Three days after Elon Musk tweeted that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private, we still don’t know who, if anyone, has agreed to provide the billions of dollars needed to buy out the company. But plaintiffs’ lawyers aren’t waiting any longer for Musk to provide more details.
On Friday, stock trader Kalman Isaacs filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that Musk’s Tuesday tweets constituted securities fraud. The lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, appears to be the first one claiming that Musk’s Tuesday tweets violated federal securities law.
At the time of Musk’s tweet, Isaacs was short at least 3,000 shares of Tesla stock. That means that, at some point prior to Musk’s tweet, Isaacs had borrowed Tesla shares and sold them, betting that the price would fall and he would eventually be able to buy them back at a discount, pocketing the difference.
]]>
https://briefnews.eu/short-seller-sues-tesla-elon-musk-claiming-buyout-tweets-were-fraudulent/feed/0The Big, Emotional Ending of ‘Avengers: Infinity War’ is Fraudulent Bullshit
https://briefnews.eu/the-big-emotional-ending-of-avengers-infinity-war-is-fraudulent-bullshit/
https://briefnews.eu/the-big-emotional-ending-of-avengers-infinity-war-is-fraudulent-bullshit/#respondTue, 01 May 2018 17:27:14 +0000http://briefnews.eu/the-big-emotional-ending-of-avengers-infinity-war-is-fraudulent-bullshit/As “Avengers: Infinity War” grossed something like 400 bajillion dollars over the weekend, it seems like there’s a pretty good chance you’ve seen it, and thus we can talk a bit about its ending. But if you haven’t, and still plan to, bookmark and click away and come back after you have. Seriously. This is a spoiler warning! You have been spoiler warned!
Last Thursday night, I watched Avengers: Infinity War with quite possibly its most receptive audience: a group of 250 or so super-fans who viewed it at the conclusion of a 31-hour marathon of Marvel movies. (Read all about that here.) So I guess it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that they greeted the climactic deaths of several important characters with much wailing and gnashing of teeth – and I mean that quite literally, as in people were audibly crying out, and crying, at what they saw. But it also seemed like the audience that should’ve been most aware that what they were seeing was altogether impermanent; if there’s any franchise where dead people don’t stay dead, it’s this one. I mean, the last person we see die, in the final post-credit scene, is a character who literally returned from the grave. There was a headstone and everything!
If you’re unaware of what happens at the end of Infinity War and aren’t planning on seeing it (and seriously, can’t reiterate this enough, this is your last warning, spoiler-phobes), here’s what we’re talking about: the series’ Big Bad, Thanos, finally accumulates all of the Infinity Stones the franchise has spent far too much time on, and is able to commence his evil plan of universe-wide population control by killing off half of all life, chosen seemingly at random. And thus we watch several beloved characters slowly vanish into thin air: Black Panther, Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Scarlet Witch, Winter Soldier, Falcon, and every damn Guardian of the damn Galaxy. These deaths are played for maximum emotional impact, with characters registering fear and terror as they watch their very physical beings disintegrate; the death of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, in the arms of his surrogate father Tony Stark/Iron Man, is rendered particularly poignantly.
But look, it’s all bullshit.
And it’s not just bullshit because of the franchise’s traditionally loose standards w/r/t the permanence of death. It’s bullshit because of the very business model that has made the Marvel Cinematic Universe the most lucrative of film franchises: the years-out announcements of upcoming projects, creating a culture of anticipation that pays off financially but not (in this particular case) emotionally.
Here’s what I mean: a quick Google search for the films of the MCU reveals a new Spider-Man movie out next summer, a new Guardians of the Galaxy movie in 2020, and new sequels to Doctor Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy set (but not yet to specific dates). If all of those characters just evaporated, what do we think those movies are going to be? Haunting, unbroken shots of their empty environs? (That, folks, would be an “experimental anti-film.”) Two hours of Aunt May crying at Peter’s funeral? Okoye and M’Baku taking over Wakanda? (Okay, that one I’d kinda like to see.)
