Malicious Online Retailer Ordered Held Without Bail 225
Zaphod_85 writes "You may remember the New York Times story from a couple of weeks ago regarding Vitaly Borker, an online retailer intentionally harassing customers in order to gain linking points in Google's PageRank algorithm. Now, not only has Google altered their algorithm in order to prevent this tactic from being effective (Though according to Katherine Noyes at PCWorld, this tactic may never actually have been benefiting the website in the first place), Now Mr. Borker has the Feds to deal with. He is being charged with cyberstalking, wire fraud, mail fraud, and making interstate threats, and faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Given his disturbing behavior that brought about the charges, a federal judge has ordered he be held without bail while he awaits trial."
Real-life trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that still does nothing for the identity theft charges or the fraud. Hell, maybe we can get him on ACTA or something for selling counterfeits.
Re:Oh well. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not going to jail for 50 years. Journalists love to quote maximum jail sentences even though it's rare the maximum sentence is ever dealt.
Based on what I have read about the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and hey, it's nothing more than an online article, I say good riddance. Threatening folk repeatedly with bodily harm, impersonating them to credit card companies, etc. should be a fast-pass lane to being disbarred from operating a business and going to jail without passing go and without collecting $200.
What troubled me about Mr. Borkers story more than anything is how easily he circumvented the various red-flag tripwires that credit card companies allegedly employ. And the allegation that he successfully impersonated a customer withdrawing a claim against him shows not only chutzpah but a big security hole over at the credit card company.
Bottom line is that the internet has allowed all sorts of scams to go nationwide and unless one can interest the Feds (via publicity in this case), one is SOL. Thus, he may serve as a business blueprint for a lot more scammers going forward.
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fraud" has fuck all to do with free speech. You won't find any "libertarian" defense of stalking one's customers and threatening people with bodily harm.
Re:Real-life trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy wasn't trolling.
Trolls are in it for the pleasure they get from pissing people off. This guy was in it for the money. Everything he (allegedly) did was motivated by greed.
Which is why he gets the metaphorical book thrown at him and 4chan does not. The scumbag sold counterfeit goods and made threatening phone calls to people who complained or disputed the charges; he generated a paper trail in the form of credit card charges, phone records, etc. Finding him would be trivial for the courts.
All he could do once the matter came to light was cut and run, which he didn't do (might be overconfidence, ignorance or stupidity).
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, you'd probably find more libertarians who'd support the right of the stalked to shoot said stalker. Especially when he's threatened them.
Indeed, fraud is very much NOT on the list of things that libertarians want to legalize.
Re:Based on what I have read about the guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as the credit card company is concerned, I suspect intentional gullibility. "Oh really, Mrs. So-and-so, it's odd that you sound like a man, but you said the magic words 'I'm dropping the request to reverse the charges', and that's good enough for us."
If all it takes to nix a credit card holder's attempt to reverse charges is a phone call saying "I'm so-and-so", then there's a serious problem with verification of identity.
Re:Additional charges being considere (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking the guy is probably a lunatic, and it seems to me that the real fault lies with a whole lot of other entities from the credit card company to the cops who dropped the ball on this one. Clearly they were not taking this seriously, even after this lunatic had made explicit graphic sexual threats against the woman and had committed a clear act of fraud and identity theft by posing as her to get the reversal of charges reversed. A whole lot of people should be hanging their heads in shame for letting this poor woman suffer so much because of a whacko. They're the ones that deserve the jail sentence just as much as him.
I'm Surprised He's in Good Health (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean to play anonymous Internet tough guy here, but I'm really surprised that someone who tells customers with a legitimate complain "I know where you live" still has full use of both knee caps. I would have thought by now he would have pissed off the wrong person who happens to be within driving distance. Then again, when it comes to the stacks of money he's making, maybe he's full of shit and doesn't have that many customers to piss off.
Re:Based on what I have read about the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
>> What troubled me about Mr. Borkers story more than anything is how easily he circumvented the various red-flag tripwires that credit card companies allegedly employ.
More than that, what took it so long to nail him? There has been over 200 complaints filed with FTC against him, but it had to be reported by NYT for the US attorney to wake up?
I don't think I'd call this just trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think I'd call this guy just trolling.
On the internet even from the start trolling meant just something crafted to create as many responses as possible, rather than rape threats. As the dictum went, "Confucius say: successful troll is master baiter" ;) Really, it didn't even have to be offensive or explicit or illegal. It could be something as indirect as asking which Linux distro has IE.
And in the meantime it's largely become a synonym with "someone saying something I disagree with." Someone calling one's pet conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory? Someone else posting a bit of textbook science that contradicts one's ID beliefs? Someone else disagreeing that <insert game flop> is TEH GRATEST GAME EVAR? Someone else disagreed in another thread entirely? Well, they must be trolls and only saying that to get attention ;) But seriously, I've even seen textbook physics quotes modded as troll or overrated. It's just become the blanket excuse to not use one's brains and hang on to some pet dogma or half-truth: anyone disagreeing must be just trolling for attention.
What this guy did is a bit beyond mere trolling. And I suspect that even the trolling excuse was just an excuse. Threatening to rape someone asking for a refund and mailing them photos of their home with texts like "I'M WATCHING YOU" and whatnot, is the kind of asshattery even most Internet trolls would distance themselves from very quickly. That's already way beyond just seeking attention.
If anything, this just gives the lie to the old marketing canard that all exposure is good, and there is no such thing as bad publicity. I've seen it repeated in so many places, that it's not even funny. It turns out that, yes, there is bad publicity. Not only it can cross into being flat out illegal, but there's a very good case to be made that all that Google rank via people talking about how badly he treats customers, actually didn't benefit him. Getting mind-share as a dangerously deranged asshat to avoid can be just that: it just moves one from an unknown company to being the well known asshat company to avoid.
Re:I don't think I'd call this just trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, definitely no troll here. This is far worse. If you read the full interview, it's pretty clear the man is a certified sociopath. He has absolutely no moral compass... no notion of right or wrong. No notion that doing something to harm others is something you should even worry about.
I hope they throw the book at him. Unbelievable.
Oh, and I was happy to hear that Amazon doesn't screw around with allowing this sort of behavior (even if he does have an Amazon store). Too many unhappy customers and you're gone. One more reason I'm doing all my Christmas shopping through Amazon this year.
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with "Libertarians" is that there's no consistency in who calls themselves a Libertarian. Ranging from the most bat-shit crazy militia kind of people to the Tea Party wanks.
Those who claim to be "Libertarians" often are the ones pushing for morality based laws and regulation of other people's stuff.
In short, unless you can get a single, consistent, set of people saying they're Libertarians, the whole lot gets lumped in with every ranting idiot who wants to change the world to be the way they want it, and be able to opt-out of any taxation and other program they don't want so they can undermine the whole system.
I've never met two Libertarians with the same point of view, so I more of less have to discount the whole lot. The term is essentially meaningless -- but usually accompanied by some ranting screed that is anything but Libertarian.
And, like pure free-market worshipers, Libertarians make some awful assumptions about how their perfect utopian society would operate -- assumptions for which there is no evidence humans can live up to en masse. It's just way too overly idealized, and generally, downright naive.