SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Convicted tax fraudster sues CNBC for defamation, says he's not a "hacker"
Daniel Rigmaiden wants the world to know that, while CNBC's American Greed television show may have portrayed him more than two years ago as a "hacker," a "recluse," and more, he is none of those things.
Earlier this year, Rigmaiden sued NBCUniversal, CNBC's parent company, and an Arizona Republic journalist shown in that episode, accusing them all of defamation.
Rigmaiden wants unspecified damages and also a permanent injunction that would stop further distribution of the episode, which is currently available on Amazon Video for $2.99.
Lawyers for CNBC have tried to get the case dismissed, and the two sides will face off in a Miami-Dade County courthouse on Monday, November 19.
In actuality, Rigmaiden is a man convicted of tax fraud who became a privacy activist—he has become something of an icon in surveillance-law nerd circles.
"Plaintiff did not use black-hat computer hacking to steal money from the IRS," he wrote. "Plaintiff used computer software to automate the process of filing fraudulent tax returns and collecting the refunds. The IRS was not hacked by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff otherwise did not use black-hat computer hacking to facilitate the tax-refund fraud scheme."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @01:06PM (1 child)
Plaintiff thought he was going to get a free lunch from the IRS, but TANSTAAFL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @08:46PM
I have had so many free lumches it is ridiculous. Heinlein wss a good writer, sadly being a pompous ass kept him from being great. Few scifi writers have such an obvious bias permeating every work.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @01:50PM (13 children)
With the USPTO granting patents for things that simply add "on a computer" or "with a computer" to existing ideas/inventions, this was inevitable. The label "Hacker" is now attributed to anyone who uses a computer to commit a crime.
"Hack" has become associated with any kind of computer related malady or problems that are electronic or financial in nature (e.g., "my credit card was hacked"). My dad, who is 90, doesn't want internet service at his house (even though I have offered to pay for it so we can have WiFi when we visit). He doesn't have a computer, but he is still afraid of "getting hacked".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday November 25 2018, @02:16PM (12 children)
"Hacker" used to be kind of cool. A bit edgy, to be sure, but cool. That hacking is now so firmly connected to criminality speaks to the fearfulness of society. The current anti-intellectual feelings made it worse. Better to be a bootlegger of alcohol during Prohibition than a hacker today.
Many older people really seem to feel "1234" ought to be good enough for a password, and that it's all the fault of evil hackers that it isn't. Anyone can be a script kiddie. Anyone can wander around in a parking lot and try car door handles. Wonder how many ordinary citizens would get very upset about the latter and demand that police arrest that creep. Could just visually check, and some would still be upset.
Heck, I've been chastised just for using a search engine to look up a relative.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @02:23PM (3 children)
The misuse (and abuse) of the term in the media - especially those stoking fear - has been the downfall of technology's equivalent to "tinkering".
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @03:20PM (1 child)
I think of myself as a kludger.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:00PM
As I recall from MIT days (1970s), some hacks were kludges for sure. But there were also clever hacks and serious hackers, all driven by curiosity. There were all kinds, very common for awhile were phone and lock hackers, who started out being curious about how these systems worked. Practical jokes (putting various things on top of domes) were hacks too, the lock hackers helped with access to the roof. Some of the most respected were the computer hackers at the AI Lab (including Harvard undergrad visitor RMS).
My guess, the choice of the word "hack" was a good one--so good that it was picked up by the press, with the current twisted result.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday November 25 2018, @03:34PM
... were the BSD Kernel Coders.
Computer criminals regarded said BSD coders as profoundly cool, so they started calling themselves Hackers so _everyone_ would regard computer criminals as profoundly cool.
A half-hearted effort to convinced the media to called them "Crackers" foundered upon the shoals of "Cracker" having been in widespread use for _decades_ as a derogatory term for Southern White Racist. I remained unclear on the distinction between "Cracker" and "Good Old Boy".
