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."
DecorMyCell.com (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DecorMyCell.com (Score:5, Informative)
Modded funny. Okay, but perhaps the moderators have forgotten the case of Norman Henry Hunt. Mr. Hunt was convicted of mail fraud (phony computer parts). He escaped from prison, was caught and convicted again (more mail fraud, plus the escape). After the second conviction, he was found to be running a mail order business out of a P.O. Box at NNCC. His ads represented NNCC as the Northern Nevada Computing Center; it was actually the Northern Nevada *Correctional* Center.
Re: (Score:2)
Google harder: http://www.trs--80.org/world-power-systems-fraud/ [trs--80.org]
Third result from the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you put the name in quotes, to get an exact match? There is a good summary in this InfoWorld article [google.com]. Note that in his first computer scam he passed as "Col. David W. Winthrop, USAF retired" in a Santa Maria CA computer club. Santa Maria is a stones throw from Vandenberg AFB, and I imagine that a large part of the tech community there worked at Vandenberg. Amazing, I think that he pulled it off. I never met him, but heard that he was a *very* personable fellow.
In those days (1977 or so) it was common f
Real-life trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You composed this comment with EMACS, didn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
No way, it had to be Vim!
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: (Score:2)
One more reason I'm doing all my Christmas shopping through Amazon this year.
... and here is one big reason not to do any Christmas shopping through Amazaon [mashable.com] this year.
Re: (Score:2)
As the dictum went, "Confucius say: successful troll is master baiter" ;)
Not every "master baiter" is a successful troll. Some only surf the Internet to master their "art". Even coming to /. could be seen as mental preparation. Now that I think about it, I have prepared long enough...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You don't find that offensive???
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is especially true with federal cases, where there are seperate explicit sentencing guidelines which work out so that, particularly with multiple charged counts, adding up the maximum available sentence for each offense is often vastly more than the sentence that would be justified taking the charged facts at face value with the sentencing guidelines applied.
Re:Oh well. (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. Though this particular asshole deserves the full stretch.
Pun intended.
Re:Oh well. (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. Though this particular asshole deserves the full stretch.
Pun intended.
I'm disappointed this was modded funny. Rape in any form isn't funny, its a nightmare.
A society allowing it to go on in prisons and then making jokes about it is all kinds of screwed up.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree he won't go to jail for 50 years. But he was denied bail and has a public defender. Given the wait to trail that the PD will need to build a defense the guy will be in Rikers for at LEAST a year till the trail.
Even if the court slap his hands after a conviction he going to be incarcerated for year. If he's lucky his wife will wait for him, chances are she won't. So by the time he gets out he'll be homeless, broke and divorced with child support due. I don't have a lot of sympathy for him after readi
Re: (Score:2)
If we got lucky he would repent and spend the rest of his life doing something productive, or at least not harmful. Imprisonment is a pretty shitty outcome for society as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an ideal, but I just don't see it. Given how flagrant and shameless this man sounded, I'd be skeptical of any repentance if it was ever made. Feigned repentance is usually a con's way of trying to get out of being punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Death is too good for this slime. Rape is too good for this slime. I say toss him in a cell with Sanford Wallace and let them duke it out. Oh, I forgot to mention, cut off their limbs first so we're left with two screaming torsos.
Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to change his name... (Score:2)
From Borker to Borkee...
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: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: (Score:3)
"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."
I don't know about your credit card holder, but I have to enter a fair amount of data to prove I am who I say I am with American Express. I am pretty sure you can't just call up an 800 number and say "this is sally johnson, forget about reversing the charges on card number 1234..." and have them take it sincerely.
Re:Based on what I have read about the guy... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to enter a fair amount of data to prove I am who I say I am with American Express
Right... and most of that information is available to an online retailer once you've made a purchase. Home address, phone numbers, legal name, heck you could easily ask for a DOB even though it's not required, and most people will blindly enter it. That pretty much covers most identity questions, and a simple "friendly" phone call can fill in a few other blanks like spouse's name, stuff like that. If credit cards were even borderline secure, I'd still have one. I prefer cash, because if someones screws with my cash, they have to be within pummeling distance, and that's the kind of security I like.
Re: (Score:2)
Just need to point out that, even if a credit card company asks for information, it doesn't mean they verify it. I had my identity stolen. The thief used my name, address, SSN and DOB to open up a Capital One credit card account. They put in the wrong Mother's Maiden Name, but that apparently didn't raise any red flags. Neither did them immediately changing the address to one in a different state or requesting a $5,000 cash withdrawal before the card was activated. Oh, and when I called to report the f
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?
Re: (Score:3)
This should make you feel real good about your credit card security:
http://www.zug.com/pranks/visa/index.html [zug.com]
It's a few years old now, but I don't think things have changed all that much in this arena.
Re: (Score:2)
I always spell my mother's maiden name differently; sometimes with two Bs, sometimes with two Ts and, as she's been married more than once, I sometimes use a different name.
I don't think I've ever been rejected from a website for using the wrong name.
He dun goofed. (Score:3, Funny)
The cyberpolice backtraced him, and consequences will never be the same!
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think he simply banks on the likelyhood that his customers are not sociopaths (unlike him), and prefer to go through the proper channels of authority when confronted by clearly illegal and threatening behavior.
Yeah, I hear you though. I got pretty steamed reading that story. Part of me does sometimes wish someone would take matters into their own hand and turn his kneecaps into jello, but that course of action rarely ends well, even in the movies.
About the best you can say about the authorities is, appa
Re:I'm Surprised He's in Good Health (Score:4, Interesting)
Three points:
1) He lived in NYC, where being a humongous dickhead is basically the norm, especially in business. (I know some very nice people from NYC, but I've been there before and I've done business there, so I'm not just reciting a tired stereotype.)
2) I would guess that the demographic of people buying glasses over the internet via their computers are not usually the violent type.
3) When someone this batshit-crazy harasses and threatens you, your self-preservation mechanism tells you to just call it a loss and stay as far away as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not surprised at all. While this is an extreme example, it remains standard practice.
The system, and by that I mean, "ALL HUMAN CULTURE" is designed to allow psychopaths to ply their trade. We are pre-programmed to let this kind of shit go, to avoid it, to assume that the aggressor really IS the victim. We think, "Nobody would behave so utterly contrary to the unspoken social laws which govern the tribe, therefore we must be perceiving this incorrectly." The bigger the lie, the easier the sell. It'
All the Brooklyn Camera stores do it too... (Score:5, Informative)
Every electronics/camera store in Brooklyn has been doing this for decades. They are all scammers and conartists.
Shanties and warehouses, or fake addresses, but websites with greymarket and fake products.
Examples of the stores im talking about:
http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/ [donwiss.com]
The FTC has done nothing about it.
People place products thinking they can get it cheaper, and then when they talk to the store the sales people scream and cuss at them if they don't buy addons they "must" buy (like power cords and batteries).
For every 1 reputable company based in NYC and NJ there are hundreds which are ran y petty criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
People place products thinking they can get it cheaper, and then when they talk to the store the sales people scream and cuss at them if they don't buy addons they "must" buy (like power cords and batteries).
For every 1 reputable company based in NYC and NJ there are hundreds which are ran y petty criminals.
aah ... brings back memories of tsim sha tsui, kowloon. folks spending two whole days of their vacation getting yelled at and insulted so they can save $50 on a camera.
Buying cameras online (Score:2)
I think most people who actually buy any quantity of photo equipment online, who want to shop at a camera store (not a "we got everything" place like Amazon), and who have been in the game for a while eventually restrict their purchases to B&H PhotoVideo, Adorama, and maybe J&R. For high-end product, there's Calumet. There are also a few specialty shops (I really miss Zone VI) and some used dealers (e.g. Keh).
That's about it.
Those thousands of other shops that you've never heard of but who offer s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Expensive? It costs me exactly $25 to file small claims in my locality. Long-arm jurisdiction means I can sue any vendor in the US who operates in my county. Maximum amount is $3500. If they don't show up, they lose. What's expensive about this?
Finally (Score:2)
SEO is dead (Score:3)
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.
FIFTY YEARS? Holy crap. I am so glad I got out of SEO. Shady, shady business is that industry.
The real story here (Score:2)
I recall the article said that her complaints were originally ignored by the police. It takes the NYT to shame your authorities into action?
Citibank (Score:2)
Subject (Score:2)
I think Vitaly will find that intimidating federal prison inmates won't be as easy as intimidating the young ladies. Especially with a pussy name like "Vitaly." I forsee mouth-rape in his near future.
Re: (Score:2)
I forsee mouth-rape in his near future.
That's why God gave man teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these 'threats' are worded carefully.
Somebody has been naughty.
Nice place you have here.
It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:4, Informative)
he also threatened to rape a female complaining customer which is why he was being charged according to another site.
Re: (Score:2)
50 years for threatening of rape, interstate?
Whoa. That's gross.
Re: (Score:2)
She is obviously a CIA plant making shit up to besmirch his good name.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if he tried it on me, I would have filed a police report within minutes.