Of course not. The next, as-yet-untitled Avengers movie, shot concurrently with Inifity War and picking up immediately where it leaves off, will inevitably reverse all of those deaths and set the Universe right again. So how is the remotest emotional investment even possible? And even stranger, screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and directors Anthony and Joe Russo could’ve had that kind of payoff, because you know who didn’t die? Iron Man and Captain America and Hulk and Thor and Black Widow, all of the original Avengers, all played by actors whose contractual obligations to the series are coming to an end. (Only one, Black Widow, has a stand-alone movie on the Marvel slate.) And don’t @ me, I’m sure that’s not how the comics go, so it’s verboten, or whatever. Who cares! We’re not dealing in comic books; this is a film series, with its own unique challenges, and they fumbled the ball.
Or is it even a film series at all? I participated in a binge-watch before Infinity War, and that has become, to many, the go-to method of ingesting popular art. It’s a terminology and methodology more frequently ascribed to television shows, but the MCU is in many ways a hybrid of television and film series. (The numerous actual TV shows that are Marvel-adjacent, like ABC’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.and Netflix’s Jessica Jones, are merely taking this strategy to its logical conclusion.) It’s no surprise that the MCU’s defining directors (Joss Whedon and the Russo Brothers) come from episodic television; the best sections of their films tend to function like situation comedy, building laughs from our familiarity with the characters and anticipation of how they’ll react to the plot machinations, even creating Ross-and-Rachel style will-they-or-won’t-they romantic possibilities. (And several of the most entertaining installments of the series have come from comedy directors: Taika Waititi’s Thor: Rangarok, Jon Favreau’s Iron Man, Shane Black’s Iron Man 3.)
Beyond that, no matter how proudly quirky any given installment may be, they’re all adhering to a house style and predetermined template: pleasant introductions, comic interactions, big mid-movie action set piece, heightening of conflict and stakes, giant CGI-heavy blow-everything-up climax. Even their most sui generis filmmakers adhere to it; Ant-Manor Black Panther have their own idiosyncrasies and virtues, but at the end of the day, they must stick to the Marvel playbook, just as a Rian Johnson-directed episode of Breaking Bad is still first and foremost an episode of Breaking Bad.
So the big, harrowing, emotional ending that everyone is raving about on social media should be treated as what it is: a season-ending cliffhanger, which the Marvel-makers will slither out of as surely as the folks behind Dallas did, when it turned out J.R. wasn’t really dead. (Or, more accurately, when Bobby Ewing turned up in the shower.) It’s a giant cheat, which they’ll presumably offset by then killing the characters they’re actually getting rid of, and everyone will cry into their popcorn again, and it’ll make another 400 bajillion dollars. Lather, rinse, repeat.
]]>https://briefnews.eu/the-big-emotional-ending-of-avengers-infinity-war-is-fraudulent-bullshit/feed/0Judge signs off on $25 million settlement in lawsuit against ‘fraudulent’ Trump University
https://briefnews.eu/judge-signs-off-on-25-million-settlement-in-lawsuit-against-fraudulent-trump-university/
https://briefnews.eu/judge-signs-off-on-25-million-settlement-in-lawsuit-against-fraudulent-trump-university/#respondTue, 10 Apr 2018 01:39:31 +0000http://briefnews.eu/judge-signs-off-on-25-million-settlement-in-lawsuit-against-fraudulent-trump-university/Bebeto Matthews/AP Photo
A federal judge on Monday signed off on a $ 25 million agreement to settle fraud claims arising from Trump University, the now-defunct education venture of US President Donald Trump.
A US judge declared the settlement final after a former student agreed to drop further appeals.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who had sued Trump over the university, said: “Victims of Donald Trump’s fraudulent university will finally receive the relief they deserve.”
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A federal judge on Monday signed off on a $ 25 million agreement to settle fraud claims arising from Trump University, the now-defunct education venture of U.S. President Donald Trump, after a former student agreed to drop further appeals.