It went so quickly so far downhill from there, that at the annual MacHack Conference, they eventually shut what had been a twenty-year tradition for me and my colleagues, as well as an abundant livelihood to the staff who put on the conference each year - mostly in Ann Arbor Michigan, but once in Southfield and once in Detroit.
This because they didn't want Tech employers to call the FBI when their engineers requested the company pay for what was so obviously a computer criminal convention! :-/
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:04PM (3 children)
First, let me agree with you that the public fear of technology, scientific "tinkering" of any kind, etc. is deplorable today. It is anti-intellectual, and it is a real concern.
But that has nothing to do with the past history of the term "hacker," which has always skirted the bounds between at least the "grey hat" and "white hat" connotations, and basically from the start included at least disruptive "black hat" activities. No, the black hat connotation isn't just a recent misuse by the media. No, the word "cracker" is not the only acceptable word for black hats, and its history is much more recent. All of this stuff is basically a sort of urban legend among a lot of tech folks today who want to downplay the role of ambiguous and sometimes nefarious "tinkering" in the history of "hacking."
It used to be that reliable information for this was hard to find, making it easy for geeks to deny the history of the term "hacking," but that's no longer the case.
Let's clear some things up: The first documentary evidence we have for the modern use of "hacker" in relation to technology is in the notes of the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club from the mid-1950s. At that time, lore said [berkeley.edu] there were two types of students at MIT -- the "tools" and the "hackers." The "tools" went to class, earned As, and spent a lot of time in the library. The "hackers" overslept and failed to attend class, because they were up late tinkering with technology rather than studying. There was an early sense that "hackers" were at least non-conformists, if not at times skirting ethical boundaries. Indeed, the VERY FIRST known citation of the term "hacker" in writing from the MIT Railroad Club's minutes states that "hackers" should be careful when they do their tinkering to avoid blowing fuses.
Hackers have thus ALWAYS skirted the bounds of potentially disruptive activities, and the very first recorded media reference [manybutfinite.com] from 1963 employs the term "hacker" to refer to phone phreaking in a disruptive sense. Note that this was in the student-run MIT newspaper The Tech, not some silly ignorant media folks. MIT students writing about themselves already recognized the possible nefarious activities of "hackers" over 50 years ago. This is not a recent misuse by media folks.
As computers became more well-known in the 1970s, the term "hacker" migrated to mainstream media usage, often with derogatory connotations, or at least hinting at possibly skirting ethical boundaries. It was in this culture that in the early 1980s Richard Stallman attempted to re-write history and coined the term computer "cracker" to try to shift the black hats into a different category and protect "hacking" from its own history. Ever since, there seems to be a war of "No True Scotsman" fallacies abounding among tech geeks who wish to expunge the black hats and grey hats from "hacker" nomenclature, even as the black hats themselves continue to use the term for themselves, as they have ever since the origins of the term in the 1960s.
There's more to the history [newyorker.com], but let's please stop pretending that "hacker" as a term has ever been solely devoted to innocent tinkering. It didn't always denote criminality, though by the 1980s in the mainstream media it tended to imply that. One can legitimately argue that the media has downplayed or misunderstood the positive (white hat) "hacker" culture over the years, but let's not pretend uses of "hacker" that are derogatory or affiliated with gray hat (and even black hat) activity are erroneous. "Hacking" has always been about skirting ethical boundaries for some, and some "hackers" have always gone a bit too far.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:50PM
I think it pretty safe to say that all hackers, black, white, or gray, hear "You can't do that", and they immediately ask "Why not?" Or, "You have to . . ." and the question is, "What if I don't?" "This goes that way." leads to "What if I put it this way instead?" They are always looking at things upside down, backwards, inside out, or kitty-corner. One and all, they refuse to think inside the box. Or, if they do play inside the box, they are busy slicing it into segments that were never intended, then rearranging those segments to their liking.
