The SEC and Fake Investment Sites 473
An anonymous reader sent in: "Our web-based challenge for the day: find the SEC's fake investment sites! The SEC claims to have seeded the web with fake investment sites in order to teach naive web users and investors about the dangers of believing all you read and investing without research. These sites have telltale signs of online investment fraud, and if people manage to overlook or ignore those issues and attempt to invest money, informs them that they have made an unwise decision. The SEC says that these sites are intended to encourage wise investing decisions, or in more casual terms, to attempt to slap fools upside the head with a cluestick before they lose their money in a real scam. It's an interesting use of the web by a government-related agency."
Rock on SEC!!! (Score:3, Funny)
What a cool way to teach the less-informed among us not to trust everything just because it's on the web. Now, if we could get websites out there that ask for personal info to do the same, ie:
Enter your credit card info here:
XXXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXXX
No Idiot, this site is about my dog skippy, there is no need for you to hand this over. Now get off the web and find a clue. (Hint: your 10 year old child is more web-savvy than you)
Here's one! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's one! (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, that's the one the White House put up.
We're looking for the SEC ones.
You want funny? (Score:2)
Re:You want funny? (Score:3, Informative)
That's because they got kicked off the NYSE. Only NYSE stocks have ticker symbols of 3 or fewer characters. As an OTC stock, they had to pick a new symbol.
Re:You want funny? (Score:3, Interesting)
They (ENRNQ) only got to pick the first 4 letters of their symbol - the "Q" suffix indicates the company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings. There's a table of codes here [fool.com] if anyone's interested.
Re:Here's one! (Score:5, Informative)
Finally! A real explanation for ZeoSync!
(For those who haven't been keeping up, ZeoSync is the company that claims to have broken / bypassed Shannon's laws of information entropy to create some sort of encoding or compression that can compress random data. Except that they don't call it compression - they call it "Information Crystals" or something equally stupid.)
I asked for and got ZeoSync's Investors Package, and it truly has some strange stuff in it... they are suing some previous employees, have some financial stuff that looks weird even to me (I know very little about corporate finance), and those computer scientists that are so prominently featured on their web site are not actually associated with the company - ZeoSync just paid them (an unspecified amount) for some sort of unspecified consulting. Basically meaningless.
They admit in the fine print that the alleged "technology" has never been demoed to anyone outside the company...
Really, I would not be surprised if ZeoSync was an elaborate ruse to teach gullible investors a lesson.
Re:Enron Human Rights Statement (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to defend Enron...but you should probably wait until the facts are straightened out before jumping to too many conclusions. It's very possible that Enron operated within the law...just about everything that I've heard about is (or could be, depending on unknown circumstances), technically, legal. Though Enron pushed them a liitle further than most
It's legal to set up off shore subsidaries to launder money for tax purposes. (Exxon has 6, Enron had 900+)
It's legal, and common practice, to have employer stock heavy 401k's. A lot of companies match 401k contributions with company stock. This is, in effect, free money to the employee. Many employees take advantage of this, and end up having an undiversified 401k account.
It's legal to prevent employees from seeling their 401k stock...if it's not paid for. A lot of companies will finance the price of their stock fro their employees, and deduct the cost from their paycheck for a period of time. Until it's completely paid off, you can't sell the stock. It's possible that this was how it worked at Enron. The execs, making more money, were able to pay off their stock purchases befor rank ands filers.
And of course, campaign contributions are legal. And so is asking an administration for help...and even getting it (see General Motors and the airline industry).
whois mcwhortle.com (Score:5, Funny)
Registrant:
SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
Domain Name: MCWHORTLE.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
SEC
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477
Re:whois mcwhortle.com (Score:4, Interesting)
On their About [mcwhortle.com] page, they have an image of their building [mcwhortle.com]. The sign on the building is a sorry attempt at making it look seamless.
I wonder which building is pictured, anyways. Maybe all the SEC's 'scam sites' use the same buildling.