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego declared the settlement “final” after the former student, Sherri Simpson of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, decided not to challenge a Feb. 6 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the settlement.See the rest of the story at Business Insider
]]>https://briefnews.eu/judge-signs-off-on-25-million-settlement-in-lawsuit-against-fraudulent-trump-university/feed/0Ontario failing to recover millions in fraudulent OHIP billings by doctors
https://briefnews.eu/ontario-failing-to-recover-millions-in-fraudulent-ohip-billings-by-doctors/
https://briefnews.eu/ontario-failing-to-recover-millions-in-fraudulent-ohip-billings-by-doctors/#respondThu, 22 Mar 2018 19:01:46 +0000http://briefnews.eu/ontario-failing-to-recover-millions-in-fraudulent-ohip-billings-by-doctors/
Ontario’s Ministry of Health is doing little to crack down on doctors who improperly bill OHIP, according to information obtained by CBC/Radio-Canada.
]]>https://briefnews.eu/ontario-failing-to-recover-millions-in-fraudulent-ohip-billings-by-doctors/feed/0WhatsApp SCAM ALERT: Future update could HALT spread of fraudulent 99p charge messages
https://briefnews.eu/whatsapp-scam-alert-future-update-could-halt-spread-of-fraudulent-99p-charge-messages/
https://briefnews.eu/whatsapp-scam-alert-future-update-could-halt-spread-of-fraudulent-99p-charge-messages/#respondTue, 23 Jan 2018 09:58:32 +0000http://briefnews.eu/whatsapp-scam-alert-future-update-could-halt-spread-of-fraudulent-99p-charge-messages/
WHATSAPP • GETTY
WhatsApp’s new scam alert tool could stop the spread of fraudulent messages
WhatsApp is purportedly hard at work on a new scam alert system to halt the spread of spam messages.
The system is designed to cut-down on chain-letter style messages by warning users when a message or link has been forwarded 25 times or more from a single device.
It suggests fans of WhatsApp will soon be forced to pay to keep using it.
The note, which varies slightly between recipients, usually states: “Your subscription has expired. To Verify your account and purchase a lifetime subscription for just 0.99 GBP simply tap on this link.”
WhatsApp: Hidden Tips, Tricks and Features You Never Knew
Mon, June 20, 2016
WhatsApp is the world’s most popular messaging app but you probably don’t know all of the tricks and features hidden up its sleeve. Here’s everything you need to know to master WhatsApp.
WHATSAPP • EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS
1 of 10
WhatsApp – Hidden tricks and features you probably don’t know, but definitely should be using
Since 2016, WhatsApp has scrapped all fees with the company saying: “We’re happy to announce that WhatsApp will no longer charge subscription fees.
“For many years, we’ve asked some people to pay a fee for using WhatsApp after their first year. As we’ve grown, we’ve found that this approach hasn’t worked well.
“WhatsApp will no longer charge you for our service.”
Thankfully, the message is a fake. WhatsApp will not be charging users to use the service.
WhatsApp is rolling out its all-new Business app to a few beta testers
Dubbed WhatsApp Business, the new service will allow Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, to monetise the hugely-successful messenger.
WhatsApp COO Matt Idema talked about WhatsApp Business to Fox earlier this year.
Idema said: “We want to put a basic foundation in place to allow people to message businesses and for them to get the responses that they want.
“We do intend on charging businesses in the future.”
An early version of the service has been made available to testers, although there is no official launch date for the general public.
Technology blog Android Police has trawled through the latest beta version and highlighted a number of new features coming to WhatsApp Business.
WhatsApp will support landline numbers for the first time with WhatsApp Business.
That means customers who call or message your landline number will appear within the WhatsApp client.
Customers who would usually use the chat window on a businesses’ website will also now be able to send them a message within WhatsApp.
Since WhatsApp Business is a standalone app, those who run small businesses can keep their current WhatsApp app and conversations intact – and completely separate – from their customers.
WhatsApp Business looks almost identical to the hugely-popular messaging app.
