Carderprofit.cc Was FBI Carding Sting, Nets 26 Arrests

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Carderprofit.cc Was FBI Carding Sting, Nets 26 Arrests

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday June 27, 2012 @02:12AM from the crime-pays-but-then-prison dept.

tsu doh nimh writes in with news of a major sting operation against carders. From the article: "The U.S. Justice Department today unveiled the results of a two-year international cybercrime sting that culminated in the arrest of 26 people accused of trafficking in hundreds of thousands of stolen credit and debit card accounts. Among those arrested was an alleged core member of 'UGNazi,' a malicious hacking group that has claimed responsibility for a flood of recent attacks on Internet businesses." The trick: the FBI ran a carding forum as a honeypot.

181 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The trick? by Rakshasa-sensei · 2012-06-27 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

FBI created some criminals.
1. Re:The trick? by Cryacin · 2012-06-27 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  Geez, next you'll tell me that using dodgy sites through Tor to buy illegal crap with bitcoins mailed to your home address is a bad idea.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
2. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  FBI created some criminals.
  Sure they did. Those poor innocents, tricked into doing something they weren't already doing.
3. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  You mail it to an adversary instead.
4. Re:The trick? by X.25 · 2012-06-27 02:33 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Sure they did. Those poor innocents, tricked into doing something they weren't already doing.
  They spent 2 years trying to bait 26 idiots, instead of chasing real criminals.
  You don't seem to understand the difference.
5. Re:The trick? by mikael_j · 2012-06-27 02:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you're talking about Silk Road then I'm sure the authorities are pretty annoyed by it since at least here in Sweden they can't really do much if they somehow intercept a package containing drugs, weapons or some other contraband at the border and they can't follow the money or otherwise tie it to you (and it being addressed to you doesn't count since if it did you could just mail a few illegal items to anyone you wanted and tell the cops those people were expecting packages containing said illegal items).
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
6. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  you act as if an entire force was dealing with the website instead of being on the street. I would assume that a street cop is not freelancing as a techie building websites. lets be real they only needed one tech to do this entire op (did they only use 1 prob not, but they only needed one) and if it was only 26, they probably didnt do any tricking, other than letting them do their own thing.
7. Re:The trick? by sl4shd0rk · 2012-06-27 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  They spent 2 years trying to bait 26 idiots, instead of chasing real criminals.
  Hey, but at least they got UGNazi.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
8. Re:The trick? by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-06-27 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is much more of a real crime than "piracy." Good on them for getting some people actually causing harm.
9. Re:The trick? by i_ate_god · 2012-06-27 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  26 idiots who could cost the economy how much in damage?
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
10. Re:The trick? by alen · 2012-06-27 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  this is how law enforcement works, you take down one criminal conspiracy at a time.
11. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  this is how law enforcement works, you take down one criminal conspiracy at a time.
  But but everyone knows only tin-foil hatters believe in comspiracies!
  
  Oh wait that's government that is immune to all conspiracies. Ill gotten money would tempt ppl to make a conspiracy. Somehow ill gotten money+power never does. And you're a fool to believe otherwise.
12. Re:The trick? by DrXym · 2012-06-27 03:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So why were people dealing in large volumes of stolen credit cards not "real criminals" then?
13. Re:The trick? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-06-27 03:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Silk Road thing set off my tin foil hat alarm. If I were a TLA, there's no way I'd openly admit that there was a way to be completely out of their reach.
  
  $5 says Tor, or at least Silk Road is compromised, or maybe even a honeypot itself. If you were into the kind of thing they're in to, and a little short on the brain cell front, wouldn't you flock to the "Guaranteed safe by the FBI!" places?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
14. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Same here in the U.S. Imagine how many politicians would be receiving pure smack?
15. Re:The trick? by arth1 · 2012-06-27 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  Same here in the U.S. Imagine how many politicians would be receiving pure smack?
  Imagine how many of them would use it.
  Imagine us not noticing any difference.
16. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  PROTIP: In Germany, that behavior is illegal for a reason.
  The very same reason, the content Mafia can’t set up file sharing servers and downloads, and then sue people for downloading that.
  It means you are part of the crime. (But hey, the FBI is used to that like no other...)
  And that means you can't sue, without incriminating yourself too.
  Yes, this not also counts for the police, but counts ESPECIALLY for the police, which is held to a higher standard.
17. Re:The trick? by arth1 · 2012-06-27 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sure they did. Those poor innocents, tricked into doing something they weren't already doing.
  If they had evidence that they were already doing something illegal, they should have arrested them on that evidence.
  Entrapment is mostly illegal, and can only be used when it can be shown that the crime would occur by the same defendant whether or not the police was involved.
  If any of the 26 might not have committed the crime if it wasn't for the FBI's web site, the case should fall.
  Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States
18. Re:The trick? by TheDarkMaster · 2012-06-27 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  Many times you need time to get sufficient evidence (and most important, proof) that "Joe" is a criminal. And idiots or not, they are still criminals and need to be arrested.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
19. Re:The trick? by arth1 · 2012-06-27 03:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  PROTIP: In Germany, that behavior is illegal for a reason.
  The very same reason, the content Mafia canâ(TM)t set up file sharing servers and downloads, and then sue people for downloading that.
  It means you are part of the crime. (But hey, the FBI is used to that like no other...)
  And that means you can't sue, without incriminating yourself too.
  No, while both are illegal, it's for different reasons. One is called "unclean hands", and the other is called "entrapment".
  If VISA had set up a site and participated in hacking VISA cards, they would have unclean hands. It would change their status.
  If a three letter agency does the same, and it causes people who otherwise would not have done that particular crime to do it, it's called entrapment. It would change the suspect's status.
20. Re:The trick? by Lashat · 2012-06-27 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This is not automatically entrapment. The sting is just like a drugs for sale or prostitution on a street corner. Undercover cop wearing a wire and being videotaped by concealed police sits on stragetic street corner known to be hot with drugs or prostitution. The undercover cop is dressed to bait the individual seeking the drugs/services they believe the undercover is there to provide. When the individual atempts to solicit for purchase the drugs/services they are arrested for that crime.
  It is only entrapment if the person is induced to commit a crime "he or she is not previously disposed to commit".
  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment
  An important and often argued point.
  
  --
  For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
21. Re:The trick? by TapeCutter · 2012-06-27 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  You don't seem to understand the difference.
  Any lack of understanding in the above thread, is all yours.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
22. Re:The trick? by Stan92057 · 2012-06-27 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  You must be a member of Anonymous or Lulz. Nothing else make since.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
23. Re:The trick? by Burning1 · 2012-06-27 04:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If a three letter agency does the same, and it causes people who otherwise would not have done that particular crime to do it, it's called entrapment. It would change the suspect's status.
  This is a common and incorrect understanding of entrapment. It's entrapment if the FBI tells you to steal credit cards, and then arrests you for it. It is not entrapment if the FBI makes credit cards available to be stolen, and then arrests you for it stealing them, The former is an example of the FBI pressuring you to do something you wouldn't have done. The latter is an example of the FBI facilitating you to do something you would have done, given an opportunity.
  Entrapment: You should hire that hitman to kill your wife.
  Not entrapment: I'm a hitman. Do you want to kill your wife?
24. Re:The trick? by arth1 · 2012-06-27 04:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is a common and incorrect understanding of entrapment.
  One shared by the Supreme Court Of The United States.
  They incorrectly claim that the prosecution must overcome a "subjective test" by showing the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime in any event, even if the law enforcement operatives had not been present.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/287/435/case.html
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/503/540/case.html
  I think you need to go teach these justices the errors of their ways.
25. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  yes, the 26 idiots should have just been left well enough alone right? They're "victims" I suppose?
  dumbass
26. Re:The trick? by moeinvt · 2012-06-27 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Good. Maybe the Germans remember the Gestapo or at least the Stasi.
27. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing else make since? What does that mean? Also, you're missing a space after that comma in your signature (and a period at the end).
  Lets not forget that's only the first half of the rhyme.
  
