Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

675k Stolen Credit Cards = Ten Years In Jail

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the probably-three-and-parole-actually dept.

Security 204

wiredmikey writes "A hacker who had been found with more than 675,000 stolen credit card numbers that reportedly led to losses totaling more than $36 million, was sentenced on Friday to 120 months in prison. After pleading guilty on April 21, 2011, Rogelio Hackett Jr., 25, of Lithonia, Georgia, was slapped with a maximum prison sentence and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine. According to court documents, U.S. Secret Service special agents executing a search warrant in 2009 at Hackett's home found more than 675,000 stolen credit card numbers and related information in his computers and email accounts. Hackett admitted in a court filing that since at least 2002, he has been trafficking in credit card information he obtained either by hacking into business computer networks and downloading credit card databases, or purchasing the information from others using the Internet through various carding forums."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sounds about right. (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865330)

Is this suposed to be controversial or something? Seems a reasonable sentence for the crime, neither inflated or too short.

Re:Sounds about right. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865374)

Is this suposed to be controversial or something? Seems a reasonable sentence for the crime, neither inflated or too short.

Sayeth the fellow credit-card hacker...

Re:Sounds about right. (4, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865386)

That's up to 675,000 people he's hurt, so he gets less than two years per hundred thousand people.

On the one hand, that seems really freaking low. On the other, more time won't necessarily help anyone--it won't make him less likely to commit crimes in the future, and the deterrent effect probably isn't great.

Also, there were people at Nuremberg who got ten years, so going much higher than that would be comparatively high by that standard.

Re:Sounds about right. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865484)

It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.

Re:Sounds about right. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865916)

It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.

Multiply that by 675000 times. If it takes you 10 minutes on the phone to the credit card company, and 10-20 minutes to each biller (estimated on the low side - chances are you'll probably be on hold for 30 minutes or more). On average say you have a minimum of 2 direct debits (utilities, phone/internet - not counting rent, etc.), that's at least 30 minutes - which 675000 man hours wasted (30 minutes for you, 30 minutes for the person answering a call).

Not to mention all the police and fraud squad involvement.

675000 / 24 / 365 = 77.05 years.

Hey - maybe he shouldn't be put in jail and given a medal, for all the work he's created.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865524)

Point needing correction. This does not hurt 675,000 people. The parties harmed are the businesses which run the credit card system and those that rely on it. Credit card users aren't hurt so much.

Re:Sounds about right. (3, Insightful)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865606)

Not been the victim of id theft/fraud much?

Re:Sounds about right. (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865684)

You are not paying attention to who is victimizing who. You do not control information about you and you cannot control information about you. Information about you is traded and shared commercially all over the world. Our credit systems rely on the belief that information about you is a secret. Do you see a problem with this yet?

Okay, so now, when people come to you to pay bills you don't owe, it is the SYSTEM that is victimizing you, not the fraudsters who took advantage of a horrible system.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865750)

This may be true, but if my credit info wasn't among the 675,000, then could i really say that this guy was responsible for my plight?

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867040)

No the merchants who failed to identify the user of the credit details is guilty and in reality it is that merchant who should face criminal charges for defrauded you by making illegal charges against your card. You should be entitled to sue the merchant for any harm their greed driven failure to properly identify the user of the details and in fact the merchant should prove that they were defrauded else face full criminal charges.

Identify theft is a lie put forward by credit card companies to shift the financial onus onto you and away from the merchant until you substantiate your innocence, meanwhile the credit card company still makes money either way. Basically for 675,000 credit card details to be so readily abused means the fault in with for profit, minimum cost, not our problem corporation and some government regulation is required to tighten identity requirements.

Re:Sounds about right. (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865762)

No, nothing about the credit card system relies on the belief that the information about you is a secret.

With all due respect to your anti-credit card mentality, most of us get them for convenience, not to remain anonymous or secretive.
We are not victimized by the people we do business with via our cards. We enter into those agreements with full knowledge
that we expect X amount of money to be charged against our card, and we receive X amount of goods or services. We are all adult enough
to realize there is and audit trail and some other uses (fully explained in the TOS) may be made of the information. We are adult enough to realize
no one will do all of this for free.

I absolutely REFUSE to let you EXCUSE the theft of 675 thousand credit card data and 37 million dollars of fraud based on your silly
objection to the TOS that you knew going in.

The system without the fraudsters does not victimize me.
The fraudsters victimize me.

No amount of windmill tilting on your part can change that.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866488)

Actually you are not victimized at all. You are not even party to proceedings for those seeking remediation.