]]>https://briefnews.eu/whatsapp-scam-alert-future-update-could-halt-spread-of-fraudulent-99p-charge-messages/feed/0Uber sued over non-payment of ‘fraudulent’ mobile ads
https://briefnews.eu/uber-sued-over-non-payment-of-fraudulent-mobile-ads/
https://briefnews.eu/uber-sued-over-non-payment-of-fraudulent-mobile-ads/#respondThu, 04 Jan 2018 12:50:09 +0000http://briefnews.eu/uber-sued-over-non-payment-of-fraudulent-mobile-ads/
(Reuters) — A British mobile advertising agency has sued Uber to force the ride-hailing company to pay millions of dollars of bills that Uber had refused to pay after claiming that ads being generated were fraudulent.
Fetch Media filed its lawsuit on Tuesday in the same California federal court where Uber had sued Fetch in September, accusing the agency of billing it for nonexistent, nonviewable or fraudulent ads, and failing to pass back rebates and commissions.
Uber voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit on Dec. 22, two weeks after the case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, and said it would instead pursue related claims in a San Francisco state court.
Ad fraud, sometimes called click fraud, is a persistent issue in online advertising, occurring when automated programs mimic legitimate users by clicking ads.
Fetch, a London-based unit of Japan’s Dentsu, suggested that Uber dismissed its federal case on concern it might lose after it was assigned to Rogers, who has overseen other litigation involving the San Francisco-based company.
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, Fetch asked that Rogers be assigned to determine both companies’ contractual responsibilities, and direct Uber pay more than $ 19.7 million of invoices still owed for 2017.
“Fetch does not believe that Uber can avoid federal-court scrutiny of its incorrect contract theories so easily,” the company said.
Uber did not immediately respond on Wednesday to requests for comment.
The Association of National Advertisers, a trade group, last May estimated that marketers would lose $ 6.5 billion in 2017 because of fake web traffic caused by “bots.”
Uber said in September that it had hired Fetch to place ads to encourage new riders to download the Uber app, and would pay for “legitimate clicks” that helped attract riders.
But it said Fetch wrongly claimed credit for app downloads that occurred without ads ever being clicked. Uber said it paid Fetch more than $ 82.5 million, but that Fetch’s failure to stop ad fraud contributed to at least $ 50 million of damages.
According to Uber, the alleged fraud surfaced in early 2017 as customers began complaining about where its ads appeared.
Uber said, in one example, it had asked Fetch not to place ads on Breitbart.com, the conservative news website run by Steve Bannon, a former strategist for U.S. President Donald Trump, but that ads appeared there anyway.
In court papers, Fetch called Uber a “faithless business partner,” and said it had helped Uber monitor ad fraud despite not being contractually required. Fetch also said its work helped Uber register more than 35 million riders.
The case is Fetch Media Ltd v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 18-00015.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by David Gregorio)
]]>https://briefnews.eu/uber-sued-over-non-payment-of-fraudulent-mobile-ads/feed/0Lawsuit based on a surreptitiously recorded phone call claims Google doesn’t refund advertisers who spend money on fraudulent clicks (GOOG)
https://briefnews.eu/lawsuit-based-on-a-surreptitiously-recorded-phone-call-claims-google-doesnt-refund-advertisers-who-spend-money-on-fraudulent-clicks-goog/
https://briefnews.eu/lawsuit-based-on-a-surreptitiously-recorded-phone-call-claims-google-doesnt-refund-advertisers-who-spend-money-on-fraudulent-clicks-goog/#respondWed, 13 Dec 2017 17:36:04 +0000http://briefnews.eu/lawsuit-based-on-a-surreptitiously-recorded-phone-call-claims-google-doesnt-refund-advertisers-who-spend-money-on-fraudulent-clicks-goog/Justin Sullivan / Getty Staff
Google is being sued by an ad management company, AdTrader, that claims it does not refund advertisers whose money is spent on invalid or fraudulent clicks.
The lawsuit is based in part on a surreptitiously taped phone call, in which a Google employee explains why AdTrader is being kicked off its DoubleClick Ad Exchange system.
In the call, the exec says Google will refund AdTrader’s advertisers for money spent on clicks that were in violation of Google’s rules, the suit alleges.
AdTrader claims its clients received nothing.
