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.

Secret Service

[Michael Woodhams]

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

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

[imsabbel]

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

Re:Secret Service

[dbcad7]

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

IT Darwin awards?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:IT Darwin awards?

[Kumiorava]

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

Re:Typical

[igreaterthanu]

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

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

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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

dead-hand trigger

[SharpFang]

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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:Smart?

[sourcerror]

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

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: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: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 ;-)

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.

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: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.

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: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.