Slashdot Mirror
Prison Inmate Emails His Own Release Instructions To the Prison
Bruce66423 writes: A fraudster used a mobile phone while inside a UK prison to email the prison a notice for him to be released. The prison staff then released him. The domain was registered in the name of the police officer investigating him, and its address was the court building. The inmate was in prison for fraud — he was originally convicted after calling several banks and getting them to send him upwards of £1.8 million.
Amiright?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Sounds like this guy is more clever than most of the constables and prison officials in the article. Perhaps MI5 should hire him for penetration testing instead of putting him in jail!
Not to mention that defrauding banksters isn't the crime it is made out to be
Actually, even if you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that it's OK to steal from people you don't like, defrauding bankers hurts us all here. Here's why: 1) It costs the bank's customers through higher credit interest and lower debit interested 2) If the bank fails customers are likely to lose out (although most individual customers will have their deposits guaranteed by the state) 3) The state guarantees deposits of individual customers (up to a certain limit) so, if the state has to bail out those customers, we all pay.
With balls like this, he is probably unable to walk...
"Hey, guys, let this dumbass out!"
Every day it seems more like a documentary. At least this time it wasn't Americans being the complete idiots.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The place I worked as a guard had this happen. We held inmates from a bunch of counties in several states. One of the PDs fax machine broke and they would go across the street to Kinkos and fax release orders on their letterhead. After a while they would just use paper without the letterhead. An inmates wife simply faxed an improvised release form and we sent her husband home. He got cought when he arrived because the PD had no release on file. Everything changed after that, a phone call was required with proper ID.
This thread is all kind of moot, since the victims weren't banks anyway. He defrauded companies by claiming to from a bank.
I know the actions were criminal but I sort of admire the guy. It makes me wonder about human nature and it did take a lot of talent to do what he did. Somebody will make a movie out of this and we will hear from this guy again. With his talents he just has to keep on doing this stuff.
Why? Because he'd know how to use email?
Some people who run banks have committed crimes and gotten away with them. That does not make banks "criminal organizations," equivalent to drug mafias. Also, stealing from a bank has harmful consequences to plenty of innocent people which stealing from a drug cartel does not.
Your rationalization of "well if you get hurt when I steal from them that is your fault and I am innocent" only applies to actual criminal organizations, not to ones that you have personally decided to label "criminal" even though they are not.
What you propose is both illegal and morally wrong, and you can't weasel out of that with your bullshit semantic game.
I bet those guys in Quebec are kicking themselves. Here they went to all of the trouble to get a helicopter to break them out of jail and all they had to do is send an email!
"he was originally convicted after calling several banks and getting them to send him upwards of £1.8 million."
I want to know what you say to a bank to get them to release that kind (quantity) of money!
That's precisely his point. If you were a rich person, you would have access to investment vehicles with a larger return than 2%, and access to credit lines at lower rates.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Having worked in finance, I can assure you that pretty much everyone* has access to investment vehicles with a larger return than 2%. The problem is that those investments are significantly more risky than a bank, and losing the investment is unlikely to be catastrophic to someone with a large supply of other diversified assets, but it could be catastrophic to someone with only a weekly paycheck to fall back on.
The solution to that problem is to properly diversify your investments for safety. An investment adviser can help with that, but they'll charge a fee for their work, and many people feel (accurately or not) they can't afford that service. There are books and other resources to assist someone in wisely choosing their own investments, but that requires ambition, effort, and the admission that one is not naturally a financial expert. That last part seems to be the most difficult to come by.
* American, not already in excessive debt, with a stable income... some disclaimers apply, but the vast majority of the American population qualifies, not just those who fall under the "rich" label.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
A mobster is not a mobster for believing she is above the law. A mobster is a mobster for running a mob, which is an organization that breaks the law (and uses violence) as a routine part of their business. Banks do not do this...their routine business is perfectly legal. Therefore banks are not mobs, and those who run banks are not mobsters.
One who believes one's self to be above the law, but still acts within the law's boundaries, is neither a mobster nor a criminal.
One who does break the law is a criminal, but that does not automatically make that person's business criminal. The business itself is criminal only when its routine operations are criminal...not when individual employees independently break the law.
Of course, the laws may be bad laws. And the special exemptions given to banks and the wealthy people who run them might be evil and harmful. But that doesn't make them criminal. If you don't like the laws, you should do what you can to change them.
And it is ok for you to refuse to participate as much as you can. But once you start breaking the law yourself, you are walking on a very fine line. Breaking a truly unjust law is noble, but breaking a maybe-unjust-maybe-not law, and harming innocent people by doing it, is not noble.
... which will boost inflation and reduce the value of everyone's money.
which will boost inflation and reduce the value of everyone's money so little that you wouldn't even notice. FTFY. Rich people might have enough money affected that it might be a minor inconvenience to them, which is why they, their news organizations, and their useful idiots in politics think this needs to be such a worry for all of us.
That is all.
You don't think Charles will make a good Queen?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I don't think he's calling all banks everywhere evil, he's really talking about the big banks. They are evil: they wrecked the economy, then got paid for it with taxpayer dollars.
There are other banks that aren't so bad, but they're usually much smaller, confined to one state or local area usually. Credit unions are also usually pretty good.
But banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and worst of all HSBC are evil through-and-through.
As for regulation, that'd be nice, wouldn't it? Too bad we can't have that.
I can assure you that pretty much everyone* has access to investment vehicles with a larger return than 2%.
By definition it's not possible for everyone to be able to beat inflation.
Having worked in finance
Understandable. Daniel Kahneman has some amusing anecdotes who people who work in finance really don't seem to figure out what it is they're really doing.
it's in my head
Oh look, a broken record.
Tell me, if my fiat currency isn't worth anything, how come I'm able to use it to acquire land, a house on that land, the contents of that house and a nice car that lets me travel to and from it?
Might not have value to you, but it's been pretty fucking useful to me.