Doing a Google search for 'mcwhorgle' [mcwhortle.com], one finds out that the SEC even got Yahoo to have a length article [yahoo.com] on the SEC pre-approving its IPO. Interesting that they put that much work into it.
Re:whois mcwhortle.com (Score:2, Funny)
Re:whois mcwhortle.com (Score:3, Informative)
This is one of the many tactics that I would *expect* of a competent scammer.
Re:whois mcwhortle.com (Score:3, Interesting)
If Yahoo wants to protect its reputation while running unverified press releases, it should put text near the top of each PRNewswire article saying "PRNewswire does not run background checks on companies, nor does it check claims of facts for validity."
Re:whois mcwhortle.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:whois mcwhortle.com (Score:2)
- Now, for the first time, McWhortle Enterprises is offering a product to the general public: the new Bio-Hazard Alert Detector. Running quietly on two double-A batteries, the Bio-Hazard Alert Detector emits an audible beep and flashes when in the presence of all known bio-hazards. The Bio-Hazard Alert Detector, measuring only 3 by 7 inches, is small enough to slip into a man's jacket pocket, a woman's purse or a child's backpack.
Utter bogosity. My employer has been working with ORNL for a decade on bringing portable chem and bio agent detectors to market, and even after a decade, they're barely small enough to fit in a trunk. And they require a lot of power... two 12V car batteries. Not to mention that no single sensor technology is suitable for detecting all agents...Also, this should set off anyone's alarms:
- It can detect even the finest-milled, weapons-grade biohazards from 50 feet, long before the risk of inhalation or cutaneous infection, by testing for the distinctive surface leptins. Proven effective to just
.02 microns per cubic meter of air,
First of all, the implied sensitivity requires an in situ device, making detection from 50 feet impossible. But the real zit on this thing's nose is the laughable misuse of units... microns per unit volume? That reduces to nothing per unit area -- pure nonsense. I've seen better technobabble on episodes of ST:TNG.But it may be fun to float the URL around the company here and see who spots the fnord first!
Does a fake investment site mean (Score:2)
First Clue (Score:2, Funny)
One one hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, though, it's kind of sad that there are people who actually invest in this kind of stuff. One would think that people would be (more) careful when there is real money involved. There are plenty of brokers out there, and while they may not give the *best* advice, they certainly wouldn't direct innocent people toward investments that are ovbiously scams. If you don't know what you're doing with your money, then take it to someone who does. If you don't, you're just asking for trouble.
On some level, people affected by these scams get what they have coming to them.
Ya know (Score:5, Funny)
SEC Computers Catch Fire After During Hacker Attack
By Joe Snuffy
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, January 30, 2002; 2:45 P.M.
The SEC headquarters was evacuated today after a form of the denial of service hacking attack, commonly known as "slashdotting" caused their servers to halt and catch fire. The FBI refuses to confirm that it may be seeking one Rob "Commander Taco" Malda for questioning in this terrorist attack on America's financial structure.
Re:Is it live or is it SEC? (Score:3, Interesting)
Immediate "news-worthy" benefits had already been generated by this site prior to its mentions on news sites. Hopefully ongoing benefits (people who are little more clued in about internet scams) will be generated by other of their fake sites. SEC did throw this one away--at least for now--by using it as the basis for a press release.
My new scam (Score:2, Funny)
If they even comprehend what happened, they will blame the government, since we all know it's full of crooks anyway.
Um, FTC doing EXACTLY this since 1990's... (Score:5, Informative)
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
We have often joked about doing something similar with viruses. Setting up a hotmail account and sending all the user in our department an attachment. The attachment would write to a log on our network and put up a dialog box that said something like "So you just ran a program from some joker on the internet. You've just lost all your work and your boss has been notified."
We haven't done it of course, but we dream.
