Slashdot Mirror
Malicious Online Retailer Ordered Held Without Bail
Zaphod_85 writes "You may remember the New York Times story from a couple of weeks ago regarding Vitaly Borker, an online retailer intentionally harassing customers in order to gain linking points in Google's PageRank algorithm. Now, not only has Google altered their algorithm in order to prevent this tactic from being effective (Though according to Katherine Noyes at PCWorld, this tactic may never actually have been benefiting the website in the first place), Now Mr. Borker has the Feds to deal with. He is being charged with cyberstalking, wire fraud, mail fraud, and making interstate threats, and faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Given his disturbing behavior that brought about the charges, a federal judge has ordered he be held without bail while he awaits trial."
How long until he gets his new business rolling?
This would be why trolling doesn't tend to work as well in real life, when there are real-life consequences, as it does on the internet when there's little chance (absent clever data-wrangling techniques and a little stalking) of your words coming back to bite you.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
OP was suggesting that objecting libertarians be formed into a line.
I was hoping this guy would get murdered when he ripped off the wrong guy. I guess getting raped in prison for 50 years will have to do.
From Borker to Borkee...
Really? The NYT article described it as "too graphic and violent to print in a newspaper", which hardly sounds like "carefully worded". Besides, "taking a picture of someone's home and sending them a message saying 'I'M WATCHING YOU'" is not only a verbal threat, but one involving an action. Frankly, I'm surprised it took two years to arrest this guy - if he tried it on me, I would have filed a police report within minutes.
And that still does nothing for the identity theft charges or the fraud. Hell, maybe we can get him on ACTA or something for selling counterfeits.
... and hey, it's nothing more than an online article, I say good riddance. Threatening folk repeatedly with bodily harm, impersonating them to credit card companies, etc. should be a fast-pass lane to being disbarred from operating a business and going to jail without passing go and without collecting $200.
What troubled me about Mr. Borkers story more than anything is how easily he circumvented the various red-flag tripwires that credit card companies allegedly employ. And the allegation that he successfully impersonated a customer withdrawing a claim against him shows not only chutzpah but a big security hole over at the credit card company.
Bottom line is that the internet has allowed all sorts of scams to go nationwide and unless one can interest the Feds (via publicity in this case), one is SOL. Thus, he may serve as a business blueprint for a lot more scammers going forward.
"Fraud" has fuck all to do with free speech. You won't find any "libertarian" defense of stalking one's customers and threatening people with bodily harm.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
With 10 libertarians you would have 10 lines each 1 libertarian deep
The cyberpolice backtraced him, and consequences will never be the same!
Indeed, you'd probably find more libertarians who'd support the right of the stalked to shoot said stalker. Especially when he's threatened them.
Indeed, fraud is very much NOT on the list of things that libertarians want to legalize.
I don't read AC A human right
I'm thinking the guy is probably a lunatic, and it seems to me that the real fault lies with a whole lot of other entities from the credit card company to the cops who dropped the ball on this one. Clearly they were not taking this seriously, even after this lunatic had made explicit graphic sexual threats against the woman and had committed a clear act of fraud and identity theft by posing as her to get the reversal of charges reversed. A whole lot of people should be hanging their heads in shame for letting this poor woman suffer so much because of a whacko. They're the ones that deserve the jail sentence just as much as him.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't mean to play anonymous Internet tough guy here, but I'm really surprised that someone who tells customers with a legitimate complain "I know where you live" still has full use of both knee caps. I would have thought by now he would have pissed off the wrong person who happens to be within driving distance. Then again, when it comes to the stacks of money he's making, maybe he's full of shit and doesn't have that many customers to piss off.
I don't think I'd call this guy just trolling.
On the internet even from the start trolling meant just something crafted to create as many responses as possible, rather than rape threats. As the dictum went, "Confucius say: successful troll is master baiter" ;) Really, it didn't even have to be offensive or explicit or illegal. It could be something as indirect as asking which Linux distro has IE.
