral foresight) takes precedence over the undeniable, unquestionable and irrefutable moral blame of a criminal act that is beyond argument, discussion or scrutiny.

    45. Re:Good. by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      They don't do it because they aren't criminals. Who the heck else would we blame but the person responsible for committing the crime?

      A highly insightful comment! I wrote a DOS tool the other day, using basic knowledge of HTML and Javascript, that could be used by online groups to make a DDOS. It took me all of about 1 minute to crank out something capable of generating well over a million hits an hour. But despite its stone-age level of technology, did I publish it? Did I make any effort to use it for anything other than my own knowledge and research?

      No. I am not a criminal, and although the security knowledge I gained is very valuable to me, I have no interest in being associated with use of a tool like this, no matter how simple and "public knowledge" the underlying concepts. Because I'm not a criminal!

      However, this simple fact of human behavior leaves the FBI forever in a lurch: they need to understand how the criminals are operating, but can't really employ the people who operate criminally because "criminals turned white-hat" have a terrible record of keeping their nose clean when getting paid normal wages for what they used to make millions of dollars doing.

      Pure white hats (like me) simply never learn the skills of a true black hat hacker, because we don't have any interest in botnets. Put simply: black hats with the skill to be hired lack the ethical skills to be good hires.

      And so the FBI/DHS cybercrime divisions are eternally staffed by people of questionable qualifications...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    46. Re:Good. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope that he has to serve the full sentence, and doesn't get out on parole

      Since he's up on federal charges, he'll have to serve a minimum of 85% of his sentence time--about eleven years.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    47. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this analogy, Bob (the consumer) is a victim from all sides. He was wearing a vest but it turned out to have tissue paper inside rather than kevlar and had a target painted on it. For some reason, the courts side with the manufacturer of the vest, accepting their claim that it was up to Bob to verify the vest's construction.

      The criminals are naturally at fault, but the banks are also to blame for flimsy security and trying to stick the consumer with the cost of the inevitable fraud. The law is at fault for actually letting the banks stick it to the consumer.

      For some bizarre reason, banks are treated as if they are intrinsically honest, conscientious and correct. Recent events provide ample evidence that the assumption is faulty.

      If they had to actually demonstrate that you made a charge before they could try to collect money from you, you can bet the system would be tightened up overnight.

    48. Re:Good. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      More or less - they'll screw the helpless store owners too. And they are doing everything they can with Chip and Pin to relieve responsibility.

    49. Re:Good. by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Bob paid for a Kevlar vest but it turned out to be made of spray painted cardboard. The manufacturer (bankers/scammers) defrauded Bob which lead to his death. The SEC was supposed to ensure that Bob's vest was actually Kevlar but didn't. The system did fail to protect Bob and now he's dead.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    50. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to reduce fraud, make the banks financially responsible for it. As it is, there's little incentive for the industry to increase their security.

      I'm not saying this guy shouldn't be in jail. We should absolutely punish those who take unfair advantage of the system. But if we really want results, we should fix the system.

      They are. I've been the victim of credit card fraud before, along with many of my friends (waiter apparently swiped my card into a copying machine, and sold the information later so everyone at the restaurant with me that day had a surprise in their statement a few months later).

      Bank: "Sir, have you made the following transactions:"

      Me: "I have not."

      Bank: "I'm sorry for the inconvenience, sir. We have removed said transactions, cancelled your card, and are sending you a new one in the mail, which should arrive in two business days."

      What actually happens is that increased security can cause people to use their cards less, resulting in lower revenue to them in the form of transaction fees. That's why if you go to a fast food place or the movies, you don't even need to sign your receipt anymore, if the total purchase is below a certain value. Increased convenience = increased use, and they figure that they can make more money out of this increased use than they are losing to fraud.

    51. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, no. When the charge is ruled fraudulent, it is reversed, so the merchant ends up holding the bag. The only party that never loses is the bank.

    52. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, we blame the murderer for exploiting a system that relies on numerous single points of failure to keep a person alive. This comment deserves every -1 Troll mod it gets.

      No, it doesn't. Stupid =/= Troll.

    53. Re:Good. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system designed to dispense cash based solely on a 4 digit number;

      You're smoking crack, or have a bad bank. CC fraud requires a number, the expiration date, and the name, at the very least. An additional layer that is increasingly being used is provided by the sid (that 3 or 4 digit number), and for the vendor that likes to validate as much as possible: a full mailing address (not all providers do address verification though).

      The latter combined with shipping only to said address is an attempt to restrict purchases only to the person who holds the card. Short of an additional password or biometrics that are done asynchronously to the purchase (much like an OpenID system) there's really no way to be "secure" as all of this information is available when a DB/Service is cracked. Note that only a separate authentication piece handled by the bank/CC issuer is the only way to allow "secure" authentication, provided that that service is also not cracked. If you leave it all to the vendor to collect and pass through, then all the keys are being held by the vendor for however short a time that may be.

      And yes, I do blame the criminal.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    54. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't the same at all. A person who is raped may be 'asking for it' certainly if they are doing something stupid like walking down a back ally late at night alone or something stupid like that in an unsafe area... the point though is that nobody should be left so desperate that they need to commit crime. If they do we need to find out why and try to solve the why. Not punish them for it. He committed the crime because he wasn't adequately housed.... etc. This is a basic human need that society has forced him into through no fault of his own. He may have made the decision to commit a crime. He didn't make the decision to be treated as an outcast though. That was not his fault. That is the fault of society and the secondary crime society has to blame on itself. We could reduce crime. Enough of those with influence have not influenced society in that direction. Sometimes you can't solve the why in any ethical way. If someone rapes and re-offends repeatedly for instance again and again at some point they are going to have to be monitored. The problem with monitoring and GPS tracking right now is they use it for everybody. An inmate that is of no threat to anybody (stocks & bonds, white collar crime, credit card theft, fraud, without no guns/violence, etc) are being monitored after they are released from prison. This shouldn't be happening.

    55. Re:Good. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced it was truly stupid. A good troll comment is indistinguishable from a stupid one, but this one was almost too well-written. I fear the truly talented trolls, because they can blend in perfectly with the surrounding idiots.

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

      so, um, if I'm not wearing a bulletproof vest, I'm letting some madman shoot me?

    57. Re:Good. by dkf · · Score: 1

      I expect most all of us would break almost any law if the life of someone we cared about was on the line. So, now that we've established that we're all criminals, ...

      You've only established the potential for criminality there. So you're capable of committing crimes, and it is possible that there are situations where you would indeed do so. What does that prove?

      People have free will (or a damn good simulacrum of it) and so can choose to break the law or not. Even if a recession increases the overall probability of crime, that does not lessen individual responsibility. (To argue otherwise is to argue that all life is just a ghastly puppet show, and that's just too depressing.)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    58. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;DR

    59. Re:Good. by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      i think chip and pin isn't about relieving responsibility, i think it's a misguided approach.

      the BEST solution to CC fraud is one time CC numbers. your card uses a new 16 digit cc number with every transaction and it's synced up with visa/MC's servers. this would significantly raise the bar to the point i think 90% of crooks would give up. sure the other 10% are going to find new inventive ways to steal, but just because it isn't perfect it doesn't mean it's not worth it.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    60. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, banks are responsible for credit card fraud...

      At least in the US, the cardholder is only responsible for at most the first $50 of fraudulent charges. The bank can attempt sue the perpetrator if they can find them to recoup losses. They can also ATTEMPT to refuse payment to the vendors that accepted the fraudulent card. In my experiences it is very infrequent for the attempt at refusal of payment to work.

      The net result is that the bank/credit card company losses the majority of the fraudulent charge amount. They are also out the expense of dealing with fixing the account in question, this can sometimes cost tens of thousands of dollars in employee pay.

    61. Re:Good. by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If you really want to reduce fraud, make the banks financially responsible for it.

      And make the rape victims responsible. And the carjacking victims. Yeah man!

      We should absolutely punish those who take unfair advantage of the system. But if we really want results, we should fix the system.

      What would be the results of "fixing the system"? If you make the banks eat every penny of fraud, you'll wind up with a system that is much more inconvenient for the honest users. You might as well not have a credit card.

      Here's an example. I was travelling. As in I was not at home. I made a charge in Holland. VISA called me at home, where I wasn't, and left a vague message saying "call us". I went on to England and made some more charges. I got home and "got the message". I called VISA. They asked me if I had made the charge in Holland. I said yes. "No problem". Two days later, another "call us message". I did. "Did you make this charge in Holland?" Yes. "Did you make this charge in England?" Yes. "No problem."

      A few days later, yet another "call us" message. I did. Again, "did you make this charge in Holland?" Yes. Yes. I asked why I was repeatedly being called about this, and finally someone forwarded me to the fraud department. "Those people are morons" (paraphrasing). "Your card was compromised in Holland, we are cancelling it and sending you a new one."

      Well, that's very nice, I said, but I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow at 6AM and I need that card to pay for things. Why didn't you do this the first time I called? "Those people are morons." (paraphrased)

      So I get my new card and realize that my webhosting is paid on the old one. I've cut up the old one and destroyed it, and I'm not near my vast files filled with past statements, but I know I need to get the account data changed. "I need to change the account for my billing," I say. "What's the old account number?" "I dunno, I don't have that card anymore." "We can't change accounts without the old number." Sigh.

      So, no, I don't think the system should be fixed because the system becomes unusable when the security becomes tight. I LIKE being able to order stuff over the phone and have it shipped to my work instead of billing address (because of the security issue of UPS just dropping stuff on my front step with no signature). I sometimes NEED to be able to buy stuff with my personal card and have it delivered to odd places around the world so I can get my work done when I'm there.

      Security and convenience is a trade-off. You want to err on the side of security. Most people want to err on the side of convenience.

    62. Re:Good. by DeafZombie · · Score: 1

      One small detail here is that the guard, although incompetent, has not broken any laws, and will (or should) be punished by his employer (being fired), and the thief is a criminal punishable by law, and will (or should) rot in jail for his crimes. In a perfect world we wouldn't need security guards in the first place. Having crapy security is no excuse for absolving criminals who take advantage of the same.

      --
      The Binary Anti-Pattern [http://beyondboolean.blogspot.com/]
    63. Re:Good. by smhsmh · · Score: 1

      I hope that he has to serve the full sentence, and doesn't get out on parole.

      I'm no expert on criminal justice, but Congress abolished parole from the federal penal system in 1994. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole That means barring successful appeal or very unusual intervention (e.g. presidential pardon) when one is sentenced to a term in federal prison, one does that term.

    64. Re:Good. by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      I've had a CC for about 12 years now and i've never found visa and MC to be anything but helpful and honest. I lost my card in a dodgey part of memphis and the hotel only had the number for MC, so even though my card was a VISA I called them and they gave me VISA's number right away. VISA then shipped me a new card to the next hotel i was staying at via overnight registered mail.