I found one of them (Score:2, Funny)
WHOIS database (Score:2, Informative)
% whois mcwhortle.com
Registrant:
SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312 US
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
SEC
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312 US
202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477
But then again, I suppose that anyone savvy enough to run a WHOIS search on the domain would also click through to the "If you were serious about responding to this, you're an idiot" page.
Re:WHOIS database... Well then (Score:2)
yah yah... me too:)
old news (Score:2, Offtopic)
I quit submitting stories long ago (Score:3, Offtopic)
I quit submitting stories to slashdot years ago, when similar things would happen. The submission process is straightforward enough, but the editorial process is about as transparent as crude oil on a moonless night. Who knows why stories get rejected one day, resubmitted and accepted another, with the latecommer getting the credit. Who knows why a site which purports to be pro free software/open source/whatever dumps stories of technical interest in favor of promotions
I gave up trying to figure this out years ago, and now content myself to just reading whatever interesting stuff happens to make it through the filter, and posting an occasional diatribe or two.
I recommend anyone discontent with this sort of thing to do the same. It will entail much less frustration and heartache for you, and if enough people do it perhaps the editors will take the hint and become more fair in how they select stories and attribute them. In the meantime, life is too short, so don't let this sort of irritation get to you.
Re:I quit submitting stories long ago (Score:5, Interesting)
interesting stuff happens to make it through the filter, and posting an occasional diatribe or two.
The reasoning (or lack there of) behind what stories get accepted or rejected from Slashdot is not actually all that hard to understand. Like anything in PR, it's a crapshoot.
Here are my views (I always submit as AC, due to some particular personal reasons, but have a fairly decent acceptance rate.)
Submitting a story to Slashdot involves creating a mini press release. You are promoting your "version" of the story, so that it gets chosen over all other "versions." Creating an effective press release is frickin' hard. I've seen cases in which a 2-page, double-spaced press release took two-three weeks to produce.
As with any press release, you increase your chances by focusing on certain aspects.
1. Engaging language. You are selling your summary to the editor who reviews it. They probably go through dozens of submissions a day, and yours has to catch their eye and engage their attention.
2. Interesting topic, which could give rise to a ongoing discussion. When looking back on most of my failed submissions, they did not meet #2. If it is interesting, but probably won't create much of a discussion, it is worthless for Slashdot's purposes. This is not a news site, it is a discussion site. Even if you believe it would generate a discussion, posing a jumping off point for that discussion increases your chances.
But still, things will be rejected, as thousands of press releases around the world are thrown into thousands of trash cans every day. Other versions of the same thing may be accepted because the language/discussion points appeal more to the editor who reviews it. This can be a problem at times, because an incorrect and more controversial version which provides a jumping off point for argument will probably be accepted over a summary which is technically correct and dry. But this is not a problem with this site alone--it is a problem throughout the news world. Where do you think that the news sites get some of their incorrect yet controversial information about technical issues? Badly written press releases whose information may be incorrect, but has the "gotcha" factor.
And there's always the editor factor. Maybe editor A couldn't give a damn about the subject and rejected submission A because it didn't interest him. Then submission B comes around a day later and is reviewed by editor B, who loves the information provided. Therefore, B is accepted over A. This too, is not a problem limited to this news site. Once more than one person is involved consistancy goes straight out the window, no matter how hard you strive for it.
Submitting to Slashdot is a crapshoot. There are ways that you can improve your odds, but if your summary is reviewed by an editor who believes it is uninteresting, or believes it will not stimulate discussion, it gets rejected.
Re:old news (Score:2)
"UUu ahh uuu AAAaaaaAAhhhhEEEE"
translation:"we would never write that crap, speaking of which, I'm now going to fling some at you!"
Now... the REAL test... (Score:2)
How long will it take before someone comments that its fake. We're quick to point out Xbox emulator fakes when we see them, but would we necessarily discover the nonexistance of a company when its intent is to defraud and not just to boost the false ego of a few misguided geeks.
So yeah, go find them. And when you find one, don't claim you found one, submit it to slashdot instead. Take the joke all the way!
-Restil
Over Subscribed (Score:5, Funny)
McWhortle Enterprises has had to stop accepting investors for Stage 1 of its Pre-IPO investment after the program was over-subscribed by nearly 200%. Because of the enormous demand, we will, for a very limited time, accept new investors into this program.
Darn it, I was all ready to sign up, but I guess the rest of the slashdot community got to it before me.
Re:Over Subscribed (Score:2, Funny)
The war (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The war (Score:2)
Funny, Bush didn't mention the increased funding for the War on Stupidity last night...
Well, doh - like- uh, Stupidity is one of our most plentiful national assets. Why would we be so much in a hurry to declare a war on stupidity?
Re:The war (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like a lot of the Spam I've been getting... (Score:2)
so _thats_ what http://www.enron.com was! (Score:2, Redundant)
Here's Another One!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here's Another One!! (Score:3, Informative)
I want in! (Score:4, Funny)
Who pays for these websites? (Score:2)
Re:Who pays for these websites? (Score:2)
Money I pay to my government that I'd better be paid back in full for.
Dummy. Taxes are to distribute the wealth of your economy to those less fortunate. Yes, people with less brains than you constitutes those less fortunate.
Re:Who pays for these websites? (Score:2, Flamebait)
If you are implying that I define taxes as "Money I pay to my government that I'd better be paid back in full for" you are wrong.
Here is how I see it:
"Money that I pay to the government that should be used in a responsible and helpful way... not wasted."
I can think of many better ways to help the less fortunate than building websites to try to trick people. Besides, the neediest people in our contry don't even have internet access, and don't have enough money to consider investing in some bogus company.
Re:Who pays for these websites? (Score:2)
I realize, of course, that this is an extremely unpopular point of view these days
I'd be intersted to see ya throw up some numbers or supporting arguments in terms of how much money the SEC gets from public taxes, and how they go about spending that money.
BTW, stopping investment fraud is pretty paramount to an efficient capitalist system, so if you're down with fast-n-furious capitalism (a system who's sole purpose is to promote and motivate the efficient use of resources), the goal of this project is in everyone's interest, not just the dumb (or gullible, or whatever) people.
Then again, if you're down for regulated markets, I agree that the money could be better spent on developing laws that would cut down on the ease of committing investment fraud in the first place.
We're not likely to see it, as such regulations slow trade and business (gasp!), but it would certainly result in less buyers having to beware, IMHO.
Re:Who pays for these websites? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dummy. Taxes are to distribute the wealth of your economy to those less fortunate.
OK, probably a troll, but just in case you're really that misguided... Let's just presume that your idealistic notion is accurate (although it's demonstrably false; see below, where this rather-long response ties back to the SEC site topic). What are the real implications? The surface implication for those who can't think more deeply is that taxes are a fairy tale come true -- steal from the rich and give to the poor, very Robin Hood. But how noble is that really? There are some deeper implications that many taxpayers might find immoral, such as:
Actually I could go on but I'm on my lunch break and must wrap this up before it is time to go back "on the clock" to support those on welfare. (Actually, I'm being partially sarcastic; read on for the debunking of that notion, along with the debunking of your original idea about what taxes mean.)
So if, as you incorrectly state, taxes are to take from the rich and give to the poor (where 'poor' -- according to you -- includes poor in mind as well as bank), this "noble" idea is only noble on the surface, and evil lurks not far beneath.
Luckily, taxpayers can rest assured that taxes don't mean what you say they mean...
...but they should be made uneasy again by seeing, below, what they should mean versus what they do mean at present (speaking from the US perspective, to stay on topic of the SEC). By the way, what you implied matches neither what taxes are nor what they should be.
I stated above that your concept of taxes is demonstrably false. How could that be demonstrated? Follow the bouncing penny! Follow the funds to see where they really go. The bulk of tax funds go to government programs that are ostensibly for the common good. Not the good of just those unwilling or unable to contribute to society and the economy, but everyone. (Maybe it's different where you are, but around here we don't have roads and highways set aside for 'poor' people only.)
Had I not said "ostensibly [dictionary.com]," there would be no difference between what taxes are and what they should be. The difference is in the beneficiary. Ask yourself, who creates taxes (generally speaking; I realize there is some complexity, but it can be bypassed safely at the moment)? From an entirely selfish perspective, would it not make sense for taxes to benefit those who create them? Of course, our taxes don't go directly to our elected "representatives" (other than in the form of regularly-increased and already-very-large salaries), but taxes we pay do go, indirectly, to support the political careers of incumbents.
This really should be obvious by now, but you might miss it, since you claim to believe in something that is obviously not the case. So let me illustrate: Pat Senator wants to be re-elected. Pat Senator knows that a certain government program for the "common" good is particularly good for constituents in the district responsible for that re-election. Pat Senator also knows that the program needs funding, and that the burden of funding for it can be spread over a much wider population than the Senator's constituents. Time for a new tax!
Tax funds are only marginally used to "take from the rich and give to the poor." Vastly, they are used to support political careers, by supporting businesses that make campaign contributions and by supporting constituents who vote. So what should be for the common good, really is for the good of politicians.
This isn't news, by the way. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't already know -- just what they might prefer to ignore.
The question originally was, who pays for the SEC web sites? The implication, I believe, is why should taxpayers pay for these sites? It's a valid question -- for reasons already noted beyond the scope of my message, the SEC sites will do little or nothing to "help the poor." Are they part of a program to help the common good (really)? Are they part of a program that will help a politician's career? Or are they the result of a side-effect of a corrupt political system, that being insufficient "change control." In other words, perhaps they're just the result of somebody saying, "Hey, I've got an idea" and there being insufficient structure to prevent the idea from taking form without proof of validity.
Regardless, it sounds like a government-spec government program: An ineffective use (a.k.a., waste) of resources.
There goes my lunch hour...
Re:Who pays for these websites? (Score:4, Insightful)
Three comments:
1. I didn't say this was the
2. Your argument regarding the fact that people who get this money (the poor) are being rewarded for being sloth is based on the assumption that motivation comes from wealth. Ie, that money
3. > would it not make sense for taxes to benefit those who create them
Programs for the common good includes the poor. It's an obvious enough point that, certainly, those who create taxes should see a reasonable (by reasonable, this is set by the social barometer of the society the taxes are collected in) return in the form of programs and services that help them. I suppose that the relative contention to my point simply illustrates where that barometer is.
All of this is notwithstanding the most sacreligious viewpoint I hold: that much of the opposition to taxes is not due to those who 'freeload' on it, but rather the disproportionate and unhealthy value that those with wealth place on it. If only they could 'let go' a little and made poor people happier (and thus far more likely to re-enter society as a contributing member), they might come to realize that freeloading is, for all intents and purposes, a creation of the very populous who is so disagreeable with the idea of redistributing their priviledged earnings. And of course
4. Back to the real issue at hand. Free-market capitalism is touted as the system that leads to the most efficient use of available resources (be they material, or effort). It would appear that squashing investment fraud is one such way to ensure that those resources are fed back into the fast-and-furious system, much to the delight of the big business types, rather than to the shady ones who don't feed back into the system. Therefore, I charge that, if you are into the free-market capitalist school of thought, you'd believe that this does benifit everyone in so far as it ensures that all generated value goes back to the proper religion (if you will).
