The Outing of Pranknet 543
An anonymous reader writes "The Smoking Gun recently published a story on their investigation and outing of Pranknet, an online cabal that aims to take pranks to the next level. Their legacy includes thousands of dollars of damage, and many harassed souls. Many of the pranks have clear criminal implications. Reading their report may send chills down your collective spines." From the linked article: "Coalescing in an online chat room, members of the group, known as Pranknet, use the telephone to carry out cruel and outrageous hoaxes, which they broadcast live around-the-clock on the Internet. Masquerading as hotel employees, emergency service workers, and representatives of fire alarm companies, 'Dex' and his cohorts have successfully prodded unwitting victims to destroy hotel rooms and lobbies, set off sprinkler systems, activate fire alarms, and damage assorted fast food restaurants. But while Pranknet's hoaxes have caused millions of dollars in damages, it is the group's efforts to degrade and frighten targets that makes it even more odious ..."
Train wreck phenomenon (Score:2, Interesting)
successfully prodded unwitting victims to destroy hotel rooms and lobbies, set off sprinkler systems, activate fire alarms, and damage assorted fast food restaurants[...]Pranknet's hoaxes have caused millions of dollars in damages,
Movies cost hundreds of millions to create, market, distribute, and be consumed for the same reason: Entertainment. The difference is, movies are legal and often fictional. But does it matter to those watching? No. The deeper question here is -- why do people watch it? Why the popularity? The answer says a lot more about us, the audience, than it does about the criminals.
Re:Crappy reporting (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, they could have been found out much earlier if one of those employees had stopped to make a sanity check of what they were being asked to do.
Also blame employers. Most employers prefer the subordinate type that follows and asks questions later. Those employees are especially vulnerable to attacks like this. All you have to do is find one 'yes sir/no sir' type to 'change the fuses'.
Re:Dear Pranknet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dear Pranknet (Score:1, Interesting)
You mean by raising taxes on the middle class, as has recently been suggested?
This has been "suggested" by paranoid radio elite who lie about the intention of others who have made it clear that taxes will not be raised on 95% of the public, and all of the middle class.
I'd be interested to know how you can 'de-fund' a soup kitchen the majority of the ones I've seen are run by private charities and not the government.
Soup kitchens are part of the network of the social safety net, many of which are supported by the government via direct funding (religious "faith-based" and other charities) and via tax exemptions. Unfortunately, support citizens for the poorest has been gutted over the last 30 years-- through preferential economic policy tilted to the rich in the Bush/Regean eras and through welfare "reform" of the Clinton years.
Insofar as the government is not involved directly in the day-to-day operation of many soup kitchens, you are making my point for me. Government should be doing much more for the poor, not less. When the middle class gets fucked via class warfare attacks by the rich, the financial base for soup kitchens dissolves while the demand for soup kitchens and food banks increase. So one is directly is connected to the other.
Re:What idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone I respect very much told me, "Trust, but verify." I have no problem with trusting someone whose identity can be verified--whose credentials check out. These so-called victims did not seem to even lift a finger to verify the authority of the person asking them to humiliate themselves and do thousands of dollars in property damage. Maybe they're not terminally stupid, but definitely they're hopelessly, terminally naive. Clearly the mods disagree, and you can see the karmic punishing I'm taking in the GP post :)
I also disagree that our society is based on mutual trust. Volumes and volumes of laws backed up by lawyers, police, and jails show otherwise. If people could simply trust each other to do right, we wouldn't need a quarter of the laws, contracts, corporate policies, and regulations that we have. Hell, even marriages are sewed up with prenuptial agreements nowadays. Fact is, there are tons of people out there who will screw you over and take your money/job/freedom if you give them the chance. They don't look like cartoon bad guys. They look like you and me. Some of them run companies, some of them are in public office, some of them go to your church. By implicitly trusting people, you are virtually guaranteeing that you'll be taken advantage of one day.
Or to put it into Slashdot terms, you can live your life trusting people either: "Order Deny, Allow" or "Order Allow, Deny". Either way is fine, as long as you set the rest of your exceptions up reasonably. Choose wrong too far one way, and you risk becoming a cynical trust-no-one bastard like me. Choose wrong too far the other way, and we'll get to laugh at you when you strip down naked in Times Square because someone on the phone told you he was the police.
Re:Birds of a feather (Score:5, Interesting)
Birds of a feather indeed.
From the same link:
"Markle pulled the Arby's prank in tandem with Shawn Powell, a 24-year-old felon who also happens to be a convicted sex offender (Powell's victim was an eight-year-old female relative)."
It looks more like a couple of child rapists fronting as a "prank" group than anything else, I bet there's far more to this story and I bet it's going to get very ugly once full investigations take place.
Re:How About Personal responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, they were actually police, and they came to rob her with an illegally obtained no-knock warrant. Believing or not believing they were the police would not have helped - they didn't ask, they just killed her when she put up a small resistance to her home invasion.
Now, getting off topic a bit, but I found this part of the story to be really, really disturbing:
The Rev. Markel Hutchins, acting as spokesman for Johnston's family, said her family members were "stunned and disappointed" by the announcement of the indictments because they believe it will disrupt a larger federal investigation of civil rights violations by the Atlanta Police Department.[13]
WTF? Who the hell is "stunned and dissapointed" when the murderer's of a family member are indicted for murder? That's fucked up. It's not like the indictments are going to somehow hide the illegal warrants regularly being obtained at that PD, and it isn't like NOT indicting the guys will kill an investigation into the rest of the department. Whether or not you can make what you have stick is a problem prosecutors deal with all the time, and they probably would not have gotten anything out of these guys either.
Played into his hands (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:idle hands (Score:4, Interesting)
Great. Your cause is correct. But your "solution"...
You are doing what everyone says: EXACTLY THE WRONGEST THING POSSIBLE!
First you totally fail (sorry), by confusing force with motivation. A common mistake of >95% of the population. It's one of those things that work shortly, and then make everything even worse. Like drugs. And just like drugs, people tend to apply more, when it stops working. So it's not a question, *if* this ends in a catastrophe, but *when*.
Then you kick him on the street. Which will help exactly no-one. I was on the street. So I can tell you that all it brings is depression, and the will to destroy yourself. Usually it ends in some relative or friend helping you, a lucky situation, life-long bum life, or death from drug-related problems.
And forcing people into jobs they do not want, is also a root of what is wrong with our society. A job you do not want is one that is not payed well enough to be worth the hassle. Which in other words means, that some ass is profiting off your back. So the trick is to find people who want to give you enough money for what you like to do. (If what you like to do is not worth enough money to them, you can become more efficient, so that you get more per time unit. Or you have to find something else that you like.)
But all in all, it *must* be something that you like. After all you are giving one third of your life (or half of your life awake) away for it.
Also, what you see as "constructive" is not a global absolute. It is completely relative. The only global meaning is, that it yields something positive for him. (Which his current "job" does, apparently. Problem: Usually nobody wants to give him money for it. But I know situations, where people would pay for that kind of service.)
Ok, now for the cause and how to do it right: :)
First of all, you need someone that he respects. This is essential, to be able to tell him anything that he will actually consider.
Then that someone needs to create a positive motivating gradient. (Something that naturally gives the feeling of wanting to go there by yourself.)
This starts by offering life-improving things. Things that are way better *in his eyes* than what he does right now.
Then you can add a short burst of negativity to get it going. But *only ONE time*. A bit like a zero point experience to start over.
Who do you think will not go towards that way better "portal of salvation", when in that situation? Nobody!
Or as a simple conclusion: You have to make people want to do something in a positive way, instead of you wanting them to do it (in a negative way).
Then you will get lasting results, and that person will become very productive, while everybody is happy.
P.S.: Also, I'd recommend checking yourself for repressed anger, that usually is the source of reactions like yours. Without it, you can also improve your life and have more fun, while not being annoyed so much by things like this. :)
Journalism, Pranknet, and ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a very strong norm against publishing phone numbers, addresses, etc in journalism (esp. criminal and political journalism). I readily agree with this norm -- it seems that publishing such information can invite vigilantism and generate life-long problems for the accused without the benefit of a fair trial. I would generally expect journalists to abide this norm in news reports on robbery, drug trafficking, arson, embezzlement, etc.
Never-the-less, I felt a twinge of satisfaction while reading phone numbers and street addresses in TSG's article. I wouldn't mind if these serial harassers received a series of harassing phone calls.
Then again, TSG accuses Pranknet of systematically violating the informal norms that their victims rely on; is it proper for TSG to turn around and break an informal norm of journalism?
I'd like to better understand the ethical question here. Perhaps TSG's approach is the only way to deal with Pranknet? Perhaps it's poetic justice? Has TSG made a special ethical judgement regarding Pranknet? On what basis? Does TSG habitually violate journalistic ethics? Do the participants in Pranknet deserve worse treatment than anyone else accused of crime? How would our opinion change if TSG had presented the story differently?
Re:Dear Pranknet (Score:3, Interesting)
"Foisting class warfare stereotypes on sheeple who know no better is how leftists got into office"
No, I think you'll find it's having a hard-right President and Congress commit war crimes by launching an illegal war while crashing the economy which is what elects leftists into office.
In 2000, I was pretty much indifferent to the whole Gore vs Bush gridlock. "They're both the same," I said. "Republicans, Democrats, left and right... they all have the same policies." After all, could anyone be more meh than Clinton? Took him til 1999 to release the crypto export provisions. Invaded Yugoslavia. Slept around like a Frenchman. This Bush guy was talking about "humble" foreign policy. Okay, I thought. They're America, they might be screwing Russia over, and not removing their nukes fast enough, and still trying to control the world... but at least they're not outright stupid.
And then I watched in horror how much, much worse it could get - what happens when you have a Republican rather than Democratic president who "responds" in a lather of panic and pride to a fairly small terrorist incident. Kabloom! United Nations? What United Nations? We'll baldly lie outright to the world if we want! We're Mericka, eff yeah! Bombs away!
A few years later your party of choice picks about the scariest pair of gun-crazy candidates you could imagine to replace Bush, and the world goes "Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. comma. Uniform. Sierra. Alpha? Hotel Tango Hotel? Over? Hello? Anyone in there, Major Tom?"
And then a miracle occurs.
And that's how come you have a quiet, intelligent, soft-spoken mixed-race Democrat representing you to the world. And the world breathed a sigh of relief and muttered "wow, and here we thought you Yanks really were a bunch of fascist jerks... guess we were wrong. When you've exhausted all other options, sometimes you do make the right choice. C'mon over here and give us a big, manly trade and arms reduction deal. We know we'll hate ourselves for it in the morning... but you're just so sexy right now!"
Yeah we know Obama's just JFK and Clinton reborn. We know he's stepped down Iraq just to ramp up Afghanistan. We know he's a master of the velvet glove of American imperialism instead of the naked iron fist. (Bush naked. Either of them. Brrrrrrrrr. Bad brain.)
But, well, he's half-black. And he got elected! That's, whuh, we still can't quite stop pinching ourselves. If you guys don't realise what a massive foreign policy boost you guys get just from having him there...wow.
And domestically, so he flushed money down the bankster hole... okay, that might have been smart or dumb, not sure yet. But healthcare reform? Seriously, THAT'S what you'd fight to STOP? We here in NZ look at American-style healthcare as a Very Very Bad Idea which we flirted with in the 1980s-90s, and thank goodness we didn't completely go that route. It looks like hell, and we're so glad we don't have the mess you now have to fix.
You're welcome.
Brilliant Investigation Tactics (Score:1, Interesting)
Strange Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
"And domestically, so he flushed money down the bankster hole... okay, that might have been smart or dumb, not sure yet. But healthcare reform? Seriously, THAT'S what you'd fight to STOP? We here in NZ look at American-style healthcare as a Very Very Bad Idea which we flirted with in the 1980s-90s, and thank goodness we didn't completely go that route. It looks like hell, and we're so glad we don't have the mess you now have to fix."
He flushed an amount fairly close to our yearly GNP down the bankster hole and specifically banksters he had connections with. If we count the type of fraud these Prankster people did as criminal, then what Obama has done (following what Bush started, building on the foundation laid by Clinton...) has to count fairly high on the felony scale.
But the biggest thing is that you misunderstand something critical about American politics and why many of us strongly resist "reform". Reform here means changing the rules so that your cronies will profit instead of someone else's cronies. It has been that way since at least the '60s, probably longer and is largely true of both major parties. Health care "reform" means booting the folks who currently have control of healthcare out and putting your people in all the while leaving the actual *citizens* with less power. Each change of regime results in the pendulum swinging further into insanity with each administration trying to top the criminal aspirations of the previous. That is how they now get away with the House passing a 1000+ page bill that no one had read because it hadn't even been completed at the time of the vote ("Cap and Trade"). The memos and briefs coming out of the Obama Justice Department read word for word similar to those from Bush's with statements about how indefinite detention without charge (or even cause) is fine, the accused have no rights because of the severity of the accusation, and we don't really need to tell anyone, even a judge, who we are wiretapping or having followed. Obama's defense budget still has more money in cost overruns and blatant pay-offs (to mostly the same people as usual) than the GDPs of many countries. So it is not really a matter of what the subject of the bill is these days but rather that it is prudent to not let ANYTHING pass right now [at the Federal level] because we cannot control the time bombs they are writing into them until we get firmer legislation at the State level to protect ourselves from Federal overreach, stupidity, and corruption. I would rather have Ghengis Khan in control of my health options at the moment than a Congressional-appointed committee.