      I haven't had my number ever stolen but my brother in law has and they racked up $6k on it in 24 hours. the bank canceled the card and wiped the debt, including the $200 annual fee he should have had to pay anyway.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    65. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, you say something crazy enough that you don't get positive karma just for having "girl" in your name. Way to hide as anonymous for the rest of your posts. Of course, I'll post AC as well just so you can point that out.

    66. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The $6K was most likely charged back to the merchants, leaving them with the loss. They will, in turn, have to raise prices.

      The consumer gets screwed directly when someone else is allowed to get a credit card in their name.

    67. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credit card fraud may not be fun, but based on that sentence, getting caught for credit card fraud is REALLY not fun.

    68. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not really. What you need to be is stupid. Doing what this guy was doing requires that you expose yourself to the mob, and eventually leaving some kind of track that can lead the police to you.

      He actually got away with it for quite a while, but he was stupid enough to keep doing it.

      I know I could steal some nonzero amount if I put my skills to it. I also know the odds of not getting caught for a good enough figure, are not worth bothering.

      If I was to steal money, I would target cash loaded members of the local mob in a dark alley after tracking their behavior for a while. It is less morally wrong, not really harder than targeting old ladies, they probably won't report it to the police, and the chances of being actually killed by a mobster are a lot lower than when directly dealing with them.

    69. Re:Good. by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      If a madman had a gun, you would wish you had that vest you scoffed at. Is there a real risk that a madman will try to shoot you? Probably not. So wearing a vest won't give you much security. Is there a real risk that someone will try to steal your money? YES.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    70. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guard could potentially face charges criminal negligence depending on what he was guarding. It's a big deal for soldiers.

    71. Re:Good. by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 1

      BULLSHIT! The security guard may get fired for not doing his job - but that doesn't imply that he either "contributed to the theft" or was complicit in the crime. He simply failed to carry out the duty he was being paid for. The responsibility for the theft lies SOLELY with the THIEF!

    72. Re:Good. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The sleeping security guard is not responsible for the break in, the criminal breaking in is. The sleeping security guard is responsible for not detecting the breaking in, for not reporting the break in and calling for the police, for not stopping the criminal once the break in occurred, and probably for the criminal getting away.

      But, the break in is still the responsibility of the criminal.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    73. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, the banks are like the TSA agent on duty (or pick any other Govt employee, politician, agency boss). (This is real story). When a person crosses into 'sterile' zone, calls are made to issue arrest warrant for the person. No arrest warrant for the agent on duty who stepped out, no arrest warrant for the folks who are responsible for non operation of camera system. Banks are exactly like the Govt employee in this case.

    74. Re:Good. by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      It's the lads that gave you the card perpetrating the real fraud.....

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
    75. Re:Good. by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      It is the merchants responsibility to insure the person using the credit card is legit.. If the person is there in person, then ID check, if the person is ordering online and it goes bad, then the merchant has the information to track down the person they sent the goods to. Why do you think it is the banks responsibility to take the loss ? .. the bank didn't take the order or insure that it was the correct person.. If you want to make the bank responsible, then you would have to put them in the middle of every transaction BEFORE goods are exchanged.. I don't think many people would like it.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    76. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because the bank clings to a system that by it's nature cannot be secured rather than using one of several systems (all available for 20 years now) that can be secured. Since only the bank can control the level of security in the system, the bank must be responsible for it.

    77. Re:Good. by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the person is there in person, then ID check...

      Actually doing anything meaningful along that line is against the merchant agreements companies sign to accept credit cards.

      From Visa's:

      Although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures.
      (That quote is in bold, page 29.)

    78. Re:Good. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      I often find myself agreeing with your posts but not this one. While I do agree that the PCI (Payment Card Industry) needs some major overhaul, people are still responsible for their crimes. Yes, I do blame criminals for being criminals.

      It's a joint responsibility: Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. There are bad people in the world, and they need to be accounted for in the design of any system, especially a system that handles so much money. Blame the criminal, but also blame the institution for making it such an easy crime -- we all pay for their insecure system design in higher costs.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    79. Re:Good. by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1

      Right. Blaming the criminal and the system are not mutually exclusive. I think most of the people getting pissy about one side or the other would agree that if you steal, you're a criminal, and that the credit card and banking system is broken as hell. I'm kind of sad that girlintraining got modded troll, though. I liked the money in BBQ sauce imagery.

    80. Re:Good. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You've only established the potential for criminality there.

      The previous argument was that many of us COULD do what he did, but we don't because we're not "criminals". If we're using the literal definition you're using here, then that statement is banal and meaningless. I think it's clear, however, that the statement meant to imply that there are some people who are willing to committing crimes, and those who are not, which I've illustrated is not the case.

      Even if a recession increases the overall probability of crime, that does not lessen individual responsibility.

      I was not attempting to claim anything of the sort... Simply that sufficient motivation could turn any of us into criminals. The facts of crime versus economy is simply proof that it's a sliding scale of risk and reward, that plenty of people aren't far from the edge of as-is.

      IMHO, the idea that there is a class of people who will always commit crimes, and a class of people who would NEVER do so, is a far more depressing thought, in part because such is even more easily believed, as evidenced by most of history...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    81. Re:Good. by walshy007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For example, I have the most secure server in world. It's on the floor in my closet

      oh really, what would stop someone from say, breaking into your house and physically stealng said server? people all too often forget physical security, when they have physical access you are boned.

    82. Re:Good. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Yes, I absolutely blame the criminal. After all, many of us here on slashdot have the technical ability (or could get it easily: some of these folks are really smart) to do this same type of criminal activity. They don't do it because they aren't criminals. Who the heck else would we blame but the person responsible for committing the crime? Now, if you want to talk about "the system" (justice system, not the banking system) and how unfortunate it is that it is nearly impossible to get a job after being in prison once - yes, that is tough and the summary alludes to the "hard times" iceman fell on probably due to the stigma of his earlier crime and resulting prison sentence. This can, and often is, extremely difficult to overcome and can mean years of living on handouts from relatives, living in campgrounds, etc. (can you tell I have a brother in law who has been through this?). However, the fact remains that the crime is the responsibility of the criminal and not the banking system. If the credit card system was more secure, this criminal would have went after the next most lucrative thing.

      Or how about the peeps are smart enough not to get caught?

      You only hear about the peeps that get caught, you don't hear about the frauds that don't ever get caught.

      After all, isn't that what jail is for? for the people who are too poor, or too stupid. (and both)

      --
      Be seeing you...
    83. Re:Good. by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Whilst stealing enough to live on *might* be acceptable if he couldn't even get a minimum wage job (which should be enough that a person doesn't need welfare, but that is a rant for another time), couldn't get welfare payments, and didn't have anyone else to support him, he didn't need 27.5GUSD, which is more than most people earn in their lifetimes and would be enough to love pretty luxuriously. Hell, for that much money, the prospect of having to spend the rest of one's life living in countries without extradition treaties with the US would be very tempting to most people.

      The hypothetical rapist you mentioned is almost certainly mentally ill, and as a danger to society should be kept in a secure hospital until he is cured.

    84. Re:Good. by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      Credit card fraud wouldn't happen nearly to the degree it does if there were less bottom feeding parasitical criminals who do not belong in our midst.

      There, fixed that for you.

      Criminal scum always have an excuse/justification for their behaviour. The same way rapists, thieves and/or murderers do. The same way a paedophile does when using brute force to push his penis into a toddler or baby's anus or vagina, thereby tearing it. The screams of pain make it titillating.

      Let's not gloss over the consequences of these peoples actions. Any crime hurts someone, somewhere.

    85. Re:Good. by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. If merchants could just raise prices arbitrarily why would they wait until they received a fine? The market's supply and demand curve sets the prices. Merchants can't control the market outside of obvious collusion. Anything they're charged with eats into their profits. You can't expect merchants to play police on every customer. That's just stupid.

    86. Re:Good. by mike2R · · Score: 1

      They are. [...]

      Bank: "I'm sorry for the inconvenience, sir. We have removed said transactions, cancelled your card, and are sending you a new one in the mail, which should arrive in two business days."

      And you think they compensated you with their own money? That's so cute!

      I suppose it is possible - if the fraudsters made a physical clone of your card and made physical purchases in a store with it, then the bank probably did lose out. But if, as probably happened, they used the card online, then whatever poor businesses accepted the transactions got a nice letter in the post a few days after you called your bank.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    87. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Tune in next week when we explain why Oliver Twist was really the villain!)

      What a twist

    88. Re:Good. by adolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny you should mention that; a week or so ago, I printed out that same passage, and the page or two surrounding it, and stowed it away in my wallet for the next time a clerk insists on seeing my ID in order to complete a sale.

      (Some people might think I'm a man of principle. Most others would probably say that I'm just an asshole, making it harder for the commonfolk who "are just doing their jobs." Myself, I see it like this: If I have to follow the rules when I deal with people, then so does everyone-fucking-else when they deal with me.)

    89. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good point, you very rarely hear of people breaking into prison and burglarising the place.
      so if we all lived in prison..... or perhaps nuclear fallout shelters......

    90. Re:Good. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      What you fail to get is that if there was a decent system in place then you wouldn't have to deal with that kind of shit.

      All the problems you experienced above -All of them- are a result of a combination of incompetent staff and trying to stick a crappy patch on a terrible system.

      Lets run through them:

      1:
      VISA freaking out when you use your card abroad.
      If the cards weren't trivial to rip and clone then they wouldn't have to assume fraud if your card appears to be physically present somewhere unexpected.
      If the CC system was really more than a 1 factor system then this shouldn't be a problem.
      but it is because the cc system is shit.

      2:
      "Your card was compromised in Holland, we are cancelling it and sending you a new one."
      It should not be possible to compromise your card without physical access and physically damaging the card.
      If your card couldn't be stolen without litterally physically being stolen then you would not have had this problem.
      but you had a problem because the cc system is shit.

      3:
      "Why didn't you do this the first time I called?"
      incompetence.

      4:
      "We can't change accounts without the old number."
      With a better system with some hard crypto etc it should be perfectly possible to confirm that while you changed cards you're the same person.

      5:
      "So, no, I don't think the system should be fixed because the system becomes unusable when the security becomes tight."
      No.
      none of your problems were caused by security.
      every one except those caused by idiots was caused by shitty security.
      They have a shitty poorly built system which they don't want to spend money on fixing and so they make you pay in inconvenience and that kind of crap.
      If they got off their arses and put hard security in place then they wouldn't have to fuck around with workaround and patches like calling you whenever you make a charge which doesn't fit the normal pattern.

