Hacker Tries To Land IT Job At Marriott Via Extortion

wiredmikey writes "A tough global economy has certainly created challenges for many people looking for jobs, but one Hungarian man took things to another level in an effort to gain employment at hotel giant Marriott International. On Wednesday, the 26-year-old man pleaded guilty to charges that he hacked into Marriott computer systems and threatened to reveal confidential company information if Marriott didn't offer him a job. Assuming his efforts were working, with the possibility of a new job with Marriott in his sights, the hacker arrived at Washington Dulles Airport on Jan. 17, 2011, using an airline ticket purchased by Marriott for him. He thought he would be attending a job interview with Marriott personnel. Unbeknown to him, he was actually being 'interviewed' by a Secret Service agent posing as a Marriott employee."

Comments

The fool!

[Anonymous Coward]

He should've used Guru Meditation instead!

Re:The fool!

[rvw]

He should've used Guru Meditation instead!

Still comes in handy for the next ten year or so.

Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-amerikan being subjected to the laws of a country he doesn't live in.

Fucking assholes

Re:Typical

[igreaterthanu]

He entered American soil, so American laws apply to him.

Re:Typical

[WegianWarrior]

I usually don't feed the trolls and the idiots, but I'm bored this morning...

On the most basic level, committing a crime in a foreign country puts you at odds with the justice system in that country; if you're a citizen of county A and commit a crime in country B and the police from country B catches (or extradites you) you will face court and possible jail time in country B, not in country A where you are from.

So while having the offended party (Marriott in this case) pay for his ticket to fly over might be considered entrapment in a number of jurisdictions, it's perfectly legal in the US. His crime was to hack the Marriott, his downfall was his stupidity to travel to the US afterwards.

Re:Typical

[arbiter1]

it is definitely an outta the box way to try to get a job but when you" threatened to reveal confidential company information". That is fire that you are playing with if that company just decides to file charges. But even finding a flaw and telling them about it can be bad like that one guy in Australia i think it was, he found a hole told the company about it, kept the info on the hole off the web. They turned around and sued him for the money it would cost them to fix it.

Re:Typical

[arbiter1]

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/10/14/2129228/security-researcher-threatened-with-vulnerability-repair-bill

Re:Typical

[lxs]

This isn't entrapment.
He wasn't lured into comitting the crime. He was lured into getting himself arrested.

Re:Typical

[gnasher719]

So while having the offended party (Marriott in this case) pay for his ticket to fly over might be considered entrapment in a number of jurisdictions, it's perfectly legal in the US.

Entrapment in the US law sense happens when someone persuades you to commit a crime that otherwise you wouldn't have committed. US authorities are not allowed to do that, and it is a decent defense if you can show that some US authoritiy did this. It's not a defense if a private company does it.

But that didn't happen here. The crime was already in progress (the hacking had happened, and the extortion was in progress), so even if the US police had concocted this plan, it would have been absolutely fair game to find and catch a criminal.

Re:Typical

[sourcerror]

It's not like hacking is legal in Hungary. Although I guess it would take longer to prosecute him in Hungary, knowing the glacial pace of the Hungarian justice system.

Re:Typical

[rvw]

He entered American soil, so American laws apply to him.

And now he checked into another hotel...

Re:Typical

[gutnor]

It's not a defense if a private company does it.

Off topic, but that makes you think twice about privatisation of everything and the effect of small government could have on individual liberty. If the police is using contractors like the army does for example, does that mean they can use entrapment ? Chilly sunday, I think I'll go back to bed.

Re:Typical

[jthill]

Well, how about that. AC whooshes /. I bet that never happened before.

Re:Typical

[Zero__Kelvin]

You missed what the AC was trying to say, though one can certainly understand why. In another Slashdot article many were outraged that a non Thai citizen was subjected to Thai laws (actually, he turned out to have dual citizenship.) Those same people will likely, in many cases, argue the opposite here of course ;-)

Re:Typical

[mooingyak]

The cases aren't identical.

First, it's easier to sympathize with the Thai guy because I think that law is ridiculous. I understand that's an emotional reaction and not a basis for a rational argument, but I figured I'd put it out there instead of trying to pretend there's no bias in my thinking.

Second, and much more important for this argument, I'd be fairly surprised if what he did was legal at home. It's not like he traveled to the US and was suddenly surprised by the uniquely American distaste for extortion. His behavior was criminal in just about any place I'd care to travel to. He's being prosecuted by the US because he did it to a US company (and came onto US soil).

Re:Typical

[LordKronos]

Everything you said is true. In addition there's also the fact that in the Thai case, everything the guy did that was against Thai law was done in the US. As far as I can tell, his visit to Thailand had nothing to do with the crime he was being charged with. However, in this case, the extortion didn't end it Hungary. When this guy set foot in the US, he was still the the act of extorting Marriott.

Re:Typical

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Everything you said is true."

No, it isn't.

Re:Typical

[Larryish]

Entrapment in the US law sense happens when someone persuades you to commit a crime that otherwise you wouldn't have committed. US authorities are not allowed to do that...

Wait, what?

https://encrypted.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=fbi+entrapment+cases

Re:Typical

[bky1701]

Of course corporations are above respecting personal rights. Otherwise people might get suspicious about the loss of their rights. If a corporation does it, you can just say it is their right as property owners to strip the rights of others.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Re:Typical

[pipedwho]

Not it this sense. If the government uses a private contractor, either directly or through extension of policy. Any evidence gathered or action taken is considered an act by government.

You've probably heard of the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' concept that appears on police TV dramas all the time. This means that evidence obtained due to a previously illegal action, becomes itself inadmissible. ie. if a search is conducted without a warrant then anything found becomes inadmissible, but so can further legally obtained evidence that might have been discovered based on something uncovered during the first illegal search (even though the second search was legal).

The same applies (or at least is supposed to apply) to actions taken by the government. In some circumstances even just the knowledge of something happening can extend the action into government condoned action (e.g. certain types of entrapment followed by arrest when the officer knew in advance of the entrapping actions).

Re:Typical

[EnempE]

What he did isn't legal in Hungary. Under the Hungarian Penal Code - Criminal Conduct for Breaching Computer Systems and Computer Data Section 300/C they have a provision for illegal access.

The thing is that it often doesn't matter where a crime is committed, it is still often still illegal if done with the intent to break the law. The enforcement of the law depends on the will of the justice authority in that country. Even if there is an equivalent crime in the other country it is difficult to get that state's cooperation, as it would interfere with that state's right to enforce the law in their territory as they see fit. In this case it seems that is was easier/cheaper to entice the fellow into the country where the offense was committed and arrest him there.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but in this case the US justice system is only springing into expedient action, not because of the fact that hacking is illegal, but because the "victim" is a corporation.

Secret Service

[Michael Woodhams]

Why is the Secret Service involved? This doesn't seem to involve currency or protection of VIPs.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the Department of Homeland Security involved with copyright enforcement? They even went so much as to go to Disney's Headquarters to proclaim their involvement.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

They are needed to make sure his orange overalls fit correctly.

Re:Secret Service

[Sycraft-fu]

The USSS is also the anti-fraud agency, including computer and phone fraud, probably because it heavily related to financial crimes. In 2009 there was an expansion of that as well.

So when it comes to fraud/extortion type things, particularly as they relate to computers, the USSS is probably the agency that handles it.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

They also investigate counterfeiting of US currency, among other things. In any case, the USSS is not to be toyed with. This Hungarian hacker was really stupid to (1) ask for a job with the company he was attempting to extort and (2) actually transport his physical body willingly to the United States. Hasn't he heard of GITMO? He will be extremely lucky if he is charged with just fraud and extortion and not "financial terrorism" or some such. Either way the g-men are going to make an example of this guy, especially after years of attacks by eastern European hackers that have defrauded US companies and citizens of many millions of dollars.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he used an Artifact to hack Marriott.

Re:Secret Service

[imsabbel]

The SS was the anti-counterfeit department of the treasury long before "protecting the president" became its job.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the Secret Service involved? This doesn't seem to involve currency or protection of VIPs.

They probably want to give him a job and keep it quiet.

I'm sure the Gov can use more hackers, especially when they can hold this crime over his head.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus a large corporation was involved. If it had been a regular citizen or small business, good luck even getting a police report taken in person.

Re:Secret Service

[Scrameustache]

This doesn't seem to involve currency or protection of VIPs.

"threatened to reveal confidential company information"

Like who's getting girls sent up to their rooms, who's getting boys sent up to their rooms...

Re:Secret Service

[dbcad7]

I'm thinking there may have been an artifact involved..

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would want to work for Mormons? Yet another reason to not vote for Romney. If this poor bloke would have just gone to the local LDS ward in his hometown and claimed to be a refugee he would have had the red carpet rolled out for him.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Well apparently they aren't doing a very good job of it, since there's so many banksters still roaming free, terrorizing the financial system.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

the SS was the SchutzStaffel in Nazi Germany that committed the most atrocities during that time long before this secret service came into its hipster existence.

Re:Secret Service

[Mondor]

the SS was the SchutzStaffel in Nazi Germany that committed the most atrocities during that time long before this secret service came into its hipster existence.

So, as you can see, it has many duties in the past.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Have you never seen the movie Hackers? I'm revoking your geek credentials immediately.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

My concern is why the Secret Service would need to be called in to deal with such a complete moron.

Re:Secret Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you smell chocolate?

Re:Secret Service

[GameboyRMH]

Actually you only get geek cred if you went to see it in the theater, expecting a decent movie. Extra bonus if you walked out.

If you watched it more than 3 months after it came out, you get no geek cred.

If you enjoyed it you lose geek cred.

Re:Secret Service

[Jonner]

The Secret Service's roles have been greatly expanded throughout its long history. It seems to be a Federal law enforcement agency to which responsibilities are added on a whim regardless of whether they're already under another agency's purview. What did protection of the President have to do with investigating currency counterfeiting in the first place? It seem the Patriot act is responsible for their role in this case:

The Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56) increased the Secret Service's role in investigating fraud and related activity in connections with computers.