A web advertising company named AdTrader, whose staff surreptitiously recorded a phone conversation with a Google executive, claims in a class-action lawsuit that Google does not refund money to advertisers when it discovers that those advertisers have spent money on fraudulent or invalid clicks.
If the suit is successful it could put Alphabet, Google’s parent company, under pressure to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to advertisers whose money was spent on websites that Google later deemed broke its rules.
Google did not immediately respond when asked for comment.
Google is likely to fight the case. The company has an incentive to remove bad actors from its systems in order to make its sure its ad inventory is of high quality, to keep advertisers coming back for more.
The search giant has suffered for years from unfounded rumours that it retains money spent through its ad placement systems on websites that break its rules. The company often has difficulty explaining publicly why it kicks publishers off its platforms because to do so would offer clues to nefarious operators on how to avoid Google’s scam detection efforts.
Nearly $ 500,000 – gone
About $ 80 billion of Google’s $ 90 billion in annual revenue comes from advertising sales. Put very simply, Google provides a massive set of platforms through which advertisers pay to place their ads on thousands of available websites. Advertisers simply pick what type of people they want to target — by gender or location, for instance — and Google automatically places those ads on websites that fit the bill. Similarly, Google allows website publishers to offer their empty ad space for sale on those systems. That business is so lucrative, and so complicated, that ad management companies have sprung up to assist advertisers and publishers to get the best deals.
New Jersey-based AdTrader is one of those companies. Its staff came to believe there was a financial discrepancy in their payments from Google, the US federal lawsuit claims, when they taped a phone call with Google’s Dublin-based director of online partnerships, Anthony Nakache. In the call, Nakache allegedly says that $ 477,578 paid by advertisers that ran on sites that fell afoul of Google’s rules would be refunded to AdTraders’ advertising clients, according to the suit. What Nakache did not know, AdTrader claims, is that AdTrader was acting as both a buyer and a seller of ad space for its clients and was thus able to check whether that $ 477,578 actually arrived in its clients’ accounts.
The money was never received from Google by the clients, the suit claims, and AdTrader ended up reimbursing its clients for the sum.
On May 19, 2017, Google informed AdTrader in an email that its DoubleClick Ad Exchange (AdX) account was suspended, and $ 477,578 in ad sales accrued in it would be withheld. The company was also kicked off the AdX platform. Google’s email was not specific as to why AdTrader was banned, but it mentioned that placing ads on sites with “misguided navigation” issues, such as “Linking to content that does not exist,” as an example of the violations AdTrader could have committed.
The secretly recorded call
Over the next five days, AdTrader scrambled to find out why Google was withholding its cash. On May 24, 2017, someone on AdTrader’s staff began recording a phone call with Google’s Nakache. The Google employee was in Ireland and the AdTrader employee was out of the US at the time, so US privacy law did not apply to the call, the lawsuit states. According to a transcript prepared for the lawsuit, the conversation went like this:
AdTrader: All of the money is going to be refunded to advertisers?
Nakache: Yes.
AdTrader: Does that mean that every single impression and every single click for all of our publishers has been…
Nakache: Exactly. Everything in the account, the account is in violation of our policy, advertisers have been impacted, and as a result we have made the decision to refund all the advertisers and all the revshare from Google. ***
AdTrader: So, every single advertisers who has bought a single impression for the past two months from any of our publishers will get their money back? Is that correct?
Nakache: Yes. ***
AdTrader: I see. OK, so we are not going to receive anything unless the appeal is successful we will not be paid anything.
Nakache: No, the money is going to be paid back to the advertisers.
AdTrader: So, whether the appeal is successful or not, we will still not receive the payment, is that correct?
Nakache: Yes.
Puzzled, AdTrader asked its other clients if they had ever received a refund from Google. None of them had received any money, the suit alleges.
The plaintiffs do not say how much money they believe Google withholds from publishers each year. Google doesn’t break out how much revenue runs through its various online ad products, which include DoubleClick Ad Exchange, DoubleClick Bid Manager, AdWords, AdSense, and others. So it is difficult to estimate how much money is at stake if Google loses or settles the case.
Billions potentially at stake
Google has hundreds of different apps and platforms that generate its sales, but it breaks down those revenues into only five large segments. Some products, such as AdX and Bid Manager, can be used to buy Google ads in more than one segment.
Google earned $ 15.5 billion last year from its “Google Network Members” segment, which includes web publishers, according to its annual report.
It is not clear what percentage is spent through AdX, or what percentage is taken by Google in disputed circumstances. Brian Wieser, a senior research analyst at the Pivotal Research Group who has covered Google for years, believes $ 14 billion might run through the system that AdTrader was using. But he calls that a “crude guess” because “it’s difficult to know with much precision.”
Separately, Google said in August that it would refund 7-10% of total purchases back to advertisers after it had discovered invalid clicks on ads bought in Q2 2017 through DoubleClick Bid Manager.
Another suit has been granted class-action status
The AdTrader allegations bear a resemblance to a similar set of allegations that surfaced in 2014, when Google was accused by at least seven web publishers of wrongly taking millions in ad fees their sites had earned using Google’s AdSense program. The sites all claim they were following Google’s strict advertising rules, and some say they were encouraged by Google’s sales employees to continue what they were doing. But then their AdSense accounts were suddenly cancelled, and all the money in their accounts removed. Google denied their appeals and gave little detail on what prompted the cancellations.
Three companies sued. One of them, Free Range Content Inc., persuaded a federal judge in Northern California to grant its lawsuit class-action status in July of this year. That suit now covers all AdSense publishers in America from 2013 onwards who may be owed money, according to the ruling. The class likely includes thousands of customers. The case is ongoing. Google denies the allegations.
Why would Google kick publishers and ad managers off its system, when it needs those companies to generate the ad inventory Google’s own revenues are dependent on? AdTrader claims in the suit that it has discovered an answer.
Balint Torok, a strategic partner manager based at Google in Dublin, told AdTrader that some companies appear on Google’s radar when they reach a certain revenue run-rate, for instance $ 4-5 million, the suit claims. AdTrader’s own employees believed that at that level, its clients might be creating enough revenue that Google would want to cut out the middleman and work directly with them, the suit alleges.
A few days after Google terminated AdTrader on May 19, it contacted one of AdTrader’s most important clients, a video game highlights company called DingIt, to begin a direct relationship, the suit claims.
]]>https://briefnews.eu/lawsuit-based-on-a-surreptitiously-recorded-phone-call-claims-google-doesnt-refund-advertisers-who-spend-money-on-fraudulent-clicks-goog/feed/0Feds shut down allegedly fraudulent cryptocurrency offering
https://briefnews.eu/feds-shut-down-allegedly-fraudulent-cryptocurrency-offering/
https://briefnews.eu/feds-shut-down-allegedly-fraudulent-cryptocurrency-offering/#respondMon, 04 Dec 2017 22:52:53 +0000http://briefnews.eu/feds-shut-down-allegedly-fraudulent-cryptocurrency-offering/
Enlarge/ A diagram on the PlexCoin website illustrates the cryptocurrency’s revolutionary architecture. (credit: PlexCoin)
The Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday announced that it was taking action against an initial coin offering (ICO) that the SEC alleges is fraudulent. The announcement represents the first enforcement action by the SEC’s recently created cyber fraud unit.
In recent months, the SEC has been wrestling with what to do about ICOs. US securities laws impose a number of requirements on anyone who offers new investments to the public. ICOs—in which a company offers the public cryptocurrencies that could appreciate in value the way Bitcoin has—look a lot like securities offerings. But most ICOs have ignored the SEC’s requirements.
At the same time, the SEC is aware that new cryptocurrencies could become an important source of innovation. And some experts argue that many new cryptocurrencies—those that serve a useful function beyond their potential to grow in value over time—are not securities, legally speaking.