Obstinately is a good word, but please don't forget that nothing is a top-down system. The more people that perceive that taxes go to the fat cats, the more likely fat-cats will feel that their self-interest isn't as likely to hurt them in terms of their public relations. There are many ways to buck that trend (and it is getting worse), but being reluctant to contribute to the taxation system is a protest that ends up more on the backs of the already unfortunate (and, as you point out, all of us) than the well-off polician who, really, at the end of the day, could live with less financial perks to his job. Also, it's somewhat of a skewered viewpoint, as it relates back to my first point, and that part of this viewpoint is promoted by big business to swing your trust from the public sector to the private one. And if you don't believe all that
But really, good argument. I see your views, but I choose to believe that part of your axioms are resonsible for these 'freeloaders' we (well, you and others, not I) are so loathe to support through taxes.
Re:Who pays for these websites? (Score:2)
Re:Who pays for these websites? (Score:3, Funny)
scam of the century for whomever came up with this idea and got paid for it!
.
White hat v. Black hat (Score:3, Interesting)
Let the FBI put up sites for child porn, and the requirement for entry into the child porn is submitting your own child porn. Is this entrapment? What about the MPAA doing this with movie downloads?
Re:White hat v. Black hat (Score:5, Informative)
Re:White hat v. Black hat (Score:2, Informative)
For example, if you have a drug dealer who ceased dealing and an officer ask for one more deal and the dealer gets busted, it would fall under entrapment. Entrapment also does not require harassment or continual provocation.
Entrapment is the act of luring an individual into a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
IANAL, but try to keep up on laws
Re:White hat v. Black hat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:White hat v. Black hat (Score:5, Informative)
Second, the theoretical FBI tactic you describe sounds very much like entrapment (IANAL), which is very illegal.
Frankly, I'm amazed and gratified to see a government agency making such good use of the web.
Re:White hat v. Black hat (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if I entered some personal information on the site and tried to submit it, then I'm likely to be a potential victim. But not before that.
Australian version... (Score:3, Insightful)
bogus investment ads [asic.gov.au], including Geep - the amazing Sheep/Goat hybrid and Jellyfish Farms. The numbers actually put you in contact with ASIC, who'll tell you to be more careful with your money.
I admit, these are a little easier to spot than the SEC ones...
Nice (Score:2)
Nothing like having your tax dollars do a little free R&D for the bad guys!
Here's a great one (Score:2)
Legal Representation (Score:2)
/.ing the site (Score:2)
I wonder if the SEC anticipated getting /.ed when they estimated how much of a load this site would need to bear. What are their bandwidth costs? Is this /.ing hurting taxpayers?
Re:/.ing the site (Score:2)
- By
/.ing this site we hurt not only ourselves, but many foolish investors that would otherwise be able to see it and learn!
UnlessHow many of you got in on the VA/RedHat/LInuxONE [kidding] friends & family purchase plan? That's what I mean...
whois on SEC (Score:5, Informative)
WINDHANDEL.COM
SEC-CIVIL.COM
SECRECRUITMENT.COM
SEC-NL.COM
OPERATIONDESERTFOX.COM
DOUZALS.COM
SEC (SE463-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET 619 487 7988
MCWHORTLE.COM
Re:whois on SEC (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop, don't slashdot that poor server. Since July 14, 1998, they've only handled 52 hits, and counting (counting quite fast, actually).
And they're not the Securities and Exchange Commission but "La Société Informatique SEC [Service Enseignement Conception]"
Here's one... (Score:2)
Re:Here's one... (Score:2)
Registrant:
SEC (SEEK2SUCCEED-DOM)
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
Domain Name: SEEK2SUCCEED.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
SEC
6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
US
202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477
6 Degrees of Fraud? (Score:2, Funny)
"http://www.lovecalculator.com This site is a fraud! Don't use it! You'll only become disenchanted! The only person that everyone---I mean EVERYONE---has a 100% chance with is Kevin Bacon. Yeah, I know...RUN!"
SEC must be stooping pretty low!
Sounds cool... (Score:2)
SEC should start "Get a Clue Quick" Pyramid Scheme (Score:2)
-Don
Now if only other agencies would follow suit... (Score:2)
The FDA should seed the web with "herbal viagra", "super blue green algae", etc sites, then slap mofo's upside the head when they are stupid enough to actually try ordering.