  Jack of all trades, master of none,
  Certainly better than a master of one.
  or
  Jack of all trades, master of none,
  Oftimes better than a master of one.
28. Re:The trick? by JTsyo · 2012-06-27 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Don't cops do this all the time with cars that are meant to be stolen?
29. Re:The trick? by asdf7890 · 2012-06-27 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  A fair amount over time, if you include their continued activity and the fact they get away with it encouraging others to try too. A lot of law "enforcement" is actually using people as examples to discourage non-compliance: they got caught and were given time, you might be too if you try the same thing.
30. Re:The trick? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-06-27 06:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They illustrated that crimes can be solved by normal police work without spying on hundreds of millions of innocent people.
31. Re:The trick? by PRMan · 2012-06-27 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  They're not telling anyone in particular to steal the bait car. They're just parking it in a crime-ridden neighborhood with the doors unlocked with the key in the ignition. It still has to be stolen by somebody.
  In the same way, the FBI can make it as easy as possible to steal credit cards. You still have to steal them.
  Neither one can counsel any particular individual into doing it.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
32. Re:The trick? by Burning1 · 2012-06-27 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  You didn't bother to read either of the articles you linked to, did you?
  In both cases, it was established that government agents pressured the defendents to commit the crime they are being prosocuted for.
  Here's the most relevent quotes from the articles you linked:
  Jacobson v. United States
  
  After 2 1/2 years on the Government mailing list, Jacobson was solicited to order child pornography. He answered a letter that described concern about child pornography as hysterical nonsense and decried international censorship, and then received a catalog and ordered a magazine depicting young boys engaged in sexual activities. He was arrested after a controlled delivery of a photocopy of the magazine, but a search of his house revealed no materials other than those sent by the Government and the Bare Boys magazines. At his jury trial, he pleaded entrapment and testified that he had been curious to know the type of sexual actions to which the last letter referred and that he had been shocked by the Bare Boys magazines because he had not expected to receive photographs of minors. He was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
  Held: The prosecution failed, as a matter of law, to adduce evidence to support the jury verdict that Jacobson was predisposed, independent of the Government's acts and beyond a reasonable doubt, to violate the law by receiving child pornography through the mails. In their zeal to enforce the law, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435, 442. Jacobson was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity. He was the target of 26 months of repeated Government mailings and communications,
  Sorrells v. United States:
  
  The substance of the testimony at the trial as to entrapment was as follows: for the government, one Martin, a prohibition agent, testified that, having resided for a time in Haywood County, North Carolina, where he posed as a tourist, he visited defendant's home near Canton on Sunday, July 13, 1930, accompanied by three residents of the county who knew the defendant well. He was introduced as a resident of Charlotte who was stopping for a time at Clyde. The witness ascertained that defendant was a veteran of the World War and a former member of the Thirtieth Division A.E.F. Witness informed defendant that he was also an ex-serviceman and a former member of the same Division, which was true. Witness asked defendant if he could get the witness some liquor, and defendant stated that he did not have any. Later, there was a second request, without result. One of those present, one Jones, was also an ex-serviceman and a former member of the Thirtieth Division, and the conversation turned to the war experiences of the three. After this, witness asked defendant for a third time to get him some liquor, whereupon defendant left his home and, after a few minutes, came back with a half gallon of liquor for which the witness paid defendant $5. Martin also testified that he was "the first and only person among those present at the time who said anything about securing some liquor," and that his purpose was to prosecute the defendant for procuring and selling it. The government rested its case on Martin's testimony.
33. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Well there is another possibility... he's simply retarded.
34. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with this scenario is that the [Three Letter Agency] may have created a market that didn't exist previously, or wasn't in the open previously. I find it very likely that the people wouldn't have stolen the credit cards if there wasn't a market in which to sell them. I feel for it not to be entrapment the [Three Letter Agency] would have to prove that the perpetrator didn't know about the honeypot before they stole the numbers.
  This case feels more like they didn't just leave a car to be stolen, but went around offering everyone a ton of money to steal it for them. (In the first case they would have likely stolen a car either way, in the second case they probably wouldn't have)
35. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  imagine all the people living life in peace
36. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  That may be possible if your definition of "people" is something other than homosapiens.
37. Re:The trick? by mikael_j · 2012-06-27 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be suspicious as well except that a conspiracy theory like this would require a few unlikely things.
  First of all, even if Silk Road itself was trying to gather user info all they could really catch would be usernames, passwords, delivery addresses and BC addresses that they received BC from, none of which are very useful in a trial if the user has taken the basic recommended security precautions. It's not like they're asking for a whole bunch of private personal info, they want their users to supply them with a username + password for authentication and sellers obviously need a delivery address. On top of this, BC must be sent from somewhere but this can be obfuscated very easily (not to mention that the history of a BC doesn't say "Transferred from Joe Schmoe, 123 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield", it simply states which wallet it used to be in, and if you want to you can create tons of wallets that aren't connected to you in any discernible way.
  If Tor was broken it would require that the security research community at large didn't know about it but that somehow the police did, I find this highly unlikely.
  And finally, I've seen several articles by those who vehemently hate drugs that boil down to "See? I TOLD YOU! THIS IS PROOF! WE NEED TO BAN TEH INTARWEBZ BECAUSE MY ADVISORS SAY WE CAN'T STOP THIS SITE!!1". This, combined with the above, indicates to me that it's very unlikely that Tor or Silk Road are compromised in any serious way.
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
38. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sure they did. Those poor innocents, tricked into doing something they weren't already doing.
  They spent 2 years trying to bait 26 idiots, instead of chasing real criminals.
  You don't seem to understand the difference.
  Credit card fraud is as real a crime as any other white collar offence. Just because it doesn't affect you as an individual (since you are unlikely to end up out of pocket) doesn't make it an acceptable way of behaving.
  
  I always find it amusing on slashdot that everyone would happily hang, draw and quarter spammers, because they slow down our lovely computers and networks, but don't seem to care about actual theft of money from banks, for which we all end up paying one way or another.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
39. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 21:12 · Score: 2
  
  FBI created some criminals.
  Yeah, my heart bleeds for these poor victims of Evil Government Oppression.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
40. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  So why were people dealing in large volumes of stolen credit cards not "real criminals" then?
  Because, according to slashdot's libertarian standards, merely copying the data is not a crime, only the actual fraudulent use of it is. Therefore, if I have a million illegally obtained credit card details on my computer, it doesn't mean I have done anything wrong
  
  It's analogous to the terrorist group who accumulate explosives, prepare detailed plans of their attack, and are caught by the police just before they actually kill any one. A lot of people here would (logically) have to say they have done nothing wrong and can't be punished as they were merely exercising their rights to buy stuff and talk about whatever they wanted to.
  
  Sounds like bollocks to me, but then I'm just an old socialist who hates your freedoms, etc..
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
41. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Also, you're missing a space after that comma in your signature (and a period at the end).
  Jesus Christ, call the Grammar Gestapo and have them torture the fucker to death. The evil bastard doesn't deserve to live.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
42. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  If someone is stupid or morally retarded enough to get entrapped into criminal behaviour, it serves them right if they're caught and prosecuted.
  
  If I set up a sting website offering cheap hitmen, any moron who signed up to use it should be treated as being part of a conspiracy to murder, and given life in prison.
  
  Why do so many people here have sympathy for criminal fuckwits just because they carry out their crimes on the internet, instead of bashing little old ladies on the head in their homes?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
43. Re:The trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe the Germans remember the Gestapo
  Don't forget that no one's father or grandfather was ever in the Gestapo. Not a single one. It's uncanny.
44. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  Your concern for the rights of credit card fraudsters is touching.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
45. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  This case feels more like they didn't just leave a car to be stolen, but went around offering everyone a ton of money to steal it for them. (In the first case they would have likely stolen a car either way, in the second case they probably wouldn't have)
  As I always say, if you're going to do a car analogy on slashdot, it is simple good taste to make it as fucking ludicrously inapposite as possible.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
46. Re:The trick? by Alranor · 2012-06-27 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't surprise me to discover that Tor had been broken by the NSA, but they're not going to reveal that they've managed to do that just to convict a few people of possession/supply of controlled substances.
47. Re:The trick? by arth1 · 2012-06-27 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your concern for the rights of credit card fraudsters is touching.
  My concern for fraudsters exists only inside your head.
  My concern is for important principles that distinguishes a modern society from mob rule and police states. Including pillars like being innocent until proven guilty, and that it's better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to put one innocent in prison.
  See, if you don't defend their rights, it's just a slippery slope to not defending your rights. I may think they are guilty as hell, but I damn sure have to afford them the same rights as others, lest we again descend into vigilante justice and stringing innocent people up trees.
48. Re:The trick? by tehcyder · 2012-06-28 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  I thought honeypots meant being seduced by beautiful foreign spies who use their vast range of advanced sexual techniiques to ensnare their victims in a sordid web of lust and deviant pleasure?
  
  I suppose there must be a downside too.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So, I guess, if FBI does it, by BanHammor · 2012-06-27 02:15 · Score: 0, Troll

Then it is not illegal.
1. Re:So, I guess, if FBI does it, by plover · 2012-06-27 03:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Then it is not illegal.
  It's called undercover police work, and undercover police work is perfectly legal, including the commission of various non-violent crimes required to maintain their cover.
  The cops weren't out there having TVs shipped to their houses and not documenting them so the victims wouldn't be reimbursed. They were hosting a forum, and made it look like other similar on-line criminal hangouts. When real criminals arrived, they maintained the forum long enough to accumulate enough evidence (IDs of suspects, records of criminal activity), then rolled them up.
  They did their jobs, successfully.
  
  --
  John
2. Re:So, I guess, if FBI does it, by linuxwebadmin · 2012-06-27 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  +1
  
  --
  Show me packet captures and log entires, or it never happened.
3. Re:So, I guess, if FBI does it, by Tanktalus · 2012-06-27 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  It's been long known that the best way to catch a criminal is to pretend to be one. (Some might argue that the government is already doing a damned good job of that.) Getting them to show their hand (having a cop as a witness to the crime) and/or confess their misdeeds voluntarily is pretty much the best way to get a conviction.
  This is why you get undercover cops buying drugs, joining gangs, etc. Stings are perfectly legal, and, if they follow the rules as laid out by the courts, seem pretty reasonable. As long as the cops don't entice someone into committing a crime, they're clear. Pretending to be a fence and accepting stolen goods is not entrapment, but pretending to be a fence and telling someone to steal something to sell to you is. If "carderprofit.cc" merely accepted the trade of stolen card info, it's a sting. If they recruited people to target specific venues ("I hear ebay.ca's admin password is XXXX, why don't you nab us some of those cards?"), that's entrapment.
  So, no, it's not illegal.
4. Re:So, I guess, if FBI does it, by plover · 2012-06-27 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Pretending to be a fence and accepting stolen goods is not entrapment, but pretending to be a fence and telling someone to steal something to sell to you is.
  Would you bet your freedom on that belief? Because you'd likely go to jail if you fell for it. The undercover cop can say "hey, go steal this thing for me", and as long as you're free to say no, and there's no coercion, it's not entrapment. If he said to steal this thing or he'll kill your dog, or Vinnie will beat up your sister, or it's implied that someone from the mob will break your fingers if you say no, then that's entrapment.
  Don't believe everything you see on TV crime shows. They exist to entertain you, and to believably wrap the crime up in 44 minutes while exposing you to a barrage of advertisements. They are not there to teach you the law.
  
  --
  John
5. Re:So, I guess, if FBI does it, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, stings operations are just fine and dandy IMO. Not only does it catch some criminals, but it sows FUD in the criminal community as far as which sites are legit and which are honeypots. Anything that slows theft down (without harming those that aren't thieves) is good for the non-thief.
6. Re:So, I guess, if FBI does it, by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that the system is such that it allows cops to easily railroad innocent people, then I don't see why they would need to go to the bother of setting up stings/entrapments in the first place. They could just stick any random person in prison and lie about the whole made up series of events. Or just go round to their house and shoot them in self defence.
  
  I think you're the one who has a distorted view of reality.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
7. Re:So, I guess, if FBI does it, by plover · 2012-06-28 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  What led you to believe I thought this was done easily or lightly? I used simple words and a simplistic scenario to make my point easy to understand, and you only saw the example, not the point.
  The law allows for an undercover agent to act his role. If there was a simple test that crooks could apply, such as "let's have the new guy be the pimp and tell the girls to go make him money, and if he refuses it must be 'cause he's a cop!" then no undercover operation would ever succeed.
  Sting operations are not set up lightly. They take a considerable amount of time and resources, neither of which are in the typical police budget. And they may put the agents in situations of extreme risk. When a sting is being planned, they are usually targeting persons of very specific interest, and have a goal of producing a wealth of evidence that will strongly favor a guilty verdict.
  
  --
  John
Ah oh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:17 · Score: 0

Just use a card from there to sign up for a premium account over at downloadallyouwantwhichyouconfessisafederalcrime.cc
the fact that this worked is by nopainogain · 2012-06-27 02:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

HILARIOUS.. I mean it reminds me of the dick-tracy parody bugs bunny cartoon yeaaaaaars ago where the villains' hideout was marked by a blinking marquee and neon signs that said "secret hideout" or something. how dumb are the criminals that fall for this?
1. Re:the fact that this worked is by alen · 2012-06-27 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  most criminals are dumb. its just that unless its a violent crime most times the cops ignore you if you're a loner. once you set up an organization that starts costing businesses a lot of money you get noticed.
  the people involved are dumb
  EVERYTHING is tracked
  if you're a checkout drone everything is tracked. everyone knows which purchases you ring up. if there is a rash of CC fraud the first thing people will do is look in the computer for similarities and guess what, they will find that by some strange coincidence 20 different compromised CC cards were used to make purchases by the same cashier. or at the same restaurant or whatever.
2. Re:the fact that this worked is by wiredog · 2012-06-27 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  how dumb are the criminals that fall for this?
  If they were smart, they wouldn't become criminals. Most criminals are somewhat less than bright.
  
  --
  
  Best Slashdot Co
3. Re:the fact that this worked is by mrops · 2012-06-27 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  I recalled watching some program where robber handed out a "hand me all your money" note on the back of his medical prescription.
  Over time I realized that majority of these petty thief are doing what they are doing because they are too dumb or lazy to do anything else.
  I mean it takes certain kind of an idiot to do stupid crime, the smart ones become bankers.
4. Re:the fact that this worked is by arth1 · 2012-06-27 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  If they were smart, they wouldn't become criminals.
  Non sequitur.
  If they were smart criminals, they wouldn't get caught.
5. Re:the fact that this worked is by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-27 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or perhaps only the dumber ones get caught. The smart ones can get away with it.
6. Re:the fact that this worked is by mcgrew · 2012-06-27 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  most criminals are dumb.
  Then why are 90% of crimes unsolved? No, most criminals who get caught are dumb. Look how long Madoff got away with his multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme.
  They're not dumb, they just have no morals.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
7. Re:the fact that this worked is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Snakeyes. Ah! 88 teeth! Oh! Hammerhead! Oh no! Pussycat, Pussycat Puss. Batman! Double Header! P-p-pickle Puss. P-p-ph-Pumpkinhead! Neon Noodle! Guh. Jukebox Jaw! Wolfman!
8. Re:the fact that this worked is by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-27 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Madoff did not get away with his Ponzi scheme because he was smart. He got away with it because the regulators never investigated any of the red flags that should have clued them that something about his scheme was dodgy (partly because Madoff had high powered friends).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
9. Re:the fact that this worked is by Mashiki · 2012-06-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  how dumb are the criminals that fall for this?
  Want the truth? Most of them, that's how you catch the majority of them, and I'm not talking about closure rates. I'm talking about the plain old dumb criminals that simply hand you everything they know right off the bat. Most criminals are dumb, it doesn't take much in the way of brains to be one. It's being crafty and sly that makes a good criminal.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
10. Re:the fact that this worked is by moeinvt · 2012-06-27 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Some people get a criminal conviction early in their lives which basically destroys their future earnings potential, regardless of whatever skills and education they might achieve.
  Given the choice of serving burgers and fries for the rest of their lives or using their talents to earn a comfortable living (albeit with major risk) they choose the latter.
11. Re:the fact that this worked is by asdf7890 · 2012-06-27 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  No: if they were smart then they'd have other dumb criminals doing the work with enough indirection between them that they can't be reliably implicated by the authorities.
  
  There are some very bright criminals out there. You usually don't hear about them because they are generally bright enough to stay far enough away from the front lines.
12. Re:the fact that this worked is by HornWumpus · 2012-06-27 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  He was clearly smarter then his investors.
  I downloaded a list of his suckers. They should be ready to harvest again in about 10 years.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:the fact that this worked is by PRMan · 2012-06-27 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  There are some very bright criminals out there.
  
  Yeah, they're usually CEOs.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
14. Re:the fact that this worked is by PRMan · 2012-06-27 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  But crafty/sly people make tons of money in IT with zero risk.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
15. Re:the fact that this worked is by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Then why are 90% of crimes unsolved?
  I don't know if that statistic is true or not, but in any case the answer is that society places limits on the powers and resources available to the police.
  
  Apart from the undesirability of having half the population as policemen or informers, it would simply be too expensive to have teams of detectives working on every single burglary, broken car window or fist fight.
  
  Also, in terms of deterrence a potential criminal doesn't need to know there is an overwhelming likelihood of his being caught, merely that it is possible.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
16. Re:the fact that this worked is by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  He was clearly smarter then his investors.
  I downloaded a list of his suckers. They should be ready to harvest again in about 10 years.
  Cool, hope you enjoy your long period in prison afterwards.
  
  Fucking sociopath.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
17. Re:the fact that this worked is by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  No: if they were smart then they'd have other dumb criminals doing the work with enough indirection between them that they can't be reliably implicated by the authorities. There are some very bright criminals out there. You usually don't hear about them because they are generally bright enough to stay far enough away from the front lines.
  Which is precisely why you have the RICO laws or equivalent.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
18. Re:the fact that this worked is by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  But crafty/sly people make tons of money in IT with zero risk.
  Except to their immortal souls.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
19. Re:the fact that this worked is by mcgrew · 2012-06-28 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  He got away with it because the regulators never investigated any of the red flags that should have clued them that something about his scheme was dodgy
  So he was smarter than the regulators.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
20. Re:the fact that this worked is by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-28 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Or perhaps the regulators just chose to look the other way because Madoff was politically connected.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
21. Re:the fact that this worked is by HornWumpus · 2012-06-29 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  His suckers knew he was a criminal, they just thought he was 'their criminal' and would eventually take the insider trading hit for them.
  Fuck 'em. They can all get jobs.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
HE a Nazi let get him by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:17 · Score: 0

HE a Nazi let get him
So, now we know! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:20 · Score: 1

Now we have the answer: the FBI has been uploading copyrighted/illegal content to p2p networks to create leechers!
Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Why does Avast WebRep have 3 red bars for justice.gov?
honeylover by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:26 · Score: 0

OMJ im stick on the pot.. help me out!!
No this isnt entrapment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you think it is, you are an idiot that has no clue what the term entrapment means.
Waste of time by benjfowler · 2012-06-27 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

The carders they busted are low-life amateurs, not serious criminals. I'm sure the FBI and friends will milk this for all it's worth, but it's the equivalent of nicking a couple of shoplifters while at the same time, Mexican drug lords are burning down the entire city.
Come and wake me up when they bag some REAL criminals, like the big Russian gangsters robbing SMEs out of hundreds of millions per annum.
The real criminals are untouched -- and untouchable.
1. Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I had no idea soy methyl esters were so profitable.
2. Re:Waste of time by Hatta · 2012-06-27 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  Come and wake me up when they bag some REAL criminals, like the big Russian gangsters robbing SMEs out of hundreds of millions per annum.
  Or Lloyd Blankfein or John Corzine.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:Waste of time by phantomfive · 2012-06-27 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People who've stolen hundreds of thousands of credit card numbers are worth arresting, even if there are other people who are worse.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Waste of time by John+Bokma · 2012-06-27 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  I live in Mexico (born in the Netherlands). While there was a shoot out in a neighbourhood very close to ours about a year and a half ago, I suffer right now much more from actual criminals as in Banamex, the so called National Bank of Mexico.
  Back in November my bank card got stolen, a card with a nice but meaningless MasterCard [1] logo. It got cloned before the theft was even discovered (piss poor security on those cards) and used to shop in 2 different locations, in total around 2000 USD of goods, including 2 iPads. No problem, you would think, the bank is insured for such events. Right, think. When we tried to report this to Banamex we were told there are 2 ways to report such fraudulent transactions: by phone, or by filing in forms. The later would take 90 (!!) days to be processed.
  Of course we went for the phone options.... But after 4 hours (!) we still hadn't been able to talk to someone who actually could process our report. One would think that my inability to speak Spanish had something to do with all this, but no. It's just the piss poor service of Banamex. We later found out that cloning happens a lot in Mexico, and the bank who does the least about this (paying out insurance money) is Banamex...
  Nearly 8 months later, still no money. The only option seems to be to go to CONDUSEF, and organization that mediates in cases of disputes between banks and customers (or something like that, translation is most likely: paper pushing at the same level as PROFECO). But from what I understand (and maybe I got this wrong) one has to go to a "nearby" office of CONDUSEF to talk with, in my case, a representative of Banamex. Nearby as in Veracruz, 2+ hours of travel.
  Mexican drug lords? Corruption? Nah, the real problem are not the "banditos" in Mexico, but organizations posing as legal but thieving from the poor and not so poor. Probably like how things go in many other countries as well.
  Twenty six arrests? Just panem et circenses.
  [1] I contacted MasterCard USA, since I guess they license their piss poor products to banks like Banamex. Several times over the period of a month I was told they would "escalate" things. Riiiiggght. Banamex = paying customer, while I am just a nobody; a milk cow.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
5. Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  you might feel differently if it was your cc, ID and funds that were compromised by these low life thieves. If the FBI can take these thugs out before they turn into larger crooks, then so be it.
6. Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  Mexican drug lords? Corruption? Nah, the real problem are not the "banditos" in Mexico, but organizations posing as legal but thieving from the poor and not so poor.
  Let us know when your bank starts decapitating people.
7. Re:Waste of time by TheDarkMaster · 2012-06-27 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  Paraguay is a country where your credit card is cloned / stolen by default. Fortunately when I left this junk country I suspected and immediately canceled the card and asked for another.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
8. Re:Waste of time by plover · 2012-06-27 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  Crime is crime. Since there's more than enough crime to go around for the resources available to fight it, that means the fighting has to be prioritized. But it doesn't mean all low level crimes are completely ignored while the biggest crimes get 100% of the resources.
  The fight against carders is statistical. While it's more of a "nuisance" crime to the hundreds of thousands of people who have to disrupt their lives cleaning up their credit messes, the total loss from those hundreds of thousands of individual crimes adds up to a significant financial theft from the banks who have to reimburse those victims.
  The DOJ already spends billions of dollars on the War on Drugs. They can afford to spend a few hundred thousand on a sting that pulls many millions of dollars worth of criminals off the streets.
  
  --
  John
9. Re:Waste of time by StormReaver · 2012-06-27 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Come and wake me up when they bag some REAL criminals...
  And risk getting their funding cut?
10. Re:Waste of time by dkleinsc · 2012-06-27 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why limit ourselves to property crime? I'd really want them more focused on some really dangerous people like:
  * Dick Cheney (crime against humanity - ordering waterboarding)
  * Barack Obama (murder in the first degree of Anwar Al-Awlaki)
  * Rudolph Giuliani and Howard Dean (material support for a designated terrorist organization, the Iranian MEK)
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
11. Re:Waste of time by Hatta · 2012-06-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Because destroying the livelihood of thousands or millions can be expected to destroy the lives of tens or thousands. Crimes on this scale are a bit more than just "property crime".
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
12. Re:Waste of time by Jeng · 2012-06-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I would hate to go fishing with you, if we didn't catch the absolute biggest fish in the lake you would apparently call it a failure.
  Police like fisherman pull in those who take the bait.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
13. Re:Waste of time by John+Bokma · 2012-06-27 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I tried I even couldn't get a credit card (Banamex) with a FM3 visa. I had to sign 26+ forms, wait like 2 months and then I got declined. The reason? Banamex is afraid that as a foreigner you're going to leave the country taking their precious 20,000 MXN with you (less than 1,500 USD). As long as they do the ripping off it's OK, but beware, oh foreigner, because according to Banamex you're crooks by default.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
14. Re:Waste of time by poity · 2012-06-27 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Does that seem circular to you? It does to me, because the reasoning seems to go like this:
  If a criminal can be busted by cops, then that criminal is a low-life amateur, not a serious criminal. Therefore, whenever cops land a bust, they will always catch low-life amateurs, never serious criminals.
  Logically this means the very act of being caught transforms any criminal into a low-life amateur, which means that cops can never catch serious criminals by the standard of this reasoning. Yet, this same reasoning is trotted out by those who say cops should be out catching real serious criminals. See how that will never ever work out in the minds of these people?
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
15. Re:Waste of time by tehcyder · 2012-06-28 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  The real criminals are untouched -- and untouchable.
  Even if that's true (and I seriously doubt it is true in the West at least) it still doesn't mean you should just ignore pettier criminals.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:No this isnt entrapment by sohmc · 2012-06-27 02:36 · Score: 5, Informative

A quick primer on entrapment:
If you are trolling Drug Dealer Drive for drugs and you happen to ask a undercover agent for drugs, you are guilty.
If a undercover agent posing as a drug dealer comes to you out of the blue and says that you need to buy his drugs so that he can help his sweet grandmother beat cancer, that's entrapment.
The difference is that in the first example, you were already out with the intention of doing something illegal. The second example you were approached by LEO and convinced to do something you normally wouldn't do.
IANAL and I'm sure each jurisdiction has it's own definition of entrapment but this is the jist.

--
We don't live in Shouldland.
honeypot detect? by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-06-27 02:39 · Score: 2

Ok, this is a purely curiosity-based question, and I know there's lot of web security people roaming around here. How would you actually detect that a website like this is a honeypot?
1. Re:honeypot detect? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  You wouldn't.
2. Re:honeypot detect? by gv250 · 2012-06-27 02:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How would you actually detect that a website like this is a honeypot?
  The 6:00 AM knock on your door.
3. Re:honeypot detect? by Hatta · 2012-06-27 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:honeypot detect? by PPH · 2012-06-27 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  They all are. So stay in your mom's basement and don't go using credit card numbers you've found on line.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
5. Re:honeypot detect? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, this is a purely curiosity-based question, and I know there's lot of web security people roaming around here. How would you actually detect that a website like this is a honeypot?
  Well, I for one, watch out for for these users: FlowersByIrene, FutureBusinessInventor, FloatyBeeInjections, FalseBuyerIncognito
6. Re:honeypot detect? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
  The attribution you were too lazy to supply? Charles Babbage, when asked if wrong figures put into his machine would result in correct answers.
  
  Garbage in, garbage out.
7. Re:honeypot detect? by Fnord666 · 2012-06-27 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, this is a purely curiosity-based question, and I know there's lot of web security people roaming around here. How would you actually detect that a website like this is a honeypot?
  If all of the email addresses in the DNS entry go to fbi.gov, it might be a honeypot.
  If the server ip addresses are in the fbi.gov ip block, it might be a honeypot.
  Feel free to add others!
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
8. Re:honeypot detect? by PenquinCoder · 2012-06-27 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  FBI and other US officials like the 'Operation 4:00AM knock on the door' better. at 6:00AM, some people are actually you know, already awake to start their day. Much less likely at 4:00AM; Path of least resistance.
9. Re:honeypot detect? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-06-27 03:14 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That is a very good question. Here are some tips..
  If the tcp packets coming back to you are mysteriously lacking in honey ... it might be a honey pot.
  If their is a slight buzzing comming from your network connection... it might be a honey pot.
  If swarms of bees, bears, or badgers appear around your computer .... it might be a honey pot.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
10. Re:honeypot detect? by tobiasly · 2012-06-27 03:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  $> dig carderprofit.cc ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;carderprofit.cc. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: carderprofit.cc 78003 IN CNAME fbi.gov. fbi.gov 78003 IN A 72.21.81.85
11. Re:honeypot detect? by Hatta · 2012-06-27 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I figured it would be obvious to this crowd. But it's a bit of hyperbole on reflection. I think I can rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas. GP post wants a technical means to determine the intent of a social system.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
12. Re:honeypot detect? by belthize · 2012-06-27 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  This is close, if dig returns a result at all be wary. You can never be sure but do you really want to be discussing illegal activities at a site hosted on Amazon Web Services (dig actually returns awsdns though that's probably synonymous with fbi.gov in this case) vs some dark net address.
13. Re:honeypot detect? by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-27 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  If it's done well, you wouldn't. There is the chance someone at the FBI will slip up though - maybe use an IP address that is in the same allocation as other FBI public servers, or something like that. But if they don't, then there is no way to prove it *isn't* a honeypot.
14. Re:honeypot detect? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  The Honeypot don't give a shit. The Honeypot will fuck those scarders up! Oh, lookit him go! EWWW!
15. Re:honeypot detect? by plover · 2012-06-27 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't.
  This is very close to the right answer.
  The honeypot itself is bait. And just like fishing in a lake, there's no particular reason that your bait must be an artificial lure - you often get better results using live bait.
  Now, if you were privately investigating card fraud, perhaps on behalf of a victim, you might have come across the honeypot site and wanted to investigate it further to figure out who the bad guys are so you could report them. You'd probably do the same steps any investigator would to determine who owns the site: look up the registrar, google searches, hack the server and look at the logs to trace them back to real people, or maybe even infiltrate the organization and get some of the denizens to turn over the site owners.
  But it's not like you can check the IP stack to look for the evil bit being turned off. There's no technical or legal requirement that they must identify their bait as such.
  
  --
  John
16. Re:honeypot detect? by dkleinsc · 2012-06-27 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  If you have a sudden urge to go visit Piglet ... it might be a hunny pot.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
17. Re:honeypot detect? by JTsyo · 2012-06-27 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen any cop shows (NCIS etc)? The tech guys/gals they have working for them are really sharp.
18. Re:honeypot detect? by psithurism · 2012-06-27 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen some tech shows lately. Those tech guy/gals mutter a few strings of long tech sounding words and type a bit on a keyboard. If that ritual is done at the right time (about 10minutes left in the show assuming not a cliff-hanger episode) then pictures flash by on the screen and they magically get the location of the bad guys. If you're a black hat on those shows, then to get away you have to either be on the lookout for someone "silently pinging your network facing encrypted cloud based interface over a virtual private unified modeling language bit-coin tor attached 10Gigabit side channel man in the middle attack" or go offline before the second to last commercial break.
  I have no real idea how to identify a real honey pot, but I suspect hiding your personal info as best as possible from your clients is the best move no matter who you are selling credit card numbers to. You'd probably prefer that the FBI shows up and inform you that you need a layer than for some mafia guys, who didn't like the way the transaction went, to show up and be judge, jury and torturer-to-death.
19. Re:honeypot detect? by tehcyder · 2012-06-28 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, this is a purely curiosity-based question, and I know there's lot of web security people roaming around here. How would you actually detect that a website like this is a honeypot?
  Just ask. Everyone knows that if the police/feds lie about their status, they are legally blocked from prosecuting you.
  
  I'm sure I read that on the intarwebz somewhere.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
20. Re:honeypot detect? by tehcyder · 2012-06-28 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
  The attribution you were too lazy to supply? Charles Babbage, when asked if wrong figures put into his machine would result in correct answers. Garbage in, garbage out.
  Thanks for that, obviously no one reading slashdot ever heard of Charles Babbage before. Fascinatingly, he is believed to have been the inventor of the computer. Who knew?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
21. Re:honeypot detect? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-28 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  If I see a swarm of bears or a swarm of badgers around my computer, I have bigger issues than the FBI.
  How many bears would it take to qualify for a swarm?
low hanging fruit by DarthVain · 2012-06-27 02:41 · Score: 1

I'm gonna go out on a limb (sorry about the pun) and say that all they got were low hanging fruit.
I mean the criminal would have to be pretty dumb to actual use said service.
This is making criminals, if such a service wasn't available, likely these dullards wouldn't have a way to break the law (at least in this context).
Anyway I doubt this has improved the world in any appreciable way.
1. Re:low hanging fruit by slazzy · 2012-06-27 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  This might be true, but they can use them to follow the chain up to the bigger criminals or at least get clues as to who they are.
  
  --
  Website Just Down For Me? Find out
2. Re:low hanging fruit by Brewster+Jennings · 2012-06-27 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  That is the inevitable result of any operation this large: you catch the most careless, least intelligent, or unlucky criminals. However, people breaking the law don't operate in a vacuum; if the Age of Facebook has taught us anything, it's that everyone is connected to people on a much larger scale than we would have believed. Investigators will have terabytes of information to review, and this will in turn lead to arrests of associates, or at the very minimum put previously undetected criminals on the radar. The disruption to the identity theft/fraud industry could be significant. Even the news itself of the operation could have that effect.
3. Re:low hanging fruit by TheDarkMaster · 2012-06-27 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  When you tolerate the small criminals, they sooner or later become major criminals. And as another commenter posted, you can follow the little ones to find the big ones.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
4. Re:low hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  I'm gonna go out on a limb (sorry about the pun) and say that all they got were low hanging fruit.
  You seem to be suggesting it's a bad thing.
  I say it's a good thing they catch criminals, no matter how stupid or how smart the criminals are. The more criminals they catch, the better it is. (And we now have enough laws to make almost everyone a criminal, so there will be more arrests coming.)
5. Re:low hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  "Big concerns grow from small concerns. You plant them, water them with tears, fertilize them with unconcern. If you ignore them, they grow." - Londo Mollari, Babylon 5:"And the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place"
  Just like pie, anytime is a good time for a B5 quote. :)
6. Re:low hanging fruit by tehcyder · 2012-06-28 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is making criminals, if such a service wasn't available, likely these dullards wouldn't have a way to break the law (at least in this context).
  Oh fuck off, lazy stupid criminals will always find a way to try to make money without working. If it wasn't credit cards, it would be stealing old ladies' purses.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
7. Re:low hanging fruit by DarthVain · 2012-06-28 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  That is why I had "(at least in this context)."
  So yes they could just break into someone's home if they are set on being a criminal.
  However this is a service that was set up to be easy (and yes lazy) and likely to the criminal mind of low risk of getting caught. Without that, they may have decided that the risks are too great and decided to try a life of virtue. As it is, the coppers managed to arrest a bunch of the stupidest, laziest, inept criminals around, which would have likely been caught doing something else anyway without any help.
  Maybe I am some poor slob, who can't get a job, I also happen to be quite stupid and uneducated (hence no job), I hear about this credit card thing and identity theft thing on the television all the time, no one gets hurt as its all insured, I think it is all anonymous because I'm an idiot, and so I Google "Credit Card profit" or some garbage like that and this site comes up. It promises me all sorts of things, all low risk, high reward. Never having committed a crime before I decide to see if I can get it to work. Bang. FBI.
  Had that service not been there, they may not have ever transgressed.
  Truly capturing the masterminds of the criminal world. No I don't buy that this will lead to the kingpins of crime either.
Ron Paul bee by Quakeulf · 2012-06-27 02:42 · Score: 1

One can only hope FBI does not turn out to run 4chan as a sting operation...
1. Re:Ron Paul bee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  moot's already demonstrated that he keeps access records and provides them to the Court - see the Palin e-mail affair.
  As to "Carderprofit", I guess you have two options:
  1) Go after dangerous, significantly harmful criminals who wouldn't dream of socialising on some mysterious forum which just popped up somewhere; or
  2) Create site which trains up a few naive, dumb people in credit card fraud, and allow them to commit non-victimless crimes for a couple of years. Then arrest them and announce you're doing something useful.
  Since CC fraud is profitable for banks, as the merchant has to pay up, I am fairly sure that the FBI's remit is to ensure that CC fraud continues.
2. Re:Ron Paul bee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  Long-term, CC fraud is a negative to banks, since increased costs associated with using a credit card lead to merchants either deciding to no longer accept credit cards or to apply increased fees to their customers to use them, causing the customer to avoid them. You already see this happening with gas stations.
3. Re:Ron Paul bee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  see the Palin e-mail affair.
  And the football stadium threat and various kiddy porn reports etc etc.
4. Re:Ron Paul bee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, it's an either/or situation. The FBI cannot possiblly be doing both or we'd know about it. Just like the posters above asked "why isn't the FBI going after real criminals?" Why did they use all of their resources and manpower and just these 26 people? Government waste at its worst. Well, now I wonder what single operation every single person in the FBI will be working on since they can't do more than one thing at a time apparently.
  Don't you think that number 1 requires more secrecy considering the expertise of the criminals involved? Wouldn't annoucing your work make it harder to follow the criminals and route out the entire structure? I guess not. The FBI should just announce what it's doing at all times and give real time updates on all operations. Not the strategy I'd go with, but I'm not the FBI director like you must be.
5. Re:Ron Paul bee by tehcyder · 2012-06-28 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  One can only hope FBI does not turn out to run 4chan as a sting operation...
  They're going after criminals, not psychologically disturbed teenage retards.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
6. Re:Ron Paul bee by tehcyder · 2012-06-28 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Since CC fraud is profitable for banks, as the merchant has to pay up, I am fairly sure that the FBI's remit is to ensure that CC fraud continues.
  I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  
  Just a small tip though: you omitted any mention of the Illuminati or the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy, so you only get 9/10 fir nutbaggery.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
7. Re:Ron Paul bee by Quakeulf · 2012-06-28 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  You'd be surprised at who comes across that site.
Re:No this isnt entrapment by vlm · 2012-06-27 02:42 · Score: 1

If you think it is, you are an idiot that has no clue what the term entrapment means.
How the heck do you get a +3 insightful without bothering to explain why or even a cut and paste of the def?
I am not a lawyer blah blah. Some /.ers are, and will probably make fun of my definition, or even call me an idiot. Thats OK, that stuff makes me laugh. But the one line summary is: entrapment requires persuasive leadership by .gov not merely an announcement that ".gov is open for business!". The standard /. car analogy is walking onto the lot of your own free will with your own idea of buying a car is not like entrapment via the salesman. On the other hand, your boss at work, tracks you down at home, is the first to suggest the idea of buying a car from him, argues with you for hours until you finally give in and agree to buy a car even though you don't really want to and never wanted to, that is what entrapment is like. Maybe another way to put it, is if Mr .gov was not working for .gov, his behavior would be described as leadership/blackmail/intimidation/salesmanship, but if a law enforcement officer does it, its called entrapment.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
26.. That's all? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:45 · Score: 0

Twenty-six small time nobodies and they parade it around no national media. I wonder how many man-hours and millions of dollars was spent on this lame op.
Good for them by Madman · 2012-06-27 02:45 · Score: 2

I for one am happy that law enforcement is finally figuring out how to apply traditional police work to the internet successfully. It's the good old-fashioned sting made digital.
It's self-promotion .... by King_TJ · 2012-06-27 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course the parent poster is right... I'd imagine any serious credit card thief would be operating through Tor, doing anonymous payment with something like Bitcoin, and not even fooling around with signing up on new sites of unknown/unverified origins.
But this is pretty typical for the FBI. They're as interested in the P.R. as anything else. They need to show they're making arrests and giving the news media something positive to print. It helps ensure their continued funding for the division handling these high-tech crimes and they probably also figure it's a deterrent to beginners, who could become tomorrow's elite card thieves otherwise.
1. Re:It's self-promotion .... by DrXym · 2012-06-27 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's typical of the FBI to pursue criminals, gather evidence and secure convictions. You might not think these thieves were serious or maybe they were just dumbasses but they were still thieves. After all they traded 400,000 stolen credit cards.
2. Re:It's self-promotion .... by moeinvt · 2012-06-27 05:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's a matter of their priorities. They waste 2 years and countless amounts of time and resources to bust a mere 26 carders?
  Meanwhile, well documented white collar crimes committed by the banking cartel are largely ignored. The FBI reported back in 2003 that there was an "Epidemic of Fraud" in the mortgage market but we didn't see an epidemic of investigations and prosecutions.
  I guess the carders need to hire some lobbyists so that they too can buy a federally issued license to steal.
3. Re:It's self-promotion .... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's a matter of their priorities. They waste 2 years and countless amounts of time and resources to bust a mere 26 carders?
  Meanwhile, well documented white collar crimes committed by the banking cartel are largely ignored. The FBI reported back in 2003 that there was an "Epidemic of Fraud" in the mortgage market but we didn't see an epidemic of investigations and prosecutions.
  I guess the carders need to hire some lobbyists so that they too can buy a federally issued license to steal.
  I'd mod this funny if it weren't so sad.
4. Re:It's self-promotion .... by ragethehotey · 2012-06-27 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's a matter of their priorities. They waste 2 years and countless amounts of time and resources to bust a mere 26 carders?
  Why does the number of people busted matter to you?
  
  Isn't the amount of compromised numbers a far more relevant figure?
  
  One person selling 400,000 stolen cards vs 100 people selling those same 400,000 cards will hypothetically result in the same amount of theft
5. Re:It's self-promotion .... by DrXym · 2012-06-27 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Who's to say this was their top priority or their only ongoing operation?
  You assume that because they *only* arrested 26 people that somehow this investigation wasn't worth it. Except of course these were criminals responsible for trading 400,000 stolen cards and engaged in other related criminal activity. How much effort would be required to arrest 26 people on theft and fraud charges if they were unrelated investigations? At least this way they get to pool their investigation and a lot of the work was done for them.
  It seems to me that from a cost / benefit point of view that the operation was relatively cheap - set up a website, dangle it around in the right circles and see who comes calling. Then when you see actual criminal activity you can start using those IP addresses to find the perps.
  Such operations also have a dampening effect on other criminal activity. If this site was a honeypot then criminals may wonder if some other site is also a honeypot. Perhaps it is too, or perhaps it isn't. Sowing discord can impact criminal activity well beyond the original site.
  There is also the fact that this operation was successfull. Even if it was *only* 26 arrests this time, the FBI can apply what they learned about running such a site and go for a bigger haul the next time around. Clearly from a technical standpoint the operation appears to be successfull. For all you or I know perhaps the idea was a trial operation just to test out some ideas of how to get crims to open up when they thought they were in a safe environment. All that business about requiring introductions or paying a fee may have been FBI psychologists deciding to try a few things out.
  Anyway it seems like a success to me. Not on the scale of busting a mafia ring or whatever but certainly worthwhile.
Real criminals? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Real criminals? If they were actually using credit card information to make illegal purchases, they ARE real criminals! Just because you don't have to mug someone to get his wallet doesn't matter. At least when you are mugged (assuming you don't have to go to the hospital) you know your personal information has been stolen. When your personal information is stolen via the computer, you often don't learn about it until the big bills start to pile up. Also, a mugger usually steals only hundreds (maybe thousands) a credit card thief usually starts at that point and goes up from there. In terms of money lost, we went the FBI to go after them and the thieves running the big banks and Wall Street. Let the local police deal with the muggers.
1. Re:Real criminals? by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  Real criminals? If they were actually using credit card information to make illegal purchases, they ARE real criminals!
  But credit card information just wants to be free!
  
  Soz.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:No this isnt entrapment by HideyoshiJP · 2012-06-27 02:53 · Score: 1

Hey, I live on Drug Dealer Drive! I can't believe that neighborhood has gone so far downhill...
Re:No this isnt entrapment by Sarten-X · 2012-06-27 02:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's what entrapment is, as explained by a lawyer, in an appropriately visual format to appease the attention span of most Slashdotters.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Lol. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 02:57 · Score: 0

The trick: the FBI ran a carding forum as a honeypot.
The lesson: don't be a retard and brag about your illegal activities online.
Re:No this isnt entrapment by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-06-27 03:16 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's how the courts used to decide this, but not anymore.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Or you might be playing The Secret World by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-06-27 03:35 · Score: 1

Join the bee people!

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Re:No this isnt entrapment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:38 · Score: 0

That awkward moment, when you suggest the mindset of a lawyer as a moral guide... *facepalm*
Meanwhile fraud-ring-in-hacking-attack-on-60-banks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

http://news.sky.com/story/952931/fraud-ring-in-hacking-attack-on-60-banks
Re:Meanwhile fraud-ring-in-hacking-attack-on-60-ba by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:44 · Score: 1

Maybe I should have put it in BOLD? will it get an up vote by the blackhat SEO mods?
Re:No this isnt entrapment by Sarten-X · 2012-06-27 03:49 · Score: 1

This is a legal matter, not a moral one.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Meanwhile fraud-ring-in-hacking-attack-on-60-ba by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 03:55 · Score: 0

MASSIVE CYBER RAID HITS 60 BANKS; $75 MILLION STOLEN
Nobody playing with the feds on cardprofit.cc could see or predict this one coming.
It's not enough to point out banksters and predict catastrophe.
They actually must be stopped.
broken oaths mean nobody obeys any law, it means lawless.
so... by circletimessquare · 2012-06-27 03:58 · Score: 2

who qualifies as a criminal, exactly, by your interesting standards

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:so... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-06-27 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  You don't understand the type. There is a group of people who see "Cops Bust ______ " and automatically think "Cops are Criminals", giving the entire benefit of the doubt to the people busted. It was entrapment, they got innocent people or some other excuse is "more likely" than cops actually doing something good.
  These people have a natural distaste for law enforcement.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Meanwhile fraud-ring-in-hacking-attack-on-60-ba by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 04:05 · Score: 1

WHAT NO FUCKING COMMENTS?
The automated malicious software programme (program, love that English accent) was discovered to use servers to process thousands of attempted thefts from both commercial firms and private individuals.
The stolen money was then sent to so-called mule accounts in caches of a few hundreds and 100,000 euro (£80,000) at a time.
Credit unions, large multinational banks and regional banks have all been attacked.
Sky News defence and security editor Sam Kiley said: "It does include British financial institutions and has jumped over to North America and South America.
"What they have done differently from routine attacks is that they have got into the bank servers and constructed software that is automated.
"It can get around some of the mechanisms that alert the banking system to abnormal activity."
The details of the global fraud come just a day after the MI5 boss warned of the new cyber security threat to UK business.
McAfee researchers have been able to track the global fraud, which still continues, across countries and continents.
"They have identified 60 different servers, many of them in Russia, and they have identified one alone that has been used to steal 60m euro," Kiley said.
"There are dozens of servers still grinding away at this fraud – in effect stealing money."
The clip flashed a few video frames of 1.2 Billion Euro as a theft amount.
I say we de-activate the FBI if they won't obey their oaths
Re:No this isnt entrapment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 04:18 · Score: 0

Well, the only entertaining thing about this comic is that it apparently was made in a bizarrely prude culture where prostitution is illegal.
Re:No this isnt entrapment by arth1 · 2012-06-27 04:20 · Score: 1

But the one line summary is: entrapment requires persuasive leadership by .gov not merely an announcement that ".gov is open for business!".
No, it doesn't have to be persuasive, it's enough that's inciting. If there is no evidence that the person would not have committed a crime of the same nature without the presence or actions of the , it's entrapment.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States
Re:No this isnt entrapment by Raenex · 2012-06-27 05:10 · Score: 3, Informative

First, you messed up your link. Corrected.
Second, from the start of the article:
"When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of "inert material," harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust."
Emphasis mine. This is not entrapment at all. The attack was his idea. The feds just helped him along to show he was willing to go through with it. It's no different than if somebody asked a bartender about a hitman to kill their spouse, and then the feds supplied them with one.
The Cromitie case is much more dubious, and if it's true he wasn't actively seeking to become a jihadist, I feel it is entrapment. But I also feel that way about cops dropping bills on the subway and arresting people who pick them up and keep them, or cops who leave unlocked vehicles with keys in the ignition in bad neighborhoods.
Re:Meanwhile fraud-ring-in-hacking-attack-on-60-ba by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 05:11 · Score: 0

Comments on what? Your other posts in this thread are gibberish. They must be censoring you.
Re:No this isnt entrapment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 06:48 · Score: 0

It is legal only in a very few countries, so it is not that bizarre actually.
http://www.tinyurl.com/hackbbonion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 06:51 · Score: 0

I hope) this is a) honey pot):
http://www.tinyurl.com/hackbbonion
it requires) Tor as) it forwards) to an .onion) site.
If it's (not a honeypot, (I hope it's (looked into (soon by (the authorities.
I wonder by plover · 2012-06-27 09:28 · Score: 2

I wonder if their bail bondsmen took Visa or MasterCard?

--
John
1. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder if their bail bondsmen took Visa or MasterCard?
  Well, we know they don't take Discover...
disagree by cekander · 2012-06-27 16:28 · Score: 1

I don't really agree with the conclusion that it always comes down to one monopoly or another. Be the BEST, and RESPECT your customer. You'll have continued success, guaranteed. If you start sucking *coughgooglecough* then you'll eventually need to turn to exploitation because your innovation and passion have left the building, and you've hired too many stuffy white shirts pushing an short-sighted monopolistic investor's agenda.
Re:No this isnt entrapment by BeeRockxs · 2012-06-27 21:47 · Score: 1

Almost all countries of western Europe, all of Latin America and some countries in Africa, Asia and Northern America is not "very few".
Re:No this isnt entrapment by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 23:31 · Score: 1

I feel it is entrapment. But I also feel that way about cops dropping bills on the subway and arresting people who pick them up and keep them
Wow, where you live there must be an incredibly low crime rate if the cops have to resort to that in order to justify their existence.

Alternatively, that's a load of old bollocks.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:No this isnt entrapment by tehcyder · 2012-06-27 23:42 · Score: 1

Well, the only entertaining thing about this comic is that it apparently was made in a bizarrely prude culture where prostitution is illegal.
Making prostitution illegal is not necessarily anything to do with prudishness. Sweden has (I believe) made it illegal, and they're about as far from prudish as you could imagine.

The reasoning behind making it illegal is that prostitution exploits the weak and vulnerable (mostly women and young teenage boys), not that having sex is a bad thing.

No doubt this is an example of socialist-feminist political correctness at the expense of essential liberty to many slashdotters. Whether this is true or not, it has nothing to do with prudishness.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:No this isnt entrapment by Raenex · 2012-06-28 03:39 · Score: 1

Alternatively, that's a load of old bollocks.
Operation Lucky Bag
I recall seeing a much earlier (as in years) version of this story where it was naked money that they dropped, but the wallet is close enough.
Wrong summary by RockDoctor · 2012-06-28 22:15 · Score: 1

The trick: the FBI ran another carding forum as a honeypot.
FTFY
Will people get the clue?
Probably not.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"