I know the FBI investigates fraud, theft and extortion both involving computers and otherwise, so I can't imagine why the Secret Service needed to expand into this area.

IT Darwin awards?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there is an equivalent of Darwin awards for IT/Geek/Nerd stuf...

Re:IT Darwin awards?

[rvw]

I wonder if there is an equivalent of Darwin awards for IT/Geek/Nerd stuf...

Doesn't qualify. If he had extorted Osama Bin Laden (who was still alive then), like in "give me a job or I tell the CIA where you live", then he might have had a chance...

Re:IT Darwin awards?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I wonder if there is an equivalent of Darwin awards for IT/Geek/Nerd stuf..."

"Doesn't qualify."

Not yet, but maybe he'll get lucky and get stabbed in jail ;-)

Re:IT Darwin awards?

[Kumiorava]

Hmm... isn't being a IT/Geek/Nerd pretty much Darwin Award material as itself?

Re:IT Darwin awards?

[dissy]

Hmm... isn't being a IT/Geek/Nerd pretty much Darwin Award material as itself?

Not since the 90s my friend ;}

As geek/nerd is not passed down genetically, the trait has nothing to fear from Darwin.
The funny thing about this trait is that it can pop up in anyone, even when neither of the parents share that trait. In fact in my experience all but one of my geek friends absolutely do not have geek parents. A fairly common random mutation.

If we were all rounded up and destroyed, geeks would reappear. After all, you may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all.

Let Darwin put that in his pipe and smoke it :o~

Re:IT Darwin awards?

[dissy]

After hitting submit too quick, I really wanted to add that I am not AT ALL implying the individual in the article should be thought of as simply misguided or to be felt bad for.

No no, he fucked up stupidly, and big time.

It was just that, unlike the parents implication, geeks/nerds should take pride in their ability, and resolve in you who are.

quoting Jay Leno

[garry_g]

"I love stupid criminals" ...

Exit Strategy?

[icebike]

One wonders what this guy had in mind as his best case scenario in this endeavor.
How did he think this was going to turn out, and in what world does he get to keep the job and his freedom and the money?

Re:Exit Strategy?

[rvw]

One wonders what this guy had in mind as his best case scenario in this endeavor.
How did he think this was going to turn out, and in what world does he get to keep the job and his freedom and the money?

He lived in the world called Hungary. Maybe he should have tried his luck at home. Considering the corruption over there, he might have had a chance to get hired because of his creative thinking, if he had chosen the right company with the right corrupt manager who would have been clever enough to recognize his talent.

Re:Exit Strategy?

[Slashdot Assistant]

That's what I want to know. I can see two "positive outcomes" he could have hoped for.

1) After signing his employment contract with Marriott he would dismantle his backdoors in their systems and Marriott would obviously be stuck with him because the contract.

2) He would keep his backdoors in place, to use as leverage should Marriott attempt to fire him or change the brand of coffee in the office to one that is not to his liking.

No-one above the age of six should consider his plan to be anything but hopeless lunacy.

Willing risk taker

[gd2shoe]

He went to a country where he knew he had broken the law. He had to know that arrest and prosecution was one of the possible outcomes.

He gambled. He lost.

Re:Willing risk taker

[jamesh]

He went to a country where he knew he had broken the law. He had to know that arrest and prosecution was one of the possible outcomes.

He gambled. He lost.

I'm not sure how he could imagine it turning out any other way...

"Well Mr Nemeth... you sure pulled a fast one on us. I guess we have no choice but to give you a job. Normally in these situations we'd just pay you a few million dollars to keep quiet but if it's a job you want then I guess we have to give in to your demands".

Not going to happen. If nothing else it's cheaper just to make him disappear

Re:Willing risk taker

[mysidia]

He gambled. He lost.

Are you sure?

In Hungary, they send their unemployed to hard labor camps to get any government assist.

He would have gone from unemployed Hungarian resident to Hungarian resident with a free trip to the US, now he gets a free taxpayer-paid vacation in an American prison for 5 or 10 years with no hard labor required.

It's a gamble regarding what the economy will be like after that, but his employment problem is solved.

Re:Willing risk taker

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so fast. There used to be a pattern where someone discovered a flaw, disclosed it to the owners of the affected system and offered to help. Many companies in that situation actively try to get the hacker to accept money in order to make the situation look like extortion.

To the hacker it looks more like this: "I found a problem with their system. I told them about it so that they can fix it, because I am a nice guy with good intentions who doesn't want to sell this information on the black market. If they need help fixing the problem, I can do that, but I don't work for free."

Needless to say, it doesn't work that way. Many mostly harmless nerds have been caught in that trap and it usually doesn't end well. In some high profile cases, young hackers have committed suicide after they took the bait money and got arrested.

Hackers and wannabes would be well-advised to never disclose flaws to an affected company directly. If you stumble upon something, talk to the CCC or the EFF and never ever accept money or anything else (job offer, etc.) from the affected company.

Re:Willing risk taker

[rtfa-troll]

I'm always pretty willing to accept the possibility that a big company is screwing over a little guy. Also that what's in a news article which has likely been inspired by the big company's publicity people shouldn't be taken at face value. Looking at this story however, he sent malware by mail and got it installed on their computers. That's at least two pretty big lines crossed over. A) The line of illegality; even if someone tells you to send malware by mail, it's still very likely to be illegal and it's likely that they are ripping you off if they claim they have the right to allow you to do that. Virus samples, for example, should be extremely carefully handled. B) the line of stupidity. You never break into someone else's system without written permission from someone very senior. If this existed we would have heard.

Re:Willing risk taker

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah if he wasn't a moron he would've simply held the data for ransom and received many years' worth of pay all at once. Amazing that this guy was smart enough to know how to break in and grab the data but cartoonishly dumb enough to request a job and then walk right into law enforcement's hands.

Re:Willing risk taker

[uninformedLuddite]

Amazing that this guy was smart enough to know how to break in and grab the data

You don't need to be smart to break into a computer. Those days are long gone. If you can download an attack file you are a hacker now.

2nd time an FBI article go "Varnish cache server"

[G3ckoG33k]

Once up, the article woouldn't load, but gave:

Error 503 Service Unavailable
Service Unavailable
Guru Meditation:
XID: 0000000000 [true number changed]
Varnish cache server

I had never seen the Varnishcache server before. So, I use Google, and one of the first hits is a link to a Slashdot article, also detailing FBI work: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,26358766 [dslreports.com]. Here is their discussion:

reply to antdude
Re: HideMyAss.com Doesn't Hide Logs From the FBI
said by antdude:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/25/0415213/hidemyasscom-doesnt-hide-logs-from-the-fbi [slashdot.org]
Link doesn't work for me....
Error 503 Service Unavailable
Service Unavailable
Guru Meditation:
XID: 853827040
Varnish cache server --
GuruGuy

Ok, once is ok. Twice. Hmmm. Three would be a hit.

How do you submit a story that doesn't trigger anything human but only an automatic reconnaissance, or vice versa. It would be fun to see if this follows a pattern.

Hungary = China?

[G3ckoG33k]

This sounds very familiar - http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/11/26/206252/china-to-cancel-college-majors-that-dont-pay

And a link within http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/19/smart-young-and-broke.html

"Guo and an estimated million others like him represent an unprecedented and troublesome development in China: a fast-growing white-collar underclass. Since the ’90s, Chinese universities have doubled their admissions, far outpacing the job market for college grads. This year China’s universities and tech institutes churned out roughly 6.3 million graduates. Many grew up in impoverished rural towns and villages and attended second- or third-tier schools in the provinces, trusting that studying hard would bring them better lives than their parents had. But when they move on and apply for jobs in Beijing or Shanghai or any of China’s other booming metropolises, they get a nasty shock."

So, this Hungarian man this article is about probably belonged to the same class, unemployed with a specialized degree.

Europe and the US have had this situation for thirty years, but for China it must be some shocking news. How many Chinese cyber-crimes more do we (or Chinese hotels) want? We have enough of the Hungarians.

Re:Hungary = China?

[ghjm]

So what do you want to do about it? Deny them access to education so they don't get so uppity?

Re:Hungary = China?

[Yev000]

The problem in EU is completely the opposite, people get general degrees like "Business Studies" or "Computer Sciences" and a sense of entitlement. Then they usually make the classic mistake of behaving like a student after leaving university (i.e. bumming around and living of their parents) while pretending to look for a job and claiming job-seekers allowance.

The big issue is that there are not enough plumbers, electricians and builders. No one wants to do that work any more. Also hardly anyone getting a degree in engineering (all the work is going to India where they are mass producing engineers). All the while the locals are winging that the work is outsourced.

So China has the right idea, I wish they would do something like that here, of course for that politicians will have to grow a backbone first.

Back on topic, we dont know what past this guy had. Maybe he needed to get away from someone else he hacked into back in Hungary....

Re:Hungary = China?

[rtb61]

Wakey, wakey. Do you know what 100 IQ represents it is the average half of the population above and half of the population below. There are plenty of people that want to learn trades. The problem in the construction industry is boom and bust, and sub-contractors attempting to employ apprentices through those periods. Of course the more tradesmen the lower the wage, so why would tradesman train apprentices.

The big trainer of apprentices used to be government but then privatisation and contracting and sub-contracting everything out took over.

So plenty of people want to do it but the opportunities are no longer there. The really smart way to work out of that problem is to make the base military unit combat engineers (scrap useless infantry and marine units) who also pick up a trade as part of their training. You then also use them for all federal and state infrastructure projects, their wages are already paid and you only need to pay for materials. You also eliminate a lot of opportunities for major contracting fraud.

Re:Hungary = China?

[Yev000]

What you are describing there is people wanting to learn while getting paid. Sure that would be great, but I think we need to wait till the next boom for that to return. Its not an IQ issue its a work ethic issue that is made worse by a sense of entitlement instilled early in the free education system we have here.

