Hacker Tries To Land IT Job At Marriott Via Extortion 218
wiredmikey writes "A tough global economy has certainly created challenges for many people looking for jobs, but one Hungarian man took things to another level in an effort to gain employment at hotel giant Marriott International. On Wednesday, the 26-year-old man pleaded guilty to charges that he hacked into Marriott computer systems and threatened to reveal confidential company information if Marriott didn't offer him a job. Assuming his efforts were working, with the possibility of a new job with Marriott in his sights, the hacker arrived at Washington Dulles Airport on Jan. 17, 2011, using an airline ticket purchased by Marriott for him. He thought he would be attending a job interview with Marriott personnel. Unbeknown to him, he was actually being 'interviewed' by a Secret Service agent posing as a Marriott employee."
Secret Service (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the Secret Service involved? This doesn't seem to involve currency or protection of VIPs.
Hungary = China? (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds very familiar - http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/11/26/206252/china-to-cancel-college-majors-that-dont-pay [slashdot.org]
And a link within http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/19/smart-young-and-broke.html [thedailybeast.com]
"Guo and an estimated million others like him represent an unprecedented and troublesome development in China: a fast-growing white-collar underclass. Since the ’90s, Chinese universities have doubled their admissions, far outpacing the job market for college grads. This year China’s universities and tech institutes churned out roughly 6.3 million graduates. Many grew up in impoverished rural towns and villages and attended second- or third-tier schools in the provinces, trusting that studying hard would bring them better lives than their parents had. But when they move on and apply for jobs in Beijing or Shanghai or any of China’s other booming metropolises, they get a nasty shock."
So, this Hungarian man this article is about probably belonged to the same class, unemployed with a specialized degree.
Europe and the US have had this situation for thirty years, but for China it must be some shocking news. How many Chinese cyber-crimes more do we (or Chinese hotels) want? We have enough of the Hungarians.
Re:Willing risk taker (Score:5, Insightful)
He went to a country where he knew he had broken the law. He had to know that arrest and prosecution was one of the possible outcomes.
He gambled. He lost.
I'm not sure how he could imagine it turning out any other way...
"Well Mr Nemeth... you sure pulled a fast one on us. I guess we have no choice but to give you a job. Normally in these situations we'd just pay you a few million dollars to keep quiet but if it's a job you want then I guess we have to give in to your demands".
Not going to happen. If nothing else it's cheaper just to make him disappear
Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
The Corporate threat was to move to a state with a lower tax rate. That is not extortion. It is giving a state a chance to match an offer made by another state. People do it all the time when they buy things and companies advertise that they will match advertised prices. If all other states had a higher tax rate Sears would not be talking about moving.
That is very different than saying they will release confidential information.
Just goes to show (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?
Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?
Doesn't that make all jobs hard labour camps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that make all jobs hard labour camps?
Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat, i.e. if you want to live. You won't be shot or beaten for not working - you'll just be left to die - but the outcome is the same."
It's nice to see that you know so much about the system that hasn't even put into law.
Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the fallacy here is that people want to stay unemployed. I don't think they want to. Its just that they are not brought up to build their own private enterprises (a risky venture indeed - without a really good plan you will fail). After some time trying to get a job (failure after failure) you will get into a situation where you keep with the status quo. This is a very human thing to do, any healthy human will look for stability in his life. Add to that the current market where oodles of people are unemployed and yes, you will have oodles of people - especially long term unemployed - staying at home.
Personally, doing community service for the government is a good thing, and I think it is healthy thing to do (especially if given a job in the morning only), and does not replace other payed jobs. Private enterprises however should stay the hell out, because you will have "slave labour" in a short time. You cannot trust the private companies to do or stay good all the time. Even then, you will have to keep a good eye on the people in charge, because if there is power involved (especially if it is "follow instructions or loose all benefits") it will be abused in no time whatsoever.
Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary (Score:4, Insightful)
What you say about private enterprise is absolutely true, and your proposal is much better than Britain's where private enterprise is already dismissing "proper" employees so it can take on free labour. But shouldn't the government pay a fair wage for labour too?
Yes, prioritise the long term unemployed by offering them (part time - so as many people can be involved as possible) community service positions first. Yes, support their training. But then pay them as you would pay any other man or woman with a job.
Volunteer work is volunteer. Labour which you have to provide in order to receive some money is paid work, however the government tries to handwave it. If it were genuine compulsory community service - in the style e.g. of Spain's former alternative to the Mili - then it would be required of every able-bodied citizen, not just those receiving certain allowances.
Re:Individual vs. Corportate Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
But somehow some people have arrived at the belief that corporations should not be considered persons
Is a company a human being? Not it is not. Some insane tax related legislation in the USA might suggest it is. If so, it's wrong.
A company's owners and employees are human beings. But not the company itself.
If you can find a distinction between a human being and a person, other than in legislation which has been lobbied for by business I'd like to see it.
What we have here is law consciously not representing reality, for rich people's benefit.
and should not have any say in government, yet they should be taxed
There is absolutely no reason why a company should not be taxed. It's entirely unrelated to the silly idea that it's a human being.
parasite freeloading off of corporations.