      6:
      "Security and convenience is a trade-off. "
      It can be.
      What you're missing is that in the case of the CC system they haven't traded anything.
      They started with fuck all security and because people are gaming the system to the hilt they throw more and more extra inconvenience into the mix by calling you, locking your account etc etc etc.
      it should be perfectly possible to make a system which is far more secure and is far more convenient than the current system as it is right now.

      When you utterly disregard security when designing the system and money is involved soon enough you're going to have to add security somehow just like the CC companies have tried to do and it's going to be a shitty hack of a patch on the system.

    91. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF they knew the guard fell asleep on a nightly basis and picked their target because of this then yes the guard would be a contributing factor - just like if thieves knew you left your door unlocked everyday would be a contributing factor to your house being burgled.

    92. Re:Good. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I think the point he was trying to make is that

      Person A doesn't steal because they are healthy, fed, comfortable and nobody they care about is at risk.
      Person B does steal because they aren't healthy, fed, comfortable and/or people they care about are at risk (say there's medical bills to pay).

      Now if you switched person A and person B around they will probably do exactly the same things.
      Person B would act just like person A used to and doesn't steal because they no longer have good reason to.
      Person A acts just like person B used to and steals because now they have very very good reason to.

      Never the less a person A who isn't facing the prospect of being switched with B will still harp on about how much better they are than person B, how you can't trust person B, how person B is a scumbag and how it's all free will and choice.
      And to make it even more funny person A freely admits that he'd probably act just like person B with the right incentives.

    93. Re:Good. by hey! · · Score: 1

      In organizations I've worked in, I've tried to spread this idea: delegation does not divide responsibility, it multiplies it. If I delegate a task to a subordinate, he is fully responsible for completing it, but I am no less responsible.

      Blaming my subordinate for his failure in no measure exonerates me. Taking the blame myself in mo measure exonerates him.

      Responsibility (or blame) is not a finite resource. We don't have to conserve blame. We can blame politicians for policies that increase recidivism without blaming criminals any less for their crimes.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    94. Re:Good. by elnyka · · Score: 1

      Whilst stealing enough to live on *might* be acceptable if he couldn't even get a minimum wage job (which should be enough that a person doesn't need welfare, but that is a rant for another time), couldn't get welfare payments, and didn't have anyone else to support him, he didn't need 27.5GUSD, which is more than most people earn in their lifetimes and would be enough to love pretty luxuriously. Hell, for that much money, the prospect of having to spend the rest of one's life living in countries without extradition treaties with the US would be very tempting to most people.

      The hypothetical rapist you mentioned is almost certainly mentally ill, and as a danger to society should be kept in a secure hospital until he is cured.

      When I was a kid, I grew up almost barefoot and, at one point, really this close to get food out of a trash can. And I saw people in worse situations that my family. I've really seen what it is like to be poor and unemployed in a third world country, and even in those dire situations, people still choose not to steal. People would feed tomatoes out of trash cans to their kids before stealing.

      In 20 years here in the US, I have not yet seen an example of excruciating poverty (not that there is no poverty here) that would actually take one to steal as the only way out.

      Right now there are hundred of thousands of people unemployed right now, some of them for long periods of times.

      How many engineers are out there that don't have jobs for quite some time? Many. How many people with college degrees have gotten the short end of the stick with this economic crash and are now doing part-time jobs flipping burgers, serving tables or cutting grass to make ends meet?

      How many of them steal, much worse incur in sophisticated and rampant cybercrime?

      What this guy really that deprived of getting a job, any job, however menial that would be?

      Illegal aliens get jobs for pennies by picking tomatoes? And him, what about him? Not a single opportunity to earn his bread and climb his long way up from the hole he put himself into in the first place?

      This guy wasn't even close to the point where he was justified to steal a piece of bread. He should burn in hell, with a pitchfork rammed up his ass.

    95. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credit Cards have no effective security - FFS they even put the PIN on the stripe on the back (albeit hashed). People who have their cards abused by others have nobody to blame but their bank. The BANK should be liable - particularly as it's THEIR lack of security.
       
      I have had three card cloning episodes in the last year, and with the latest one, I'm suing the bank. I'm suing for the return of my money, for the time taken to pursue my claim (I'm a professional engineer, so my time is VERY expensive), and I'm suing for the distress that the bank has caused to me and my wife. £600,000 should (just about) cover it.

    96. Re:Good. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      While true, you can also do a Code 10 call (for those unfamiliar, you call Visa's 1-800 number to verify that a card isn't stolen or fraudulent) as a response to someone refusing to provide identification.

      And frankly, someone refusing to provide ID for their credit card transaction is going to set off my fraud alarm, like it or not.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    97. Re:Good. by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      Following your logic, I would be contributing to my own home being burgurlized because I DIDN'T even hire a guard.

      Of course you are contributing to your own home being burglarized. If you had a guard, you would be less likely yo be burglarized. Does that in some way make you criminally responsible for the burglary? Of course not.

    98. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks aren't as much the victim so much as you are so your argument is already invalid and you haven't even gotten more than a sentence out.

      Banks are the ones that hold all the keys and they need to fix their security issues. Their systems need an overhaul, their methods for working with merchants need to be re-evaluated. All of this costs money that they just don't want to spend. So GP's point is valid. If they want to be federally insured they

    99. Re:Good. by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      The $6K was most likely charged back to the merchants, leaving them with the loss. They will, in turn, have to raise prices.

      The consumer gets screwed directly when someone else is allowed to get a credit card in their name.

      If the merchants didn't eat the chargebacks, the banks would, which would require them to raise interest rates and/or fees, screwing the consumer in the end.

    100. Re:Good. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      What actually happens is that increased security can cause people to use their cards less, resulting in lower revenue to them in the form of transaction fees. That's why if you go to a fast food place or the movies, you don't even need to sign your receipt anymore, if the total purchase is below a certain value. Increased convenience = increased use, and they figure that they can make more money out of this increased use than they are losing to fraud.

      Mods: Please don't let this languish at the AC default of 0. This is possibly the most important point raised in this story -- the banks have a vested interest in keeping security lax, because less security means more credit card use; and yet they aren't liable for the security breaches. It's sortof like the recent housing market bust when financial institutions could offer high-risk mortgages and then sell them off as low-risk mortgages. Any system where an institution is rewarded when risky behavior pays off but does not have to suffer the consequences of the risk is prone to failure.

    101. Re:Good. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If you really want to reduce fraud, make the banks financially responsible for it.

      And make the rape victims responsible. And the carjacking victims. Yeah man!

      Oh come now, those are terrible comparisons. The banks are directly responsible for the amount of security and they are financially benefiting from a system with lax security.

      The banks are not the ones who get victimized here, the merchants are. Sure there are fraudulent merchants who sell numbers, but I think that number pails in comparison to the merchants who unknowingly approve transactions on stolen cards/numbers. The system is not set up to be secure, and there's little that the merchants can do about that.

    102. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      OR it would force them to actually add some semblance of security so there would be less to eat in the first place. If they don't feel any of the pain, they'll never fix the problem that only they are in a position to fix.

    103. Re:Good. by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      Which would cost money, which would raise interest rates and/or fees...

      The customer bears the burden any way you look at it.

    104. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      It would cost less money than the current situation for everyone but the banks.

    105. Re:Good. by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      It would cost less money than the current situation for everyone but the banks.

      I would be interested in seeing a study supporting that hypothesis.

  5. Hack the planet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Information wants to be free. They are trashing our rights! Trashing!!

    1. Re:Hack the planet! by Pojut · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see we're still dressing in the dark, Eugene.

  6. That's right! Ice... man. by JohnRabotnik · · Score: 1

    I am dangerous.

  7. Interesting..... by LordPhantom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It is a shame that someone with so much ability chose to use it in a manner that hurt many people," Dembosky said in an e-mail message."

    That in light of

    "Butler served an 18-month prison term for the crime and fell on hard times after his 2002 release, he said in a sentencing memorandum filed Thursday. "I was homeless, staying on a friends couch. I couldn't get work," he wrote. In desperation, he turned again to cybercrime."

    I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.

    1. Re:Interesting..... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course it didn't help that he was convicted of abusing the trust that people gave him when offered his services as a security consultant in the first place (which appears to be his only marketable skills).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butler was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers -- including some on federal government networks -- that were susceptible to a security hole.

      The dude had a second chance. He blew it. And on the federal level no less.

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm not even going to listen to you a third time.

    3. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. They are given little chance of employment and yet are expected to become members of society again.

      The stigma for even little things carries for life.

    4. Re:Interesting..... by nhytefall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely correct. There were many things he *could* have done, but that his pride as a "security consultant" (and I use that term very loosely) *wouldn't* let him. Personally, he's best off where he is going.

      Perhaps, in time, when he gets out he will have a new perspective on life. Probably not.

      --
      0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
    5. Re:Interesting..... by nhytefall · · Score: 1

      Moral of that story?

      Don't be a dumbass.

      --
      0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
    6. Re:Interesting..... by elnyka · · Score: 1

      "It is a shame that someone with so much ability chose to use it in a manner that hurt many people," Dembosky said in an e-mail message." That in light of "Butler served an 18-month prison term for the crime and fell on hard times after his 2002 release, he said in a sentencing memorandum filed Thursday. "I was homeless, staying on a friends couch. I couldn't get work," he wrote. In desperation, he turned again to cybercrime." I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.

      What type of work was he trying to get? Not that it is easy to find work as an ex-con, but it isn't impossible either (so long as the person lowers his expectations... read flipping burguers.) That is part of the cross an ex-con got to carry, right or wrong.

    7. Re:Interesting..... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      And of course "I couldn't get work" is often used as a proxy for "they are not handing me the exact job I think I deserve." There ARE jobs out there people. There IS work to be done. Oh, not good enough for you? Yes, I can see your only recourse is to become a thief. Uh huh. The people I've known who were thieves always came up with very good reasons why they just HAD to steal. Bullshit.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    8. Re:Interesting..... by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't get work," he wrote. In desperation, he turned again to cybercrime."

      Cry me a river.

      Try standing out in front of Lowe's or Home Depot on a Saturday morning. It seems to work for others.

      There's plenty of work for ex-cons who want to work. He just took the easy way.

    9. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That has always bothered me. We send people to prison and then expect them to subsist on working as a janitor at 2-3 different jobs when they get out. Everyone wants a chance to make something of themselves and the only option we give to ex-cons is crime.

    10. Re:Interesting..... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do agree, why does it have to be a forwarning to employers that you had a criminal past. If I spent my time in jail as decreed by the law for my crime, I have served my sentenced and therefor deserve the respect of doing the time, and start with a clean slate. No one will hire a criminal because they do not believe they have been reformed. I tend to agree the system is faulty, but I would start with making it somewhat less complicated for an ex con to get a job.

      If he was young, and made a mistake, and paid for it, he deserves a REAL second chance. I think that is why so many of the cons try to get right back in after they get out....because not only have they become accustomed to that life, but also, they do not have to deal with rejection, starving, homelessness, etc..