]]>https://briefnews.eu/feds-shut-down-allegedly-fraudulent-cryptocurrency-offering/feed/0MalwareTech’s legal defense fund bombarded with fraudulent donations
https://briefnews.eu/malwaretechs-legal-defense-fund-bombarded-with-fraudulent-donations/
https://briefnews.eu/malwaretechs-legal-defense-fund-bombarded-with-fraudulent-donations/#respondSat, 26 Aug 2017 01:20:29 +0000http://briefnews.eu/malwaretechs-legal-defense-fund-bombarded-with-fraudulent-donations/
Enlarge/ Marcus Hutchins. (credit: Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Marcus Hutchins, the popular British security researcher, has a new legal headache beyond the criminal charges against him.
Hutchins, AKA “MalwareTech,” pleaded not guilty two weeks ago to criminal charges in Wisconsin that accuse him of creating and distributing the Kronos malware that steals banking credentials. Now comes word that his legal defense fund was riddled with illicit donations.
At least $ 150,000 in donations originated from stolen credit cards or fake credit card numbers, according to Tor Ekeland, a criminal defense attorney who is not on Hutchins’ defense team. Ekeland, who became popular in hacking circles for successfully defending Andrew “weev” Auernheimer, had started a legal fund on Hutchins’ behalf.
]]>https://briefnews.eu/malwaretechs-legal-defense-fund-bombarded-with-fraudulent-donations/feed/0‘Identity theft’: Net neutrality group demands FCC action over ‘fraudulent’ comments
https://briefnews.eu/identity-theft-net-neutrality-group-demands-fcc-action-over-fraudulent-comments/
https://briefnews.eu/identity-theft-net-neutrality-group-demands-fcc-action-over-fraudulent-comments/#respondFri, 26 May 2017 17:07:34 +0000http://briefnews.eu/identity-theft-net-neutrality-group-demands-fcc-action-over-fraudulent-comments/ Hundreds of thousands of comments sent to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in favor of reversing Obama-era regulations used stolen identities and in some cases even dead people, a group that favors “net neutrality” rules said in a letter.
Over 450,000 of the comments on the FCC’s plans to reverse the 2015 decision to regulate the internet as a common carrier under Title II of US law are fake, using names or addresses stolen from people without their knowledge, according to Fight for the Future. In at least two cases, comments were filed on behalf of people who are deceased, the group said.
“There is significant evidence that a person or organization has been using stolen names and addresses to fraudulently file comments opposing net neutrality,” said Evan Greer, Fight for the Future campaign director. “For the FCC’s process to have any legitimacy, they simply cannot move forward until an investigation has been conducted. We need to know who is doing this.”
Fourteen people who say they never wrote the comments filed under their names have sent a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, demanding the removal of the fraudulent submissions and an investigation of who is behind the identity theft.
“Whoever is behind this stole our names and addresses, exposed our private information in a public docket without our permission, and used our identities to file a political statement we did not sign onto,” the letter reads, warning that “hundreds of thousands of other Americans may have been victimized too.”
Read more
The FCC voted on May 19 to begin the process of rolling back the 2015 decision. Pai, appointed to the commission by President Donald Trump, has criticized the “hysterical prophecies of doom,” and argued that the rule was about imposing government control rather than solving a real problem.
The US did not live in “some digital dystopia” that required a “partisan imposition of a massive plan,”Pai said at an event in Washington, DC in April. “It’s almost as if the special interests pushing Title II weren’t trying to solve a real problem but instead looking for an excuse to achieve their longstanding goal of forcing the internet under the federal government’s control.”
Fight for the Future has accused internet service providers lobbying against “net neutrality” rules of spamming the FCC with fraudulent comments. The group has singled out Comcast, setting up a website called Comcastroturf.com to solicit feedback from people who may have been victims of comment identity theft.
The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based Comcast is a major internet provider and is the parent company of NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo, as well as Universal Pictures. One of the issues proponents of the 2015 regulations said they wanted to prevent was service providers creating “fast lanes” to prioritize their own content over that of competitors.
Earlier this month, TV personality John Oliver called on his viewers to deluge the FCC with comments supporting net neutrality. More than 700,000 comments came in after Oliver’s show, despite the commission’s comment system crashing under what it said was an unrelated distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attack.