I think it all started with that monkey-man who brought fire home with him, and made a pet of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @07:55PM (1 child)
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this proves what, exactly? That tinkering is by definition unethical? I'm sorry, but fuses are part of a safety system and it is perfectly acceptable to run into safety boundaries when experimenting. To use a car analogy, this would be similar to pointing to the car manual section on seatbelts and using that as proof that all car drivers are maniacal killers. Or to keep within the realm of experimentation, the statement "medical students should be careful when practicing with hypodermic needles to avoid hurting patients" does not imply that all doctors are sadists.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @08:49PM
......
I am 99% sure it was about not blowing fuses in dorms or a lab where other people are working. Not some "save the fuses" PC movement.
When you are doing side projects without supervision it is preferable that the dean or whoever not get bothered and shut it down.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:29PM
Hacking, as I have observed in common usage, is doing anything that most people wouldn't think to do.
Rolling waaaay back to War Games, does dialing every phone number on an exchange looking for modem tone constitute hacking? How about guessing passwords? How is this any different from spam-filing for un-earned tax refunds?
One place I worked dubbed me master hacker for using an open proxy service to bypass the corporate web-filter, hardly felt black-hat to me, but it was effective and nobody else knew how to do it (which is _why_ it was effective....)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:58PM (2 children)
1234 has been my password for twenty years and I still haven't been hacked.
Maybe I'm not important enough
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday November 26 2018, @02:27AM (1 child)
Pin locks on basement doors don't count.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 26 2018, @01:28PM
Apparently, neither do ATM card PIN codes - mine has been the same 4 digits since 1985.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @02:04PM (2 children)
I can't believe they'd slander him like that. He's just a guy trying to make an honest living stealing money, and to be portrayed like this! Absurd!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:01PM
He's not a Hacker. He's a Script Kiddie.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Sunday November 25 2018, @10:29PM
An ordinary decent criminal, I watched this documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday November 25 2018, @02:13PM (4 children)
Got a stray link at the beginning of that sentence.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday November 25 2018, @02:16PM
fixed, maybe that story is more interesting though
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:25PM (2 children)
404 to that link. And in spite of Takyon's following response...still 404.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:35PM (1 child)
I can understand how "stray link" can be accidentally inserted into a story. Usually lazy copy/pasta work. But why kill it also in WM's post?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday November 25 2018, @08:11PM
No, I did that, simpliest way to make it look like a link.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday November 25 2018, @02:17PM (6 children)
People pay for a show that appears on CNBC? Pfft.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday November 25 2018, @03:43PM
I have every reason to believe Plaintiff will so petition.
I wait with bated breath.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:38PM (4 children)
Actually it is a series that runs on the network. I assume the $2.99 is for a download for all he cord cutters.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday November 25 2018, @07:10PM (3 children)
What exactly are you trying to clarify here?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday November 26 2018, @12:13AM (2 children)
I guess I just assumed that we are all technically qualified to use a computer here. Just put "Daniel Rigmaiden-american greed" into your favorite search engine. That should lead you to something like this:
http://crimedocumentary.com/hack-can-goodfella-gone-bad-2016/ [crimedocumentary.com]
So if you have a computer and can connect to the internet you shouldn't have to send more money to Jeff Bezos to watch a show that's not pay-per-view to begin with. If you are a cord cutter (fired your cable tv provider) or just get your tv out of the air, you can get it on the likes of hulu (if you have a subscription. If you don't understand that, I don't believe that I can help you.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 26 2018, @12:27AM (1 child)
Smoking crack isn't normal, captain. Put down the pipe.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday November 26 2018, @02:46AM
Have never used crack. Only tried any type of cocaine back in the early 70's. Quit smoking tobacco 10 years ago. Quit smoking weed shortly after that. Haven't had any alcohol since Thanksgiving dinner. I'm sure there are people on here that drink way more than I.
Sorry if I was short with you. I woke up with a bad cold this morning, then this afternoon I'd just noticed that I'd been modding troll in another post. I'm pretty sure it was TRDT or one of his cabal.
Actually I was trying to amplify your post about why pay to watch CNBC. Sorry if it seemed I was jumping down on you. I really do appreciate you and the work you do for SN. I should just avoid politics. When I used to take on crew for sailboat races and deliveries, I had two rules, Stay on the boat, do what I say and do not discuss politics or religion. Seems I broke my last rule.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday November 25 2018, @03:43PM (19 children)
The real crime here is CNBC misrepresenting themselves as an organization of journalists.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:05PM (18 children)
Not sure if I should mark you Funny or Informative. A friend of mine was telling me last week that his brother fell off a cliff, both husband and wife, and was found dead 2 days later. Guardian called my friend to get his statement, and they were told that he was suspecting foul play because his brother's camera was still on the peak. Next day guardian printed that "his brother is saying both husband and wife fell off the cliff taking selfie". I mean...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:24PM (17 children)
Everything on TV is fake. All of it. They did not just 'start doing this'. Print media is mostly fake to. With poor followup and twisted facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBZBkA0elaQ [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2HHhRK2CNM [youtube.com]
The scale of the manipulation is vast. Here are 2 benign examples of how they use this power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73MZ6RAvu0 [youtube.com]
http://www.americantable.org/2012/07/how-bacon-and-eggs-became-the-american-breakfast/ [americantable.org]
The same guy helped kick off smoking for women in the 50s and 60s and the anti campaign in the 70s that you see today. *same* *guy*. They study what he did and have vastly improved on it.
We are being gaslighted into thinking these people have *any* shred of credibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:45PM (3 children)
Most of what is on the internet is fake, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:54PM (1 child)
I think I can tell which color pill you swallowed.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:00PM
You took the brown pill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @02:32AM
I'm not fake!
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:05PM (5 children)
I agree, but haven't figured out if it's willful or incompetence. Or both.
I've been on tv/in the newspaper four or five times and despite details being explained slowly and clearly, about the only part of the story they seem to get correct is my name.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:07PM (1 child)
Similar, but usually they get my name wrong...and about half the time the facts are pretty close.
(Score: 3, Touché) by captain normal on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:42PM
Guess it's pretty hard to spell "Anonymous Coward ".
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:46PM
https://wordsgoingwild.blogspot.com/2017/03/as-long-as-they-spell-your-name-right.html [blogspot.com]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday November 26 2018, @12:03AM
It's not simple incompetence, but only incompetence about things that won't improve their ratings. I've seen pictures of minor disasters with carefully chosen camera angles to make them seem a lot worse than they actually were. And if the editor considers part of a story boring, he'll demand it either be cut or re-written to be more exciting.
Occasionally there's also intentional bias, but I'm rather convinced that this is usually a minor element.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday November 26 2018, @05:32AM
Pretty much what HiThere above said. It is not a conspiracy, although the meaning of conspiracy really depends upon your level of cynicism. But really, there isn't one person who is controlling everything - it is just that large number of people have hidden biases and when they work together to form a society, certain patterns emerge. We can all point out the patterns and try to correct it, figuring out why they are happening via debate or violence, but when a large number of people have their livelihood depend on exploiting these patterns they will fight to preserve it by denying it, stopping or misguiding any attempt to find its root cause etc.
It is a fight all along.
It helps to believe that almost everyone is exactly like you - almost all were born a baby and everyone has reached to its current place, doing the things they are doing, due to circumstances, hard-work and luck - only one of which is in your control.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:32PM (4 children)
Some notes on Video links above:
1: Skip. The kernel of the video is interesting -- a dude who was obviously a Democrat based on his social media presence was presented by MSN as a disappointed Trump voter. That is interesting, however, the video is nearly a half hour long and feels like a pitch for a get-rich-quick scheme where the presenter spends ages saying nothing except "but before I get to that, ..." It is supremely annoying. Pass.
2: TV reporter applies makeup live. Okay -- So? Pass.
3: Interesting commentary on how companies shifted the blame for litter from themselves to consumers as they transitioned to single use rather than reusable packaging. I've watched a few other of his videos now -- they're solid opinion pieces backed up by citations without all the bullshit and padding you find in the first link. I don't agree with everything and certainly have a quibble or two with the linked video, but they are concise presentations. Watch.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @08:52PM (3 children)
Thank you.
I agree the videos I posted were rather 'randomish'. But the point I was trying to make is we can no longer consider these people 'real' in any way.
For the #1 they are just paying actors to support their views of 'the other side'. Not 'news' and more fiction. I personally stopped watching as soon as he made the point of the actor being on CNN. I too was annoyed by the presentation but he had salient points there. This is not the first time that particular station has been caught manufacturing 'news'. The thing is, many of them do it. Here is a better example of what our 'news' orgs do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA [youtube.com]
For #2 my point was even the way they *look* is fake. This is not a 'terrible' thing. But if they 'lie' about such a small thing would they not be willing to lie about other things?
For the rest of them my point was we are manipulated at a scale that is quite breathtaking. We do not even realize it. I am not giving up my bacon or stop recycling. That is how well this stuff works. Even though I know it is fake I want it that way. Also his bigger channel is china uncensored. It is an interesting take on things. They are still worth watching. He has a fun unique style.
I got tired of this junk around 2000. I tried to find better (it does not exist). It is why I get stuck watching puttering items like #1. I learned that companies can literally buy puff piece commercials disguised as news. The leap from someone wanting to sway opinion towards one thing or another using money, advertising, and news pieces was not a 'big' leap of logic. I am not even sure there is malice involved here. I think it is just simple greed.
One thing is clear though. They are almost all fake. If you chose not believe me that is fine. Con artists love 'smart people'. They are the best to trick. For once you convince a smart person they have chosen the best thing they will move heaven and earth to not be wrong. Admitting you can be tricked is a first step. But many people refuse to admit they have been tricked. One of the many reactions to it is anger and avoidance. For example at this point my post was marked 'troll' because I attacked CNN in some way. When they skipped that I said they all do it. That I took some sort of 'pill'. That I am attacking them in some way. Being shown that you are being tricked usually is a shock to people. I do not do it much anymore and usually just let people be.
A new lesson I learned in the past couple of years is facts do not matter. Emotions do. If you want to sway public opinion about something you play to their emotions. Once you realize that you can have a better time with others being 'wrong on the internet'. For example my presentation here has a fact based presentation. So it will not really change anyone's opinion who does not already hold it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 25 2018, @09:31PM (1 child)
Why do you "want" those two things that way? Isn't it rather that you like the taste of bacon (and want things that taste good?) and appreciate the theoretical good of recycling (to conserve resources so that more can be done with those resources with less impact to the environment, and thus, want something that you think will do that)?
Propaganda can be a powerful addition to an existing thing, but it doesn't have in itself. No amount of propaganda is going to turn cardboard into a tasty meal.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday November 25 2018, @11:27PM
Some mushrooms may [instructables.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday November 26 2018, @12:08AM
I gave you an underrated above so now you're a +1 Troll. ;-)
I do agree with the sentiment that the media are inherently untrustworthy and manipulative -- I have a number of outfits in my /etc/hosts file so I can never accidentally give them traffic (NYT and WAPO being at the top of the list) -- and I basically view everything I read (I don't watch network news) as almost certainly inaccurate propaganda (the NYT helping launch the Iraq War being a prime modern example or the WAPO's 16 negative Bernie stories in 16 hours being another). As for CNN, what a bunch of scumbags: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/09/10/that-time-cnn-staged-a-fake-interview-with-a-syrian-child-for-war-propaganda/ [caitlinjohnstone.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 25 2018, @09:10PM (1 child)
This is a common thing. Some social or market trend happens and someone takes credit/blame for it because they were doing something at the time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 25 2018, @09:23PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:15PM (1 child)
this guy is suing b/c cnbc used a word in a way that is either ambiguous or different from his definition. if he wins it could set precedent that you are responsible for other people's interpretation. i think slander should only be upheld when the meaning being pushed is clear. without context i don't know how cheesy cnbc got with their "hacker" portrayal/definition. if they just used it loosely then i hope he looses. if they "went stupid" with guy fawkes masks and shit then i hope they lose.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 25 2018, @08:42PM