I don't agree with your opportunities assessment however. Somehow, people who come here from other countries manage to find these mystical non-existent opportunities all the time... It's not the land of milk and honey, but it sure as hell is better job wise than 80% of the rest of the world (talking EU here).

Re:Hungary = China?

[rtb61]

The only people with entitlement issues are the rich and greedy. Those ass hats think they entitled to rewrite laws so they will own everything and turn the rest of us into slaves they can exploit. So most certainly a false sense of entitlement needs to be extinguished but it's at the other end, it's the rich corrupt psychopathic sense of entitlement that needs to end.

Re:2nd time an FBI article go "Varnish cache serve

[the linux geek]

It's been happening all over Slashdot, not just on FBI-related articles. The Slashdot administrators need a more reliable server. You need a qualified mental health professional.

Eastern Europeans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eastern Europeans are the cancer killing Europe, and, as we can see, the rest of the civilized world. We should just nuke the whole fucking region already and be done with it.

Re:Eastern Europeans...

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss the time when trolls were creative... or tried even...

Re:Eastern Europeans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you count Greece as part of East Europe? If so, I agree with you.

Smart?

[Jager Dave]

Smart enough to hack into an international company's network, but not smart enough to realize that an extortion attempt wouldn't have someone getting him arrested. Where is Darwin when we need him? :|

Re:Smart?

[SomePgmr]

Too many American movies.

"Brilliant uberhacker kid hijacked our cyberframes! Let's buy him a ridiculous house on the ocean and get him on our side."

In reality... PMITA prison.

Re:Smart?

[sourcerror]

Hey, it worked for Kevin Mitnick ... after he got out of prison.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he thinks hacking is one of the important computer skills these companies are desperately looking for.

Re:2nd time an FBI article go "Varnish cache serve

[Anonymous Coward]

Chill, this person has already started guru meditation which seems as good a therapy as any.

Dumbass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have had a dead-man's switch somewhere. If nothing else, someone back in Hungary who publishes the info if anything bad happens to him.

What can I say... he pretty much deserves what he got.

Re:Dumbass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised if he does, but it doesn't help him much. If the data gets released his prison sentence just goes from bad to worse... and they're holding him somewhere uncomfortable to convince him he doesn't want more time than he's already looking at.

They just aren't going to let him go on his word that he'll never release it.

Re:Dumbass...

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't really get much worse than it already is. He's screwed. Marriott, on the other hand, might still stand to lose significantly.

Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Required Snark]

So a guy tries to extort a jov from a big corporation and gets busted. Meanwhile, corporate extortion is alive and well.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-25/business/chi-state-lawmakers-poised-to-act-on-tax-breaks-for-sears-cme-20111125_1_income-tax-tax-credit-cme-group

CME Group, parent of the Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange, has threatened to leave the state in protest of a temporary increase to the state's corporate income tax rate. The proposal would tax income from just 27.54 percent of electronic transactions on local exchanges, costing the state an estimated $100 million a year.

Sears, for its part, would see a renewal of a special taxing district in Hoffman Estates. This would allow Sears to continue to get a break on local property taxes, although at a lower level. Under the deal, the retailer also would also receive a state incentive package to retain jobs here. That would to include tax credits worth $15 million a year for 10 years, another $150 million in potential tax breaks.

So we know that the Hungarian guy was trying to use what he perceived as his individual power to force Marriott to give him a job. Now we see two large Illinois companies use their real power to skip out on their corporate responsibility to support the state. They consume a lot of state resources, and they use their political influence to be parasites and free loaders. Since they got away with it this time, what's to stop them from deciding that they are going to pay no taxes in the coming years, like GE did last year?

All I see is the rich and powerful get away with de-facto extortion, and the individual getting nailed for trying to extort. One set of laws for the rich, another set for the poor.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[jklovanc]

The Corporate threat was to move to a state with a lower tax rate. That is not extortion. It is giving a state a chance to match an offer made by another state. People do it all the time when they buy things and companies advertise that they will match advertised prices. If all other states had a higher tax rate Sears would not be talking about moving.

That is very different than saying they will release confidential information.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Solandri]

So a guy tries to extort a jov from a big corporation and gets busted. Meanwhile, corporate extortion is alive and well.

If you cannot see the difference between these two, then you are suffering from an entitlement mentality. He is not entitled to a job at Marriott. Illinois is not entitled to have any company (or person) stay within their borders. If he does something to coerce Marriott to give him a job which they don't want to give him, that is fraud. If Illinois does something to coerce the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to stay in the state when they want to leave, that is fraud.

If he were already employed by Marriott and decided to quit, then there is nothing wrong with that. Likewise, if the Chicago Mercantile decides to quit residing in Illinois, there is nothing wrong with that.

Now we see two large Illinois companies use their real power to skip out on their corporate responsibility to support the state. They consume a lot of state resources, and they use their political influence to be parasites and free loaders.

Ever hear of the phrase "No taxation without representation"? It was one of the battle cries of the colonists during the U.S. Revolutionary War. Britain taxed them, but didn't give them representation in government (they didn't get a vote), so they had no say in how those taxes were spent. They felt that was fundamentally unjust, and was something worth fighting and dying for to correct.

Since you're ok with taxing corporations, and in fact see it as their responsibility to help support the state, then surely you must agree that corporations should have representation in government? No? Why not? You agree it's wrong to tax people while denying them representation, right? Our founding fathers were justified in their rebellion, right? But somehow some people have arrived at the belief that corporations should not be considered persons, and should not have any say in government, yet they should be taxed. If that's your belief, then it sounds more like it's government which is the parasite freeloading off of corporations.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[macraig]

And thus it has always been. Everyone knows the cliches "to the victor goes the spoils" and "victors write the history books", but there's another unspoken corollary: "victors write the laws", and also get to choose when and against whom they are actually enforced.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[macraig]

Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?

Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't even remotely the same. A company can leave any time. They can close down any time they want. They are providing stuff of their own free will, it's not like they have to do anything.

And there the state increased the income tax first. Since one plans the operations of a company for the next four years in advance and then operates within the plan, one gets kinda pissed when some third party having nothing to do with the market suddenly moves the goal posts and then assumes everyone of the people actually providing value just to stay put and take the beating, losing money for no good reason when they could just move on.

I think even telling them that one doesn't like it is a courtesy, they could just have left without giving any notice (which is how it is usually done).

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[poena.dare]

"To the victors go the spoils; to the losers go the Scovilles?"

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[BasilBrush]

But somehow some people have arrived at the belief that corporations should not be considered persons

Is a company a human being? Not it is not. Some insane tax related legislation in the USA might suggest it is. If so, it's wrong.

A company's owners and employees are human beings. But not the company itself.

If you can find a distinction between a human being and a person, other than in legislation which has been lobbied for by business I'd like to see it.

What we have here is law consciously not representing reality, for rich people's benefit.

and should not have any say in government, yet they should be taxed

There is absolutely no reason why a company should not be taxed. It's entirely unrelated to the silly idea that it's a human being.

parasite freeloading off of corporations.

There's nothing stopping corporations conducting their business in international waters, without any government interference or taxation. Hard to see how they make any money though.

There's nothing stopping corporations conducting their business in Somalia, without any government interference or taxation. Hard to see how they make any money though. And hard to see how the owners and employees based there would stay alive long.

Companies rely on the infrastructure, environment and legal structure that governments put there. That's the reason it's OK to tax them.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[gnasher719]

Is a company a human being? Not it is not. Some insane tax related legislation in the USA might suggest it is. If so, it's wrong.

Also remember: One person, one vote. So even if companies counted as human beings, it would be one vote for Microsoft, one for Apple, one for IBM, one for GE, one for the first janitor working at Microsoft, one for the janitor's wife, one for the janitor's eldest son, one for the janitor's eldest daughter, one for his mom, one for his dad, four for the grandparents...

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[DaveV1.0]

Corporations are considered legal entities and have their own interests which are guaranteed to be against the interests of at least some if not all of their employees interests. Corporations are not unions and do not represent the interests of their employees or board of directors.
 
It is a shame you didn't do as good a job of "mis-framing" in your shift from whether this is extortion to political representation.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[ArsenneLupin]

Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?

Well, to be fair, those people also pay twice the tax: first, individually as people, then collectively as a corporation. So this argument wouldn't really work...

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[ArsenneLupin]

There's nothing stopping corporations conducting their business in international waters, without any government interference or taxation. Hard to see how they make any money though.

Don't worry. The pirate party will see that even these corporations will be taxed...

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[ironjaw33]

Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?

Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?

In some cases, I'd say it's a lot more than twice the representation.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[macraig]

It's a shame you didn't do a better job of discrediting my argument. You actually supported it, apparently without even realizing it, in your zeal to concoct *something* to ease the unidentified anxiety you felt after reading my post.

In terms of my argument, it doesn't even matter if there are members of a corporate tribe whose interests don't all align perfectly with those of the corporation as a whole. In terms of the argument, it's simply not necessary that ALL elements of the set benefit equally or at all from the potential double representation; what matters is that SOME elements of the set do in fact benefit, and benefit handsomely, from having their interests effectively represented twice in Congress: once as wealthy influential individuals and again as decision-makers of a corporation. Who decides what the interests of the corporate tribe are going to be? Those are the people at issue in my argument: those decision-makers are the ones who especially shouldn't be given double representation, because they are the ones who benefit most from it. As usual, the corporation's other employees are effectively pawns, pawns to legitimize the double representation by virtue of their employment creating the entity that generates the extra representation for the corporation's principals.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[macraig]

No, "they" - the principals of the corporate tribe - don't pay twice the tax, because the whole point of the corporation is to shield them from liability and sequester some of their assets. It's absolutely fair to tax BOTH what those principals take home as personal gains as well as what they sequester in the corporation itself. The corporation exists for their benefit specifically. The same material wealth isn't taxed twice.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

And how expensive would it be to start up Microsofts 1 through 10,000?