It is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. I believe Democrats to be wrong about the best way to run the country, but I believe most of them are on the level. I, myself, am a Republican because I look back to ideals the party was actually founded to promote... like personal responsibility, personal charity, and freedom. But the core ideals are not promoted by the top levels of *either* party and grass roots efforts to actually change something are quickly co-opted by monied interests, pork, riders, and 'oversights' in the legislation until they do much more damage than if the problems had been left alone. There is a deep racket here where the 'leadership' treats the citizens exactly like those Pranksters, as if they are useless sheep who can be paid off in bright baubles and trinkets to look the other way... and cheating them isn't really immoral. That attitude infects the citizenry just the same, who try to emulate their 'betters' by making their own racket and trying to get a piece of the pie... and cheating The System isn't really immoral... so in a way, the attitude of the leadership ends up being accurate. That's how we end up with people in charge of liberal policies and promote using our tax money to "help others" who have not paid their own taxes in many years and people do not really find it odd.
Health care 'reform,' if it passes will do no better than utility 'reform' or the many Defense-Industrial budg
Re:these are not pranks! (Score:3, Interesting)
From the wikipedia article:
"In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience"; all geneticists were fired from work (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who claimed to be an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). The ban was only waived in the mid 1960s."
Re:these are not pranks! (Score:1, Interesting)
You don't have to go back in time to kill the creator of Perl [wall.org]... *wink*
Except it does matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding? So far the majority of stories involving someone acting like a sociopathic prick online, have attracted a number of wannabe sociopathic pricks that lionized the perp on one or more of the following grounds:
- muahahaha, now we're the ones with the power. Phear us! Payback time for the former school bully... and the cheerleader who didn't want to be my GF... and the jock who got her as a GF... and that geography teacher who got me bored to death... (Basically as if having been a victim once is all the reason and rationalization needed for victimizing others in turn. Newsflash: if anyone wasn't a bully just because they lacked the power and/or balls, but turns into one as soon as they can, they never had a moral high ground to start with.)
- OMG, if they were too stupid to defend themselves, they deserved it. (A.k.a., "might makes right.")
- more generally, if it's high tech and not everyone can do it, then it's right to do it if you can. (A.k.a., "might makes right.")
- It's just bits and bytes, and information wants to be free!! (Especially when said information is someone else's credit card number;))
- if it slips through some loophole of an existing law, despite being blatantly against its spirit, then it's morally right. The proposed new amendment against it is blatantly an attempt to control more people by criminalizing something as benign as terrorizing others. Cue quotes out of context from Richelieu and Ayn Rand.
- if it's already illegal, that law is blatantly an attempt to control more people by criminalizing something as benign as terrorizing others. Cue quotes out of context from Richelieu and Ayn Rand.
Etc.
In fact, my best guess is that now the majority opinion is against it only because it was _social_ engineering, and we don't relate that well to that. It involves talking to people and... eew ;) If it were about slipping someone a trojan to terrorize them via their computer, you'd see 200+ posts just defending the perp and blaming the victims.
So maybe it is stuff that matters. Reminding more wannabe sociopaths that doing it over the internet is no shield, is a good thing.
Foot-in-the-door at work... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I've not seen anyone else point it out yet, I just thought I'd point out that the 'pranksters' are simply exercising Foot-in-the-door technique [wikipedia.org]. They probably aren't, necessarily always, stupid people that get duped by these situations. The actions they are being instructed to conduct are all reasonable - in relation to the one they just finished completing. The 'big picture' isn't as readily available as you might thing.
I hesitate to point this out, because it could empower other 'pranksters', but the formula is basically:
A) Get them to do something innocuous
B) Get them to do something logical
C) Get them to do something slightly/somewhat less logical
D) Continue escalating requests until something breaks
The 'humor' is often found at the ridiculousness of 'D)'.
Look at the hotel scenarios:
A) Get them out of bed thinking there is an emergency
B) Get them to line the underside of the doors, etc
C) Get them to 'open' a window, by force if necessary
D) Get them to break the TV (since force was already used on the window)
No one calls them up and goes straight to 'D)', and THAT alone is why it works.
The best defense against this would be to keep 'A)' in mind at all times. The leap from 'A)' to the end should also make sense without the intermediary steps...