August 25, 2014
Attn: Spam Bastard! (bumped)
Ok so yesterday we ran across Spam Bastard peddling James Foley beheading vids, he later changed the name of the Youtube Channel to James Foley and also had a Google + profile using James Pic and name as if it was his own.
Lst copy of the channel in the Google Cache
So I like totally beheaded Spam Bastard.
Update: Add channel Johnathan Sending. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNFxlmFbttGwyD1kki_bjuQ
Add Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwo4Tl97Z4V0pUZQmmeypgg
May 29, 2013
ICRC: So What If We Used Our Funds To Honor Pali Terrorists
Earlier this month, Palestinian Media Watch reported on a ceremony in the Palestinian Authority celebrating the International Red Cross' 150th anniversary. The official PA daily reported that the International Red Cross (ICRC) together with the Palestinian Red Crescent planted 150 trees bearing the names of "veteran prisoners," meaning security prisoners who have been imprisoned for many years.
Following PMW's report, the International Red Cross, in a letter to Weekly Press Pakistan - Canad, denied its involvement in the ceremony:
"Please note that ICRC was not present during the planting of the trees ceremony reported by your website."
However, not only did ICRC not condemn the Palestinian Red Crescent's glorification of terrorists in the ceremony, it chose to justify the use of ICRC money by the Palestinian Red Crescent. The ICRC issued a statement defending their right to use donor money any way they choose, even though the issue being raised was the use of ICRC money for terror glorification:"Over the decades, the ICRC has provided support, including financially, both to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society and to [Israeli] Magen David Adom for their humanitarian programs. It remains the prerogative of the National Society to define its own priorities and activities and to allocate funds accordingly."
The official PA daily wrote that "the International Red Cross and the Palestinian Red Crescent... planted 150 fruit trees that carry the names of the veteran prisoners jailed in the occupation prisons... [during] a ceremony called 'My Honor is My Freedom'... to mark the 150th anniversary of their founding."Previous:
The PA uses the term "veteran prisoners" to refer to those who have been in jail the longest, and in most cases these prisoners are serving life sentences for murder or multiple murders.
PMW documents international organizations' association with Palestinian glorification of terrorists.[More]
January 30, 2013
Sextortion: Hacker (Karen “Gary” Kazaryan) Cornhole Watch
If convicted, he faces spending the rest of his life in the pen. This assmaggot definitely deserves to be cornholed the rest of his life:
FBI press release below fold:
FBI Arrests Glendale Man in Sextortion Case
Defendant Allegedly Coerced Young Women to Expose Themselves on the Internet
LOS ANGELES—A Glendale man accused of hacking into hundreds of Facebook, Skype, and e-mail accounts and extorting women into showing him their naked bodies was arrested today on federal computer hacking charges.
Karen “Gary” Kazaryan, 27, was arrested this morning without incident by special agents with the FBI. Kazaryan, who was named in a 30-count indictment returned last Friday by a federal grand jury, is being arraigned this afternoon in United States District Court.
According to the indictment, Kazaryan gained unauthorized access to—in other words, hacked into—the victims’ accounts and changed the passwords, which locked victims out of their own online accounts. Once he controlled the accounts, Kazaryan searched e-mails or other files for naked or semi-naked pictures of the victims, as well as other information, such as passwords and the names of their friends. Using that information, Kazaryan posed online as women, sent instant messages to their friends, and persuaded the friends to remove their clothing so that he could view and take pictures of them.
When the victims discovered that they were not speaking with their friends, Kazaryan often extorted them again, using the photos he had fraudulently obtained to again coerce the victims to remove their clothing on camera.
The indictment charges Kazaryan with 15 counts of computer intrusion and 15 counts of aggravated identity theft.
According to a search warrant executed in 2011 and unsealed today, Kazaryan repeatedly contacted victims to demand that they expose their breasts to him on Skype and used their e-mail and Facebook accounts to make contact with other victims. Kazaryan allegedly posted nude photos of some victims on their Facebook pages when they failed to comply with his demands.
Investigators estimate that Kazaryan victimized more than 350 women, but they have not identified all the victims whose accounts were hacked. Authorities found approximately 3,000 pictures of nude or semi-nude women—some of which were taken from their online accounts, and some of which were taken by Kazaryan on Skype—on Kazaryan’s computer. Anyone who believes they may have been a victim in this case should contact the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office at (310) 477-6565.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.
If convicted on all counts, Kazaryan faces a statutory maximum penalty of 105 years in federal prison.
The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
August 25, 2011
Allstate Accuses Ground Zero Mosque Developer Of No-Fault Fraud Scheme
Allstate has become the latest insurance company to accuse Hisham Elzanaty, one of the money men behind the so-called Ground Zero mosque development, of orchestrating a “highly developed and sophisticated kickback scheme” that allegedly reaped more than $5 million for Elzanaty and others. State Farm and Geico have also lodged similar allegations against Elzanaty.Shocka? Not..
According to Allstate’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Elzanaty and several others allegedly conspired with a licensed medical doctor to incorporate four professional service corporations and set up a scheme that took advantage of New York’s no-fault automobile insurance laws[...]
This story is NOT in the Lame Stream Media. The story broke on an insurance industry news feed
Besides, Park51 really loves me, honest:
November 27, 2009
Man pleads guilty to selling counterfeit chips to Navy
A California man, Neil Felahy, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and counterfeit-goods trafficking. He faces up to Mr. Felahy sold counterfeit computer chips to the Naval Sea Systems Command. The counterfeit chips were purchased from China. More at RoA
March 23, 2006
I See You've Met My Poodle
Yes, my poodle followed me here.
That's my poodle piddling on the comments.
Remember though, he's just a poodle. Like all poodles, all he can do is yap. He has no bite.
He also follows commands like a good poodle. For example, he first dropped his poodle turds over 200 times at my blog. Then I pointed out to him that because every poodle turd was under a different IP address, he just raised my stats enough for me to jack up my BlogAd rates, which I did. My poodle turds have dropped significantly.
He also originally posted some poodle turds as "Fisting Fool." However, he changed it to "F1sting Fool" when I pointed out to him that the term "fisting" would draw tons of Google hits to my site, thereby allowing me to again raise my BlogAd rates.
So, ignore the poodle piddling in the comments. He's mine, and he knows it.
And since there are 29 authors on this blog, it shouldn't be a problem cleaning up the poodle turds as soon as they appear. Sorry poodle.
September 12, 2005
All Your Money Are..., Part IV: Classmates Caves
Apparently, even though they have this policy of never refunding money once it's been extracted from their customers' bank accounts ClassmatesDotCom is going to make an exception in my case, and issue me a full refund. Since it's rather unlikely that anyone with policy authority was contacted on Sunday, during the fourth anniversary of 9/11, just to fashion a special policy for lil' ol' me, I'm speculating that they refund to anyone who manages to keep up a barrage of five irate emails. (One original and four responses.) You probably don't even need to use proper diction or spelling.
But I'm not just an irate customer who had his pocket picked. I'm also a public policy researcher who would just love to find out how many people Classmates has nipped over the past three years, and since I now have a "free" membership, perhaps (as a commenter suggested) I' could put together a brief survey for people in the institutions where I went to school as a young turk. I know no one will pay me to do it, but it's a logical next step.
In the mean time if you or someone you know has had their account raided in this way you now know the policy prescription: One email followed by four irate responses gets a refund. Pass it on.
September 11, 2005
All Your Money Are...: Part III: Classmates Blinks
I realize this dispute with Classmates is kind of a distraction from the theme of the day, but there are probably more than a few dollars nipped from my pocket at stake. Plus, in the spirit of sovereignty of Flight 93, I find it depressinng to just keep my seat while this sort of thing goes on. Bear with me. Jeff Jarvis just linked to a guest post on GigaOm by Robert Young about the way Internet 2 is impacting the firm-customer relationship. This situation fits right in. It's about preventing exit.
To get back to the fracas, if I understand Classmates correctly, they're now willing to refund half the money that they extracted from my account without permission. That's a little like offering to return half the toe they've just chopped off, but it's a step in the right direction. It's not a step that suggests they've quite grasped the concept of integrity yet; nor is it very competent from a business standpoint, but it does kind of shred their claim to having an unbreakable policy about refunds.
And there's something else of note. Either "Suzie" is in communication with someone who can make on-the-fly changes in policy (unlikely on a Saturday afternoon), or she's reading from a script that tells her, for instance: "After three irate email responses offer to cut the membership fee in half." But that's not important. What's important is what the exchange reveals about the company's ethical standards, which just aren't very high, and about its business savvy, which also isn't very high. At least, it's not high enough to cope with the very medium that gave them a market opportunity in the first place.
Another note: I'm not sure that the extrapolation I made below, about the total cost to customers of Classmate's "automatic renewal" policy, is statistically reliable. It probably isn't. But I'll bet it's not an order of magnitude off, either. Basically, they're making millions off of this policy, and the only real reason they'd fundamentally change it, is if it starts to cost them more than that amount. Which is why Dell started to change their policies after their encounter with Jeff Jarvis. (And Lord knows, I'm no Jeff Jarvis. His pajamas are way better looking than mine.)
I wonder how long it'll take them to figure out how to pull their fist out of this jar?
If you're interested, here's the latest email with my interspersed reply:
Member Care wrote:
I understand your concern, and I would like to assist you.
Unfortunately, your membership is non-refundable and we really don't want to lose you as a Gold member. I am authorized to offer you a membership at half price. This would give you continued Gold benefits at only half the cost. And you will no longer be in the automatic renewal program.
Whether I'm in the automatic renewal program ought to be my choice, not yours. You've just revealed that you can arbitrarily designate people as automatic renewals, nullifying the choices your customers make. Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought.
If you would like to receive your current membership at half price, please respond to this email and I'll be happy to process your request for you.
Because you've offered to, essentially, refund half of the fee that you claim is non-refundable you've admitted that your unbreakable policy pretty much breaks in half. I propose that you go a bit further; crumble it up into tiny bits, and toss it in the trash. I reiterate, just in case you missed it, that I never authorized you to deduct any membership fee from my account subsequent to that first year, so your terms of service have no bearing. I didn't agree to them. That is simply an empirical matter.
Scott, I hope this information was helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Well you're helping me make my case, but you're not helping your customers very much. If you read the comments to my blog posts here and here you'll note that just within the limitted community of readers on those two posts there are several people who have experienced the same thing as I. Extrapolate to the larger population from this small sample and the number of people who've had their pockets picked in this way may very well be large enough of attract the attention of a media mavin or two.
No, seriously... extrapolate the numbers. You took a class in statistics, right? I don't know that all 10,000 readers of The Jawa Report read my posts, but lets say that 1,000 did. Two of those people have had similar experiences. Let's say total traffic on the internet, within the US, is about 200 million (according to figures compiled by Global Reach). Now, assuming that everyone who had my experience spoke up, and that there aren't any people who read, understood, but were too shy to comment, that would mean that there are something like 400,000 people who've been burned in this way, about half of them by your company alone! (Reunion Dot Com got a few too.) That amounts to somewhere around $8,000,000 that has simply "gone missing" from bank accounts due to this questionable "auto renewal" trick. Yeah, I'll bet you don't want to lose me as a customer... but strictly speaking it's your bad luck that you didn't. Because I'd have just taken my fairly returned fee and gone on with my life.
You might also check out Jeff Jarvis' dispute with Dell. It had rather profound consequences for that company, far beyond simply "handling" Jeff's initial complaints. It may take you awhile just to read through that one post of Jeff's, but there were 30 or so that preceded it, going back three months, and there are plenty of other blogs talking about Dell now, thanks to Jeff. Not customers, mind you. Former customers.
We might just be getting started...
Ironically most of the folks who read my blog posts on the Jawa Report are free market capitalists. It's just that they agree with F.A. Hayek that a capitalist economy has to be governed by "just conduct" or it winds up as something less than free, and something less than a market. Not that picking pockets isn't an art, of course.
September 10, 2005
All Your Money Are Belog To Us: Part II
If my dispute with the Classmates Dot Com scam is unfamiliar, and you're interested in taking such scammers to task, see the original post here. Classmate's response to my case, presented in an email, was to simply reiterate their right to extract funds from my account without my knowledge or permission, and to "compensate me" by offering to extend my "membership" by three extra months for free. Which is a little like offering someone a free bucket of scat. It's just the right attitude to take in a public relations strategy promoting a "helping hand" image for their company. The perfect mix of smarminess, cynicism, and untouchable arrogance.
So I'm giving them a little more "free" publicity, understanding fellow that I am.
Just in case it's not obvious, the implications of their claim that a "terms of service" contract--agreed to during the initial sign up of every client--covers any access to their customer's accounts that isn't vigorously and consistently resisted, basically amounts to a license to steal. Fundamentally what it means is that anyone who has ever signed up with this company had better have access to a good lawyer, or resign themselves to the possibility of having their pockets picked once a year, from now on...
Member Care wrote:
Thank you for replying. Florence is out of the office, but I'd be happy to assist you. I understand your concerns and frustration with the membership terms. Unfortunately, your membership is non-refundable as stated in the Terms of Service. However, I can offer you an additional 3 months for FREE. Please respond to this email and I'll be happy to update your membership.
And thanks for providing me another opportunity to share your "gotcha" emails with about 10,000 members of the public a day, some of whom are bound to be in your customer base. Please forward this email response, including this link to the aforementioned blog article, to someone on your executive staff willing to take personal and public responsibility for Classmates Dot Com's business practices, including your practice of unannounced and unpoliced "automatic renewals:"
The reason you're unlikely to get away with this much more, or the reason this practice of yours is probably going to become a big enough story to provoke a public response, is that it implies you have permanent access to the accounts of everyone who ever signed up for your service, without anyone being able to do a single thing about it. The only brake on the practice that there ever was is based on the supposed good faith of your company, which your refusal to give me a refund exposes as a myth. You would accomplish this little "trompe l'oil" by simply changing their renewal preference to "automatic" without their knowledge, providing them no notice of when their account is about to be, or has been, debited; and subsequently refusing to make restitution on the basis of a bogus "terms of service" contract. I have news for you, such "terms of service" don't cover fraud. But either a fraud investigation or a tort lawsuit would involve extensive discovery, during which time any emails or other messages that you delete, or any computer records you change, become actionable by themselves. And this also applie to any law firm you retain.
And this is nothing compared to the public relations cost to a company that markets itself as a compassionate and understanding service provider promoting romance and friendship, but which cynically regards the property of their clients the way a pickpocket looks at a Start Trek convention.
Simply put, I did not agree to your "terms of service" for any period other than that first year. Everything you taken since then has been taken without my authorization.
My mother taught me to regard what you're doing as theft. Maybe your mommy taught you something else, but I'm willing to bet there are more responsible mommies out there in the public than crooked mommies.
We're very excited about new features we recently introduced: Quick Notes, My Visitors and the redesign of our website. Quick Notes allows you to send or receive a pre-written note from another member. You can see how many people have come to your profile by viewing the My Visitors information. And, we recently improved the look and feel of our site. There are many more new features and benefits coming soon!
And I'm very excited about taking you to task for what is clearly an unethical, and quite probably an illegal, practice. And I'm betting that a lot of your current customers will want to know about this, as well.
We hope that you'll continue to find value by locating and staying connected with school friends, co-workers and military buddies.
I've told you before, I've never found an iota of value in your company or its service, which is why I've never knowingly renewed the service.
Scott, I hope this information was helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Well, I'm letting you know now. You can refund every cent you're ever extracted from my account without my authorization, and if you're smart you'll also issue an abject apology for your clearly anti-customer, anti-public, cynical and unethical business practices.
September 09, 2005
"All your money are belong to us."