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not that bright are you? And in your family, you all pay tax individually and then in a group. And so in your city. Everyone taxes their earnings and so do corporations.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the US it's one person, one vote. If you go to wal-mart and buy a bunch of stuff that's subject to sales tax you don't get another ballot. Frankly, I would suspect a person who linked voting rights to taxpaying to be some kind of retard or at least lacking in basic education.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[MarkvW]

The Corporate threat was to move to a state with a lower tax rate. That is not extortion. It is giving a state a chance to match an offer made by another state. People do it all the time when they buy things and companies advertise that they will match advertised prices. If all other states had a higher tax rate Sears would not be talking about moving.

That is very different than saying they will release confidential information.

But why do we permit our corporations to get our states to bid against each other? Why do we permit our corporations to get other countries to bid against the United States?

The only reason for allowing corporations in the first place is "the public benefit." Is it in the public benefit to allow corporations to pit us against ourselves?

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[anagama]

Innacurate. Each person has one vote for two major party candidates hand selected by the corrupt coorporate owned GOP or Democratic parties, neither of which represent any real difference in actual policies despite their theatrical rhetoric. The coorporations are then free to buy influence, i.e., legally bribe, legislation in their favor because the regular voters are incapable of individually coming up with millions of dollars each politician charges.

While the "one person one vote" notion is completely true, it is also totally deceptive. We get to pick between Candidate Ebola or Candidate Anthrax, both of whom are 100% owned by lobbyist money and will gladly do everything in their power to rape the voters who put them in office while aiding and shielding the only entities that matter (even if they can't actually vote): those with millions upon millions to spend in the legislative market we call Congress.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Confusador]

Corporations are not unions and do not represent the interests of their employees or board of directors.

Corporations represent the interests of their owners, who are already represented. Arguably, campaign contributions mean that they are already disproportionately represented.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[bloodhawk]

Freedom for all means some people or companies will do things you don't like. There are plenty of countries that would restrict such company Action, though I doubt you would enjoy living there either.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Solandri]

Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?

So then tax the people who work for said corporation, instead of taxing the corporation. Oh wait, we already tax the people working at corporations, so by your reasoning they are being double-taxed.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

however, corporations are not CITIZENS

ball is back in your court loser

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[jklovanc]

The only reason for allowing corporations in the first place is "the public benefit." Is it in the public benefit to allow corporations to pit us against ourselves?

Where do you get this "fact"? A main reason for corporations is to protect the people who work for corporations from personal liability for corporate acts; LLC stand for Limited Liability Corporation.

Perhaps you should look up what a corporation is before commenting. Here is a start; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Kjella]

But why do we permit our corporations to get our states to bid against each other? Why do we permit our corporations to get other countries to bid against the United States? The only reason for allowing corporations in the first place is "the public benefit." Is it in the public benefit to allow corporations to pit us against ourselves?

You're heading into an area that is almost as much economic philosophy as empirical evidence. The US philosophy is that it is ultimately to the public benefit if everything is produced as cheaply as possible. If you can lower wages and sell cheaper products or services, that's to the public benefit even though the workers earn less. Competition is supposed to make sure the savings are passed on to the consumers. If workers unionize and retain more of the earnings, they're killing the competitiveness and ultimately working against the public benefit. The same logic is extended to the states, they should compete to provide the services the business needs for the least possible tax burden. If they were to retain more of the corporation's earning in taxes and use them for public services, they're killing the competitiveness and ultimately working against the public benefit.

Outside the US, most think this would only lead to a class with slave labor wages and benefits only for those that can afford it. That it is actually more to the public benefit if workers get a higher share of the profits and can afford to have a higher standard of living as well as contributing more to the economy as consumers. It is far more likely that workers will spend most of their money in the local economy than foreign owners and other investors. That it is more effective to have more taxes and provide public services that the free market is ill suited to deliver, or would lead to extreme degrees of lock-in. That having an educated, healthy workforce, good public infrastructure and transportation, high degree of social security and low crime - those go together - and so on is worth the tax burden.

Are any of these 100% right? Of course not. You can have taxes and unions that choke the business. On the other hand even the US has figured out you need worker safety laws, environmental protection, minimum wage laws and so on. It's kinda hard to sell sweatshops as the ideal public benefit. Working should be a win-win between the employer and the employee, neither side should let itself get exploited. And I'd say it's much easier for the employer to exploit the employee, but in the US is seems they find the cure - unions - worse than the disease. Yet that's the reason your CEO earns 1000x as much as you, they have money but your bargaining isn't effective. Divide and conquer, except they didn't need to do the "divide" part because it was every worker ant for himself already.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair, those people also pay twice the tax: first, individually as people, then collectively as a corporation. So this argument wouldn't really work...

Except much of the business corporations engage in is not related to that which employees engage in. Corporations buy, sell, and invest on their own behalf. A corporation does not pay an employee to buy a stapler for her desk.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[macraig]

You don't understand the real purpose of a corporation, do you? It's not PEOPLE who are being taxed, it's the MONEY, the "gains", and the same gains are not taxed twice. What the principals take out is taxed, AND what they sequester (hide) in the corporation is also taxed. Not taxing both would be like taxing only half of their true material gains.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

why should those people receive twice the representation

Well gee.. it might have something to do with the fact that the individuals who make up corporations are being taxed twice. So, twice the tax operations.. twice the representation.

Which is why I think corporations should not be taxed at all. Ever. In any way. Tax real, actual people. Then they will explicitly feel the burden of the government they demand, and we can be completely justified in cutting out any and all corporate involvement in politics. Not that either of those outcomes will actually happen.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[macraig]

Already asked and answered... and debunked.

Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion

[DaveV1.0]

Actually, no they don't. They represent the corporation's interests, which is profit. That is not necessarily the same interests of the owners, which is generally higher share price and dividends, but may also include environmental or social concerns.

It shocks me

[WiiVault]

that a person can be smart enough to commit a crime like this, but stupid enough to come to the very country where he can be held liable. Just goes to show that humans can have, and by the same token lack in many different types of intelligence.

Re:It shocks me

[MichaelSmith]

Nemeth admitted that by using malware sent via email to specific employees at Marriott, he was able install malware on Marriott’s systems, giving him “backdoor” access to Marriott company information.

Geez the guy is actually quite talented. The problem is picking your targets and your customers. Hotels aren't going to give a stuff about their "internal documents" bur actresses with home made porn on their systems will, as will a few large corporations. He should have gone solo and kept his head down.

Re:It shocks me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, this guy may be smart, but not wise. He should have sold the gained info to Mariott's competitors. Staying at safe distance.
If this info was worthless, Mariott had no incentive either. The federal ass-pounding-prison serves him right.

Re:It shocks me

[DaveV1.0]

I don't see why this should surprise you. This is the general cracker/extortionist mentality at work. It is the "I can get away with anything because the law shouldn't apply to me" mentality that is so often on display here on slashdot, especially when it comes to things like copyright, privacy, and access. It is the hypocrisy of the mindset that allows things like this to happen. "I will break the law and threaten them and then they will bow down before my genius, give me a job while forgiving my transgressions, and not prosecute me because I will be too valuable to them."

Re:It shocks me

[fran6gagne]

While it can be shocking that this guy was stupid enough to believe he was getting what he asked, something else in this story shocks me more.

So an idiot hacker get into the Marriot system and try to extort them a job. In response, the Mariott instead of fixing their system and telling this guy from the other side of the ocean to go fuck himself, involve the USA secret services. Then the secret service lure this guy with a paid plane ticket and a double agent and pick the guy at the airport to prosecute him. This guy will have the right to a fair trial and because he certainly don't have money to hire a lawyer (since he was trying to extort a job), he will have a paid lawyer from the state. The guy will be judged guilty and he will end up in jail for some time, before being send back in Hungary with another state paid ticket. I guess it add up to a pretty large bill.

What it is shocking is how USA like to waste tax payers money on their idiotic security theatre show. You should be shocked to have to pay this bill with your taxes.

discount items

[infashion2011]

find many discount items online http://www.enjoycheap.com/

Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, sensitive information relating to Marriott International was release from a computer in Hungary about 24 hours later...

In still other news, the NSA just hired a Hungarian computer hacker.

dead-hand trigger

[SharpFang]

Now just avaiting dead-hand trigger software to release said spicy details into the wild.

Re: dead-hand trigger

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Lord Jones! Look how little toilet paper Marriott keeps in their warehouses. Think of the benefits we could realize if we could reduce *our* toilet paper stocks. Jones, we've got to get our hands on their ass wipeage prediction algorithm package. Get our best hackers to contact this chap and see how much he's offering the package for.

Re: dead-hand trigger

[DerekLyons]

Most corporate propriety information is only 'spicy' to accountants, lawyers, and actuaries.

Re: dead-hand trigger

[Anonymous Coward]

The person went to America. He is too dumb to have added such a code segment.

Re: dead-hand trigger

[SharpFang]

I wouldn't be too surprised if they kept a record of selected security tapes with most notable guests in most embarassing situations.

Re: dead-hand trigger

[DerekLyons]

Well, I would if they were *officially* kept... :) But that's also why I said 'most'. :) ;)

Trust

[jklovanc]

I can see the HR person now;
"So, by hacking us and threatening to divulge confidential information you have shown that you are not trust worthy. You expect us to hire someone we can not trust to be on out premises and roam freely in secure areas? Get real."

Just goes to show

[DrXym]

You can be smart and yet incredibly dumb.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

Either he wanted into jail, or then he is a crappy hacker.

Also it may be that TFA doesn't tell everything.

Re:Just goes to show

[Hentes]

Sad thing is, to hack most systems you don't have to be very smart.

Re:2nd time an FBI article go "Varnish cache serve

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I got it on the main page earlier, before this story was posted. Paranoid much?

There are no labour camps in Hungary

[caius112]

In Hungary, they send their unemployed to hard labor camps to get any government assist.