I am assuming of course, that these were just straight purchased with a credit card number and NOT identity fraud in which you are harmed by a lower magic number they come up which causes you pay more interest, the harm part.

Most likely, The TOS that you signed going in, specifically made you *not* the victim. I have had a few charges made that were not me at all. Other than placing a phone call and spending 10 minutes of my time, I was not financially harmed, nor was my credit harmed at all. In fact, I have been called several times in the past on my credit card when they thought my purchase spending pattern was abnormal.

The victim here are the credit card companies themselves. The merchant still gets paid from what I understand, and the credit card company has to eat it. Hence, they are the victims, not you.

Indirectly, the credit card companies may be compensating for their losses by increasing your fees and raising interest rates.... but we should be honest here.... they are going to do that anyways. Corporate culture in our recent times has demanded ever increasing growth in revenues, wherever you can find it. Fraud aside, I cannot possibly see how credit card companies were going to squeeze anything *less* out of you.

In a way, the credit card systems are victimizing you. It's just a point of view really and depends on your relationship with them. If you pay off your purchases at the end of the month, and have a low interest rate card it can be a good deal. However, there are some cases in which I can see it as predatory and their behavior as inexcusable.

Once again, that is up for debate. However, the fraudsters cause harm to the system, not you directly. Indirectly is really up for debate in my mind as well.

On another topic, I watched a documentary once about prison and specifically the time. This person did not assault you leaving you handicapped for the rest of your life. Did he kill you? Somebody you love? Torture? Rape?

10 years is a long damn time in prison. There are child molesters who get less. He committed fraud, not raped a 11 year old boy. Our perception of time can be weird. Try imaging everything that has happened to you in the last 10 years. Quite a bit eh?

The sentence is overboard, you are not the victim even if he did steal your card info, and some insurance premiums got adjusted. That's what happened here.

I think 3 years would have been more appropriate and you would be surprised by just how long that really is..... for a non-violent crime.

Re:Sounds about right. (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866578)

The victim here are the credit card companies themselves. The merchant still gets paid from what I understand, and the credit card company has to eat it. Hence, they are the victims, not you.

Are you Daft?

Credit card companies charge back fraudulent sales to the merchant. They eat little or nothing themselves.
The merchants eat it.

The card holder is still on the hook for $50 or so. More if they delay reporting the loss.
Further, the cost of goods goes up for everyone due to merchants having to eat the loss of the Color TV purchased with a fraudulent card for which they are charged-back.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866864)

Oh yes, it most certainly does rely on the notion that your personal information is known only by you. The primary way identity fraud works is by filling out applications using enough of a person's identity information to complete the application and having the cards and other information sent to a location of the perpetrator's choosing. By opening a whole new account, the person who was impersonated will have no knowledge of what had happened until months later leaving the trail to grow colder. If you think it's done more often by people simply stealing the credit card information of a person with an open account, that would be incorrect -- those are the things that get caught and detected within days of occurrence and yields the highest probability of the perp being caught.

And I think you need to read the article. You clearly didn't read it right. He was not responsible for $37 million in fraudulent transactions. He had databases of credit card numbers associated with that much in transactions. He couldn't possibly be responsible for 100% of those transactions the way he was buying and selling that information. It's more likely that he only did a little of it or none at all.

I get the feeling you really don't know how any of this works. You just see 675K card numbers and assume 675k victims. That would not be accurate to assume. When an identity fraudster creates an account using another's ID information, do you think he stops at just one account? More likely dozens of accounts per person are created.

I don't blame you for not understanding. I don't blame you for reading the hype the wrong way. The news loves to throw out the biggest numbers they can imagine to make a story more exciting. Most people simply don't have the capacity to think and understand... and so how could I blame you for not?

I know you won't but I invite you to look over the information you provide to a creditor when you apply for credit. Is any of that a secret? I mean a really deep secret that only you could know? Not a single bit and not even your "Super-Secret-Number" (AKA Social Security Number). And presuming that you never knew that it is new accounts which are opened using this information more often than using existing accounts, how does that make you feel about this system now? There simply isn't security involved in this process at all. Systems that do not require a person to apply in person and to sign things in the presence of another person is 100% insecure and no one ever seems to talk about it.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865950)

You are not paying attention to who is victimizing who.

Hooooo boy, I can already tell it's another one of THESE nutjobs...

You do not control information about[...]

Hm. One and a half sentences. Pretty decent for an amateur, but if you want to get competitive in getting people to stop caring about what you have to say, you'll have to step up your game a bit. Your overuse of "information" and "control" helped, but you'll have to get the double-helping of "victimizing" out sooner, or someone might actually read further into what you have to say, which apparently isn't your goal here.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866908)

Yup. I got off the personal-debt-financing ride, have almost nothing in personal debt and a savings that could sustain my family for quite some time if I lost my income. If that makes me a nutjob, then I guess I'm a nutjob. Are my achievements really that hard to believe? Do you think it's impossible? LOTS of people have done what I have done. Sure, I'm not doing what the "general public" does. But then again, the general public doesn't have much if any savings and lives paycheck-to-paycheck. And when there's a financial crisis, I feel it do, just not in the same way as you... and not quite as much.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866396)

I've had mine stolen twice. It sucked but in the end the only thing it cost me was time. So was I harmed yeah. Was I harmed the same way the victim of a violent crime or even theft was harmed. No.

Re:Sounds about right. (2)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865694)

This is wrong. It actually not only hurts those who had their card data stolen, but it also hurts everyone who has a credit card, or who needs to secure a line of credit, because the cost to insure against losses due to fraud are eventually passed on to the borrower in the form of higher interest rates, higher fees, or more restrictive lending practices. That money isn't just eaten by the companies--you would be delusional to think that for one second.

The sentence is too light, not in terms of the jail term, but the fine. The only real meaningful form of punishment these days is not locking someone up physically, but financially. Turn him into an indentured servant, work him to the bone, and let him die penniless and in squalor. That would be justice.

Re:Sounds about right. (1, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865742)

People who need credit cards aren't managing their money well enough. With few exceptions, I have been off of the credit system for more than a decade now and have lived quite well. Instead of lines of credit, I have money in the bank. And I don't buy stupid stuff like I used to. Turns out, when it's "your money" you think a little more about how you spend it.

I'll go ahead and reveal myself as a Dave Ramsey fan... an atheist Dave Ramsey fan... weird right? A credit score truly is an "I love debt" score. Ramsey is a multi-millionaire and has a terrible credit score. Why? Because he doesn't participate in the system, not because he doesn't have money. I probably also have a terrible credit score... similar reasons + an ex-wife who still uses my last name. But I don't have collections at my door either. And yeah, I do have nice things... and two cars completely paid for and there is simply nothing that I "really wish I had."

Re:Sounds about right. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865830)

This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on the internet.

1. You're not some messiah for not having a credit card, contrary to your belief. Your failure to manage your money with a credit card is damning evidence of why nobody should bother listening to you on topics related to money. There is not a dichotomy of "has a credit card and makes stupid purchases" versus "does not have a credit card and makes good purchases". Your inability to separate yourself from those in the first category is your own fault, not the card's fault.
2. I frequently make purchases in the $XXXX range. I'm not carrying around a checkbook or that much cash. In the case of a mugging? I call my CC company, they willingly set up no-expense-paid monitoring on my SSN for a year, and then they send me a new number. In the case of cash/checkbook? I'm royally fucked.
3. I don't know who or what David Ramsey is, nor do I care what some radio financial evangelist thinks. If he is truly a "multi millionaire" like you claim, there's a good reason he doesn't need a credit score - whatever he's buying, he can probably afford. The rest of us? Not so lucky.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866002)

And I can pretty much assure you that I live better by leveraging intelligently. Wealth has nothing to do with cash on hand; it's all about managed debt. In an emergency I can pay down everything I owe, but in the meantime I can easily live extremely well beyond my means just by leveraging the credit available to me. Handled poorly, you wind up bankrupt. Handled well, you live like a millionaire on 60K per year.

Re:Sounds about right. (5, Informative)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866122)

You clearly don't understand the nature of credit and its importance in American economics.

The implication in your simplistic view of credit is that it is a mechanism by which one borrows what they cannot afford to pay in full immediately. This is only sometimes true. However, in many cases, credit is used as a method of protecting oneself from risk. Only fools and old grandmothers who stash money under their mattresses think that credit is intrinsically bad. If I pay for something with a card, my creditor provides additional protections in case what I bought is not as advertised, or if there is some other dispute with the merchant. If I paid cash, I have no such protection.

Building a positive credit history is also essential for other purposes, such as renting a property, or securing employment in some sectors. Whether you agree with the practice or not, there is an increasing trend toward using credit history as a measure of financial and social responsibility. Lack of such a history is not considered an advantage--quite the opposite. If you are one of the lucky few who can get through life without having to establish your reputation through such means, then that's great, but that doesn't give you the right to be condescending toward the vast, vast majority of individuals who work hard and manage their credit wisely.

Credit is like food. You can use it in moderation. Excessive use may be an indication of addiction. Trying to avoid it is an illness unto itself.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866832)

If I pay for something with a card, my creditor provides additional protections in case what I bought is not as advertised,

Really, when I use my credit card, my creditor only charges me extra fees.

What protects me from being sold a product that is not as advertised is the Australian consumer protection laws that will, if the product is defective or different to what was advertised from an Australian retailer entitles me to a refund or exchange regardless of how I paid for it as long as I can provide a genuine receipt.

Credit is only useful for an investment that is expected to earn you more money over time. Home and business loans are the best examples as these are for assets which are expected to increase value over time, exceeding the cost of the loan and it's interest.

Only idiots use credit for consumption, as this just increases the cost of whatever you're consuming. This is foolhardy as it decreases the value of whatever you are buying. One should not not to use credit are for things that will only lose value over time, the most obvious examples are car loans and holidays because you're simply taking the capital and adding on additional cost (fee's and interest) and risk with no benefit.

Dont buy into the bollocks that credit is good. Banks say this because credit is profitable. Credit is a risk, when used properly it can be beneficial, when used improperly it will be dangerous.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867030)

I once applied for a bank loan from my own bank and was refused the loan, even though I had twice the amount in my account, their excuse was I didn't have a good credit account because I didn't have a credit card. I walked across the road to another bank fill in a loan form handed to the bank manager he read it and with five minutes I was given the loan, no questions asked about my financial status. You can guess what happened next

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866394)

And I don't buy stupid stuff like I used to. Turns out, when it's "your money" you think a little more about how you spend it.

Only if you're an idiot. Why do some people think that just because they can't grasp that credit isn't "free money" - or if it takes them a very long time to get there - then the rest of us must have the same problem, too?

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866616)

The psychological effect of swiping a card (especially a credit card) is far less than actually handing cash over. People spend more on a credit or debit card without realizing it.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866760)

See all of the above for a classic example of defending themselves and the way they operate.

The fact is, using credit cards for personal business is not necessary in most cases. I do have a debit card with credit card links to an account with "as needed" funds in there at any time to limit losses in the event of fraud, but that's as far as I go for the convenience/necessity of that.

Credit cards are a loan. There may or may not be fees associated with what you buy or how you pay, etc, but it invariably depends on the cold holder to constantly and continually maintain whatever ends of the agreement are required to keep things as cheap or as free as possible. And these days banks have been changing terms of service more often than they change their underwear, so you can claim "if I [do whatever] it's free" you might want to keep checking for changes because I guarantee you in your terms of service, you will find a clause in there that says they can change the agreement at any time without notice.

And since I don't take loans out for consumer things, I never have to worry about those things.

As for "...whatever he is buying he can probably afford..." Wow. You just revealed yourself as far dumber than you think I am. Do you really buy things you can't afford??? Holy cow man! You are seriously advocating debt financing of your life and existence? You're a disaster waiting to happen. Get a savings account built up that can sustain you for several months of living at your current comfort level and then see now much you need to debt finance your life. It can take a while to build that savings, but shouldn't take more than two years. And when you have that kind of money in an account, you won't feel the need to borrow money to buy stuff from WalMart any longer.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866962)

Spoken like someone who never wants to own a home.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

murdocj (543661) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866882)

Or you could pay your credit card bill off in full every month, the way I do, and enjoy the convenience of having a credit card and not having any debt.

Re:Sounds about right. (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865542)

More properly, he hurt a few banks which insist on a system with virtually no security whatsoever. They then passed the hurt on to up to 675,000 people rather than fixing the problem.

That certainly doesn't make him less guilty, it just makes him the only one who's going to pay for it.

Re:Sounds about right. (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865756)

He didn't hurt the banks. The banks will pass the loss on to the clients in the form of higher rates. Which is unfortunate because as long as banks can just buy their way out for cheap they aren't likely to invest in the kinds of security necessary to make things more challenging for crooks.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866176)

Like I said, the banks quickly passed the hurt on.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866274)

The banks will pass the loss on to the clients in the form of higher rates.

Nope. Banks respond to supply and demand, too.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

moortak (1273582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866762)

Worse than that, they passed it on to the merchants who passed it on to everyone else regardless of payment method.

Re:Sounds about right. (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865806)

Where did you get the banks involved in this?

He obtained either by hacking into business computer networks and downloading credit card databases. (If you won't read the article at least read the summary).

The banks, while vulnerable enough, are the least of the problem. The corner grocery, the power company, newspaper, ebay, and any other place from which you routinely purchase are the ones with lax security.

And while its fun to rail at banks, remember that the US DOD was hacked by a bunch of kids. The problem of internet security goes much deeper than your hatred of banks.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866362)

We have known for 3 decades how to create a card (either cash or credit) where simply knowing the number and name on it is absolutely useless, but the banks refuse to implement them. As long as they insist of a screwed up system where the number is both ID and authentication, this will remain a problem. For example, a smart card can cryptographically sign a plaintext transaction handed to it by a POS terminal. At that point, it hardly matters if it is broadcast to the world.

The merchants are stuck working with a system that practically demands to be abused because that's all the banks will grant them.

As you pointed out, the DOD has been hacked by a bunch of kids, why would you (or the banks) expect better of a corner grocer?

Re:Sounds about right. (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866540)

The majority of credit cards stolen are not from terminal swipes, but rather on-line purchases, especially repetitive on-line purchases
such as routine bill payment where the merchant needs to retain the card info for subsequent billings. (Gas, electricity, news paper, web purchases, etc).

Cartographic signing at a pos terminal is not an option. Further POS sales generally go directly to the payments processor and never even need stop at the mom-and-pop grocer.

The number is not both ID and authentication. (As I suspect you well know).
In addition you need a couple other data elements.
The unfortunate thing is these are all on the card itself.

But this theft did not involve the card itself. It involved data files from corporate computers.
Short of a merchant specific CC numbers, (which are available from some credit card companies) there is no way
to allow repetitive payments without retention of card data by the merchant.

This system evolved. It was never designed with the availability of all the protections you imagine.
There are literally millions of POS terminals in any given state, and probably billions world wide. Its nice to imagine them all being updated to the latest technology over night, but even if you could bear the cost of doing so you are still left with a mix of old and new for 10 or 20 years.

People (probably you) rail against NFC which has the real potential to solve the POS problem.
But nobody has wet solved the Credit Card on File problem that ever on-line-retailer has to deal with.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866238)

That's up to 675,000 people he's hurt...

He stole from credit card companies, not individuals. You're not liable for credit card fraud.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866370)

yes, but having your credit fucked up requires a really long and painful experience to get it rectified in the eyes of credit scorers. So any loan or credit line you apply for is likely to get rejected, thus affecting the individual.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866436)

Your credit will be fucked up by a fraudulent fifty dollar charge?

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866628)

no people were harmed in this crime.. banks are on the hook for fraudulent charges (for electronic transactions).

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm [federalreserve.gov]

Section 205.6 Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers
Limits a consumer's liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers, such as those arising from loss or theft of an access device, to $50; if the consumer fails to notify the depository institution in a timely fashion, the amount may be $500 or unlimited.

my bank called me for a suspicious charge for $700. I said I didn't make that purchase, it never even hit my account. All I had to do was sign an affadavit saying it wasn't me.

don't forget, when you use a credit card, you are using the banks money, not yours. they really hate it when people steal from them - that's why they monitor credit accounts for suspicios transactions... MUCH harder to deal with a fraudulent transaction on your ATM card. don't use your ATM to buy anything.

No Weed = Light Sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866700)

Ahh, but they didn't find any marijuana when they busted him, so he is obviously no danger to society.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866952)

Now that they have a conviction, they could have each BANK file separate charges. Cards are owned by banks, each separate bank and jurisdiction should be able to charge him separately.. As THEY are the wronged parties with hundreds of cards each. That would add just ONE year per bank... Or potentially 100's of CONSECUTIVE 1-2 year terms on top of the ten.

Frankly, it's time for the law to "step aside" in these cases intil people learn not to do this. O think it's time to bring back public corporal punishment... Travel to each city, break out the cat-'o-nine-tails and just do the rounds till he gets all 675k lashes in!!! Somebody want to run the numbers to see if it's even possible to take that many lashes in ten years... It's not like we're giving him death or anything... That'd be cruel! It takes way less than 30 minutes in a phone tree each of the victims will have to endure.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865416)

ya, I mean one can quibble over the exactly extent of the sentence or whatever, but that belongs on a law site. Steal credit card info, get caught, get convicted, get punished. Sounds about right.

It's not exactly clear if they mean he gained 36 million from this, or if that's just the value of the fraud on the cards. I remember here in canada we had a similar story years ago, and there are various levels of intermediaries. The hacker gets paid to get the card info, they sell it to a clearing house who resells it piecewise to people who might actually exploit it. There were a few steps in between too that I don't remember. But that doesn't mean he wasn't both getting the info and using it himself, though I don't suppose it matters much.

Re:Sounds about right. (1, Troll)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865540)

No fucking way. I'd say he deserves at least two years per $1M. Just kill him now.

Re:Sounds about right. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865690)

No fucking way. I'd say he deserves at least two years per $1M. Just kill him now.

You're likely a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

Really? This guy is playing the same game called Capitalism that everyone else is playing. Megacorporations, oil companies, banks, etc., get away with theft (and much worse) on scales that are orders of magnitude greater, affecting much more people and in more extreme ways.

They'll never spend a day in any kind of prison. With that in perspective, the sentence this guy is getting is unjustly harsh.

Re:Sounds about right. (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865714)

You're right. Let's round up the CEOs.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866250)

Put him in a cell with someone whose old parents couldn't pay their heating bills because his abuse stripped their credit cards. And hope that someone likes boys with pretty mouths.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866290)

Please excude my crudity: But my (quite old) father had an identity theft problem last year, that made it hard for him to get his heart medications, and I'm still very angry about it. The confusion and delays could have been fatal.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

LanceUppercut (766964) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865910)

Yes, it is supposed to be controversial. You just missed the controversy. You see, the US State Department spends considerable amount of taxpayers money on disseminating propaganda about "Russian", "Ukrainian", "Romanian" and etc. hackers trying to get ahold of your credit card information in order to steal your identity. They just ignore obvious questions about why would all those people in Eastern Europe want to get this information (totally useless to them, of course), they just keep churning out the propaganda regardless of how nonsensical it is. The lemmings swallow this bullshit, and that's perfectly enough for the State Department. And now, suddenly we have some guy in GA with all the "loot" on his hands. Doesn't really fit into the picture. Of course, it is possible to twist the story to get the "Russian hackers" involved, at least making it believable enough for a typical ignorant lemming, but the "controversy" will still be there. No, I don't have any high hopes for it. It will quickly be forgotten. (And those who are not too quick to forget will quickly be explained that it is better to be more forgetful for their own good...) But nevertheless, it is rather interesting to see this story to pop up instead of getting "contained" as usual.

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865958)

You think your credit information is useless to someone in eastern europe? How about you give me your information, I go to eastern europe and if I can do damage to your financial stability while over there you don't press any charges for anything i get from you. If I fail I'll pay for my own airfare.

You want to take this challenge or admit that you're a lying sack of shit?

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

LanceUppercut (766964) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866516)

It is not about what you can do. It is about what makes sense. Hackers in Eastern Europe has long ago focused entirely on targeting Eastern European victims. Nobody in the Eastern European computer crime scene even heard about some country you call "USA" ("Where is it? Somewhere in Africa?"). Targeting Eastern European victims simply makes more economical sense. It is easier, it is closer and, just for starters, the people there are significantly richer a typical American, in a sense that they have significantly more "loose" money on their hands.

Re:Sounds about right. (0)

LanceUppercut (766964) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866542)

... As for admitting anything. No, actually. I'm a human being, not that de-bred organism that you are (i'm not sure they even have a scientific name for you). You don't get to meet human being too often in your silly life (if you can call that "life", of course), but today is your day apparently. Having a chance to speak to me, even if just over the Net, is the highest point of you stupid little life. Enjoy the moment. It will be all downhill from here.

Re:Sounds about right. (2)

The1stImmortal (1990110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865922)

To put it in context, that's 7 minutes, 47.52 seconds in prison per card number, or about 8.8 seconds per dollar in losses.

At that rate it's positively profitable to steal card numbers!

Re:Sounds about right. (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866206)

Indeed. With the US and other capitalist nations the amount of time served for stealing funds is inversely related to the amount of funds stolen. If you steal enough you are lauded for your performance.

Not nearly enough time (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865332)

Ten years means he will probably enjoy the fruits of his labor at 35, when he retires with some of that 36 million (or the other multi-millions the feds never found) that he squirreled away off shore.

in prison the high cost of phone + commissary (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865372)

Eats funds fast and the club feds are not what they just to be.

Re:in prison the high cost of phone + commissary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865616)

From what I learned in Criminal Justice class:

It depends. Did he get 10 years, or more than 10 years. If he gets under 10 years, he gets sent to a minimum security joint (no electric fence, dormitories). No, they don't have racquetball and golf courses, but it isn't a "PMITA" prison either. 10+ gets one in a higher security joint (think electric fence), and likely two-man cells.

Prison isn't fun, but unless he pisses off the population and winds up in max security where prisoners start extorting him, there is little chance of this guy getting assaulted or ending up farting mayonnaise during his "career change".

I wouldn't want to waste 10 years of my life and be branded a felon for life for the scraps of the $675k, but he might be able to eke out some income if he writes a book about it.

Re:in prison the high cost of phone + commissary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865748)

I wouldn't want to waste 10 years of my life and be branded a felon for life for the scraps of the $675k, but he might be able to eke out some income if he writes a book about it.

Read it again, Holmes. It was 675,000 cards, not dollars.

Re:in prison the high cost of phone + commissary (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865774)

It wasn't $675k, it was 675k CC numbers that were stolen, so it's doubtful that he made only $675k.

Re:Not nearly enough time (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865396)

Leading to losses totalling 36 million does not mean that he personally stole 36 million. He may have just had a commission--at that quantity, he sounds like a wholesaler.

Re:Not nearly enough time (4, Insightful)

hansraj (458504) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865406)

Losses incurred probably include things like time lost in canceling a card and issuing new one. The wordings of TFA don't make it clear whether he used all those cards or he just sold it to other criminals, so I have no idea how much this guy directly made.

Re:Not nearly enough time (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865588)

That's a ridiculous assumption. This guy was stupid enough to get caught. I seriously doubt he was smart enough to be able to hide the money. $36 million was mentioned but that's against CC accounts that have been bought and sold by him and doesn't prove or even indicate that he actually even used any of those cards himself. And the article identifies him as a career identity thief. "ID Theft" (Identity Fraud) doesn't usually involve the use of existing credit accounts, but rather it usually involves opening lines of credit using "identity information" of others.

Still, glad he got caught and slammed for it. A person who does what he did shows little concern for the harm he causes others.

Re:Not nearly enough time (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865760)

Ten years means he will probably enjoy the fruits of his labor at 35, when he retires with some of that 36 million (or the other multi-millions the feds never found) that he squirreled away off shore.

Don't drop the soap in the shower in the meantime.

Re:Not nearly enough time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865996)

Rape is funny!

In the US, anyway. Asshole.

Rampant greed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865420)

640 K credit cards should be enough for anybody.

This guy took it too far.

Rogelio Hackett (4, Interesting)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865460)

The Mr Hackett was destined to become a hacker...

....researchers have found that people named Dennis are more likely to become dentists. An article, “Why Susie Sells Seashells by the Seashore,” finds that in the U.S. population the names Jerry, Dennis, and Walter rank 39th, 40th, and 41st among male first names. But in the national directory of the American Dental Association there are close to twice as many Dennises (482) as Walters (252) and Jerrys (270). “Similarly, people whose names begin with ‘Geo’ (e.g., George, Geoffrey) are disproportionately likely to do research in the geosciences (e.g., geology).”

http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/04/24/yes-part-ii/ [freakonomics.com]

Re:Rogelio Hackett (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865704)

And if you're named Roxanne, your occupation is likely to be slutty.

Re:Rogelio Hackett (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866004)

Roxanne, you DON'T have to put on the red light!

Re:Rogelio Hackett (1)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865856)

Our species is so shallow sometimes. I wonder if people named "Jesus" (Hey-Zeus) are more likely to become preachers, or if "Johns" are more likely to get hookers.

about that fine, (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865480)

do you accept visa or mastercard? ;)

What he deserved was... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865498)

1 bullet. Under the chin. Along with all of the other hackers, spammers, etc.

Re:What he deserved was... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865530)

Prescribing the death penalty for stupid shit like this is for uncivilized fuckheads.

Re:What he deserved was... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865586)

And ACs.

Re:What he deserved was... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865584)

1 bullet. Under the chin. Along with all of the other hackers, spammers, etc.

cute, did you miss some game time on psn?

I never get why these people stick around (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865512)

Could he not have stoped at say 15M and taken an indefinite vacation to a non extradition country.

Re:I never get why these people stick around (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865622)

No he couldn't, because he was stupid and greedy.

Doubt he got $35M (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866288)

I doubt he even got $15M. Usually in cases like this, the take might be in the $100K for one person. $35M is more likely the sum total of losses incurred by EVERYONE ELSE who utilized these numbers.

Re:I never get why these people stick around (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866340)

He couldn't, because he never made anywhere near that: the card numbers he stole "led to" losses of $36 mil, meaning he sold them to others who actually exploited the stolen identities (hence, 'trafficking').

I doubt he made more than a few million, and really, who could live on that?

Re:I never get why these people stick around (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866364)

He probably didn't clear all that much after everything was converted to cash and the money was split with his associates.

He's not going to white-collar resort prison... (0)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865560)

No, no, no. He's going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison.

Re:He's not going to white-collar resort prison... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865602)

You guys brag as if you're proud about your human-rights-violating prisons. Don't give me no shit about China.

Re:He's not going to white-collar resort prison... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865708)

They pound you in the ass in China if you don't smile the right way at the police.