And in the meantime it's largely become a synonym with "someone saying something I disagree with." Someone calling one's pet conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory? Someone else posting a bit of textbook science that contradicts one's ID beliefs? Someone else disagreeing that <insert game flop> is TEH GRATEST GAME EVAR? Someone else disagreed in another thread entirely? Well, they must be trolls and only saying that to get attention ;) But seriously, I've even seen textbook physics quotes modded as troll or overrated. It's just become the blanket excuse to not use one's brains and hang on to some pet dogma or half-truth: anyone disagreeing must be just trolling for attention.
What this guy did is a bit beyond mere trolling. And I suspect that even the trolling excuse was just an excuse. Threatening to rape someone asking for a refund and mailing them photos of their home with texts like "I'M WATCHING YOU" and whatnot, is the kind of asshattery even most Internet trolls would distance themselves from very quickly. That's already way beyond just seeking attention.
If anything, this just gives the lie to the old marketing canard that all exposure is good, and there is no such thing as bad publicity. I've seen it repeated in so many places, that it's not even funny. It turns out that, yes, there is bad publicity. Not only it can cross into being flat out illegal, but there's a very good case to be made that all that Google rank via people talking about how badly he treats customers, actually didn't benefit him. Getting mind-share as a dangerously deranged asshat to avoid can be just that: it just moves one from an unknown company to being the well known asshat company to avoid.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Every electronics/camera store in Brooklyn has been doing this for decades. They are all scammers and conartists.
Shanties and warehouses, or fake addresses, but websites with greymarket and fake products.
Examples of the stores im talking about:
http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
The FTC has done nothing about it.
People place products thinking they can get it cheaper, and then when they talk to the store the sales people scream and cuss at them if they don't buy addons they "must" buy (like power cords and batteries).
For every 1 reputable company based in NYC and NJ there are hundreds which are ran y petty criminals.
he also threatened to rape a female complaining customer which is why he was being charged according to another site.
One of the wonderful things about the internet, is that it's restoring some of the accountability that we once had when living in small communities where most people knew each other. For a pretty long time, if an unscrupulous vendor screwed you over, your only options were either to sue them (expensive) or hope that your local government would punish them for you or your local TV "consumer beat" reporter would find your story interesting enough to give it some air time.
Today though, it's amazingly easy to check out anyone you're considering doing business with by looking them up on the net. The guy in this story will most likely be out of business, and soon.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
He is being charged with cyberstalking, wire fraud, mail fraud, and making interstate threats, and faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
FIFTY YEARS? Holy crap. I am so glad I got out of SEO. Shady, shady business is that industry.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another. Internet-based communication is not exempt. Is this something you do a lot?
Where you get this idea I am uncertain, but that's not how it works.
Libertarians want the government the U.S. originally intended to have. It was all a REALLY good idea based on the notion of getting rid of all the crap and nonsense that England's government was imposing and never wanted to see again. Well, it's back and stronger in many ways. For example, the tax rates imposed by England would be a dream come true by today:s standards.
As for justice, no. The Libertarian stance on crime in general might appear as if it is a criminal's "free for all" position, but that would be a mistaken interpretation. Laws based on morality would be removed, but not laws based on individual safety and good public conduct. For example, it would still condemn the case under discussion. But matters between consenting adults and the right of people to put whatever crap they want into their own bodies [drugs] would be defended. Not that it is relevant here, but Sane Libertarians also seek to protect child development by defending them against child labor, sexual molestation and other forms of abuse that would inhibit them from growing into healthy adults who are capable of leading healthy, self-sustaining lives.
Libertarianism just seems far too different from what we generally accept as common sense and wisdom. But when you think it through rationally, it makes a lot more sense than what we are doing now. The short of it is "your rights end where mine begin." Once you adapt your view around that simple notion, you will begin to see where things are wrong. For you to tell me that I should be forced to live my life based on YOUR ideals and morality is just as stupid as you being forced to live your life based on MY ideals and morality. But there are some constants that must still be maintained and I see those as self-evident as well.
"Don't want courts"? Really? It:s provided for in the US Constitution. Libertarians just want the constitution followed in spirit and intent. This includes the institutions of courts, police, prisons and more. They are simply necessary for a healthy society. As you see things for the way they are, you will find that a lot of violent crimes (certainly not all) are connected with the operation of business that is determined to be illegal. For example, the drug trade sees gang violence just the same as it was when alcohol was illegal. Why we repealed prohibition of alcohol but not other drugs is pretty stupid -- the truths are pretty much the same. Once alcohol was legalized and controlled, violence related to the alcohol trade all but disappeared. The same would be true of the drug trade.
Many people fail to see cause and effect for what it really is. Crime is very often the effect of bad law.
I guess it's hearsay to you and I since we're getting our info from the media rather than the complainant. The FBI, OTOH, have no doubt spoken to the complainant directly so it is not hearsay to them. It may still be a false complaint, of course. Or there may be a record of the threat if it was made by email or a phone call that was recorded.
If Vitaly Borker was calling Ms. Rodriguez repeatedly, especially after 10pm, he was violating New York State laws against telephone harassment.
I had somebody calling me repeatedly late at night. I traced his phone number, complained to the local police station, and two detectives came to his house (several times until he answered the door) and arrested him. He finally left New York City, and stopped bothering me, so I didn't prosecute.
You can get more information about handling these calls at The Verizon Unlawful Call Center http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/phone/general+support/support+tools/general/95622.htm
Examples of unlawful calls:
* Threat to Life (yours or someone else's)
* Bomb Threats
* Bodily Harm
* Excessive Obscene or Harassing Calls (The definition of excessive varies by state but generally means more than two to five calls.)
* Kidnapping
Verizon regularly works with Law Enforcement agencies to resolve unlawful call complaints. The Law Enforcement agency investigates all calls involving bodily harm, bomb threats and kidnapping.
Unwanted Calls are usually not against the law and typically include:
* Fax calls
* Hang-up calls
* Computer calls
* Solicitation calls
* Telemarketing calls
* Debt collection calls
* Obscene or Harassing Calls*
*If calls of this nature are deemed excessive, and you are willing to prosecute, we will handle as an unlawful call.
Is this really a problem that required a law?
A state with a low population like AZ (not to pick on AZ undeservedly here) would be presented with a good motive to set itself up with a predatory policy based on e.g. light criminal penalties for making threats against people in general. (Which it wouldn't for crimes of local consequence, like car theft or vandalism.) The benefit would be to make AZ more attractive to anyone looking to set up shop who plans to make money ripping off and abusing customers who are mostly going to live out-of-state anyway. If the population of your state is low enough, policies start to look attractive that encourage picking on people in other states by encouraging picking on people in general.
/IANAL
This is similar to how NV legalized gambling, or how the credit industry is based in ND. In general interstate commerce is something that presents a conflict of interest to a state legislature, so crimes involving it get singled out for federal nitpicking. I'm not surprised that there's a law against threatening to injure the person of someone in an interstate business conversation. Interstate commerce gets used like a hat rack by the feds, but a law like that seems pretty basic if you're going to submit interstate commerce to any regulative structure at all.
This case is different from your typical predatory industry. A collection agency for example is trying to get money out of people; it may be perfectly willing to abuse them, but only in order to get the money. What makes this guy weird is that he stalked people in order to get free advertising.
(Shrug) Capitalism is exactly what happens when you give people the liberty to trade with each other. The only way to stop capitalism is to shoot people for practicing it. Is that what you, personally, advocate?
Seriously. Would you be okay if the Taliban were in charge of making law in this country? If so, then your perspective would be consistent. If not, then you most certainly understand my point. My point is that "morality" is a point of view, not a universal constant. The government's job isn't to push a limited point of view, but rather to do what the constitution says it must.
Where you get that this other stuff wouldn't happen, I don't know. You are apparently unable to form more than a few words in series to actually make a coherent point. Besides that, your ridiculous list includes electricity -- not paid for by government.
T-Mobile is an excellent company, and they are the only one that I know of that lets you call and tell them you cannot pay your bill on time and then schedule a date after the due date to pay, during which time your service will not be interrupted and no additional fees are assessed. I have had to do this on a number of occasions over the years. They also reduced my bill, without me asking them to do so, because I was a long time "preferred" customer, even though from time to time I had to make the aforementioned deferred payments.