I believe the proposed legislation says that after six months of being on unemployment benefit, you must do 4 hours of public service a day to continue to receive said benefit. Hungary is a member of the European Union, there are no forced labour camps or any such Stalinist nonsense (which doesn't mean there isn't massive corruption etc., but that's another issue). Next time please inform yourself before posting idiotic shit.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat, i.e. if you want to live. You won't be shot or beaten for not working - you'll just be left to die - but the outcome is the same. It's healthy to see that you have Stalin as a yardstick for what counts as going too far, right? And even in the gulag, reduction of rations or transfer were often the punishments given to those who refused to work. No transport costs, either.

Europe is gradually introducing an underclass in each state by turning jobseekers' allowances into a pay well below minimum wage in exchange for doing government work or work for private companies which have the government's favour. This underclass replaces labourers which used to be, well, paid a regular wage for what is regular work. The UK, for example, has recently begun Work Programme, and was last week planning to add to this a scheme whereby the government pays a proportion of certain employees' wages for a fixed amount of time so employers don't have to. It's all about special interests keeping a cheap fund of desperate workers.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed; and the new upcoming laws will make it much more harsher. If you refuse the given job (which may be some pure shit, especially if a mental or phisical illness is not taken into account) then all your unemployment benefits will be revoked.

My mother, who has 12 iron spikes in her spine and can hardly walk is living in fear for losing her little disability pension, which she indeed may loose, since it took ten years to acknowledge them by the authorities.

Yes, an American prison IS an option.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[sourcerror]

"It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat, i.e. if you want to live. You won't be shot or beaten for not working - you'll just be left to die - but the outcome is the same."

It's nice to see that you know so much about the system that hasn't even put into law.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[syousef]

"It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat, i.e. if you want to live. You won't be shot or beaten for not working - you'll just be left to die - but the outcome is the same."

It's nice to see that you know so much about the system that hasn't even put into law.

I don't know the details so have no idea if this guy is being paranoid or his issues are justified, but regardless I propose that we do NOT wait until it's law to object if there's an injustice.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[kanto]

It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat, i.e. if you want to live. You won't be shot or beaten for not working - you'll just be left to die - but the outcome is the same. It's healthy to see that you have Stalin as a yardstick for what counts as going too far, right? And even in the gulag, reduction of rations or transfer were often the punishments given to those who refused to work. No transport costs, either.

Europe is gradually introducing an underclass in each state by turning jobseekers' allowances into a pay well below minimum wage in exchange for doing government work or work for private companies which have the government's favour. This underclass replaces labourers which used to be, well, paid a regular wage for what is regular work. The UK, for example, has recently begun Work Programme, and was last week planning to add to this a scheme whereby the government pays a proportion of certain employees' wages for a fixed amount of time so employers don't have to. It's all about special interests keeping a cheap fund of desperate workers.

I am with you in that there are serious issues with the private sector getting the benefits of these programs or free labor competing with legitimate companies, but at the same time there are other issues to think about.

For one, the job of the unemployed is to find work; probably in most countries you will lose unemployment benefits if you refuse any work and isn't that the same thing as what you so casually deem a "hard labour camp". Of course in most cases this doesn't mean you're "dead" because there are often other welfare programs paying/giving you the minimum you need.

Having legions of unemployed doing absolutely nothing is the biggest waste of all since it's adding to the class of "terminally unemployed" who'll never be able to fully take part in society and earn wages of any sort. Seems like something has to be done, if for no other reason than to give the people a wakeup call.

p.s. I don't think your Stalin yardstick comment is representative of the original use.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[owlstead]

I think the fallacy here is that people want to stay unemployed. I don't think they want to. Its just that they are not brought up to build their own private enterprises (a risky venture indeed - without a really good plan you will fail). After some time trying to get a job (failure after failure) you will get into a situation where you keep with the status quo. This is a very human thing to do, any healthy human will look for stability in his life. Add to that the current market where oodles of people are unemployed and yes, you will have oodles of people - especially long term unemployed - staying at home.

Personally, doing community service for the government is a good thing, and I think it is healthy thing to do (especially if given a job in the morning only), and does not replace other payed jobs. Private enterprises however should stay the hell out, because you will have "slave labour" in a short time. You cannot trust the private companies to do or stay good all the time. Even then, you will have to keep a good eye on the people in charge, because if there is power involved (especially if it is "follow instructions or loose all benefits") it will be abused in no time whatsoever.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

For one, the job of the unemployed is to find work; probably in most countries you will lose unemployment benefits if you refuse any work and isn't that the same thing as what you so casually deem a "hard labour camp".

Most countries don't require you to take up the first above-board job you can find - certainly not initially. They also provide protections against various forms of maltreatment in employment. The new Work Programmes are not regarded as employment and do not come with the same protections.

Also, yes, the unemployed are today required to look for work to receive jobseeker allowances (this has always struck me as inefficient - whatever happened to proper government-supported labour exchanges?). But this itself isn't exploitative as there is no labour being extracted. The underlying problem with labour camps is that they are regarded as a highly profitable alternative to properly treating your fellow man. Once they have become acceptable it requires a sweeping philosophical change to halt their expansion.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[owlstead]

Of course there are similarities between "hard labour camps" and any scheme for the unemployed. But there are equally as many differences, and the monstrosities performed in the former makes any discussion moot. That's why bringing up WWII and the holocaust is considered harmful to discussions. It is not to deny that they have happened, it is because it makes a structured discussion about the actual subject impossible.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[sourcerror]

My take on the issue is that the problem is the sub-minimal wage allowance, nothing else. There's a rampant fraud going on in the Hungarian social system, where we have 800k people taking disabled pension, people being on unemployment benefits while taking black market jobs etc.

Also, the current government has the habit of publicizing half baked proposals, and even making the party infighting public. (See the educational laws, where Zoltán Pokorni objected against the proposals, and the law still haven't gone through although the propsals being public for 6 months).

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

What you say about private enterprise is absolutely true, and your proposal is much better than Britain's where private enterprise is already dismissing "proper" employees so it can take on free labour. But shouldn't the government pay a fair wage for labour too?

Yes, prioritise the long term unemployed by offering them (part time - so as many people can be involved as possible) community service positions first. Yes, support their training. But then pay them as you would pay any other man or woman with a job.

Volunteer work is volunteer. Labour which you have to provide in order to receive some money is paid work, however the government tries to handwave it. If it were genuine compulsory community service - in the style e.g. of Spain's former alternative to the Mili - then it would be required of every able-bodied citizen, not just those receiving certain allowances.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

Of course there are similarities between A and B. But there are equally as many differences, and emotionally charged descriptor of outcome for A makes any discussion moot.

Concentrate on the similarities of philosophy. Egregiously inhumane outcomes are consequences, not causes.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Anonymous Coward]

especially if a mental or phisical illness is not taken into account) then all your unemployment benefits will be revoked.

In case of mental or physical illness there are other benefits that should cover your basic needs (at least in an ideal world, current reality is a bit different, but then we should work at that). Unemployment benefits should apply to those that are capable of doing work but are for whatever reason temporarily without. A gradual reduction of the benefit and requiring some form of community service to be performed to retain full benefits help make sure that people don't just live off the benefits while they would be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves if they actively pursued a new job.

On the other hand the "community service" can also easily turn into an industry of its own. Leading to work that could have created jobs in the private sector is now done by uncompetitively cheap subsidized workers.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[sourcerror]

"I think the fallacy here is that people want to stay unemployed. I don't think they want to."

Even before the financial crisis there were a lot of people working in the black market* and drawing unemployed benefits as well/getting disabled pension. Of course the financial crisis made things worse, as there are quite a few people legitimately using the unemployment benefits, however it's hard to tell them apart.

* moslty due to the employer, who wants to cheat taxes, and shares some of the saved money with the employee

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[luis_a_espinal]

It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat

Egad!!! What a horrible concept!!! &lt/sarcasm>

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

The 1930s were... well, I'll leave your state-provided education to calculate.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[owlstead]

The current governments cannot afford fair wages instead of benefits unfortunately. Social benefits, especially in Europe, is a huge factor in financing a country, second after keeping the financial industry alive. Besides, in that case you would go to a true soviet kind of handling things.

The way to handle unemployed, in my opinion, is to have them working on something that is usefull, but out of reach of the current budget. And there are oodles of things that can be done. Creating nicer neighbourhoods, creating new parks/forests, helping the elderly (supervised and voluntarily of course), helping with open source products, etc. etc. etc. If these were created as "proper" jobs, then you would end up with a communist kind of workforce, which is *not* a good thing.

Of course, training people should be top priority first. But training is not the same thing as doing something you can directly see the benefits of.

IMHO these kind of things don't always have to be voluntary. As I said before, people are most of the time against change. Sometimes you have to help people do something that goes against their wishes in the first place, even though it is, ultimately, for their own benefit. The trick is to keep some flexibility so that e.g. people can change their work environment afterwards. Otherwise the persons involved will feel oppressed, and that's not going to help in the long run.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[owlstead]

As far as I know, the larger percentage of people that receive benefits are not creating a substantial amount of money through black market jobs. This goes for almost any country. There is just one single thing worse than attacking the black market economy: to criminalize or punish the persons that receive a benefit because they are eligible for it. Even then, many of the people that do work in the black market do so because they see no other way out.

As you (possibly) implied, the way to attack the black market is to punish the employers, not the employees - even if just for practical reasons.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

The current governments cannot afford fair wages instead of benefits unfortunately.

Governments claim lots of things. The problem is not a lack of money (one man's debt is another man's credit) but that money is increasingly being channeled towards special interests in every sector.

Social benefits, especially in Europe, is a huge factor in financing a country, second after keeping the financial industry alive.

Welfare in the sense of unemployment, disability and child allowances (excluding education) make up about 16% of the UK budget - and that's factoring in the huge inefficiencies made by contracting work out to state-capitalist organisations such as ATOS.