Re:He's not going to white-collar resort prison... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865860)

They pound you in the ass in China if you don't smile the right way at the police.

Whoosh. Way to miss the point he/she was making. Hint: he/she wasn't defending China.

Re:He's not going to white-collar resort prison... (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865858)

It's a line from a movie. One that virtually everyone on this site has seen. It doesn't mean people are pro-rape. The occasional scumbag might be, but if you judge an entire country based on them, you're going to find that every country fails your standards.

Hung for a lamb, hung for a sheep (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865600)

This person definitly deserves a hard punishment for his crimes - there are over six hundred thousand people out there, inconvinenced at best, driven to financial ruin at worst, on his conscience. But I feel one minor twang of discomfort: he pleaded guilty and still has gotten the maximum sentence. This way, there is no incentive for the next criminal to not plead not-guilt and try every possible defense to get a lighter sentence or even a (incorrect) "innocent" verdict.

Looking at it in a game theory way:
Plead not guilty -> Extremely likely: Maximum Sentence; Extremely unlikely: Go free
Plead guilty: -> Maximum sentence
Conclusion: Always plead not guilty?

Re:Hung for a lamb, hung for a sheep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865998)

You're looking at the wrong phase of the game. Plea and sentence are usually worked out well in advance, particularly in high-profile cases like this one.

At least some of the following were likely to have been true and to have affected the outcome of any attempts at plea bargaining:

1. The case against him was iron-clad.

2. He had nothing of value to offer the prosecution.

3. He exhibited no signs of remorse..

4. He showed no other motives than personal gain.

5. There were no other redeeming circumstances.

Basically, neither the prosecution or defence could offer any compelling reasons for leniency, so the judge decided that the guilty plea was nothing more than a gesture calculated to induce leniency and threw the book at him anyway. (In other words, he tried to game the system and got caught out.) End of story

Bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865682)

Common crook and CC scammer does not a hacker make. But then, most of the "IT security" sites haven't a clue. No wonder the state of IT security is so poor.

36m in 10 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865764)

Seems like excellent pay. Not that time in jail would be great, but way more than I'm likely to make in the next 20 years.

Re:36m in 10 years? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866320)

I'll admit to not reading the f'n A, but I don't think they let you keep the money.

Just goes to show... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36865766)

... that people who steal lots of money can afford good lawyers. .

How does this sit with the RIAA sentances (5, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865876)

Given that 675,000 credit cards is a ten year prison sentence, I do wonder what the same sentence would have been if it was 675,000 tracks he downloaded - and if the two of these sentences are therefore proof that the law is tilted towards a specific type of industry?

So a day in jail... (0)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36865946)

365 days a year * 10 years = 3650 days
36m / 3650 days = $9863.

I'd take my chances in federal prison for 10k a day.

Re:So a day in jail... (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#36866070)

"I'd take my chances in federal prison for 10k a day."

Sure, on the first day. By the second day, you would offer to give them the 10k back with 100% interest in order to be released, I promise you.

Financial Fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866308)

$36 million in damages by credit card fraud = 10 years in prision.

Can we please get at least 1/100 of that relation for all the people in the financial industry causing losses in the billions?

Only in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36866626)

can you ruin more than half a million lives, defraud the insurance companies of 36 million dollars and only pay $100,000, but hurt no one and "steal" 24 songs get sued for $1.5 million.

His name... (0)

Roblimo (357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867056)

Did anyone notice that this dude's name is Hackett?

I can just see the police:

"Uh, anyone have any idea who might have done this credit card theft thing?

"Sarge, there's a guy just got a traffic ticket, name of Hackett."

"HACKETT? Of course! It had to be him. Wake up Judge Alzheimer, get a warrant, and bust him right away. Search his computer for porn, too, while you're at it."

Hackett (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867084)

lol Hackett.

sentencing guidelines (3, Interesting)

NynexNinja (379583) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867098)

The sentencing guidelines have been changed several times over the last 20-30 years regarding the penalties for this type of offence. In the 1980's or 1990's, had this guy been sentenced, he would likely be facing probation or at most a few months in jail, depending on his prior history. These days, they really throw the book at these people and the sentences are on par with murderers and other violent felonies. This man was born about 10 years too late, and was about 10 years older than he should have been when he committed these crimes. Also, I highly doubt the inflated numbers involved in the theft of the credit card data. The credit card companies have been known to dramatically inflate these losses, and then if you ask them for any sort of documentation proving any of it, the real numbers are somewhere around 1% of the original amount they specified. They probably claim this as a deduction on their taxes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>