Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Insurance For Cybercriminals, or Giant Sting?

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the needs-scott-joplin-soundtrack dept.

Crime 72

tsu doh nimh writes "Brian Krebs follows up on a recent Slashdot discussion about a cybercrime gang that is recruiting botmasters to help with concerted heists against U.S. financial institutions. The story looks at the underground's skeptical response to this campaign, which is being led by a criminal hacker named vorVzakone ('thief in law'), who has released a series of videos about himself. vorVzakone also is offering a service called 'insurance from criminal prosecution,' in which miscreants can purchase protection from goons who specialize in bribing or intimidating Russian/Eastern European police into scuttling cybercrime investigations. For $100,000, the service also claims to have people willing to go to jail in place of the insured. Many in the criminal underground view the entire scheme as an elaborate police sting operation."

cancel ×

72 comments

Mystery solved! (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41597725)

Re:Mystery solved! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597767)

"To whom does the license plate belong?" (more correct) or "Who does that license plate belong to?" (less correct)

Two 'to's is one to too many.

Re:Mystery solved! (1, Troll)

jerpyro (926071) | about 2 years ago | (#41597821)

Thanks for playing the pedant game, you win the championship! What has he won, Johnny?
"Why, he's won lifetime of I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE NOT pride on the internet! Congratulations!"

Re:Mystery solved! (1, Interesting)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41597973)

As pedants go it was the most informative I've seen. It pointed out something was wrong (the unhelpful standard). But this pedant told the person A) why it was wrong and b) provided examples. I wish I hads me this at school. It is a handy level of pedant. To whom is may concern. Thanks.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41599305)

Except that he himself was wrong. Or at least a few decades outdated with thinking that there are "correct sentences" and "incorrect sentences" or anything of the kind. The notions of idiolect and fractional acceptability prevailed in English linguistics a long time ago.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41599327)

Please replace "fractional" for "graduated". Not being a native English speaker, I sometimes fetch the wrong word from my lexical memory.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 2 years ago | (#41599889)

There may not be correct and incorrect sentences, but there are sentences that make sense and sentences that make no sense. Mindlessly repeating that a preposition is a word you should never end a sentence with may not be entirely correct, but ending a sentence with a preposition clearly shows a lack of understanding what words mean.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41600935)

"Who did you give your car to" does not show a lack of understanding. It has multiple errors in it, but is likely to be spoken by a native speaker and is unambiguous, therefore is "correct" in any useful definition of the term.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 2 years ago | (#41601033)

Well, sure, for simple ideas like that you can get slack, but if you have something more intricate to say then you need to pay attention to what words mean. It's a lot easier to keep yourself sharp if you use language correctly all the time.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41601343)

These are average americans we are talking about. "sharp" means they didn't kill themselves making breakfast this morning.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41601939)

It's a lot easier to keep yourself sharp if you use language correctly all the time.

Again, you make it sound as if there were a prescriptive grammar of English preserved and refined by some language governing body [wikipedia.org] given official stamp by the government. Unless there one for English, there's nothing to talk about. [ <-- oh gosh, a stranded preposition! Fix it, smarty pants. ;-) ] Language is what people use to communicate, and people learn a language by imitating other people, not by cramming some rulebooks. Want a proof? Languages ultimately evolve - even French! - which would be impossible if anyone actually followed the rules to the letter.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41602205)

Again, replace "anyone" by "everyone". :-) (*That* is what I call an error, not that silly stranded preposition nonsense.)

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41601841)

It has multiple errors in it, but is likely to be spoken by a native speaker and is unambiguous

The latter part of your sentence makes your definition of "errors" into something completely useless.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41602019)

Textbook errors, obviously. Rather than trying your hardest to misintrepret the statement, try reading it for the "most correct" possibility. "I ain't gonna git no mo' schoolin" is error-free, based on your complaint. So your complaint is more wrong that my statement, even if my statement was "bad".

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41602175)

"I ain't gonna git no mo' schoolin" is error-free

It is, that's the whole point.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41603003)

As "Ebonics" is an attempt to define and classify counter-culture African-American language, and as you are indicating the above is error free, it seems you would also be advocating Ebonics as a proper language (or dialect). When do we start the Ebonics classes?

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41601831)

"ending a sentence with a preposition clearly shows a lack of understanding what words mean."

Really? How? I just don't see it.

Re:Mystery solved! (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41600887)

That, and he was wrong. He focused on grammar, and it was a semantics issue. He means "Who owns this license plate" or "can you identify the owner of this license plate". The issue of shoehorning a transitive verb into an intransitive sentence or vice versa is a common semantic error, but not a grammar error, except for "grammar" in the broadest sense.

Changing the words used will give you more correct options than his "more correct" option

"Correct" and "not correct" are still used in linguistics for "more likely to be used by a native speaker" and "less likely to be used by a native speaker". But no, there is no grammar police that will whack you in the knee caps with a baseball bat if you use a word wrong.

Catholic Schools (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 2 years ago | (#41601561)

...But no, there is no grammar police that will whack you in the knee caps with a baseball bat if you use a word wrong.

... Unless you go to Catholic school, in which case the nuns may well whack you in the knuckles with a ruler if you use a word wrong^Wincorrectly.

:-P

Cheers,

Re:Mystery solved! (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41597915)

"Less correct"? According to the Single Approved Universal Valid-For-All-Times Prescriptive Grammar of English? Yeah, whatever.

Re:Mystery solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597939)

You forgot a period at the end of your first sentence.

Re:Mystery solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598113)

I considered it, but it's not really intended as a sentence. Not everything written in words is a sentence.

Re:Mystery solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597991)

And who cares?

Re:Mystery solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598061)

I can't believe a sophisticated crook or police force would knowingly put their license plate up front and center unless they wanted to plant it there to act as "proof" of identity.

Re:Mystery solved! (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about 2 years ago | (#41598097)

TMTOWTDI

Only half right. (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 2 years ago | (#41598271)

"To whom does the license plate belong?" (more correct) or "Who does that license plate belong to?" (less correct)

Two 'to's is one to too many.

Your second example is incorrect -- since "who" is the indirect object of the preposition "to", even if that "to" comes at the end of the sentence, it would again have to be "whom" to be correct:

"Whom does that license plate belong to?"

Cheers,

Re:Only half right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598441)

Hence "less correct"

Re:Only half right. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41601035)

You forget, whom has been depreciated. It is misused more often than used properly now, and used rarely enough that it's no longer the required form of the objective case. Though, from what I can tell, that's still under debate, and plenty disagree. Also, anything that passes for spoken is acceptable for written, and the presence or absence of "to" at the end would not be set at the time of speaking "who" so arguably, "who" is more correct than whom. "who(m)" decide now, which form "owns that plate" (which did you pick?) "does it belong to" (oh no, you picked wrong for one of the two, and they are roughly equivalent, and not everyone composes every sentence before starting to speak it, but instead speaks fluidly without pauses, forming the words as they go.

Pedantry (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 2 years ago | (#41601535)

I thought the whole point of this sub-thread was pedantry? :) If so, linguistic conservativism is more the rule than vernacular use.

As a simple rule of thumb for who / whom, consider he / him or they / them. This may sound a bit tortured in question syntax such as in the corrected example in my previous post, but it still provides a useful and quick-and-easy guide to when to put the "m" on the end of "whom".

Pedantry aside, yes, in the daily vernacular, many (most?) Americans that I've spoken with don't consistently use "whom" correctly, suggesting that this usage is indeed deprecated and on the way out. I have no idea if this is a pondian phenomenon, where perhaps UK or Australian or NZ English speakers might use "whom" more often; I am likewise ignorant of the frequency of usage by Canadian or Indian speakers of English. Such a difference, if present, might indicate laxer grammar education in the US.

Cheers,

Re:Pedantry (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41602065)

Being in NZ/OZ regularly, I'll attest to the fact that it isn't much better (if any) in terms of proper usage of whom. Though I haven't seen the use of "they" to refer to a single person of unknown gender as much outside the US.

Re:Pedantry (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 2 years ago | (#41602361)

Being in NZ/OZ regularly, I'll attest to the fact that it isn't much better (if any) in terms of proper usage of whom. Though I haven't seen the use of "they" to refer to a single person of unknown gender as much outside the US.

Interesting, thank you. I wonder if that particular usage of "they" has to do with the feminism and political correctness movements in the US, and the resulting social focus on gender in language. Given the lack of any neuter third-person singular pronoun in English other than the overly impersonal "it", "they" seems to have been pressed into service instead.

Cheers,

Re:Pedantry (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41602987)

Oh, and in OZ and NZ, I hear the royal "we" (and other such confusing plurrals). Why is "The Microsoft" plural? There is only one. "Microsoft have released Windows 8" just sounds wrong. "Microsoft has released Windows 8" is the US version.

And you are correct that "they" was the attempt to co-opt a gender neutral pronoun for an unknown singular person. Most languages with gender direct the usage of masculine for that case. The other solution was an aversion to pronouns. But news reports take forever. The unknown assailant struck the victim. Then the unknown assailant ran down the alley, where the police lost the unknown assailant. If you have any information about the unknown assailant, please call crime stoppers.

Otherwise, you are assigning a gender without information regarding that. And repeated use of the noun, rather than using a pronoun, seems odd, almost as bad as the people that talk about themselves in 3rd person.

Re:Pedantry (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 2 years ago | (#41614633)

As a quick PS, I think the British use of plurals for organizations comes from the idea (logical enough, I suppose) that an organization comprises a plurality of people. Personally, I think it sounds about as off as saying "the group have done something", rather than treating the collective noun "group" (or rather the organization name itself) as a singular noun in its own right, where "the group has done something" would be more correct.

Cheers,

Re:Pedantry (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41614967)

Personally, I think it sounds about as off as saying "the group have done something", rather than treating the collective noun "group" (or rather the organization name itself) as a singular noun in its own right, where "the group has done something" would be more correct.

That's a difference in how people think, and is handed down from parents, and picked up when young. "The Microsoft corporation have released Windows 8" is how I'd expect it to be said in NZ/OZ. Groups of people are almost always plural, even if the group name is singular. I haven't picked up anything on group nouns. "The Parliament have/has done something" "The herd have gone to the water hole." Or is it just for names of organizations not explicitly singlular? "Microsoft have done something" The Microsoft Corp has done something"

I don't know. And it may be one of the many differences between US and UK English?

Re:Pedantry (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 2 years ago | (#41620731)

Yeah, I learned it as a pondian difference -- UK uses the plural noun form for organization names and usually for collective nouns (though suddenly I'm thinking maybe I misunderstood about collective nouns? Organizations are definitely treated as plurals, as is easily confirmed in media headlines...), US uses the singular forms for organization names and usually for collective nouns. Part of it too might be where the semantic emphasis lies -- whether one is talking about a collective as a whole, or as a bunch of individual constituent members.

Re:Pedantry (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41623295)

Yes, there's an unstated (members of) in British English that doesn't exist in Amreican English. (members of) Microsoft have done something. Cover and uncover "members of" and see whether "have" is still appropriate. In British English, have is still appropriate, but in American English, the verb plurality changes with the presence of the change of subject. The subject in American English changes from Microsoft (a singular noun) to members (a plural noun). But, it appears British English treats collectives as plurals. I do not know the answer, but I would expect to see the same thing for other collectives. "The flock have done something" and such. But no idea whether that's a correct expectation.

Re:Mystery solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41600301)

I'm really amazed that no one on this thread is identifying the owner of the vehicle by tracing the license plate or at least showing the steps to do so.

Re:Mystery solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41604337)

If you'd actually read the Krebs article, you wouldn't be so amazed.

Or somebodyes ego inflating until it bursts... (2)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41597779)

Would not be the first time. Even the public self exposure could be amply explained by stupidity. Let us hope law-enforcement is a bit less incompetent for this guy than they usually are with regards to all things Internet.

progress (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597809)

Aw, how cute, they're forming a business services community! What's next, conferences?

Re:progress (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41598025)

The Somali pirates already re-invented venture capitalism.

This is fucking retarded on so many levels. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597853)

I see a lot of scams in what I do now and I can tell you that this is one of them.

First of all, I am highly dubious that this is in fact an elaborate police sting. If it were, all they'd get is the moronic bottom feeding small fish. Not worth the time and money in court costs to prosecute. Cops go after big fish to take out the spider controlling the web or some high profile crook to put the fear of god into other crooks.(See IRS [USA] strategy)

Is this for real? I don't think so because we wouldn't be seeing this on Slashdot. IF it were real, it would only be available to l33t cybercrooks.

So what's this about?

1. Some narcissist wanting some sort of attention or wanting to cause a stir..

2. Some scammer of scammers wanting to scam stupid people. In other words, someone dishing up some karma to fellow assholes.

Post when an actual bank gets hacked.

Insurance for without ticket (3, Interesting)

William Robinson (875390) | about 2 years ago | (#41597867)

Long back I heard that in India there are people offering insurance against getting caught by ticket checker. The insured person pays [freakonomics.com] money in advance and travels without ticket, and when caught pays fine and the amount is reimbursed.

It's already been on Breaking Bad! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597941)

Better Call Saul!

Game-changer (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41597977)

Methinks the law enforcement agencies which investigate cybercrime have realized that they are incapable of hiring qualified computer experts who can find the culprits of such crimes, so they decided to get back to the basics. Instead of trying to catch them in cyberspace, where they excel at their trade, they decided to bring the criminals into the police domain, setting up a sting.

I am interested to see if it actually works.

Re:Game-changer ( FAIL ) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598541)

no really nice try though its like obama wanting to hire hackers and ....so few bit on it....
its same reason this won't fly and its funny as hell but ill say this

if you want to stop bullshit in your nation do something a hacker wants for your nation LIKE END COPYRIGHTS
like lowering patents and tuition costs and .....show them YOU care instead of trying to rip off everyone in your nation and pander to the elites....

canada govt is whining about foreign hackers well i have 1000 in canada and we aren't doing a damn thing till the govt does something for my nation rather then bend over to foreigners....like the usa....

We won't be part of any policing action ever.....we aint here to catch brothers and sisters doing and learning.
being a guardian of your world rather then one that seeks to harm it.

Re:Game-changer ( FAIL ) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599417)

They don't give a crap about you and those hacking for idealogical stance or for fun. They care about those that participate in large scale finanical or identity theft, or those creating large botnets. Do you think changing copyright law is going to have any impact on hackers participating in the old fashion kind of theft... where they take actual money?

Re:Game-changer (1)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41599545)

Methinks the law enforcement agencies which investigate cybercrime have realized that they are incapable of hiring qualified computer experts who can find the culprits of such crimes, so they decided to get back to the basics.

That's not why the FBI is ineffective in this area. Their manpower allocation on the computer side is 50% "national security", 40% kiddie porn, and 9% investigating fraud complaints from citizens.

Sting operation (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41598019)

This isn't a sting operation. Law enforcement would not be that obvious; They prefer to infiltrate, get close to the people at the top, gather intelligence, and then orchestrate mass-busts shortly after extracting their operatives. The whole point of undercover work is to not get noticed in the wrong way -- making stupid and risky suggestions for criminal enterprise could get them hurt or killed before they gathered the intelligence they were sent in to acquire.

No, fortunately for us, this is most likely stupidity on a grand and delusional scale. The person behind this is most likely in his 20s, single, male, above-average intelligence, spend his childhood poor, regular access to computers and public education, an interest in engineering/programming, and has some idea about "getting it all back" either for himself or his family. He may have started out with smaller crimes -- credit card theft, fraud, etc. He probably has a juvenile record from learning the ropes, and that record brought him into contact with more experienced adults. He smartened up and graduated to computer crime.

There, he honed his programming and engineering skills somewhat (self-taught), and channeled his anger over perceived societal injustice from his teenage years into scams and computer fraud; "They hurt me, I hurt them back ten times worse!" Given his poor track record with crime before, and his sudden 'success' at it now, he quickly developed an exaggerated sense of his abilities and like many young males, now considers himself 'invulnerable'. This latest example simply underscores the extent of his delusional thinking -- and others who are more cautious and experienced don't see that, instead misattributing it to "the police", due to healthy levels of paranoia that permeate the criminal underground.

Anyway, these types of criminals usually self-destruct within a few years of reaching this critical mass of delusional thinking. If he's "lucky" (I use the word lightly; Obviously, it would be better if he were caught and got help) and isn't caught, he'll take the rejection from his criminal peers as further evidence that the world hates him, and become further isolated as he continues what has now in his mind become a one man crusade against the evil empire. The core attributes of this person is a sense of persecution, intelligence, creativity, and he may be schizo-affective, the key trait here being blunted affect (his emotions seem subdued externally, but may have a very rich internal fantasy world to compensate).

Re:Sting operation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598235)

Oh shit now there will be nothing to stop teens from hacking WoW, Sony, etc... All they need to do is raise 100k.

Re:Sting operation (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41598409)

Okay, I RTFA after writing this; Some confirmations. "27-year-old Oleg Vsevolodovich Tolstykh from Moscow". Recently purchased a new vehicle, but not something too ostenacious -- suggests he's recently come into some money, especially given his mentioning his "cars, house, and face." The ordering here isn't random -- he's putting status symbols first, which again underscores that he likely came from poverty. The article doesn't say whether the message from the hacker was translated or if he wrote it as-is. If it is the latter case, the abundant use of sentence fragments and run-ons suggests either a poor grasp of the english language, or that his thinking occurs at high speed but is incomplete -- similar things happen when ordinary people take large quantities of stimulants, but in his case may be evidence of an underlying mental affliction.

I'm only mentioning this because it's very common to find career criminals with mental health problems. The prisons are filled with the mentally ill, and it's my opinion that simply letting them rot is a poor use of society's resources and simply reinforces and deepens any already-existing health problems, so that when they're released they aren't rehabilitated but in fact even more dangerous. I've been a strong supporter of medical care for criminals and more compassionate sentencing -- there's too many people who can be rehabilitated and go on to live normal and productive lives if they're simply put on the right medication and given access to regular therapy.

Re:Sting operation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598549)

So basically you're guessing he's a geek (rich inner life? hubris? I resemble that remark, wager most here do too) but an asshole who's getting into too hot waters. That sounds plausible. On the other hand, if he actually believes he can provide these services he's either obviously very well-connected or utterly psychotic.

Re:Sting operation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599283)

You are such a stupid cunt, I'm not even going to waste my time.

Re:Sting operation (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 2 years ago | (#41599303)

Analysis of your post: Misunderstanding of Russian outlook on manhood, misunderstanding of the social situation there and how wealth is relative, obvious lack of paranoia, a really good car and a friend in the background (http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vorvnsdyt.png).

If this was a honeypot post, you got me. I am bound to be a criminal, book me, Sigmund Holmes from Precrime.

Re:Sting operation (1)

g8oz (144003) | about 2 years ago | (#41610017)

I think your analysis would make a lot of sense in the Western context. In the Russian/E. European context the cultural differences are enough to make it useless.

Basically it comes down to this: you don't have to be a weirdo to do this kind of thing over there.

Re:Sting operation (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 2 years ago | (#41599237)

If only I were a stupid uneducated rich boy in either my teens, or at least 30s watching TV instead of hacking, and not caring about social justice. Maybe I would start on the good path then. -_-

Re:Sting operation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599585)

Considering how many people get started into cybercrime stuff for shits and giggles, about the only thing in general that seems appropriate to say is it is going to be someone with some computer experience, free time, and a desire for more attention or money. A few correlations exist, but are pretty weak compared to some of the patterns seen with other types of crimes. The rest of the details you give is just a fantasy that hopefully stems from too much exposure to crime drama and not from projection.

Best kind of insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598121)

This is genius. Its like people paying for insurance where you don't actually have to help them when they get caught. What are they going to do, tell the cops that some mysterious guy on the internet is supposed to take the blame for the crime you just did? He is just trying to get money from criminals who know no better.

Same guys?!?! (1)

axehind (518047) | about 2 years ago | (#41598521)

Are these the same guys that sold me that darn bridge in new york?

Re:Same guys?!?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598651)

Are these the same guys that sold me that darn bridge in new york?

Glad I found you... Could you do something about that bridge of yours? The road surface is a disgrace and the whole thing needs a coat of paint.

Pay someone to go to jail for you? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#41598525)

That just sounds like the next logical step of American capitalism, really. Of course, under some peoples' dreams not only would the wealthy be able to pay someone to go to jail for them, but they would get to pick exactly who that person would be - whether that person wants to go or not.

Re:Pay someone to go to jail for you? (1)

czth (454384) | about 2 years ago | (#41598691)

Why do you think a wealthy person couldn't bribe a cop to plant some evidence (seems drugs would be easiest) and arrest and jail anyone they like (or, rather, don't like) now? And given the state's courts will take the cop's word over their victim's, they wouldn't even need to bribe a judge; and the jury would baa right along.

Re:Pay someone to go to jail for you? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 years ago | (#41598835)

Jury? as if. Nobody goes in front of a jury anymore.

More likely the prosecutor will sit there, pile on 10 different charges, each of which could land him in jail, then will offer him a much lighter sentance (either jail or parole) if he just confesses.

Most people, even innocent ones, will take that deal. In fact, its been shown that the standard techniques used by police and prosecutors can get confessions up to 90% of the time, regardless of real innocense or guilt.

Re:Pay someone to go to jail for you? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#41598945)

Why do you think a wealthy person couldn't bribe a cop to plant some evidence (seems drugs would be easiest) and arrest and jail anyone they like (or, rather, don't like) now? And given the state's courts will take the cop's word over their victim's, they wouldn't even need to bribe a judge; and the jury would baa right along.

That is slightly different only because of the types of crimes that wealthy people tend to go to prison for. Take Bernie Madoff, for example. Planting drugs on some other person would not have been very useful as his charges had nothing to do with drugs - really, planting evidence in any of the traditional ways would not have likely been effective.

However, if he wanted to give some random person $400k to sit in jail on his behalf for a few years, a lot of people would take that offer. Even worse a lot of politicians and pundits would applaud it.

Re:Pay someone to go to jail for you? (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41601391)

However, if he wanted to give some random person $400k to sit in jail on his behalf for a few years, a lot of people would take that offer. Even worse a lot of politicians and pundits would applaud it.

You God Damned Liberals, always interfering with the right of a private person to enter business arrangements with others.

Re:Pay someone to go to jail for you? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598783)

Nothing new here. This is just what some of the more reputable gangs have done for YEARS now. A FOAF was recently actually talking with someone in one of these gangs (the more traditional kind, mexican actually).

If what the person told him was true, his business is garaunteed. if he gets busted, other gang members take over, and pay his family dividends from the business, when he gets out, the business is his again.

Of course, this is a form of insurance, but, it makes sense, because its also insurance for the rest of the gang... what is the real difference between being paid to go to jail for someone... and well... being taken care of for not rolling over on others who would get much longer sentances than you?

I don't see much difference, this guy is, as delusional as he may be, just trying to bring to a new field the same sort of gang infrastructure that other kinds of gangs have had for a long time now.

Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599091)

In the first stage this would mean the insurer needs to collect information on criminals that make a living by creating phishing sites or collecting information to lure visitors into paying money or simply steal it. Who would insure people without critical information on who or what he does or has done? One may reason that with attitudes that are common in Russia or within organized crime in general. Afaik the only connections between a criminal and the crime is the victim, evidence, witnesses or the criminal itself. In cybercrime most factors are controlled by the criminal, which only leaves the loss and some data behind as evidence. So I doubt this is a good offer to people that usually try to outsmart their victims and law enforcement. OTOH it would be a perfect source for law enforcement - or the data is simply useless and anyone can claim anything.

In the second stage (if it was a sting operation that is likely to fail) that would mean the only way to find cybercriminals is to follow the stream of money, which is mostly a privacy question. So wether this is preparation of an attempt to lift confidentiality in banking or simply useless.

Anyway, it probably has not much to do with mental problems, it is something in between trying to establish a known structure in a chaotic environment (system within a system) or just a trick. Given a long term exposure to a certain environment can mean to drift away from how things usually are handled, wether it is the insurer or the assured or both.

Thief in Law (1)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#41599211)

...Sounds like bank officials.

Goldman Sacks vs. vorVzakone? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 2 years ago | (#41599493)

VorVzakone, it's ok to cry.

Sting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41603171)

Why Yes

The best way to avoid a cyberheist (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about 2 years ago | (#41604421)

But the best way to avoid a cyberheist is to not have your computer systems infected in the first place. The trouble is, it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell when a system is or is not infected. That's why I advocate the use of a Live CD approach for online banking." link [krebsonsecurity.com]

Or don't use Microsoft Windows ...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...