Filing a police report is often futile. I filed a police report about a theft a few weeks ago, even gave them the thief's name. I found out after I filed the report that I wasn't her first victim, but she's still not in custody.
About thirty years ago my home was burglarized, and I later found out that they caught the burglar, who was let off in return for turning in some drug dealers, and they even let the guy keep the stolen propery --
Re: (Score:2)
Ok...what exactly does this law entail? I'd have to guess it was so broad that almost any internet action would be illegal??
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok..thanks. It mentioned "commerce" in there...I was wondering how the feds could do this. Bastardizing interstate commerce again.
After reading this law...I have to ask myself, does ANYONE do this
Re: (Score:2)
After reading this law...I have to ask myself, does ANYONE do this often? Is this really a problem that required a law?
And... what answer did you get from yourself?
WHO@ stats [haltabuse.org] (one of the sources, may be others):
WHOA receives an estimated 50-75 cases per week. If victims fill out the entire questionnaire, which includes demographic information, that is what we use to properly calculate our statistics.
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this really a problem that required a law?
A state with a low population like AZ (not to pick on AZ undeservedly here) would be presented with a good motive to set itself up with a predatory policy based on e.g. light criminal penalties for making threats against people in general. (Which it wouldn't for crimes of local consequence, like car theft or vandalism.) The benefit would be to make AZ more attractive to anyone looking to set up shop who plans to make money ripping off and abusing customers who are mostly going to live out-of-state anyway. If the population of your state is low enough, policies start to look attractive that encourage picking on people in other states by encouraging picking on people in general.
/IANAL
This is similar to how NV legalized gambling, or how the credit industry is based in ND. In general interstate commerce is something that presents a conflict of interest to a state legislature, so crimes involving it get singled out for federal nitpicking. I'm not surprised that there's a law against threatening to injure the person of someone in an interstate business conversation. Interstate commerce gets used like a hat rack by the feds, but a law like that seems pretty basic if you're going to submit interstate commerce to any regulative structure at all.
This case is different from your typical predatory industry. A collection agency for example is trying to get money out of people; it may be perfectly willing to abuse them, but only in order to get the money. What makes this guy weird is that he stalked people in order to get free advertising.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Is ANYTHING really a problem for libertarians, except "government regulations?" You demonstrate the utter moral bankruptcy of libertarian ideals. "You're not the boss of me" is not a valid political system, it is the cry of a selfish child.
Yes, this is a problem. Many people here have demonstrated how and why, and given you evidence that it is a problem. The article gives evidence that it is a problem. And yet you continue to ask "Is this really a problem?" This is the heart of libertarian "justice." No law
Re: (Score:2)
Or..are the Feds just now trying to make any law for anything, and stick commerce in it, so they can try to enforce something?
The Feds have been abusing the "commerce clause" since ages. Almost any federal law has some bizarre reference to "commerce" in it to justify how the Feds had authority to pass the law in the first place.
The most funny application was how a Californian resident was tried under a federal law for growing pot for her own consumption. You see, if she grows her own pot, she doesn't need to buy it, and thus her dealer doesn't need to import it from another state. That way, by growing her own she was "distorting [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm .... if you and I are in the same room, and you threaten to injure me, it's an illegal act and in most jurisdictions counts as assault and you can be charged for it. See, if someone reasonably believes you have made a threat against them, you have committed a crime.
In the case of interstate commerce, communicating a threat across state lines or internationally, you have now turned it
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see, the commerce clause...
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's because historically things like kidnapping and extortion used to be readily conducted across state lines and made it almost impossible to track down and police due to jurisdictional challenges.
When the FBI and others decided that they were going to go after kidnapping with a vengeance, that was one mechanism they had available to them. The phone and mail system allowed them to hone in on the method of transmission.
This wasn't case of "Hey, let's expand the commerce clause just for fun", thi
Re: (Score:2)
he found it on street view.
He stole Google's intellectual property and sent it to his customers? That is a matter of national security! [cnet.com]
This man must be stopped at all costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Which demonstrated that he actually took steps that would lead someone to reasonably conclude that he both could, and would, act on his threats.
If the person on the receiving end of the threat reasonably believes you will carry it out, you have committed assault [thefreedictionary.com]. If you do this across state lines, you have turned it into a Federal offense.
I suspect this guy is going to be on the receiving end of a world of hurt.
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:5, Informative)
If Vitaly Borker was calling Ms. Rodriguez repeatedly, especially after 10pm, he was violating New York State laws against telephone harassment.
I had somebody calling me repeatedly late at night. I traced his phone number, complained to the local police station, and two detectives came to his house (several times until he answered the door) and arrested him. He finally left New York City, and stopped bothering me, so I didn't prosecute.
You can get more information about handling these calls at The Verizon Unlawful Call Center http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/phone/general+support/support+tools/general/95622.htm [verizon.com]
Examples of unlawful calls:
* Threat to Life (yours or someone else's)
* Bomb Threats
* Bodily Harm
* Excessive Obscene or Harassing Calls (The definition of excessive varies by state but generally means more than two to five calls.)
* Kidnapping
Verizon regularly works with Law Enforcement agencies to resolve unlawful call complaints. The Law Enforcement agency investigates all calls involving bodily harm, bomb threats and kidnapping.
Unwanted Calls are usually not against the law and typically include:
* Fax calls
* Hang-up calls
* Computer calls
* Solicitation calls
* Telemarketing calls
* Debt collection calls
* Obscene or Harassing Calls*
*If calls of this nature are deemed excessive, and you are willing to prosecute, we will handle as an unlawful call.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the NYT Time article, Ms. Rodriguez was using T-Mobile and attempted to get them to do something but was told by T-Mobile they could do nothing because he was calling from a blocked number. All utter bullshit from the T-Mobile rep and a very good reason to NEVER use T-Mobile.
Re: (Score:2)
All utter bullshit from the T-Mobile rep and a very good reason to NEVER use T-Mobile.
So which phone company doesn't have any incompetent staff and therefore never makes an incorrect statement to a customer?
I believe the T-Mobile representative was correct (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the point, he was obnoxious and and maybe financially criminal, Is he facing financial penalties? No he is facing the loss of his life (I.E. the loss of 50 years of his liberty) for never physically harming anybody. Beware of the government that so enthusiastically protects you for what will they do to you when they decide you have horrifically offended them. Even if there is a low chance of him getting it the fact that he faces is it is what should be taken into account.
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: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: (Score:2)
Indeed, you'd probably find more libertarians who'd support the right of the stalked to shoot said stalker.
That's the part people forget.
We wouldn't need so much protection by the government if we were allowed to protect ourselves.
A response of "Try it and I'll cut your fucking balls off" would have sent this guy off looking for easier prey, particularly if castration was considered a legitimate defense against rape.
Re: (Score:3)
Now to me that's a pretty messed up philosophy given the extreme costs in research time that it would add to every transaction. At least the current situation where in general parties are expected to be ho
Re: (Score:2)
But won't the free market sort it out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people complaining about the Feds using the commerce clause to smack this asshat down are simply misinformed, whatever their political inclinations. Doing business over the Internet, especially* when the buyer and seller are in different states, is most definitely interstate commerce and has to be policed by the Feds.
*I say "especially" because it's possible for a buyer to be in one part of a state and the seller in another, but their transaction runs across routers and/or servers in other states, makin
Cue the librarians.... (Score:2)
To throw the book at him!
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Conga!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Queue the libertarians.. (Score:5, Funny)
With 10 libertarians you would have 10 lines each 1 libertarian deep
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's still one line, ten deep. Just orthogonal.
Re: (Score:3)
Where you get this idea I am uncertain, but that's not how it works.
Libertarians want the government the U.S. originally intended to have. It was all a REALLY good idea based on the notion of getting rid of all the crap and nonsense that England's government was imposing and never wanted to see again. Well, it's back and stronger in many ways. For example, the tax rates imposed by England would be a dream come true by today:s standards.
As for justice, no. The Libertarian stance on crime in general might
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously. Would you be okay if the Taliban were in charge of making law in this country? If so, then your perspective would be consistent. If not, then you most certainly understand my point. My point is that "morality" is a point of view, not a universal constant. The government's job isn't to push a limited point of view, but rather to do what the constitution says it must.
Where you get that this other stuff wouldn't happen, I don't know. You are apparently unable to form more than a few words in s
Re: (Score:3)
(Shrug) Capitalism is exactly what happens when you give people the liberty to trade with each other. The only way to stop capitalism is to shoot people for practicing it. Is that what you, personally, advocate?
Re: (Score:3)
No, capitalism is when you allow pretend "persons" (companies) to raise capital without liabilities for real people. It works, but it's a kludge, and doesn't sit comfortably with the moral responsibilities implied by enlightenment individualism.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what a slashdot libertarian is. It's a selfish git who could never actually live without any of the government services like police, or roads, or hospitals, but thinks that there's a magical way where they don't have to pay for them. Somewhere there may be libertarians who truly believe in civil liberties, but everyone I've ever met has had a philosophy which basically boiled down to "Hands off my wallet fuck the rest of you". Even the religious right has more integrity than that.
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.