There's nothing stopping corporations conducting their business in international waters, without any government interference or taxation. Hard to see how they make any money though.
There's nothing stopping corporations conducting their business in Somalia, without any government interference or taxation. Hard to see how they make any money though. And hard to see how the owners and employees based there would stay alive long.
Companies rely on the infrastructure, environment and legal structure that governments put there. That's the reason it's OK to tax them.
Re:It shocks me (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why this should surprise you. This is the general cracker/extortionist mentality at work. It is the "I can get away with anything because the law shouldn't apply to me" mentality that is so often on display here on slashdot, especially when it comes to things like copyright, privacy, and access. It is the hypocrisy of the mindset that allows things like this to happen. "I will break the law and threaten them and then they will bow down before my genius, give me a job while forgiving my transgressions, and not prosecute me because I will be too valuable to them."
Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary (Score:5, Insightful)
In the UK, they're actually getting people to do what would normally be minimum wage work at supermarkets and the like in order to get welfare payments. Then when more minimum-wage workers get laid off from those supermarkets, they have to work for no wage and receive sub-minimum-wage welfare payments that the Government pays for instead. It's nuts but very profitable for the supermarkets. (Oh, and at least some of those workers have to pay out of their own pockets for uniforms!)
Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is a "hard labour camp" in the sense that you're required to work there if you want to eat
And this is bad...how?
I remember an interview with an African politician, who came to the UK to see how the social system worked. After touring the neighborhoods of welfare housing, filled with people living off of welfare checks, his observation what that this was a totally dehumanizing experience. The people he saw had no purpose to their lives, no one needed anything they produced, and in fact they produced nothing at all.
If society is going to give you money, why should you not be required to do something for it? If you sweep a sidewalk, remove graffiti, or something, you are contributing to your society. Additionally, this keeps the person in the habit of working - of getting up in the morning, leaving the house, and doing something.
If you are able-bodied, and cannot be bothered to do even a few hours of useful work for your society, then just why should your society be bothered to provide anything to you?
Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary (Score:2, Insightful)
If society is going to give you money, why should you not be required to do something for it? If you sweep a sidewalk, remove graffiti, or something, you are contributing to your society. Additionally, this keeps the person in the habit of working - of getting up in the morning, leaving the house, and doing something.
Keeping habits is a pretty key point there. Whether it's college courses or work, it's preferable to allowing people to slip in to the demographic that has been so long out of the workforce (or never been in it to begin with) that they become unemployable. A friend was headed this way, adopting a nocturnal existence and being content to live on welfare. He thankfully picked-up college and got back in to regular routines. The work should not be intentionally demeaning - this isn't a chain gang. The intention here must be to help people back in to employment. Of course some work may be seen as demeaning, but who hasn't worked a shitty job at some point for the sake of having a job?
Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you said is true. In addition there's also the fact that in the Thai case, everything the guy did that was against Thai law was done in the US. As far as I can tell, his visit to Thailand had nothing to do with the crime he was being charged with. However, in this case, the extortion didn't end it Hungary. When this guy set foot in the US, he was still the the act of extorting Marriott.
Re:There are no labour camps in Hungary (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember an interview with an African politician, who came to the UK to see how the social system worked. After touring the neighborhoods of welfare housing, filled with people living off of welfare checks, his observation what that this was a totally dehumanizing experience.
Taking allowances isn't compulsory. Every man has the choice to pretend that he lives in a less advanced country and just beg on the streets or take dangerous, unregulated work. (For the flamebait moderation: "Like people have to do in much of Africa.")
The people he saw had no purpose to their lives, no one needed anything they produced, and in fact they produced nothing at all.
If you define "purpose in life" as "making profit for a business which exploits your labour" then... well... I guess I'm glad you've found your purpose in life. It certainly isn't mine. Anyway, Britain had lots of people employed actually producing stuff - in factories where workers often had a degree of control of the means of production through unions, making their labour per se meaningful to them - until society-destroying Thatcher.
If society is going to give you money, why should you not be required to do something for it?
(1) Many unemployed people today (though the demographic's not quite as skewed to older people as in the '80s) have spent more years working, participating in the community and paying taxes than you have spent alive - if anyone "owes" anything, you owe them;
(2) If you want society to protect you, should you not be required to do certain things for it?
(3) Jobseekers' allowance is paid to people so they look for and improve their prospects for work, not so they tire themselves out doing random chores.
If you sweep a sidewalk, remove graffiti, or something, you are contributing to your society.
Indeed. It's called a "job". You do the work and you get paid for it. If local governments want to prioritise placements for the long term unemployed, more power to them.
Additionally, this keeps the person in the habit of working - of getting up in the morning, leaving the house, and doing something.
Why did this Victorian notion that the unemployed are lazy layabouts suddenly come from? Whenever there's a Tory government - coincident, always, with a massive rise in unemployment - it's suddenly the fault of the worker that there are no jobs.
Yes, everyone knows one guy who seems like he can't be arsed to get up and do anything. So what? Are we going to base our whole philosophy toward individual welfare on this stereotype so beloved by recent governments?