Every company has issues, but I doubt anyone would have better luck with another provider, especially since they cannot do anything if someone calls from a blocked number without involvement from the police if I am not mistaken. Blocking your number indicates specific intent to have your number withheld from the called party. For all they know the person calling you is a women you met on the Internet who has not given you her number in case you are a stalker rapist, and you are a stalker rapist trying to social engineer her phone number. Maybe the calling party is your wife, and she is blocking her number because you are estranged but she wants to know why she hasn't received her child support, but doesn't want you to start harassing her again.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It depends. Some hard core libertarians believe there is no such thing as fraud. If you've been "defrauded" it just means you haven't done your research and haven't made good choices. You could have gone out and found out more about this transaction or this seller, etc if you really cared to avoid fraud.
Now to me that's a pretty messed up philosophy given the extreme costs in research time that it would add to every transaction. At least the current situation where in general parties are expected to be honest about the information they disclose and to disclose enough in certain transactions that it reduces the likelihood that parties will attempt to defraud others. If there were no legal teeth to enforce those provisions I can only imagine fraud would increase.
Now on the other hand there would indeed be less fraud if people held more of the attitude that it was up to them to do their homework to make sure they weren't getting scammed. Those that do don't get scammed much.
The problem with "Libertarians" is that there's no consistency in who calls themselves a Libertarian. Ranging from the most bat-shit crazy militia kind of people to the Tea Party wanks.
Those who claim to be "Libertarians" often are the ones pushing for morality based laws and regulation of other people's stuff.
In short, unless you can get a single, consistent, set of people saying they're Libertarians, the whole lot gets lumped in with every ranting idiot who wants to change the world to be the way they want it, and be able to opt-out of any taxation and other program they don't want so they can undermine the whole system.
I've never met two Libertarians with the same point of view, so I more of less have to discount the whole lot. The term is essentially meaningless -- but usually accompanied by some ranting screed that is anything but Libertarian.
And, like pure free-market worshipers, Libertarians make some awful assumptions about how their perfect utopian society would operate -- assumptions for which there is no evidence humans can live up to en masse. It's just way too overly idealized, and generally, downright naive.
No, capitalism is when you allow pretend "persons" (companies) to raise capital without liabilities for real people. It works, but it's a kludge, and doesn't sit comfortably with the moral responsibilities implied by enlightenment individualism.
Well, the woman in the linked article had already bought some stuff from the guy, for which she was over-charged and given the wrong goods.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Is ANYTHING really a problem for libertarians, except "government regulations?" You demonstrate the utter moral bankruptcy of libertarian ideals. "You're not the boss of me" is not a valid political system, it is the cry of a selfish child.
Yes, this is a problem. Many people here have demonstrated how and why, and given you evidence that it is a problem. The article gives evidence that it is a problem. And yet you continue to ask "Is this really a problem?" This is the heart of libertarian "justice." No laws or regulations detailing what constitutes harm. In each case, the victim must prove harm, but the libertarians will always blame the victim, saying "Is this really a problem?" and "If this is a problem, it is YOUR problem." Libertarians will claim the victim should have known better, they should have protected themselves, they should just shut up and shop elsewhere.
This is because libertarians are at heart authoritarian. They believe they are better than others. They believe that the superior have a natural right to profit from the inferior. Protecting the victim is going against nature. The victim was weak, the abuser was strong, the abuser won and the victim lost, and now, a bunch of inferior little people are going to band together to try to subvert nature and punish the strong? Outrageous!
Libertarians will never believe any evidence that the strong profiting off of the weak is a problem because to them, it is not a problem. To them, the core assumption is flawed. The strong should profit off of the weak. Anything else is unnatural. Not that they will ever come right out and say that, it will always be cloaked in some other argument. They know that most others do not share their authoritarian beliefs. In Libertopia, when you are victimized, the authoritarians will always be there to ask, "Is this really a problem? Didn't you bring this on yourself?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton