A How-Not-To Guide to Cyber-Extortion 311
TexasDex writes "The Register reports: Myron Tereshchuk, 42, of Maryland, pleaded guilty to "attempted extortion affecting commerce" for sending threatening messages to a competing patent firm, including a demand for $17 million in exchange for not revealing sensitive information. He was clever in hiding his tracks, the messages came from two different homes and a dentist's office, all of which turned out to be running unsecured WAPs. He also avoided a web bug sent by the firm, and managed to penetrate the company's computer system. But he made a few mistakes. First of all he was already a prime suspect due to "past altercations between Tereshchuk and the company". But "the clearest sign came when he issued the $17m extortion demand, and instructed the company to 'make the check payable to Myron Tereshchuk.'""
You'll never hear about the smart criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they use a trojan or spyware? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhh - sounds like they tried to install some kind of activex microblaster-enabled spyware bug?? Maybe he was using Mozilla [mozilla.org] or something less spyware-enabled? ^_^
Still not a bad hack attempt - smart to use others unsecured wireless connections. I'll bet we hear about more of these types of intrusions in the future (if the media prints it).
this is why extortion never works (Score:5, Insightful)
However, at one point, sooner or later, you need to pickup the cheque or cash. Wire transfers can be traced, as can direct deposits. If there's a cash-only transaction, the cash can be marked and the police can watch the drop point.
make the check payable to Myron Tereshchuk (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, the drop is always the hard part, isn't it?
And thank goodness. We'll always have action movies.
Re:Did they use a trojan or spyware? (Score:4, Insightful)
Chances are it was just a GIF/JPEG image embedded in an e-mail. Your e-mail client downloads the image from a web server to display it and whammo - they have your IP address.
most CAUGHT criminal are incredibly stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
When will people learn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Writing hold up notes on one of your own return address formatted envelopes is not a good way to go about it either. Or in his case demanding a check in his own name. Cracks me up when I see people make fundamental mistakes like that.
Re:this is why extortion never works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Almost as smart... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this is why extortion never works (Score:3, Insightful)
But, if the extorter is trying to achieve a behavioural response, such as a political concession, extortion can be higly effective. I guess, though, we refer to in these instances as 'blackmail' rather than 'extortion'.
Not all criminals are dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Almost as smart... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this is why extortion never works (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The actual court document is even funnier (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You'll never hear about the smart criminals. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course. Bringing the innocent to trial would be unfair.
-- Q, Encounter at Farpoint
Talking about high conviction rates ... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is supposed to mean the system works and society is safe? THINK AGAIN!
A 90-plus percent conviction rate says nothing about
- crimes that go undetected (obviously not part of any statistc)
- crimes that never go to court (lack of evidence/suspects, or shady deals with the DA)
- innocent people being convicted (erroneously, or -even worse- deliberately)
I'm not advocating crime (i concur with other posters in suggesting a political career instead), but i recommend scepticism towards these bogus statistics. Especially with the current abrogation of civil rights, the conviction rate is about the worst metric for the qality of a judicial systemAnd make no mistake: a right taken from a "suspected terrorist" is a right taken from YOU. Just wait until your name shows up on some computer-generated list of (probable) suspects.
But coming back to conviction rates: history has quite a few examples of systems with really high conviction rates. You might want to read up on Cheka [wikipedia.org], NKWD [wikipedia.org], GESTAPO [wikipedia.org], STASI [wikipedia.org], .. All of these have one thing in common: they were not bound by the law they were (supposed) to uphold. Then read on about Camp X-Ray [wikipedia.org].
Re:this is why extortion never works (Score:5, Insightful)
The threat doesn't have to be 100% realistic - it just has to contain a minimum amount of buzzwords in order to incite fear in the subject, as most people do not think rationally when confronted with such a demand.
Re:this is why extortion never works (Score:3, Insightful)
How difficult would it be to hack into bank computers, creating a bank account, have the money transferred, disable the software bug temporarily, divert that money to other accounts that you create on-the-fly? There's a small window of opportunity where that new accounts are not yet bugged. Withdraw money. Then never log back into their servers! Oh, of course, don't do this from your own phone... :)
If you're that good a cracker, you won't have to use plain old extortion though...
Re:this is why extortion never works (Score:3, Insightful)
Chris Mattern
Re:You'll never hear about the smart criminals. (Score:2, Insightful)
It is very easy to get dismissed by a judge from a jury, if you state that you believe in Jury Nullification.
It is common today for judges to tell prospective jurors that they must apply the law as he gives it to them and that their business is simply to determine whether the defendant has broken the law or not. But that is not what was intended by the right to trial by jury in the Bill or Rights. Thomas Jefferson said;
"...it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact."
In respect that removing people from society will halt them from perpetuating crimes, there are no clear answers. Some people benefit far better from rehabilitive methods, their chance at a new life if you will, other are probably better off incarcerated. It is becoming clearer it is impossible to just lock people up indefinitely, yet the only other method, would be to kill the individuals concerned. Yet many innocent people are incarcerated each yeah, it is as likely people would be killed, but I digress. If a jury has a reason to bypass the law (or through necessity) it can be done. However this normally occurs in extenuating circumstances. For example the ignoring fugitive slave laws.. etc etc
Re:Darwinian criminal behaviour ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Society strives to create an environment whereby you will be better off by putting energies into playing the game and getting ahead.
As the process continues, those who are doing well
will make laws to allow them to continue to do well, thus further fostering the environment.
People too far below the average intelligence can't make it far enough down the path set before them, and so turn to crime, and are caught.
This works fine until those at the top start to use infuence to prevent their competitors, and hence those behind them from getting ahead. This turns into a class system and accelerates until revolution and then socialism.
This in turn leads to loss of competition, and then a continued slowing of progress. Smaller factions break off and start to create their own internal competition, and more capitalist leanings , and then the whole process starts over again.
wait, what was I talking about?
Re:You'll never hear about the smart criminals. (Score:3, Insightful)
All other points aside, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. I would also add that there is a huge problem with the system in that a criminal detainee can demand cable TV, but can't be protected from being raped. Our priorities in the penal system are quite messed up.
Re:Did they use a trojan or spyware? (Score:2, Insightful)
For christs sake, woke up on your bad side this morning? Your parent is misinformed, but hardly fanboy'ish.
Webbugs works in all browsers yeah (except lynx I guess), as turning off image loading while browsing seems kinda silly. However, as you'd probably realise if you bothered, E-mail clients are a whole different slew. The only use I've ever seen of external images in mail is exactly for tracking.
That makes the real difference lie in the default settings. I know Opera blocks them by default, Outlook does not (for that matter, I'm not even sure it can). In my little world, that makes the microsoft product unsafe to use, while *my* alternative is safe(r).
Re:Talking about high conviction rates ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fucking Christ. Is there some sort of neo-con mint that presses out people who say things like this?
Re:You'll never hear about the smart criminals. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but as he was pointing out, hailing 90% conviction rates as evidence of the 'success' of the criminal justice system is unreasonable. There are a number of alternative explanations for the statistics aside from the "we convict almost all criminals we catch". For example, the statistics could just as easily be evidence of significant bias in the judicial process in favour of the prosection.
If you can't recognize that, then you are beyond help.