    11. Re:Interesting..... by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      One thing about developing a bad reputation like this is that afterward you are completely dependent on the charity of others to help sort it out. That's the way it should be. If you see someone else doing the exact opposite of what you did, there is some hope that you might understand the consequences of your own actions repent from them. Of course, finding someone in the position to help you out, with the heart to do so, can be really tough. I don't like they idea that we should atomically give people a second change once they've done something like this. I feel like they will look back and draw the wrong conclusion, then they will end up repeating their offense for sure. You see this a lot when a spouse is unfaithful and the other graciously forgives them.

      On the other hand, if we didn't waste so much on fancy houses and nice cars and things like that, there might be more room for the kind of loving charity that really could have made a difference here (although he was living on a friends couch, so he was already better off than many who do not turn to crime, in terms of material wealth).

    12. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actions have consequences. We all must live by this rule. Get over it.

    13. Re:Interesting..... by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      I'll bet if he tried hard enough he could've gotten a small employer to understand his situation, especially if he has the coding skills he appears to have. Over the course of years/decades he could've rebuilt his reputation. A brilliant coder is hard enough to find, let alone one that has to work for relative peanuts. He could've found a job, it just wouldn't have been paying him what he was "worth".

      He made his choice twice now... throw him away.
      (Yeah, it's cold, but he's stealing MY credit card numbers!!)

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    14. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The right answer is to lie and say you aren't a felon.

    15. Re:Interesting..... by Jeng · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      There is always manual labor jobs.

      As long as its not violent or involve children most manual labor jobs are ok with some spots on your record.

      If you can tough it out for five years then you can start getting back into office jobs.

      By the time that he got arrested if he had stayed clean he could have started to rebuild his life.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    16. Re:Interesting..... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I might even buy this if it was a sort of "stealing bread to survive" kind of thing, just doing enough online hacking to put a roof over his head and food in his belly. But even if that's how this second dip into the world of mass theft began, any notion that this was just a form of employment kind of gets disproven by the sheer size of what he did.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Interesting..... by shentino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps that is the reason we as a society don't like to hire criminals. We think they get off too easy. Make prison something to regret going to. That way, not only do you not want to go back, but you've paid through the nose for your crime and people will understand you've learned your lesson.

      And quite frankly, if life sucks so bad that you'd rather be in jail than on the streets, then there's something seriously fucked up about the way we take care of ourselves. If homeless folks can't even make a living better than the crooks behind bars, then crime DOES pay.

      I would do these
      * Make prison a hellish place for EVERYONE...including those ass-bangers who think it's funny to rape their fellow inmates and get away with it.
      * Take care of homelessness

    18. Re:Interesting..... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > "It is a shame that someone with so much ability chose to use it in a manner that hurt many people," Dembosky said in an e-mail message."

      Yes, he should have done something moral like working as a defense contractor.

    19. Re:Interesting..... by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, when a criminal does his time, gets out, and can't find a job, your only response is, "It's your own fault." That's just stupid.

      There seems to be a widespread belief that if you have a social problem, all you need to do is find somebody to blame. As when ex-cons can't find work: it's their own fault for breaking the law. Moral myopia aside, that just doesn't work out. If a criminal has no chance to "go straight" you're guaranteeing that he'll go on comiting crimes.

      Yeah, yeah, many ex-cons will do that no matter what. But does that mean we have to make it their only choice? Perhaps helping them find lawful alternatives sticks in your self-righteous craw, but ask yourself, is that any worse than paying the huge costs (about $22K per prisoner per year) of an ever-growing prison population? Not to mention the huge economic and human costs of the crimes this culture of punishment is facilitating.

    20. Re:Interesting..... by EdIII · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      read flipping burguers

      Huh.

      Is that some sort of pretentious arrogant French implementation of the American Hamburger? Does it have some sort of special bread, aged cheeses, fancy vegetables, and a sauce that took 20 minutes to make?

      Huh Does it?

      So.. where can I get one?

    21. Re:Interesting..... by wintercolby · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the best thing he could have done, considering his pride as a "security consultant", would have been to inform the admins of how he got in, and stopped there. He may have even been able to, as a "security consultant", find a legal profession doing "penetration testing."

      He could have even started a consulting firm doing penetration testing. Most of the people that I've met that own construction related small businesses have "done time". Tolerance of risk seems to be better served making good money legally.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    22. Re:Interesting..... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 0

      Besides the fact there are a lot of people that aren't convicted criminals that can't find work that don't resort to crime, but this guy had a job and chose to abuse that trust. If you get convicted of stealing cash from the register what company in their right mind will hire you and why should they? Not only have you removed any doubts about honesty your recored shows that you ARE less than honest. Like I said there are plenty of people out there looking for work. It's supply and demand, and when you control a commodity, in this case jobs, people that want the commodity are at your mercy. This guy had a chance to have a honest job and he threw it away. Why give him second and third chances when so many others are looking for the first chance.

      And lets be fair just because your a convicted felon doesn't mean you can't get work, it just means your going to have to do more, probably manual, labor for less. That's life.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    23. Re:Interesting..... by Deanalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what the prison sentence was for.. I find it extremely unfair that even after you get out, the only job you can get with a felony like that is gas station attendant. I think equal opportunity laws should cover people with criminal records for this very reason.

    24. Re:Interesting..... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      The right answer is for employers to do a background check on all applicants and check for felonies.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    25. Re:Interesting..... by Mjec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're not going to give him a second chance, why let him out of prison at all?

      --
      "But everyone should know everything." -markab
    26. Re:Interesting..... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Besides the fact there are a lot of people that aren't convicted criminals that can't find work that don't resort to crime, but this guy had a job and chose to abuse that trust.

      Did you even bother to read my post before writing that? Because you're just repeating the argument I was trying to shoot down.

      you get convicted of stealing cash from the register what company in their right mind will hire you and why should they?

      If that were true, then the recidivism rate would be 100%. But it's not, and never has been.

    27. Re:Interesting..... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 0

      I'd be pretty sure he couldn't get work doing what he wanted to do. Rather hard to get a job as a computer security consultant if you've proven yourself to be extremely untrustworthy in that regard since trust is so vital for that sort of job. However that doesn't mean you can't find any work. May not be the work you want, but nobody ever said life was perfect. I know perfectly honest, upstanding people who can't get work doing what they want and have to do something else.

      Most musicians would be a good example. I know a number of people who are rather talented musicians that would really like nothing more than to support themselves playing music. Unfortunately, there are very few people who can do that. You either make it big in popular music or you have one of the few salaried type of jobs with a symphony or the like. Most musicians can't make enough money to live on, if they make any at all, and have to have a "real" job to support themselves.

      So I don't feel over much sympathy for this guy. It sounds more like an excuse he's trying to make than a legit reason.

    28. Re:Interesting..... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Millions of jobs in the US have been eliminated, while the population continues to increase. This means their are lots of applicants for every opening, and many "not good enough" jobs involve handling money or stock, which means they don't hire ex-cons. Much of capitalism involves thievery/exploitation, and your moralization about "hard work" is just the normal hypocrisy.

    29. Re:Interesting..... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The treaty of Versailles and WWII showed us that never ending punishment only leads to bigger problems.

      While the criminal is hardly blameless, it seems a bit silly to force someone to the edge (and bottom) of society and then expect them to act like a well integrated part of it.

    30. Re:Interesting..... by wealthychef · · Score: 0, Troll

      There are not lots of applicants for EVERY job opening. And yes, times are tough, especially for convicted felons. Well, pardon me if I don't cry a tear for this guy. I'm not "moralizing," I'm talking about what works. Lying, stealing and making excuses does not work out well. Being honest, contributing yourself and your talents to a worthy cause, and taking responsibility do work well. There is not a shred of morality in what I'm saying, it has nothing to do with heaven and hell or punishing or whatever you are thinking when you think of morality. From how you talk, you either do not know any cons, are married to a con, or are a con yourself, because otherwise you would know that most cons are lazy, whining good-for-nothing losers full of excuses. No need for you to give them any more. This guy does not sound like any exception to the rule, other than that he happens to be a smart rat. There's a damn good reason most people don't hire ex-cons. So it's now his job to find one of the people who does. Will it require hard work? Oh noes!

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    31. Re:Interesting..... by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's what the prison sentence was for.. I find it extremely unfair that even after you get out, the only job you can get with a felony like that is gas station attendant. I think equal opportunity laws should cover people with criminal records for this very reason.

      Awesome. You got any kids, and are you looking for a nanny? If so, let me know - I'm sure I can find plenty of recently paroled child-molesters to help you test that theory.

    32. Re:Interesting..... by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Try standing out in front of Lowe's or Home Depot on a Saturday morning. It seems to work for others

      Or the Chinese Embassy ;)

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    33. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He sold his reputation. One thing to remember...."If you're going to sell your reputation, you had better get a good price." After all you only get to sell it once!

    34. Re:Interesting..... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yes, he should have done something moral like working as a defense contractor.

      Hardly - he would have never passed the background check.

    35. Re:Interesting..... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.

      Yes, that one should not be convicted of a crime that involves abusing the trust and access one's employer has given one.

      I really want to know what kind of position he was applying for. If it was computer related, say sys admin or security, it is not surprising he couldn't find a job because employers tend not to hire people with a record of abusing their access for sensitive, target-rich positions.

      Really, would you hire an accountant that has been convicted for embezzlement?

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

      Exactly - weakest excuse ever. there were a lot of IT people that fell on hard times in 2002 - I spend 4 months looking for a contract in the financial sector (with no success) after the dot com bomb before trying a completely different line of work. There is always work of some sort available, if you aren't too particular - and you can still keep them fresh working on open source projects or your own project for a while until in your spare time until the good times roll again.

    37. Re:Interesting..... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, you would have no problem hiring a guy to be your bookkeeper who had been convicted of embezzling from the last guy he worked for as a bookkeeper?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    38. Re:Interesting..... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      As I asked someone else, I take it you would have no problem hiring someone as your bookkeeper who had just got out of jail for embezzling from the last guy he worked for as a bookkeeper?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    39. Re:Interesting..... by Krannert+IT · · Score: 1

      If you're not going to give him a second chance, why let him out of prison at all?

      Good point. We should just do what the Saudi's do and cut a hand off on the first offense and forget prison. Most thieves in Saudi don't steal again. After the second chance they have a very hard time doing anything so the problem is solved all on its own although when I lived there in the 90's there was a guy who had run out of hands, they had moved on to his feet until he ran out of them, the fifth offense was his head. This was in the paper over there, I'm not sure I believe it because I don't know how you can steal very well with no hands and no feet but somehow the paper did report that he was going to be excuted in the town square on a Friday.

