FBI Warns: Many Tsunami Relief Pleas Are Fake 353
lgrinberg writes "Even in the face of terrible disasters such as the Tsunami that hit South East Asia and Africa in late December, many are finding ways to take advantage of it and make money off of it. An example is fake websites that claim to be non-profit charitable organizations that help out the victims when they really take all the money for themselves. Other instances are emails or websites written by people who claim to be survivors of the disaster and are asking for help. The FBI warns that many of these are fake and recommends people to help via known non-profit organizations."
Re:I'm sorry, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Big nonprofits have big "administrative costs" (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently these "administrative costs" are often things like new cars and fat bonuses for the nonprofits' management...
Are you really surprised? (Score:1, Insightful)
I bet there were no Linux users involved!
Haha.
Re:How can they sleep at night...? (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel the same way about most religions who take money from their parishioners and buy gold alters and the like while still claiming to be charitable organizations.
Moral Insomnia (Score:2, Insightful)
And let's not forget all those "legitimate" charities that spend as much as 80% of their contributions on their own "expenses". (The standard of the "charity industry" is supposed to be 25% overhead -- but I find even that much repulsive.) Which is why, when I reach for my own wallet, I examine the organization I'm giving to as carefully as the cause they're raising funds for.
Re:Moral Insomnia (Score:2, Insightful)
many would argue that. atleast in #2 you have to work for the cash and the person has a chance in hell of defending themself...
Re:And the worst offender is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:2, Insightful)
Small is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You'd think it would go without saying.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Warning - cynical views ahead.
You forget one important matter - public schools don't exist to benefit the students, they exist to benefit the society. If they also happen to benefit their students, good, but that's more or less a side effect.
Now then, lets think on this a little:
Don't get me wrong; public schools are a great idea. They ensure everyone can at least read, write and count to ten (at least they should; don't know if they actually do). In this way, they, together with public libraries, give everyone access to the collective knowledge of human race. However, they are also extremely vulnerable to abuse, and any goings-on in schools, public or otherwise, should be interpreted with a healthy dose of paranoia.
Re:You're an ass (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is "hoarding your money" a crime? He earned it, he can keep it or give it away in any way he pleases. Some people are going to starve to death and some people are going to be filthy rich, it's just how capitalism works, but it's the best system we've got. The majority of the middle people live relatively decent lives.
Re:Just so you know (Score:3, Insightful)
And rightly so... if it were to become diluted, you'd get situations like hospital ships being fair game in combat.
Re:And the worst offender is... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a controlling entity, itself. It's from the issues stemming from this that many people take issue with the UN. Well, that, and it's filled with liberal US-haters.
Hating the UN goes back much farther than discussion of invading Iraq under George W. Bush.
A scorpion can't help but sting you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, 150,000 dead, and we still have assholes trying to make a buck off it. What does it take for these people to learn morals? Is the extra cash worth that much when there's now several thousand orphans? Do we need, what, a nuclear holocaust to get assholes to knock it off?
I don't follow the logic of that at all.
Why would heartless vultures stop being opportunistic thieves because something bad happened to other people? They lead lives where they constantly look for their next victim, they routinely inflict misery on others, and you, somehow, expect them to suddenly stop being leeches because an unrellated event killed a lot of people at once?
I seriously don't understand how anyone could be surprised that thieves keep on thieving, even when you're upset. If someone has no empathy for the people he/she routinely con in person, there is no reason to expect them to have empathy for the faceless dead, no matter how numerous.
Re:How can they sleep at night...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You'd think it would go without saying.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Erroneous assumption, apparently you didn't take Economics, or didn't study long enough.
1. Credit cards don't necessarily cost anything to the end user. Many stores set prices to cover their bank charges, credit card transaction fees and other expenses with a single price. So cash purchases don't save you money in the store.
2. Credit cards have lots of advantages. If my Christmas presents, bought on VISA, are stolen from under the tree, VISA pays. It's an insurable risk, and the owner (still VISA since I have yet to pay off that card) is responsible for insuring it. Not every country made credit card companies follow this logic, if yours didn't hard luck.
3. If you pay on time there's no interest. I've used credit cards and loans which offered anywhere from 45 to 366 days of interest free credit. Did someone, somewhere pay for this facility? Sure, and maybe they'll go bankrupt. But it wasn't me paying, and someone was going to take advantage, so it might as well be me - Economics 101 again.
4. Even if you pay interest, you may earn more money by using debt, just like big businesses that borrow venture capital to make a fortune. Today the UK government lends students money at an attractive rate, then allows banks to provide tax free savings accounts. You borrow money from the government, keep it in the bank, and make a profit for doing nothing. Several people I know borrow £3000 or so from a Credit Card company with a 0% initial rate, put the money into tax free savings, and when the card company finally puts up the rate they simply transfer the card - the new lender is excited by the chance to gain a customer and offers a further 0% rate for a few more months. Essentially these friends are being paid £10-20 per month by the bank for simply filling out a couple of forms on the web.
A smart person can go through their whole life legitimately spending more money than they seem to be earning, without any consequences. You just have to know how the system works, and then use it in your favour.
Why do you hate freedom? (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, how would such a decision be made? By karma level? What about people who are victims of abuse of the moderation system (mod-bombings of -1, Overrated and the like)? Who gets to decide which user accounts are worthwhile and which aren't? And who would watch those decisions to prevent abuse? What about people who don't agree with the Slashdot Party Line(TM)? Should their accounts be removed because they disagree with all the *nix/Apple/OSS/anti-copyright zealots? It's quite the can of worms you're trying to open...
Re:Selling Bottles of Water for $20 is a Great Thi (Score:2, Insightful)
The moral qualms, really, come into play when you get there with your water to sell. OK, so you've hatched up this plan to sell water in the disaster areas. You go there with your water and a money box. When you're there, can you really look into the eyes of the victims, some clinging to the brink of death, and say, I won't give you this basic need of life unless you pay me up? A lot of people can't, I think myself included, and this really should be the root of why the practice draws any moral discomfort. However, if someone can do that, while we might say that this could reflect badly on their general moral characteristics, they are, again, still doing more to help than someone who does nothing at all.
In case someone jumps me on this - no, I don't think relief efforts should be privatized, or whatever. Governments put forth large efforts to get basic commodities and needs into areas, and I certainly have no problem with that, and am glad of it. I'd want it if some kind of natural disaster struck me. But governments can't do as much as governments and individuals can do combined, and if you are outraged at water sellers, you should be even more outraged at every individual out there who hasn't contributed to the relief efforts. Yes, just as outraged at every one.
Saying something is "lame," by the way, isn't a very coherent argument towards showing that it's "wrong."
Re:How can they sleep at night...? (Score:5, Insightful)
ahhhh geez, that art is in a large sense communal.
spurn the church's patronage of art and you spurn michelangelo, donatello, and all the rest of the ninja turtles. seriously, people forget that though science and society seems to have outgrown the need for dogma, the church through history propped up the infant institutions of art, and most especially reading education (you learning-worshippers, you. pre-gutenberg writing was often religion's.) i would venture to say that the majority of venerated art though world history has been at least in part religious.
Re:How can they sleep at night...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get this: Gold Altars are not in high demand among any major religion. Funds to procure such altars are scarce. You are pulling information out of your ass. Information pulled from your ass is equally well refuted by information pulled from mine.
So in that vein, I'd like to see these gold altars you claim to be so common.
I realise there are charities that exist which do not pay their volunteers. but there are so many more that do than there are that do not, you've got no grounds for complaint.
Mod me a troll if you must, but consider: There is no evidence (apart from anecdotal) to support the outrageous claim that any (arbitrary) religious "charities" pocket their income to buy "Gold Alters" (misspellings included) and donate only the leftovers to help those in need.
Mere disagreement between you and a few members of a particular religion is not conclusive proof that the religion in question squanders funds donated for charitable causes. Get the records if you want, and get back to me.
I can't vouch for your donations, but in all the churches i've attended, financing records are available to anybody who dares to question them.
If what you say is true, then Uncle Sam must not care that we're buying Gold Altars with those funds we declared would be sent to relief aid for those tsunami victims.
How about a banner link on Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember one for 9/11, so why not now?
BGP Blacklist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does it take to not be an asshole? (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, for days after the tsunami, Apple replaced their entire 5-section news/ads, which takes up almost all their main page, with links to relief organizations. Amazon also had large redirection signs. Google added tsunami-relief links to their home page. Sure, these made the companies look good, but they also must have brought in hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in contributions.
Re:How can they sleep at night...? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fake schmake ... What does the IRS say? (Score:2, Insightful)
if you want to contribute... (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone is still interested in donating, I'd suggest they look up aidindia.org and the daily reports filed by the field volunteers.
Re:How can they sleep at night...? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure most churches are bona fide and very charitable. But I've seen a few church buildings that were extremely luxurious. Again, this seems to be uncommon. But there is not reason to flame the GP such a way.