The way to handle unemployed, in my opinion, is to have them working on something that is usefull, but out of reach of the current budget. And there are oodles of things that can be done. Creating nicer neighbourhoods, creating new parks/forests, helping the elderly (supervised and voluntarily of course), helping with open source products, etc. etc. etc.

Do they have to look for work 8 hours a day as well, or are you suggesting that the government take back the responsibility for helping people find jobs (public or private sector)?

Paid workers and genuine volunteers already do the above things. If society cannot find enough volunteers but wants certain work to be done then it can cough up the money to pay people to do it. Again, there is not a lack of money, there is just ever-growing inequality. Put bluntly: the rich can pay higher taxes to pay the unemployed to make their community better. If we can force the poor to be "volunteers" then we can force the rich to be "philanthropists", right?

you would end up with a communist kind of workforce, which is *not* a good thing.

What's good is what alleviates the suffering of the people in the short and long term. If your definition of "communist" (which I guess isn't the same as mine) applies then who cares?

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Anonymous Coward]

You are really a stupid fucking troll. Go away with your nazi-comparisons, especially now that others pointed out that you are talking out of your ass about regulations which are only proposed and not even finalized proposals.

Troll elsewhere.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes - because if you're working in an illegal job, the very first thing you should do is put up a big flag asking the local government and social services to investigate you and see if you are worthy of benefits...

I think you will find only a very few, short-lived criminal careers where that is the case.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[makomk]

In the UK, they're actually getting people to do what would normally be minimum wage work at supermarkets and the like in order to get welfare payments. Then when more minimum-wage workers get laid off from those supermarkets, they have to work for no wage and receive sub-minimum-wage welfare payments that the Government pays for instead. It's nuts but very profitable for the supermarkets. (Oh, and at least some of those workers have to pay out of their own pockets for uniforms!)

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[bradley13]

"It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat

And this is bad...how?

I remember an interview with an African politician, who came to the UK to see how the social system worked. After touring the neighborhoods of welfare housing, filled with people living off of welfare checks, his observation what that this was a totally dehumanizing experience. The people he saw had no purpose to their lives, no one needed anything they produced, and in fact they produced nothing at all.

If society is going to give you money, why should you not be required to do something for it? If you sweep a sidewalk, remove graffiti, or something, you are contributing to your society. Additionally, this keeps the person in the habit of working - of getting up in the morning, leaving the house, and doing something.

If you are able-bodied, and cannot be bothered to do even a few hours of useful work for your society, then just why should your society be bothered to provide anything to you?

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[The Askylist]

Are you Ed Balls in disguise? You certainly talk the talk...

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[JAlexoi]

It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat

And the alternative being not getting any unemployment benefits after a set amount of time. I don't know of any country that pays unemployment benefits indefinitely. So, having an option to do 4 hours of public service works p/d for unemployment benefits vs not having any other option - is not in any way a hard labour camp...

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Slashdot Assistant]

If society is going to give you money, why should you not be required to do something for it? If you sweep a sidewalk, remove graffiti, or something, you are contributing to your society. Additionally, this keeps the person in the habit of working - of getting up in the morning, leaving the house, and doing something.

Keeping habits is a pretty key point there. Whether it's college courses or work, it's preferable to allowing people to slip in to the demographic that has been so long out of the workforce (or never been in it to begin with) that they become unemployable. A friend was headed this way, adopting a nocturnal existence and being content to live on welfare. He thankfully picked-up college and got back in to regular routines. The work should not be intentionally demeaning - this isn't a chain gang. The intention here must be to help people back in to employment. Of course some work may be seen as demeaning, but who hasn't worked a shitty job at some point for the sake of having a job?

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[JAlexoi]

+10000000
If you don't contribute anything valuable to your society - then don't expect anything out of your society. (With the exception of people who are biologically disadvantaged)

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hentes]

You have a very twisted definition of what "work camp" means. This is not slave labor, noone forces anyone to work, they are free to refuse it. That they are required to work if they want money? Let me tell you something: all jobs work that way. Noone is going to give you free money for sitting on your ass and doing nothing. The goal of unemployment benefits is to help a person find a job. So why should people get it when the government finds them one but they refuse to work? The fact is, many of the longterm unemployed either don't want a job or have an illegal one while still collecting the money. This is by the way the main reason there are so few unemployed actually turning up to work, that they already have a job just not legally.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

The trick here is that everyone is "biologically disadvantaged" in some way - intelligence isn't something you can develop much beyond early childhood.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

I remember an interview with an African politician, who came to the UK to see how the social system worked. After touring the neighborhoods of welfare housing, filled with people living off of welfare checks, his observation what that this was a totally dehumanizing experience.

Taking allowances isn't compulsory. Every man has the choice to pretend that he lives in a less advanced country and just beg on the streets or take dangerous, unregulated work. (For the flamebait moderation: "Like people have to do in much of Africa.")

The people he saw had no purpose to their lives, no one needed anything they produced, and in fact they produced nothing at all.

If you define "purpose in life" as "making profit for a business which exploits your labour" then... well... I guess I'm glad you've found your purpose in life. It certainly isn't mine. Anyway, Britain had lots of people employed actually producing stuff - in factories where workers often had a degree of control of the means of production through unions, making their labour per se meaningful to them - until society-destroying Thatcher.

If society is going to give you money, why should you not be required to do something for it?

(1) Many unemployed people today (though the demographic's not quite as skewed to older people as in the '80s) have spent more years working, participating in the community and paying taxes than you have spent alive - if anyone "owes" anything, you owe them;

(2) If you want society to protect you, should you not be required to do certain things for it?

(3) Jobseekers' allowance is paid to people so they look for and improve their prospects for work, not so they tire themselves out doing random chores.

If you sweep a sidewalk, remove graffiti, or something, you are contributing to your society.

Indeed. It's called a "job". You do the work and you get paid for it. If local governments want to prioritise placements for the long term unemployed, more power to them.

Additionally, this keeps the person in the habit of working - of getting up in the morning, leaving the house, and doing something.

Why did this Victorian notion that the unemployed are lazy layabouts suddenly come from? Whenever there's a Tory government - coincident, always, with a massive rise in unemployment - it's suddenly the fault of the worker that there are no jobs.

Yes, everyone knows one guy who seems like he can't be arsed to get up and do anything. So what? Are we going to base our whole philosophy toward individual welfare on this stereotype so beloved by recent governments?

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

This is all it comes down to: make people desperate and exploit cheap labour for profit through a unification of government and corporation. At least China's damn honest about it.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[bidule]

It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat, i.e. if you want to live. You won't be shot or beaten for not working - you'll just be left to die - but the outcome is the same.

Yes, yes. But it's much better than the "death camp" where unemployment benefits only cover 6 months. Same outcome, but at least the government does not force you to work. I believe around here it's 12 months before the "death camp".

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[sourcerror]

The issue is a bit more complicated than you assume. In Hungary there's no shame in taking government handout whenever you can: in college you can get financial assistance for coming from a poor family, however the people who benefit from this systems are mostly the kids of enterprenours, who can get very low official income through cheating on taxes. So they hurt society twice: for not paying their tax, and by getting the social benefits they don't deserve.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[misexistentialist]

Due to increased productivity per hour there are lot of people that aren't needed by society. They either need to be left to rot on welfare or be exterminated because reducing government and corporate profits by shortening the workweek is unthinkable.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) In which Western country are all forms of support withdrawn after 6/12 months, please? Not just an enhanced jobseekers' pay but any legal means to access food;

(2) In a labour camp you are required to work in poor conditions if you want to survive, making money for some powerful group with your labour, which is like the new range of "welfare" work programmes. The chief purpose of a labour camp, as the new range of work programmes, is to extract cheap labour from desperate individuals.

But in a death camp someone kills you. The chief purpose of the death camp is to kill you, which is (probably) not the purpose of a state which happens not to have a comprehensive welfare system.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[goarilla]

I beg to differ. Intelligence is 50/50 genetic predisposition and education imho (the ratio could be off though).

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[owlstead]

The current governments cannot afford fair wages instead of benefits unfortunately.

Governments claim lots of things. The problem is not a lack of money (one man's debt is another man's credit) but that money is increasingly being channeled towards special interests in every sector.

I certainly agree with that.

Social benefits, especially in Europe, is a huge factor in financing a country, second after keeping the financial industry alive.

Welfare in the sense of unemployment, disability and child allowances (excluding education) make up about 16% of the UK budget - and that's factoring in the huge inefficiencies made by contracting work out to state-capitalist organisations such as ATOS.

Unfortunately, that's only a small part of the total spend on welfare state related expenditures. That's not wrong, of course, having a happy society, explicitly including the persons currently without a job is what it is all about. But if you would employ all the people that receive welfare, well, that's certainly going to cost money. Lots and lots of it.

The way to handle unemployed, in my opinion, is to have them working on something that is usefull, but out of reach of the current budget. And there are oodles of things that can be done. Creating nicer neighbourhoods, creating new parks/forests, helping the elderly (supervised and voluntarily of course), helping with open source products, etc. etc. etc.

Do they have to look for work 8 hours a day as well, or are you suggesting that the government take back the responsibility for helping people find jobs (public or private sector)?

Paid workers and genuine volunteers already do the above things. If society cannot find enough volunteers but wants certain work to be done then it can cough up the money to pay people to do it. Again, there is not a lack of money, there is just ever-growing inequality. Put bluntly: the rich can pay higher taxes to pay the unemployed to make their community better. If we can force the poor to be "volunteers" then we can force the rich to be "philanthropists", right?

Of course not. That's why I said "mornings", I think you should read what is implied. And I don't even say each and every morning, and I would certainly exclude job finding activities or education. Current society is very individual, unfortunately, so finding volunteers is hard, and we just cannot pay for every nice thing.

you would end up with a communist kind of workforce, which is *not* a good thing.