The FDA does have phony medical sites (Score:2)
One problem: More government lies. (Score:2)
I have a problem with this. The U.S. government is, once again, lying. People need to be able to trust their government, but the government engages in every kind of behavior that it calls criminal.
For a small collection of U.S. government lies and misleading behavior, see this collection of links I put together: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Re:One problem: More government lies. (Score:2, Interesting)
So, the government can't pretend to be a non-existent company for the purpose of educating people?
Do you also oppose sting operations? Reverse stings? Should I not be allowed to bluff confessions out of rape suspects? ("We found a beer bottle at the scene with a very interesting fingerprint...")
So object lessons aren't to be allowed anymore?
And lying isn't necessarily criminal. Not all statements fall under perjury/false swearing statutes, truth-in-advertising laws, or mandated-disclosure. It's not like the SEC is accepting money at this site, gundecking an Environmental Impact Statement, issuing a buy advisory for Enron, or claiming to be Marie of Rumania under oath.
Gull Awards (Score:3, Interesting)
The ASIC [asic.gov.au] - Australia's equivalent to the SEC - has been runnning bogus internet scams of their own for a while now. They even have awards for the best (or worst depending on your viewpoint) scams found - The Gull Awards [asic.gov.au] (past winners [asic.gov.au])
Thats Gull as in Gullible.
They missed one... (Score:2)
While this is a fine idea, they really need to put similar warnings on the Social Security web site.
Not too cool (Score:2, Insightful)
To bid on these shares, you must quickly e-mail us the number of shares you wish to purchase, together with your major credit card number and social security number (for identification) so we can reserve your slot.
Thanks, SEC! Now I now where to listen for plain text emails containing social security card and credit numbers. So perhaps you are teaching people a lesson, but who's gonna pay when they become real victims of identity and credit card theft?
The way they are handling this is just as irresponsible as the people who would actually email sensitive information.
Oops (Score:2, Insightful)
Need. More. Sleep. Ignore parent post.
list of FTC teaser sites (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, really. Domain is registered to the federal trade commission.
Unintended Consequences of scam-hunt? (Score:3, Interesting)
So now lots of people are going to be looking at hyped stocks sites. Good or bad? I wonder if anyone will get sucked-in by one of the Non-SEC sites. And how many "real" sites (and I use the term loosely) will be thought of as SEC fakes? It would be neat if there was some way to find which sites get the dubious achievement there.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
A new term? (Score:2)
How about a fake election scam? (Score:3, Insightful)
"You just accidentally voted for George W Bush! That was extremely foolish. But it doesn't matter because the outcome of the election is up to Enron and the Supreme Court."
-Don
SEC's own list of their "teaser pages" (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.wemarket4u.net/ [wemarket4u.net]
It looks like they've been doing this for around two years now.
GREAT! (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks SEC.
$.02: Not effective. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that I'm alone in this practice. What this means is that clicking on the "gotcha link" at McWhortle.com isn't really a gotcha. It's just part of trying to find out additional information about the company. If you really want to implement the "gotcha" I would think you'd have to delay the "gotcha" right up until someone actually is really ready to bid/purchase/whatever. You got to get to the point, I'd think, where people are actually thinking about doing this, and *then* hit them with the "gotcha". Otherwise, anyone who gets to the current "gotcha page" is going to dismiss it with, "Well, yeah I kinda thought this wasn't right. Glad I don't get caught by these things. Glad I don't have to worry about these kind of scams... on the other hand, check out this other site! Wow, investments in working cold fusion?"
I would think if you're trying to convince someone that they are too gullible, you got to catch them in the process of actually having taken the bait. Otherwise, they're not likely to learn.
$.02. Am I off my rocker?