    40. Re:Interesting..... by Simetrical · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're not going to give him a second chance, why let him out of prison at all?

      Costs less. Duh.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    41. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your advice? Work as a day laborer under the table? AKA: breaking the law? A real pillar of morality you are.

      Tax evasion vs. Credit card fraud. Such options! Our society's criminal justice system is a model of rehabilitation!

      "Cry me a river"? Big talk for an internet tough guy. Walk in his shoes for a mile before you pass judgement. I'd love to see you practice what you preach and work as a day laborer. You wouldn't last a month on $5 an hour.

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

      I agree people too often say, "I couldn't get work." However, it is seriously hard to get work as a convicted felon. The guy I knew with a record (drugs) was clean, smart, and a very hard worker, but couldn't get work beyond menial labor. He figured another decade or so he could probably get his record expunged and start a career.

    43. Re:Interesting..... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Plenty of ex-cons get a second chance in the construction industry, for example. There are places that will hire ex-cons, but not many because they have chosen to demonstrate that they are toxic humans and only a fool or someone who can absorb what some of them will rip off will hire them.

      We may WANT someone ELSE to hire an ex-com but unless it were a victimless crime such as (some) drug crimes I certainly wouldn't risk it. I can get solid workers who are motivated and have a good track record, so why risk when I don't have to?

      You like 'em, hire 'em and have a blast.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    44. Re:Interesting..... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      Yes, it sucks to be a felon. I have known them as well. Don't get me started on the Drug War -- OMG what a waste of $$ and more importantly human potential. It does not benefit society to lock up drug users. Nonetheless, even dummies dealing drugs know the risk, so your "smart" friend knowingly took a risk there and got stung. Let that be a lesson -- if you live in a police state, you had better respect the police, even if you don't agree with the laws. "I fought the law and the law won." Nobody has to deal drugs, they do so because there's lots of money to be had, all you have to do is assume high risk. So there you go.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    45. Re:Interesting..... by dissy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.

      And that is why in the USA, even a 2 week sentence to jail is identical to a life sentence in prison, because a 2 week stay in jail will ruin all of the remaining years of your life (by design)

      When you are starving and can't get money legally because the government set it up that way, its obvious what one must do to survive.

      Personally I do blame the government for creating directly so much crime that wouldn't happen otherwise.
      You see much less of this problem in countries with sane punishments for the harm done.

      Jail and prison are supposed to be to keep dangerous people away from a functional society.

      Once you start putting anyone and everyone in there with them, from jay walkers to people that just pissed off a cop legally, then any sense of fairness in law is ruined, and you get the outcome we have now.

      Just remember, its all by design, proven by the fact our government is well aware of other systems that work much better in that sense, yet the same people claim our current system is perfect. For their goals, I can only assume they are speaking truthfully.

    46. Re:Interesting..... by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, he should have done something moral like working as a defense contractor.

      Hardly - he would have never passed the background check.

      "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug."

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    47. Re:Interesting..... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug."

      You forgot the rest of it:

      "He looked at me and said, 'Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington.'"

      'nuff said. Anyone who thinks that way is too stupid for the army. Ship him off to McDonalds, and hope he doesn't end up killing himself with the deep-fryer.

    48. Re:Interesting..... by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

      Prisons are for serving out your sentence, thats your punishment for breaking the laws.Its not a rehabilitation center nor has it ever been. Don't do the crime is the best way to stay out of jail and being hire-able. And the type of crime committed i would guess would keep the person from being hired. And other thing, almost all of theses criminals have had way more then 1 or 2 chances at cleaning up there life's,so sorry if i just don't care about there problems

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    49. Re:Interesting..... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That's fine if you're qualified to work in construction. I think it's safe to bet that somebody convicted of computer crimes isn't. And I can't think of a lot of other jobs where the hiring process is that informal.

    50. Re:Interesting..... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose I would have a problem. That's not the point. This isn't about whether employers should ignore an applicant's criminal records. This is about what we do to try to re-integrate people who've left prison. And right now we don't do shit.

      Take your embezzling bookkeeper. It's safe to say that once he's been convicted, he's going to have to find a new way to make a living. So it makes sense to retrain him to do something else while he's incarcerated. Otherwise, all the good will in the world won't help him find a new job. There's a good chance he'll end up homeless, which costs us both financially and morally. Or else he'll get some retraining from his fellow prisoners...

      The big problem is that prisons no longer try to retrain their inmates. Spending any money to "coddle criminals" is politically impossible. Never mind that we'd save money in the long run. (And even the short run — teachers are a more cost-effective form of behavior control than guards.) We're too busy being angry and self-righteous to think things through.

    51. Re:Interesting..... by Corbets · · Score: 1

      So, when a criminal does his time, gets out, and can't find a job, your only response is, "It's your own fault." That's just stupid.

      There seems to be a widespread belief that if you have a social problem, all you need to do is find somebody to blame. As when ex-cons can't find work: it's their own fault for breaking the law. Moral myopia aside, that just doesn't work out. If a criminal has no chance to "go straight" you're guaranteeing that he'll go on comiting crimes.

      I didn't RTFA (no surprise, this is Slashdot) but one really has to wonder what sort of jobs he was looking for. There are plenty of jobs out there where a smart can get ahead, regardless of his past. Being a construction worker pay may not pay much compared to a security consultant (I should know, I've been both), but it'll put food on the table and gas in the car, even if you're a novice.

      Frankly, when you've broken trust like he did for his original crime, it's unreasonable to believe that anyone's ever going to hire you again in a field that's built entirely upon that trust. Besides, you don't turn to crime and keep going to 27 million out of "desperation"; the right word in English is "greed".

    52. Re:Interesting..... by Corbets · · Score: 1

      I think you should hire a few people first, particularly ex-cons, before you go mandating how other people should behave.

    53. Re:Interesting..... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA either. For all I know, his employment situation has nothing to do with his criminal record. (Though I find your claim that "There are plenty of jobs out there where a smart can get ahead" kind of at odds with recent news. Hello? Credit Crisis? "Great Recession"? Double-digit unemployment?) I wasn't making any claims at all about this particular case. I was merely arguing with the suggestion that a criminal who gets out of jail and can't find work has only himself to blame, and is nobody else's problem. Recidivists are everybody's problem, since we're all paying for cost of the crimes and subsequent re-incarceration.

    54. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pillar of morality ... internet tough guy ... Walk in his shoes for a mile ... practice what you preach ... wouldn't last a month

      Holy fucking clichés Batman.

    55. Re:Interesting..... by adolf · · Score: 1

      If you're not going to give him a second chance, why let him out of prison at all?

      Costs less. Duh.

      Does it?

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

      If you're self-employed, you fill out your own W2 forms and are responsible for giving the money to the government.

      Just because you're a day laborer doesn't mean you have to evade taxes, unless you intend to.

    57. Re:Interesting..... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I suppose I would have a problem. That's not the point.

      That is the point and it was the point I made in my original post, which you had so much problem with. I didn't say that it was right that he could get no other job. I said that when you have only one skill, it would be wise not to abuse the trust people put in you when you make use of that skill. And that it is not surprising that people won't trust you again after you have so abused someone's trust.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    58. Re:Interesting..... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      OK, I thought you were expressing a general opinion about people who can't get jobs because they've committed crimes. My bad.

      Still, the "would you hire" counter argument ignores the point of my argument.

    59. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not that they cannot find work, but that they will not accept the work that they can find.

      Work at McDonalds? Pfft, that's not NEARLY enough money. Therefore, the only alternative is crime.

      No. There's work out there. It's shit work, but it's work. Do it, accept it, regain trust, work your way up. Saying that people can't find work is bullshit. They can find work. They choose not to do it. Hint: there's tons of job openings if you're willing to smell like shit (literally and/or figuratively), or work blisteringly hard in blisteringly hot environments. If you're not willing to do that, it's not my problem, it's yours.

    60. Re:Interesting..... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And of course "I couldn't get work" is often used as a proxy for "they are not handing me the exact job I think I deserve." There ARE jobs out there people. There IS work to be done. Oh, not good enough for you? Yes, I can see your only recourse is to become a thief. Uh huh. The people I've known who were thieves always came up with very good reasons why they just HAD to steal. Bullshit.

      Unfortunately if you're considered "overqualified" you're usually passed over for the job as well. If you had a high-technical-skill job but then had to apply to low-tech-skill jobs because you're desperate to work and eat and feed your family, you'll often not be considered anyway because 1) the employer can usually hire someone who is not 'overqualified,' and also the employer assumes you'll quit the job as soon as you're offered a better one that matches your experience.

    61. Re:Interesting..... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Why was this modded a troll? The poster has a point. Everyone likes to say "you should give that ex-con a chance" when they're the ones who don't actually have to take the risk.

      Two people apply to a job. Both are qualified. One was convicted of a felony. Which do you think will get hired?

    62. Re:Interesting..... by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      If you're not going to give him a second chance, why let him out of prison at all?

      Costs less. Duh.

      Does it?

      Heck if I know, I was kidding. Go talk to the guy who modded me Insightful.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    63. Re:Interesting..... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Didn't forget, made an editorial decision to just take Arlo's lines.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    64. Re:Interesting..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is unfair to a certain extent. But I think you'll agree with me when I say that I dont want the iceman working at my Bank, or at any ins

  8. For writing? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "Butler was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers "

    I hope that's for releasing/using the software rather than the simple act of writing it.

    1. Re:For writing? by ArmagedionTime · · Score: 1

      "Butler was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers "

      I hope that's for releasing/using the software rather than the simple act of writing it.

      From TFA: Authorities allege that during this time, Butler began to illegally hack into computer networks operated by the Air Force, NASA and the federal Defense and Energy departments. He didn't steal any information, but again left open a door so he could re-enter later, authorities said.

      Anyone else think that an 18 month term for hacking into federal computers seems a little lenient?

    2. Re:For writing? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I actually think that the penalty should be the same regardless of whose computer he broke into (other than his own).

    3. Re:For writing? by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      The NASA hacker from England served 0 seconds in U.S. prison.

    4. Re:For writing? by julesh · · Score: 1

      The NASA hacker from England served 0 seconds in U.S. prison.

      So far. AFAIK, his extradition is still pending.

  9. Slashdot misses the point by netik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't about a 13 year sentence for "Hacking."

    This is a 13 year sentence for credit fraud, credit card theft, and oh yeah, he also stored the credit card numbers on a computer where other people could get to them.

    There's no cleverness here that needs awarding. Back doors are easy to install when the FBI has already allowed you to contract there.

    1. Re:Slashdot misses the point by carpefishus · · Score: 1

      "he also stored the credit card numbers on a computer where other people could get to them." Too bad his computer wasn't PCI compliant. They might have shaved 6 months off the sentence.

      --
      Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
  10. Doesn't make a lot of sense. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Butler served an 18-month prison term for the crime and fell on hard times after his 2002 release, he said in a sentencing memorandum filed Thursday. "I was homeless, staying on a friends couch. I couldn't get work," he wrote. In desperation, he turned again to cybercrime."

    Well yeah, that makes sense, seeing as it worked so well the first time. . .

  11. He did it to himself. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.

    His first conviction was for criminally violating the trust of his employer and working in direct contravention to his employer's interests and mission. His skills are such that to be employed effectively he must be trusted.

    Oops!

    He did it to himself. No employment for him. (He'd have been lucky to find burgers to flip.)

    So then he starts a business. High corporate positions may have been barred to him by his first conviction, but a lot of smaller stuff still was open. Yet what does he chose? Cybercrime.

    Oops!

    When he finally gets out from THIS one he'll be watched so closely that even organized crime is unlikely to work with him.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:He did it to himself. by borkus · · Score: 1

      There are many fields where major lapses in professional ethics will kick you out of the profession for life.

      A fiend of mine who's a cop once busted a guy driving a dump truck while under the influence. Not only did he have the DUI on his regular driving record, the conviction cost him his commercial driver's license PERMANENTLY. He can never drive any truck for a living ever again. It may sound harsh, but the driver was swerving while driving a vehicle that could level a house.

      Likewise, there are criminal and even just negligent behavior that can cause lawyers, accountants and doctors to lose their license - flushing away years of experience and education.

    2. Re:He did it to himself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.

      His first conviction was for criminally violating the trust of his employer and working in direct contravention to his employer's interests and mission. His skills are such that to be employed effectively he must be trusted.

      Oops!

      He did it to himself. No employment for him. (He'd have been lucky to find burgers to flip.)

      So then he starts a business. High corporate positions may have been barred to him by his first conviction, but a lot of smaller stuff still was open. Yet what does he chose? Cybercrime.

      Oops!

      When he finally gets out from THIS one he'll be watched so closely that even organized crime is unlikely to work with him.

      Dude, will he have relevant skills after he serves his sentence?

  12. READ THE FUCKING SUMMARY by CountBrass · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's right there in the summary "...installed a back-door program on computers — including some on federal government networks...". 'Installed' not 'was capable of installing'. Basic literacy ftw?

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:READ THE FUCKING SUMMARY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why be a dick about it?

    2. Re:READ THE FUCKING SUMMARY by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Probably because it actually takes longer to post a question, than just reading in the article you're replying to.

    3. Re:READ THE FUCKING SUMMARY by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Actually I did RTFA.

      "After a promising start as a security consultant who did volunteer work for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Butler was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers -- including some on federal government networks -- that were susceptible to a security hole."

      It's ambiguous.

      It says he was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers. Not for installing it.
      In reality he was probably arrested for installing it.
      It's a poorly written piece.

      But there's always a few cunts around who haven't read the linked articles themselves either and jump in with insults.

    4. Re:READ THE FUCKING SUMMARY by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      From the fucking article.

      "After a promising start as a security consultant who did volunteer work for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Butler was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers -- including some on federal government networks -- that were susceptible to a security hole."

      It's ambiguous.

      It says he was arrested for writing malicious software that installed a back-door program on computers. Not for using it.
      In reality he was probably arrested for using it.
      It's a poorly written piece.

      But there's always a few self righteous cunts around who haven't read the linked articles themselves either and jump in with insults.

  13. Quite right. by CountBrass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some things deserve a permanent stigma: in this case how can you seriously expect he would continue to act in a role that requires significant trust when he's proven he can't be trusted?

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:Quite right. by dissy · · Score: 1

      Some things deserve a permanent stigma: in this case how can you seriously expect he would continue to act in a role that requires significant trust when he's proven he can't be trusted?

      To those whom only read the first line before hitting reply: I am not defending this guy. at all. I am bitching about our government

      There, now that that is out of the way, I still fail to see why someone who ruined their trust in computer and information areas, should still be banned for life from flipping burgers or packing bags at walmart.
      (Neither hire felons anymore in my state at least)

      While I too would not want this guy managing my data or computer security (or any security for that matter), I don't see how he could be much harm making my cheeseburger delux at the drive through, or putting my stuff in a plastic bag at the end of an isle on camera.

      Yet he is effectively life banned from such low paying jobs.

      This particular person fucked up a bit worse than normal, however you can only assign blame or credit to someone when the act is of their own choice and will.

      So it is his fault for being punished for his crimes yes. It is NOT his fault for his life being totally ruined.
      The proof of this is that in any other first world nation he would still be able to find work after he paid his time, and manage to earn enough food to eat to not starve to death, and earn enough for a shack in the ghetto to not freeze to death.

      Not you personally, but a lot of people seem to think he deserves starving and freezing to death.
      But in the same situation, no matter what the circumstances for getting there are, I am pretty certain ANYONE would act in the same way afterwords (Repeat crimes)

      As you say, that last bit can't possibly be this persons fault. It was our government doing it to him.
      The proof again is that in any other country practically, this would not have happened. So it is not a situation that magically happens out of no where.

      And my only REAL complaint, is that so many people in jail did not actually do anything wrong, and end up the same way.
      Sure, some criminals will keep being criminals. But why force that decision on everyone else, who WOULD have learned how much it sucks to do what they did, and would have stopped if given a chance to stop.

  14. Sure it does by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    He's not homeless anymore.

    Ok, kidding aside - if you know you're screwed, that means that you have less to risk on a second attempt. He's already an ex-con. When he gets out after this sentence he's going to be...an ex-con. Nothing will have changed, his prospects will be exactly the same. It's a good gamble, if you look at it from a game theory-ish kind of viewpoint.

    But that being said I find it unlikely that he couldn't find any work at all. I mean hells bells, he's got the balls to install backdoor programs on an FBI server but he can't lie on a resume?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Sure it does by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Usually when people say they can't find work, they mean work they are willing to do. He might be able to get a job at McDonalds or 7-eleven, but they probably weren't up to his standards.

      I have a lot of friends who say they can't find a job because of the job market. When I ask them if they've tried at applying for a job at a fast food place with a help-wanted sign on the door they universally respond with something like "I won't work fast food" or "I'm looking for more money than that". It's hard to earn my sympathy, if that's all the harder you'll try. I've worked fast-food, I've been a janitor, I've worked a cash register. If I were to lose my job today, I wouldn't consider myself above such things. It's all work that needs to get done.

    2. Re:Sure it does by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      My wife has tried that. She holds a CPA and cant get a job flipping burgers. Why? the "overqualified" bullshit response. They know that the second a real job comes along she will bolt and run. Honestly you have to outright lie to employers today. Hide your experience and education if you might be overqualified.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Sure it does by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Ok, kidding aside - if you know you're screwed, that means that you have less to risk on a second attempt. He's already an ex-con. When he gets out after this sentence he's going to be...an ex-con. Nothing will have changed, his prospects will be exactly the same. It's a good gamble, if you look at it from a game theory-ish kind of viewpoint.

      A sentence of several years suggests he did have a lot to risk, more than versus his first attempt in fact.

    4. Re:Sure it does by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Yep. I can respect people who legitimately can't get jobs doing that. You do find that, where because of your qualifications they don't want to hire you because they know you are going to jump out at the first opportunity. However, if you don't even try, well then that's real different. My roommate was kinda in that situation. He got laid off and while he legitimately was looking for work, it was within somewhat narrow bounds. To hear him talk you'd think he was trying for every job out there. Really, he was being rather fussy. Well, as money got tight he decided perhaps he should start applying for jobs he didn't really want. Funny enough, the job he got he actually really likes now.

      But ya, there's a real difference between "I can't find any work at all," and "I can't find any work in a field I'd like for the pay I want." Nothing wrong with going for work you like and trying to get good pay. If I got laid off, that's what I'd do. I wouldn't go for any and every job right off the bat, I'd see if I could get another job I like. However, don't confuse that with complete inability to get a job.

  15. Good for the FBI by tobiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the kind of investigation and prosecution they should be doing a lot more of. While we generally refer to it as spam, a good bit of it is attempted robbery. It's pretty brazen behavior; someone trying to rob me every day, every few minutes. As our national criminal investigative body, the FBI is the appropriate department to pursue these crimes. They've been a little slow to adapt, but I'm glad to see the FBI can catch someone at this.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  16. out of desperation? by methuselah · · Score: 0

    what you sympathize with this turd? so i suppose you luv all the pharmaceutical and phallus expansion spam you get in your mailbox every day too? I have had some hard times but, have never gotten so desperate that I thought that I was entitled to do whatever I felt was the easiest way to steal money from someone else. if i had resorted to such action i sure wouldn't want anyone's sympathy and my view of anyone that did sympathize wouldn't be that they were compassionate, it would be what a sucker and it is too bad i didn't steal from that chump. pathetic!

  17. No sympathy. by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No sympathy from me. Why should I feel any more sorry for him than someone that snatches purses, or robs liquor stores?

  18. Prison is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current so-called "justice" system is so pro-criminal it's sickening. About 70% of criminals released from prison end up going back to crime within 3 years (and that's only including the ones that get caught, of course). The prison system is a failure; its goal (curing psychopathy) is impossible.

    All crimes which currently earn a prison sentence should earn the death penalty. And I don't mean the moronic way the death penalty is currently done, where there's so much red tape and bullshit appeals that most of them die of natural causes first. There should be a guillotine right there in the courtroom. A piece of scum like this guy shouldn't be costing society any more than he already has...

    1. Re:Prison is bullshit by svtdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Disregarding the many other ways in which this is impractical, draconian, etc...

      Since those most skilled in the areas necessary to test our security infrastructure are liable to be executed in this manner for simply working to *acquire* said skills, let's just leave it up to some hostile foreign entity to find the security holes. We'll clearly be much better off in the long run.

    2. Re:Prison is bullshit by Jeng · · Score: 1

      You were doing so good......then you wrote that second paragraph.

      I'm guessing you went with death penalty because you also could not come up with a better system of punishment for law offenders.

      Extending probation to more crimes would probably be a good start, along with lots and lots of mandatory life skill classes.

      Prison does nobody any good. If someone positively has to be removed from society then we should not be locking them up with others just like them and hoping that they will be better when they get out. If someone is so fucked up that they have to be removed from society we should try to help them be better people, and if we fail at that THEN we kill them.

      You needed to add a few steps.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Prison is bullshit by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, 3-year recidivism is something like 50% in the UK and US.

      And the prison system is not a failure. It has been a wild success. At least 1% of our population is in prison, many for non-violent and victimless crimes. The prison lobby has been so successful that you never hear anyone talk about Big Prison the way you hear Big Oil or Big Pharma or Big Farma.

      The reason you think the prison system is a failure is because you are under the mistaken impression that it's primary purpose is to rehabilitate criminals. The system is designed to generate a profit; imprisoning and/or rehabilitating criminals is an accidental side effect.

      If you don't believe me, then imagine if we had under-used prisons. In order to protect their business model, the prison lobby would pay for a whole new set of laws, preferably ones that many people already violate, so we can keep imprisoning Americans...much like the War on Drugs has made sure to keep prisons in business despite the continuous drop in violent crime over the past two decades.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    4. Re:Prison is bullshit by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      That is a bad idea. If the penalty for murder was the same as for mugging, then muggers would be much more likely to kill their victims because that way tehy can't be so easily identified. the same applies to everything else.

    5. Re:Prison is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prison lobby has been so successful that you never hear anyone talk about Big Prison the way you hear Big Oil or Big Pharma or Big Farma.

      "Big Farma"? Are the agrarian now in on the fabled corporate shenanigans? Fucking idiot.

      It's "Big Pharma ". As in "big pharmacy". Not that I'm trying to lecture you would-be corporate faux-revoltists on how to sell your doctrine to the lay, but actually understanding your snide shorthand before employing it would do wonders in making you look like less of a knuckle-dragging mongoloid.

      Vernacular comprehension alone would of course do little to remedy the fact that your babble is - at best - inarticulate ramblings on the obvious and at worst the after-birth of an aborted half-ass conspiracy theory that even the tinfoil hat crowd yawns at.

    6. Re:Prison is bullshit by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Aww, what's the matter, AC? Are you too afraid to flame someone with your name attached? Don't want to get modded down and lose your precious karma?

      It's "Big Pharma ".

      Hm...yes, I do remember saying Big Pharma right before I said Big Farma. I would imagine someone with a command of the English language such as yourself would be able to infer that I was discussing three separate lobbies - oil, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture - instead of repeating one twice.

      I considered "Big Agriculture" but it had too many syllables and ruined the flow (much as we shorten Pharmaceuticals/Pharmacy to Pharma). Certainly, though, there is an agriculture lobby, and they are there to push for their own profits even at the public's expense. There are a lot of folks who consider High Fructose Corn Syrup a terrible thing made possible only by the agricultural lobbies' push for insane corn subsidies and tariffs on sugar from abroad.

      I'll admit that the bit at the end, about the War on Drugs, veers a bit towards hyperbole. There are many reasons for that war, and maintaining the prison business is just one. I'm sure police like having jobs, too. Judges certainly like to collect fines. Politicians like to be elected. Lots of various little selfish reasons.

      If you think this is a half-ass conspiracy theory, then there's a story in the NYT I'd like you to read, about a judge who was being paid by a juvenile detention facility to trump up charges and increase the number of kids being sent to the facility because the state paid the facility per head.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html

      If some people don't mind unnecessarily imprisoning teenagers for cash, certainly there are many, many more people who wouldn't mind imprisoning adults.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  19. Well, it could be good for him by davidwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    He won't have to worry about where his next meal will be coming from or whether he can pay the rent....

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  20. Eye for an eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If your penetrating backdoors then dont be surprised when your are sent to pound me in the ass prison to have the same done to you.

  21. What hard times did he fall on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He broke the law, got out, and had a chance to redeem himself. The article said he fell on hard times in 2002. He's a talented programmer, which means everything from programming and below he could do. I know plenty of folks who get out of prison, and bust their butts struggling, just to stay out, and they don't have near this guy's marketable skills. He's a felon, you say? As if that means he can't get work programming. Guess what: I'm a programmer. I got out of prison last January after serving a 6 year sentence. (10+ year Slashdotter, just posting AC for obvious reasons.) I do consulting. 2009: about $65,000, and that's because I'm just getting my feet on the ground. His eighteen months was supposed to make him harder. Obviously it didn't; he punked out and took the easy way. Since it's obvious he didn't learn the lesson he was supposed to have, he deserves having to go back to try to learn it again.

    1. Re:What hard times did he fall on? by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not all crimes are equal in the eyes of your employer. If you got put away for dangerous driving occasioning death, for instance, you're likely to find it easier to get a job when you get out that if you were put away for ripping off your last employer.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  22. Why not blame the CRIMINAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, blame the criminals for exploiting a system designed to dispense cash based solely on a 4 digit number

    It is easy to run down granny as she crosses the street too. Just because it is easy does not mean it is right to do or that we should forgive people just because it is easy.

    The proper response to a banking industry that refuses to use a more robust security regimen is to take your money out of the bank, then start getting others to do so as well, Not rob the bank.

    I am not sure I would want to bank at a bank that requires an RFID chip in my hand, a 30 letter password, Iris biometrics and a blood sample just to get $20 from the bank. Security and Usability lie on the same axis at opposite ends.

  23. In THIS case I blame the criminal by Benfea · · Score: 1

    Lots of IT people have fallen on hard times since the dotcom bust, but we didn't turn to crime.

    However, I wouldn't make any blanket statements about always blaming the criminal. What about people who live in countries with inadequate social services who steal bread to feed their kids? There are always circumstances in which it makes sense to blame the system rather than the criminal, but this is not one of them.

    1. Re:In THIS case I blame the criminal by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Stealing bread, regardless of reason, is still wrong. Of course people like to rationalize it by saying the other person doesn't need it, should be more generous, blah blah blah. But that doesn't make it right.

    2. Re:In THIS case I blame the criminal by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IMO, if there really is no more legal way to feed one's dependants then stealing is more moral than allowing them to starve. It is then better to steal from one who would miss what he has lost less, because that does less harm to others. It all depends if you consider your duty to your family/friends more important than your duty to society at large.

      feeding oneself is more morally grey, but I suspect that most people would take care of themselves before worrying about strangers if they truly are that desperate.

  24. Warrant for Floyd Landis the cyclist for hacking? by sponga · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's right the guy who got caught with the performance enhancing drugs during the Tour de France had a warrant issued for him today for hacking. I don't know what it is over but maybe his attempts to tamper with the committee who tested him maybe. I don't know all the info but I just saw it on the news channel.
    Nevermind here it is

    France Issues Arrest Warrant for Cyclist Floyd Landis
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html

    PARIS — The United States cyclist Floyd Landis was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs, but the fallout from his doping case has lingered.

    Thomas Cassuto, a French judge, issued an arrest warrant for Landis last month, in connection with a computer hacking case, said Astrid Granoux, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office in Nanterre, a suburb of Paris, which is handling the matter.

    “That means he would be arrested if he came to France,” Granoux said Monday, adding that the warrant had not been distributed outside of French territory.

    Landis, who raced for the Ouch Pro Cycling Team last year, parted ways with the team last fall. He could not be reached for comment Monday.

    Cassuto is seeking to question Landis about the data hacking that occurred in the fall of 2006 at the Châtenay-Malabry antidoping lab, which is the facility that conducted the tests on Landis’s urine samples from the 2006 Tour.

    A very public dispute between Landis and the lab’s officials was the crux of Landis’s defense in his doping case, which ended in his being barred from the sport for two years. Landis and his defense team had alleged that the lab’s testing procedures were sloppy, so its test results could not be trusted.

    Pierre Bordry, the lab’s director, said a security breach of the facility’s computers occurred because hackers wanted to obtain data to discredit its scientists. He said that some of the stolen data had been altered to make it seem as if the lab had made errors.

    In November 2006, lab officials filed a formal complaint saying that its computer data had been stolen and used in Landis’s defense. That confidential data was also sent to other labs and news media, officials said. A subsequent search of the lab’s computers turned up a Trojan horse, which is a program that allowed an outsider to remotely download files.

    Investigators concluded that the program could have originated from an e-mail message sent to the lab from a computer using the same Internet protocol address as Arnie Baker, Landis’s coach.

    Landis and Baker, who continue to insist that Landis did not use performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour, deny being involved in the computer hacking.

  25. He should have seek political asylum by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    by jumping into a Chinese or Russian embassy.

  26. We can only hope by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Too bad he used his superpowers for evil instead of good.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  27. Not just pin numbers! by Unordained · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In an ideal world, identification (username) and authentication (password) would be separate. But that's not the case in the financial world. Every time you use a credit card or cheque, you're leaving behind a trail that contains either your credit card number and security code (if online), or your bank's routing number and your account number. Your one-time authorization for withdrawal has given away the keys to the kingdom! It's like social security numbers in that respect. Only a few services (Discover bank?) allow you to setup single-use identifiers that work around this problem without rebuilding the whole system from scratch. More should. If you need to setup recurring payments, you should be able to tell your bank who's going to be doing it, how often, for (about) how much, and get a number that a hacker could not reuse for some other purpose. (And while you're at it, you make it transportable, so you can redirect that number to your new bank account when you get tired of your old bank screwing up, without having to remember to notify everyone that your bank account number's changed.)

    1. Re:Not just pin numbers! by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      Citibank, Bank of America, Discover and Paypal all offer disposable card numbers. American Express used to, but apparently stopped around 2004.

  28. the security guard put a bag of money at his feet by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and someone takes it

    fact: the security guard is responsible

    fact: the asshole who took it is responsible

    the security guard is responsible for neglecting his duty, NOT FOR THE MONEY

    the asshole who took it is guilty of taking something that isn't his, they are on the line for the money

    two different responsibilities

    but even beyond that, the fact that we NEED security guards is because so many people, such as yourself, don't understand simple fucking morality in this world

    there are moral people, who would not take something that is not theres. and there are roaming monkeys with no moral compass who take whatever they can get. such people are the problem with this world. there's no defense for such being such an asshole. if it's not yours, don't fucking take it. it's really that fucking simple. learn it

    just because security is lax doesn't entitle you to a damn thing or entitle anyone for any excuse for committing a crime. if you take something that isn't yours, you are guilty, no matter if it is fort knox or a bag of money behind an open door: same level of guilt

    try to understand basic morality at some point in your life

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  29. So... in essence by jhoegl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    13 Years for stealing? Hmm... whats the point of our penal system again?

    1. Re:So... in essence by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      The average sentence for rape is less than half of that (six years).

      While 13 years does seem a bit large, the guy stole a lot of money. And he's done this kinda thing before.

      He ruined a lot of lives, and the lives he ruined are average people who can't go running to Washington for new laws or bailouts. Who knows what kind of damage he wrecked on innocent families. He deserves a big punishment.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    2. Re:So... in essence by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      The only way to improve the prisons is to put better people there.

    3. Re:So... in essence by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many counts of stealing? Was he charged with first degree grand theft? And, not just stealing but also establishing a marketplace for stolen information, that could be one or more counts of facilitation, conspiracy, racketeering, etc.

      Seeing as you don't know the number of charges nor what the actual charges were, your statement is foolish at best.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  30. Another perspective by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He starts by doing legitimate penetration testing; he leaves backdoors for himself, but doesn't do anything nasty with them. Then he starts hacking into government computers, and does the same thing; leaves a door open but doesn't do anything else nasty. The FBI catches him for it... but rather than bust him, they attempt to enslave him. He helps them bust another computer criminal ring. But after a while he refuses to serve them and they do bust him. They lie and claim he was of no help, and throw him in jail for a year and a half. When he gets out, his skills are now useful for nothing but crime; no legitimate company will touch him. So, naturally, he does turn to crime. This time actually doing some damage. Well, what did you expect?

    1. Re:Another perspective by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Turns to crime? He turned to crime at "Then he starts hacking into government computers".

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Another perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor kid...

    3. Re:Another perspective by russotto · · Score: 1

      He turned to crime for income. He hadn't before, if one believes TFA. My point is that the justice system, rather than having a deterrent effect, actually provided him with incentives to commit greater crimes. There's something wrong there; it's the opposite of rehabilitation.

      Of course, it happens all the time with non-computer-related crime as well.

    4. Re:Another perspective by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You are basing your conclusion on the fact he said he could not get a job. But, he never talks about the kind of job he was trying to get.

      I think you are basing your "opposite of rehabilitation" conclusion on too little information. I am willing to bet he could have gotten a job, but not a job that would put his IT skills to use. This is to be expected as he has already proven he can not be trusted in such a position. You wouldn't hire someone who has done time for embezzlement to keep the books at your company and I wouldn't hire someone who has a record for computer crimes to run my network, work as a sysadmin, or anything else that requires privileged access to systems and data.

      You are right that he didn't turn to crime for income before, which makes his crime all the worse. He didn't need to commit the crime, he wanted to commit it. He didn't have to commit a crime the first time, and he didn't have to do so the second time. It was his choice, he gets to live with the consequences.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    5. Re:Another perspective by russotto · · Score: 1

      I think you are basing your "opposite of rehabilitation" conclusion on too little information. I am willing to bet he could have gotten a job, but not a job that would put his IT skills to use. This is to be expected as he has already proven he can not be trusted in such a position.

      The fact that you can explain the mechanism doesn't make it go away. His skills were in IT; he could no longer use them legitimately, giving him the choice between unskilled labor and crime. This provides a strong incentive for crime... and he's already someone predisposed to it. I'm not excusing him; I'm just pointing out that judicial punishment made him into a worse criminal than he was.

    6. Re:Another perspective by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      His skills were in IT; he could no longer use them legitimately

      He could no longer use them because of his own actions.

      I'm just pointing out that judicial punishment made him into a worse criminal than he was.

      It is not the judicial system's fault he can not use his IT skills, it is his own. Judicial punishment did not make him into a worse criminal, he did it to himself on his own.

      giving him the choice between unskilled labor and crime

      First, those were not his only choices. He could have gone to school while working as unskilled labor. Then, he could get a better job. But, that would require acting like a real adult. Second, he created that choice himself through his actions.

      If an accountant can't get a job as an accountant after doing time for embezzlement then robs a bank, would you still blame the judicial system?

      As near as I can tell, you think he should never have been punished for his criminal acts in the first place, which is just foolishness.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  31. Re:the security guard put a bag of money at his fe by shentino · · Score: 1

    I never said the criminal was innocent, btw.

  32. then you're guilty of an inability to communicate by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    because that would seem to be the most important fucking point, no?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. Is it bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that this headline made me think that anthropologists had found that Ötzi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman had axed someone?

  34. Re:but but obama wants hackers by Miseph · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think this one failed the Turing test.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  35. Wired by slamden · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wired ran a long article about Max Butler last year.

  36. So lie if you have to by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Honestly you have to outright lie to employers today. Hide your experience and education if you might be overqualified.

    Exactly. Go ahead and lie on your resume. It's not illegal. The only thing bad that can happen is they find out, and you don't get the job. You wouldn't have gotten the job anyways so it's zero risk. I think a lie is fine if you're hungry. Maslow has it right - worry about your soul after you've had dinner.

    Some jobs require lying as a prerequisite.

    For instance, every manager you've ever met is a liar. Read the want ads/careerbuilder/whatever. Every single managerial position says the same thing: "Previous management experience a must." There are no zero experience jobs to start off with. Therefore the only way to break into the field is with an initial lie. QED.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:So lie if you have to by adolf · · Score: 1

      You made an absolute statement about management positions.

      Like most absolute statements, particularly those involving social matters, it is false.

      I've performed long-term management tasks for my current employer, but was hired as a mere lackey. Therefore, I have previous management experience, and ostensibly meet the (admittedly) ridiculous (and mostly ubiquitous) qualification that you cite, even though I gained this experience without ever having done managerial tasks prior to my current employ.

      I could apply for a management position at a different company and honestly say that I have previous experience.

      (That all said, I consider myself to be a very lousy manager, but that's not at all the point...)

    2. Re:So lie if you have to by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      For instance, every manager you've ever met is a liar. Read the want ads/careerbuilder/whatever. Every single managerial position says the same thing: "Previous management experience a must." There are no zero experience jobs to start off with

      All the publicly advertised jobs, perhaps. But nearly every manager I've ever had didn't start out at that company as a manager -- they were promoted into it. That's why you can have a billion jobs requiring management experience, because most managers didn't get their management experience from a job they saw advertised.

  37. Good intentions is the excuse for unlawful entry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I grew-up, the difference between a U.S. Soldier and a murderer is how much you are payed by who hired you.

    It's the same with computer service use; governments make artificial excuses to leave the illusion of security in the progress of technology as it lay so it can spread jurisdiction to the populous when a disputed usage angers an owner; governments get free labor out of whomever is punnished at the opinion of the majority. It's a hidden fascism in that regard.

    Same applies to how Japan captures fish and whales all around the ocean disproportionate with neighboring countries, because Japan was unwilling to "patch-up" it's failures in agriculture because it would rather pursue other technologies to outcompete it's neighbors.

    Then you have the reason why there are toxic levels of mercury in fish: some west-Africkan countries are smelting gold from metals, and dumping the resulting mercury-encrusted arsenic discharges into the ocean to rid their companies of the technical liability to properly render it useful and safely store their problems for the heirs to resolve in a better day later.

    And there you have it. Folie a'deux Syndrome is at large, pretending it's your fault, and punishing you for lack of action to determine the remedy just because those causing it are exausting your senses and diminish your lifestyle while they live a little cleaner upstream where they dispose of their problems from.

  38. Information Wants to be Free by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Damn financial institutions and their DRM, don't they know information wants to be free. Nice of the government to prop up big business and trample all of our rights to access any information we want!

  39. Geez, how could anyone possibly argue with that? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Absolutely, dood, only Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, together with Hank Paulson, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Timothy Geithner, and Alan Greenspan are guiltless. You've really got everything figured out, dood! (Damn guards, the cause of ALL problems.)

    I predict this guy will vote for the Pallin/Boehner ticket in 2012.

  40. Inflation whiner epic fails by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    the Federal reserve prints-up trillions and trillions of US dollars wildly inflating the money supply

    Though the Fed doesn't publish it anymore, there's a group who tracks M3, one of the measures of the money supply. While M0, M1, and M2 all dropped precipitously, M3 held steady.

    The money supply is not being wildly inflated. To the contrary, their "printing" has kept the money supply from deflating. As dollars are destroyed by the financial crisis, the Fed's printed dollars replace them, and the system on-the-whole stays roughly the same.

    The cause for concern is that when the banks start lending again, the fractional-reserve-lending-multiplier thing will mean that the banks can inflate the money supply by using too much of their reserves for loans. That's why the Fed is paying the banks interest on their reserves - the interest means the banks are less interested in loaning their reserves out.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  41. he got off easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he got off easy , computer banking is the heart of the economy, I would have liked to see a hard longer term to send a message to others, (same for those that create computer viruses

  42. to bad.. by dezent · · Score: 1

    for him that www.freebutler.com was taken ;)

  43. Don't drop the soap dude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your cell mate might be a linux user.

  44. There's plenty of incentive to improve by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

    As it is, there's little incentive for the industry to increase their security.

    For some reason, everyone loves to ignore the reputation factor when talking about economics and capitalism. Most screwups in business are far more expensive due to reputation damage than they are in direct costs. If a bank has a major incident in which they lose the credit card numbers of thousands of consumers, that can really hurt their reputation, and people are less likely to sign with that bank. That's where banks really feel the pain, and why they do have an incentive to keep security strong.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
  45. Root Cause... by geekmux · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I hope that he has to serve the full sentence, and doesn't get out on parole. Credit card fraud is not fun. I can only hope that more people convicted of credit card fraud receive sentences like this.

    Of course, let's also not look beyond root cause of this type of crime in the first place, and that's the fact that my dog can get a credit card these days.

    Point here is if we didn't have such an addiction in this country to have credit cards resulting in mountains of debt, or insane amounts of questionable predatory practices by lenders, perhaps this wouldn't be such a lucrative nut to "crack".

  46. a fit end by ncmathsadist · · Score: 1

    The authorities should embed this dodo in lucite and give him to the Museum of Those With No Lives. Exhibit him in the sociopath section. His sense of entitlement is wretched.

  47. Not Really by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    The vendors/merchants will always lose their payment due to chargeback, and the bank get an addditional $25-35 penalty per chargeback from the merchant. Therefore it is the advantage of the bank when more fraud occurs.

    1. Re:Not Really by mike2R · · Score: 1

      ... $25-35 penalty per chargeback from the merchant. Therefore it is the advantage of the bank when more fraud occurs.

      You hear this a lot on ecommerce boards. I don't actually buy it myself, or at least the "banks are actually encouraging fraud" implication that tends to get tacked on. Banks aren't particularly hurt by card not present fraud, it is true, but it is hardly in their interests.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  48. Obligatory.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Highest ?? Reiser got life for his first hacking! Oh wait...

  49. Crime? by autocracy · · Score: 1

    You could argue with that statement that people who smoke pot have turned to crime.

    I think the key determination in saying one has turned to crime is that crime is at least intended to be a source of income. He had broken the law before, yes. This phrase about turning to crime means something else specific in my mind... like his credit card ring in the second instance.

    --
    SIG: HUP
    1. Re:Crime? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      They have. Selling, buying, possessing, and smoking pot are all crimes, at least in most parts of the United States. If one smokes pot, one has turned to crime.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  50. Re:Warrant for Floyd Landis the cyclist for hackin by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    That's right the guy who got caught with the performance enhancing drugs during the Tour de France had a warrant issued for him today for hacking. I don't know what it is over but maybe his attempts to tamper with the committee who tested him maybe. I don't know all the info but I just saw it on the news channel.

    He wasn't caught with performance enhancing drugs. A few of the many samples he sent to a corrupt French lab were reported as positive, while the same samples sent to other labs came back negative.