A couple of years ago I joined Classmates.com as a premium, or "gold" member, on a trial basis. I decided not to renew the second year, because it simply wasn't worth anything. I didn't get one iota of value out of it. Never successfully contacted anyone, and no one contacted me. Most of the schools I went to have their own alumni organizations that have proven very effective, so this commercial one just never had much value added. I gave it a try, and figured that was that.
Well, not quite. They have this automatic renewal option, but I set it to manual at the time. Apparently somewhere along the line my renewal switch was changed to "automatic" and even though I've assumed I was no longer a member they apparently managed to slip the fee past my radar for the second year. In fact, I didn't notice that they'd deducted a membership fee until a couple of days ago, when I was surprised to see the deduction of $39 for a third year listed on my bank account. I almost missed it this time too, had not my bank manager pointed it out to me. I'm starting to get pretty steamed. I'm having trouble paying for gas money as I work independent contracts to put food on the table, and these guys are stealthily ripping me off...
I want to make clear that since that first year was a "trial," as far as I was concerned, I made certain that my renewal authorization was not automatic, and I just assumed that it would stay that way. At any rate, after having found the charge for the third year barely a week after it was entered I immediately informed them of their mistake and requested a refund. I didn't request a refund for the previous year because I just figured "well, they got me on that one," and it would be sort of messy to point out that I had no idea I even was a member for a year.
Anyway, if some software glitch inadvertently had set my renewal to automatic and I noticed it only a week into the subscription year I figured any ethical company would surely acknowledge the mistake, and issue me an immediate refund--I mean, if their intentions were the least bit honorable. But instead these guys played "gotcha." They claimed that due to their "terms of service" clause I'm not due any refund even though I pointed out the unauthorized charge within a short time. Yeah, it's hard to prove that I set renewal to manual way back when. But if that weren't basically just a cash cow for a scam, wouldn't my word be good enough? Unless, of course, they know they aren't providing any actual value...
"Your money are belong to us," they say.
So basically they ripped me off for one additional year, and are set to rip me off for a third, all because somewhere along the line they set my renewal from manual to automatic. I mean, doesn't the fact that they're playing "gotcha" with my money sort of suggest that they're not quite the customer-friendly and helpful service they claim to be? It's not as though they've ever actually given me anything for that dough, mind you. They just managed to get a hook into it, like some Nigerian bank scam, or Kojo Annan's "real good thing" at the UN.
So, what think you? Do I have a right to expect a refund? How much? One, or two years? Pain and suffering? A free trip to the Carribean? A lifetime supply of Hennessy?
I know this will garner minimal interest, but here's my email reply to their "gotcha" note:
No that won't do. I did not authorize the payment, and I also never authorized changing my renewal to automatic in the first place. YOU DID THAT ON YOUR OWN. I don't know whether it was done inadvertently through some sort of software glitch, or deliberately, but if the latter that constitutes fraud. And I would add one more thing; since you're clearly reluctant to refund my money after being informed that I did not authorize the renewal barely a week after you extracted the it, it's reasonable to infer that you changed my renewal to automatic deliberately. Not proof, mind you, but a reasonable inference based on your lack of good faith. Seriously, you just figured I wouldn't notice, right? Especially since I haven't noticed before. I wonder how many others have been in this boat?
I simply don't authorize automatic renewals for this sort, and since I didn't regard Classmates as having provided any value I would not have renewed "manually." In addition, you claim below to have removed me from automatic renewal yourselves. The instant I discovered this sitution from my bank I changed that switch (back) to manual myself, so your claim to have made the change is simply disinformation, unless, in the mean time, you had changed my renewal back to automatic! I have informed you well within a reasonable period about "your mistake," and it would be only ethical good faith for you to refund my fee without the need for further action from my bank, or from me.
Besides informing my bank and making a formal complaint I intend to post the details of this situation on a "blog" that's currently among the top thirty in the country, with over 10,000 hits per day. I may be overestimating the impact of this "infant media" but it's at least possible that, by bringing this to the attention of those few people, we might add more than $39 to your cost of business. And if there are others out there who have been similarly hoodwinked perhaps we can perform some sort of public service.