Here's all of them, with hit stats (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.wemarket4u.net/ [wemarket4u.net]
Twoflower
This is perfect (Score:4, Funny)
We're not the target audience. (Score:3)
There are people who forward chain letters because they're afraid they'll die if they don't. There are people who believe Amway will make them rich. There are people who think Scientology makes sense. There are people who killed themselves in late 1999 (IIRC) to meet on the backside of a comet.
There are people who believe that Bill Gates will pay them for being part of an email tracking experiment. There are people who believe computer viruses can make your ice cream go all melty (well, maybe that's stretching things...). Some people gave money, of their own free will, to Donald Trump.
And there are people who believed GW Bush had a "clear policy for the Middle East" during the presidential debates.
You could show the mcwhortle site to these people, tell them it's a fake, and they'd still fall for it. While we like to claim that those who write "first post" are the least intelligent creatures on earth, they're already head-and-shoulders above the people the SEC is trying to help. Many of these people are retired, and hoping to get something back from the society they gave 40+ years of work to (like my father). Some of these people abandon all reason when it comes to this hope (unlike my father, thankfully).
The SEC is trying to reduce the number of fraud-related tragedies among these people, and I think it's a good thing. In fact, I think this is one of the coolest things I've seen our government do for the public, ever. The SEC seems to have a clue about real life and real people, unlike the Whitehouse and Congress (no matter who is in residence at the time).
-Paul Komarek
Re:What ever happened to... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What ever happened to... (Score:2)
Re:What ever happened to... (Score:2, Insightful)
passively *educate* the public, rather that
legislate our free will out of existence. I
would *FAR* rather have the US government
waste our tax dollars on this than on passing
horrendously complex laws that impose massive
fines and prison terms for anyone making
finanial claims not officially endorsed by
the SEC... Consider that, as someone already
pointed out, the SEC considered ENRON a "real" company...
Re:What ever happened to... (Score:2)
And if you haven't figure out already, there are tons of AOLers out there, those who lack IQ and are willing to believe whatever someone says even though it sounds too good to be true.
Then you ask, dude, these scams are so old, you would be suprised people will fall on anything.
Believe it or not, the economy depends on these AOLers, and it is the government's interest to protect and educate those who lack intelligance.
why it's important for a computer geek (Score:2)
I'm sure, with all the money spent chasing down the scammers, an education program like this would slash the costs, and hopefully make spamming less attractive o-> with the desirable result, less spam! =-)
Re:why it's important for a computer geek (Score:2, Offtopic)
We need to round up all the sysadmins who setup mail servers as open relays. The morons that believe the stuff that comes in spam are less important.
Re:why it's important for a computer geek (Score:2, Insightful)
Hold on. Are you actually proposing that the government should festoon everyone's mb with fake "Get Rich Quick" offers in order to "educate" us about fake "Get Rich Quick" offers?
The web site idea already strikes me as more "Internet litter" than anything useful. Habitual saps will be habitual saps, and many of them already know that. This is a class of people that will, upon learning that the SEC site is a fake, feel crestfallen at the loss of an opportunity, and then immediately resume their search for someone who can take their money. It's more a matter of self-esteem than ignorance, IMO.
Re:why it's important for a computer geek (Score:2)
My tax dollars have been spent worse ways.
Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak (Score:2, Funny)
Who are you to stand in the way of freedom?
Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak (Score:2)
Considering the huge amount of money that has been invested in techs the past 10 years, and a reliance on such techs by investors, nerds really should care about this stuff.
Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak (Score:3)
only thing that drives our society is money.
don't be such a cynic. Just because comptuer geeks never find it doesn't mean there isn't anything more. There are a few people in the real world who have found love, and that drives them to things that money doesn't,
Saddly, as a comptuer geek I can note the existance of this phenomenon, but cannot accually participate. I also note that most who claim to have found it realise in 10 years that they have not. Still there are exceptions.
Re:unless (Score:2)
Lottery (Score:2)
Re:Money (Score:3, Funny)
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken