Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday November 25 2018, @12:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-am-not-that-kind-of-crook dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:24PM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:24PM (#766194)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:45PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:45PM (#766197)

    Everything on TV is fake.

    Most of what is on the internet is fake, too.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:54PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @04:54PM (#766200)

      I think I can tell which color pill you swallowed.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:00PM (#766203)

        You took the brown pill.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @02:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @02:32AM (#766346)

      I'm not fake!

  • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:05PM (5 children)

    by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:05PM (#766204)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:07PM (#766224)

      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

        by captain normal (2205) on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:42PM (#766231)

        Guess it's pretty hard to spell "Anonymous Coward ".

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:46PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Sunday November 25 2018, @06:46PM (#766233)
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday November 26 2018, @12:03AM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 26 2018, @12:03AM (#766318) Journal

      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

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Monday November 26 2018, @05:32AM (#766375) Homepage Journal

      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)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday November 25 2018, @05:32PM (#766211) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25 2018, @08:52PM (#766269)

      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)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 25 2018, @09:31PM (#766279) Journal

        For the rest of them my point was we are manipulated at a scale that is quite breathtaking. 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.

        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

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 25 2018, @11:27PM (#766308) Journal

          No amount of propaganda is going to turn cardboard into a tasty meal.

          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

        by hemocyanin (186) on Monday November 26 2018, @12:08AM (#766319) Journal

        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)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 25 2018, @09:10PM (#766273) Journal
    Glancing at the last two, there are two things to note. First, there are a huge variety of parties who do this. Environmentalists push the relatively benign (but still modestly harmful) propaganda about recycling that is criticized in link 3. As to link 4, it is in error. What is neglected is that are forces which pushed US consumers [soylentnews.org] towards bacon and eggs:

    Think about that. Before this dude got involved we did not eat bacon for breakfast. One of our key meals for the day is corner-stoned with an advertisement campaign. Anyone I mention it to fails to see why it is important.

    And they should. Let's look at the story in more detail:

    The majority of Americans ate more modest, often meatless breakfasts that might include fruit, a grain porridge (oat, wheat or corn meals) or a roll, and usually a cup of coffee.

    In other words, a shitty breakfast.

    Bacon and eggs can be cooked in a similar length of time as the grain porridge (Beech-Nut sliced [google.com] its bacon thin (ad is from 1905 [which was years before the ad campaign discussed in the post to which I was replying at the time] no less and they're pushing thin, sliced bacon for breakfast then), making it a quick cooking food). And there's a synergy there. Cook the bacon first and then you can reuse the grease for cooking eggs (need some oil/fat to keep from sticking to the pan). Third, bacon and eggs just taste good for most people. And the aroma fills the house. It's definitely a better experience to wake up to.

    Instead of a silly story about Beech-Nut getting propaganda cooties on our sacred bacon, perhaps we should consider what was actually going on. People from the late 19th Century through to the early 1920s were steadily becoming more affluent. And one of the many things affluent people do is eat better tasting and better cooked food. That means more meat, eggs, and milk products among other things. At that point, you run into the gritty realities of making breakfast. You want something that cooks and cleans fast. The wife isn't going to get up two hours early just to make breakfast. Any tricks like the above reuse of bacon fat for cooking eggs is a time-saving synergy that a busy wife would appreciate. So meats that are suitable for breakfast? Ground or thin sliced meat will cook faster. Poultry and fish don't have a good texture for that. You're stuck with stuff like pork, beef, or mutton. Bacon and eggs probably just survived this breakfast evolution process better and Beech-Nut was one of the lucky benefactors of that.

    They, of course, advertised. And the dude who specialized in modern advertisement is, of course, going to claim that he was instrumental in selling said bacon and eggs even though Beech-Nut had been pushing bacon for at least two decades before. People weren't going to continue to eat the old crap.

    Tl;DR. Cool story bro, but I notice nobody actually looked hard at how successful this advertising campaign was supposed to be.

    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 25 2018, @09:23PM (#766276) Journal
      To elaborate on the first point, there is a huge difference between a world where only a small group can issue propaganda and a world where millions of parties are doing it. In the grandparent post, there is a lot of "they" doing this and that. What is missed is that this propaganda is for the most part unfocused with conflicting intent and varying scale of operation. This means that despite extraordinary expenditures on advertising and propaganda, it just isn't that effective despite the claims to the contrary (such as the story about bacon and eggs).