What's good is what alleviates the suffering of the people in the short and long term. If your definition of "communist" (which I guess isn't the same as mine) applies then who cares?

See Greece. It's certainly not their only problem, but having a (huge) trade deposit and many people employed by the government certainly does not help.

It's not that I would not like for that to happen, you might be surprised that I'm quite left wing in my beliefs (heck, I'm even member of a left-wing party). However, if there are unemployed people out there doing nothing, well, that certainly does not help anybody, including themselves. So then you end up thinking of ways in which they create a possitive contribution, without endangering the economy or the - already sliding - state budgets.

Maybe it's the part of "handle the unemployed" part that sparked your ignition, but that was certainly not intended.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who are unemployed and get benefits are actively trying to get a job. If you force someone to work then they should get a fair amount. In the UK the basic unemployment benefit is about £60 per week for a single person and the minimum wage is about £7 hour so it is not really fair to make them work more then about 8.5 hours a week. Otherwise you are getting forced labour at below the minimum wage. However a single mother with 5 kids would get a great deal more than £60 a week, should she have to contribute many more hours to make up for this extra?

You also seem to consider all people on unemployment benefit are simply taking from the system. Most people have worked all their lives and paid taxes and relied on benefits when they are out of work. Surely they haven given when they could and taken when they needed.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[mysidia]

there are no forced labour camps or any such Stalinist nonsense

Who said anything about the labour being a Stalinist style forced labour camp? The Hungarian government isn't doing anything particularly wrong here. And this is not merely "proposed legislation"; they are already implementing "you must work".

OK... It's not forced... but you can work or starve. The point is you don't get a freebie.

If you're in that situation, you might still pick jail in a country that provides more favorable / more easily abusable rules, with a free plane ticket there!

I guess the Internet is the ticket to do that; there aren't a lot of other ways for a citizen of one country to commit a crime in a different country, except through such a scam. Keeping in mind -- if the whole point is to go to jail, the crime has to be severe enough to get the person a trip + good long stay in their intended destination country, without being severe enough to incurring a penalty that will get them in trouble in their native country.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, everyone knows one guy who seems like he can't be arsed to get up and do anything. So what? Are we going to base our whole philosophy toward individual welfare on this stereotype so beloved by recent governments?

Don't know, but if they are capable and aren't contributing, I don't want to give them my money. Freeloaders suck. Dependence sucks more for the people who are dependent.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Mondor]

Nope. Many people from new EU countries, such as Latvia, Poland and Lithuania, are coming to UK to claim financial aid. They claim they were living in UK for required amount of time (although they came to UK the same day they had interview). No forced labor.

Besides, if you are IT specialist, you shall not fear forced labor - it's easier to find job normal way. I think the hero of the article just dumb.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Kjella]

(3) Jobseekers' allowance is paid to people so they look for and improve their prospects for work, not so they tire themselves out doing random chores.

I checked my city's stats and there's roughly 20-30 jobs posted a day. Of those I'd say most people will be unqualified for 90% of those because they require you to be a specific kind of engineer or nurse or lawyer or doctor or some other education or experience you can't just jump into. Getting interviews in other cities on their cost is unlikely and your allowance is mostly not generous enough to go at your own cost. Particularly if you're the kind to fall under this program, which is typically "dime a dozen" people they can find locally. So you prepare your 2-3 applications, if you already have a well written CV and has applied to some similar jobs already this isn't really much work. The less skill required for the job the more applicants, so suddenly there's 100 people applying and maybe 10 get called in for an interview. That's 0.2-0.3 interviews a day or 1-1.5 a week. The rest of the week is mostly waiting, unless you take some real university or other accredited education people will mostly just laugh at any "classes" or "certifications" you take and the real stuff is often expensive. Which is probably not what you want if you're unemployed and have burnt through your nest egg already, which is true for many after 6 months on unemployment benefits.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[bidule]

In a labour camp you are required to work in poor conditions if you want to survive

Tell that to the squirrels, they'd love to have that kind of welfare.

See, I can redefine the subject too!

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[tehcyder]

If you are able-bodied, and cannot be bothered to do even a few hours of useful work for your society, then just why should your society be bothered to provide anything to you?

And if you're not able-bodied why should you get a free ride? Sure it's not your fault you got shot in the spine serving with the army in Iraq, but neither is losing your job. If you can't do paying productive work why should you get anything period? In fact why should anyone get anything from the government, it's just stealing my tax money AT GUNPOINT to fund the lavish, lazy lifestyles of welfare cheats.

There are just too many goddamned liberals on slashdot these days.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[tehcyder]

I remember an interview with an African politician, who came to the UK to see how the social system worked.

I hope we laughed in his face and told him to look up the word "irony" in a dictionary.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[uninformedLuddite]

I checked my city's stats and there's roughly 20-30 jobs posted a day

I recently saw a line of hundreds of young people. I thought it was for buying tickets for a concert or something like that. It turned out to be for a prequalifying interview for a job at Hungry Jacks. These people were queueing up just to find out if they would be allow to attend a second interview for a job flipping burgers. There aren't enough jobs for the seekers.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[tehcyder]

Well those young people should instead adopt the true can-do entrepreneurial spirit and start their own burger chains.

Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary

[Hazel Bergeron]

Are you proposing that unemployed people, like squirrels, should not have to be subject to the rule of law?

Without rights granted by society there are no responsibilities to be enforced by society. And the poor can simply take all your stuff indiscriminately.

So at least

[Anonymous Coward]

he got a home and something to eat for a longer time...

bi3tch

[Anonymous Coward]

Fly...3on't fear despit3 the

Doesn't that make all jobs hard labour camps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that make all jobs hard labour camps?

Re:Doesn't that make all jobs hard labour camps?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Is a specific job immediately assigned to you with scant regards for your abilities and disabilities? Is starvation the only (legal) alternative to this job? Are worker protections not applicable for this job?

Re:Doesn't that make all jobs hard labour camps?

[stephanruby]

Is a specific job immediately assigned to you with scant regards for your abilities and disabilities? Is starvation the only (legal) alternative to this job?

I don't know about Hungary specifically, but usually disability benefits are separate from unemployment benefits. Also in some European countries, some benefits only kick-in after the person is over the age of 25, the assumption being that if you're healthy, and young with no kids, you can usually find a job and shouldn't have to depend on government benefits.

In the US, our citizens may actually get treated a lot worse, since our unemployment benefits can run out so quickly.

Also in the US, we do community service sometimes in lieu of paying traffic fines, and finding a "community service" job where you're not getting paid anything is dead easy in the US. For my last car pool fine, which was rather expensive, I asked the judge that I do community service instead, and the clerk gave me the choice to pick from a directory of thousands of non-profit organizations. And yes, I could have opted for picking up trash on the side of the road, that's an easy choice if you don't know how to do anything else, but I ended up selecting a non-profit that didn't do that type of work and I ended up doing mostly unskilled office work and data entry for them.

Are worker protections not applicable for this job?

Are you really asking us, or are you saying that worker protections are not applicable to this job? 4-hours a day of public service sounds hardly like back-breaking work to me. Don't tell me that long-term unemployed healthy people need 12 hours a day to find a job for themselves. Most likely, they'll spend one hour a day if they have self-discipline, and the rest of the time, they'll spend it on watching TV, playing computer games, or browsing the internet (at least, that's what I do on my better days when I'm in between jobs for any significant period of time). Sometimes doing volunteer work, even non-court mandated community work, can be the best thing for a long-term unemployed person because it gives that person a little bit of structure and a sense of satisfaction of doing something useful.

Re:Doesn't that make all jobs hard labour camps?

[tehcyder]

Is a specific job immediately assigned to you with scant regards for your abilities and disabilities? Is starvation the only (legal) alternative to this job? Are worker protections not applicable for this job?

I was going to post that you were going too far with the disabilities part, but the way the UK seems to be hell bent on abolishing any sort of acknowledgement of disability affecting your ability to work I'm not so sure any more.

He was fom Hungary and.....

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

Needed some f00d

Also individuals can do the same thing

[Sycraft-fu]

When you are talking small purchases, no there is usually no room for negotiation. However turns out when purchases get large, you have some power. When I was getting a new A/C for my place I solicited multiple bids. After that I took the bids I liked best in terms of what I was getting, but not in terms of price, and talked to them again. When they found out I had other bids, all of a sudden the price went down. I wasn't "extorting" anyone. I was just giving them a change to be as competitive as possible. I'm not going to pay more than I need to.

Plus let's not pretend like Sears is making out like bandits. Their business has been hurting. Currently their profit margin is slightly negative, meaning they are losing money. In a situation like that, more taxes are not such an affordable thing.

Re:Also individuals can do the same thing

[DaveV1.0]

No, there is always room for negotiation. If you try to negotiate with Walmart, you won't get anything. But, if you negotiate with Tom, owner of Tom's Toys, you might get a deal.
 
The primary reason no one, at least in the U.S., haggles is because it is no longer socially acceptable,

Re:Also individuals can do the same thing

[Daniel_Staal]

In many cases, you can actually save money even at Walmart. Most times the checkout person has the authorization to drop the price on nearly any item by 10% without supervisor approval. (To be used to placate argumentative customers.) Usually they've never been in a situation to do it, but they can...

Re:Also individuals can do the same thing

[Alex Belits]

And it is no longer socially acceptable because it was always immoral, turning trade into a game of mutual intimidation. Everyone must pay the same price for the same product.

Haggling is supposed to be acceptable when product is unusual, or it is known that the product is flawed, and a buyer for some unusual reason can accept it with such flaws.

Re:Also individuals can do the same thing

[DaveV1.0]

Well, that is false. In most of the world, haggling is not just expected, it is enjoyed by the both the customers and the proprietors.

Re:Also individuals can do the same thing

[X0563511]

I, for one, despise it. I want you to put your real price up on display. No bullshit. I give you money, you give me product. Time and energy wasted haggling could be used more productively.

I feel dumber after reading that

[sl4shd0rk]

Really don't know what else to say.

Most stupid hacker of all time?

[gweihir]

I have seen a lot of inflated egos in IT. But this cretin beats them all.

Typically the real experts do not have them though. Those with very high opinions of themselves and advertising it are usually mediocre or worse. In fact it is a pretty reliable indicator. The Dunning–Kruger effect allies very much. It both explains the number of arrogant idiots and the number of incompetent people in IT.

Trust Bust

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, by illegally downloading copyrighted content, then distributing it worldwide, then when called on it you defended the practice by stating it's all about 'bringing down the man' you've shown you can be trusted with access to our content? Get real!"

Godwin winks at you.

[luis_a_espinal]

The 1930s were... well, I'll leave your state-provided education to calculate.

Godwin's much? Different states and polities, past and present, have provided for government-sanctioned work in exchange of (or as a way to compensate for) benefits without involving inhuman, cruel ideologies. I will leave your whoever-provided-by education to verify this.

To simply take the concept of working at a state-designated job as a condition to receive unemployment benefits after a certain period of receiving them without any questions asked is it really that inhuman? That cruel? I would actually argue that this has been the very premise of humanistic, state-sponsored well-fare since the times of Hammurabi. Heck, possibly it's been one of the threads of the very fabric of society since men formed the first hunter-gathered bands eons ago.

For you to mention the rise of Nazism as a counter-argument of my previous post would seem to suggest that indeed, there is an undeniable and unavoidable link between the two. That one is a sufficient and necessary antecedent, and that the other is an inevitable consequent, or that both are of a similar (if not equal) nature.

That is one hell of a supposition, one that does not hold water. More than a supposition, it is a premeditated amalgamation of a strawman with an attempt to paint guilt by (a yet to-be demonstrated) association. Your argument is not an argument of logic or reason or one based on historical precedence. It is not an argument of morality of ethics (normative or otherwise.)

Your argument is not one extracted out of reason, the exercise of logic, or a set of ethics. Instead, your argument is built on a fallacy, one that you built yourself to carry out an argument, a line of thought that is demonstrably false despite your insane primal need to pursue it. Your argument is nothing more than a matter of rhetorical convenience and mindless ideological posturing.

Re:Godwin winks at you.

[Hazel Bergeron]

I'm going to be blunt here: you're an idiot. And not just an idiot worthy of sympathy but one who rides so far and so high on his hobby horse you knock over your audience in fits of laughter.

I mention the 1930s not because of Nazism but as the last decade before the rise of the welfare state - the last decade where men in general in the free West were "required to work there if you want to eat". And the calculation for you to perform was 2011 - 1930 > 80: your suggestion of the purpose of work is outdated and belongs long ago in a less advanced society.

I realise that history education is so fucking poor that the only two things on this site people seem to remember happened before the '80s were Hitler and the American Revolution (and/or possibly French), but please do get a grip.

Re:Godwin winks at you.

[Cylix]

I'm fairly confident that nothing you mentioned happened before the 80s. In fact, likely the world was only created in the early 80s and everything else is a fabrication.

That fits fairly well with my recollection of things.

I just hope I can find my pants later, but it's possible those didn't exist either.

Well off to the store!

Re:Godwin winks at you.

[luis_a_espinal]

I'm going to be blunt here: you're an idiot.

Because you say so, it is obviously so.

And not just an idiot worthy of sympathy

It's not like anyone is asking for your sympathy, nor that yours would mean anything. But then again, your statement is so objective, it must be true. It has to be, right, right?

but one who rides so far and so high on his hobby horse

Pot tells kettle?

you knock over your audience in fits of laughter.

How many people are laughing? How did you count them? How did you measure that statement? Ah, of course, it's a figure of speech, and a very subjective one at that. Ergo, one of very little value. But hey, if you want to build yourself into a e-frenzy believing you have said something clever, be my guest. I won't be the one busting your bubble.

I mention the 1930s not because of Nazism but as the last decade before the rise of the welfare state - the last decade where men in general in the free West were "required to work there if you want to eat".

Well, typically, in the internet realms, people tend to bring Nazi comparisons quite a lot. Since you poorly stated the meaning of your sentence (just as you had in your opening posts), one would, by default, map the poorly described chronological event of yours into what is generally known.

Now if you meant for some other event, and if you indeed wanted to illustrate your point as opposed to being a pompous ass with centipedes crawling up your ass, perhaps then you should have spelled it out.

On the other hand, perhaps you simply wanted to disparity, real or imaginary, between what *you* know and what the rest of us puerile e-plebeians know (or don't know). And at the first opportunity of finding someone (who happens to be me) who failed to recognize the true and deep wisdom of your previous, you could not resist the urge to put me in place as the ignoramus that I am.

And so you did, you typed your response and surely and securely clicked on the "post" button. And by now you dick was hard. Well played sir, well played.

And the calculation for you to perform was 2011 - 1930 > 80: your suggestion of the purpose of work is outdated and belongs long ago in a less advanced society.

Obviously. Pray tell exactly what the purpose of work really is then. After all, you still haven't explained. I know you deeply believe you have, but you haven't.

I realise that history education is so fucking poor that the only two things on this site people seem to remember happened before the '80s were Hitler and the American Revolution (and/or possibly French)

And how long have you been waiting for the opportunity to say this?

but please do get a grip.

See above.

Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Second, and much more important for this argument, I'd be fairly surprised if what he did was legal at home. It's not like he traveled to the US ..."

He didn't commit the crime at home. He traveled to the US over an IP link and committed it in the US.

"He's being prosecuted by the US because he did it to a US company (and came onto US soil)."

No, he is being prosecuted by the US because he committed a crime in the US and when he physically traveled to the US the US authorities no longer had the hassle of extradition as a barrier.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Multiplicity]

So now people travels over IP??? Wow, didn't know teleportation was already so advanced....

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

Welcome to 2011

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[ColdWetDog]

Which 2011 are you in? Mine distinctly doesn't have teleportation over IP lines. (I just checked.)

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

Are you so thick that you can't figure out that I am saying that accessing a computer located in the US is a crime in the US, regardless of where your tcp connection originates? Or are you a troll? Do you really think that if you hack a computer in China, you have not committed a crime in China, even though you may be physically located in the US when you access the computer in China? Again, welcome to 2011.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Cylix]

You need Internet2.

Just be very careful.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[buchner.johannes]

We all know technology works that way, but we doubt the law works that way. Bring some information to the table that you don't have to be physically in a country to break that countries laws. International law excluded, as it doesn't cover hacking (as far as I am aware of it).

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Hognoxious]

accessing a computer located in the US is a crime in the US, regardless of where your tcp connection originates?

That might be true in theory, but in practice it depends on the opinions of the country where the hacker is located.

If they tell you to shove your extradition request up your ass sideways, it's irrelevant. A pity more countries don't, given the near impossibility of making US citizens face justice once they've fled back home.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

"That might be true in theory, but in practice it depends on the opinions of the country where the hacker is located."

So you are saying that if someone murders someone else in the US and then flees to a country that won't extradite that they didn't commit murder in the US. Interesting ... You should probably rethink that belief.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Bring some information to the table that you don't have to be physically in a country to break that countries laws."

I don't know. I might have to hunt around quite a bit. Ah, yes .. here it is!

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[gnapster]

This sounds more like shooting someone in the head while standing on Canadian soil.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Sparx139]

A better example would be if you hired an assassin to kill someone in the US, while you were somewhere else in the world. You never step foot inside US soil. So are you charged under US law, or under the law of whatever country you're in?

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

Exactly. Same thing. Regardless of where they stand, a bullet in the US, fired by said person, killed a person in the US. Murder was committed by the person in the US, regardless of where said person stood when they pulled the trigger. They, in effect, crossed the border to kill someone, regardless of where they were standing when the bullet was fired.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So are you charged under US law, or under the law of whatever country you're in?"

Your question is broken since they are not mutually exclusive; the answer is both.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[tehcyder]

"That might be true in theory, but in practice it depends on the opinions of the country where the hacker is located."

So you are saying that if someone murders someone else in the US and then flees to a country that won't extradite that they didn't commit murder in the US. Interesting ... You should probably rethink that belief.

No, he was saying that it is irrelevant what the US thinks if the country the person comes from won't extradite them.

If you can't try and convict someone of murder, they're not legally guilty of anything.

Re:Your assessment is quite incorrect, actually

[Zero__Kelvin]

"No, he was saying that it is irrelevant what the US thinks if the country the person comes from won't extradite them. "

Except that we know it is not irrelevant, since - as in this case - the person might come into the country willingly or travel to another country that will extradite.

"If you can't try and convict someone of murder, they're not legally guilty of anything."

We weren't talking about if someone is legally guilty, only if they had in fact committed a crime. Nice attempt at using legal semantics to twist things your way, though.

He tried Hilton Hotels first...

[grumling]

i heard he threatened to release a sex-tape of the founder's great-granddaughter, but later found out everyone has already seen it.

Oh wow

[ksd1337]

This sounds exactly like that sketch from The Onion Movie. "I ain't askin' for no god-damn handout, I want a muthafuckin' job, bitch!"

Because that is what the ignorant author wrote

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet he just use the Secret Service name due to complete ignorance of facts.

Secret Service is never use for this kind of things. Their job is to protect the President and other VIPs.

Poorly Executed

[INeededALogin]

Everyone knows that you need a backup plan. This guy should of clearly communicated and had a dead man switch setup. If this guy doesn't click a button on a webpage everyday then that torrent gets seeded. This guy should of practiced negotiating with his family before trying to negotiate with a US company.

He got a job alright...

[mholve]

~/ Workin' on the chain gaaaang... /~

15 Years. Ouch. Too bad the prisons don't pay so well either.

Slashdot hire me.

[TheInternetGuy]

Slashdot, hire me immediately or I promise I will stop posting my +5 Funny one liners immediately.

Hello?

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Now he is going to be working for the government.