This story was also another reminder of how fast and overwhelming the news cycle seems to be these days. I remember reading Tomi Masters' death because of how unusual it was, but had completely forgotten about it until reading this story. If you asked me to remember when I first read about her case, I would've sworn it was at least half a year ago. But her death was reported in late December, so just about 1.5 months ago.
It's worse at the top. Theranos. Madoff. MMM. Better Place. The entire binary option industry. Scams are getting bigger. Billion dollar scams were rare in history until recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_schemes_in_Albania : entire economy of Albania consumed by pyramid schemes, resulting in civil war.
(There's a lot more of this stuff in "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", from earlier in history)
The crisis happened pretty soon after the fall of Communism. The country had not built up any the government institutions required to govern the new proto-democracy. As a result the government didn't merely fail to reign in the scams -- they actually encouraged them (presumably some government officials profited, which is why the people revolted).
The result in Albania should be seen in the context of other major post-revolutionary histories. It was worse than the transition in, say, Poland but much better than, say, the French Revolution.
The fact that the crisis happened to take the form of Ponzi schemes is just one example of the weirdness of history.
That one still gets me as they solved none of the problems they claimed to have solved as far as blood testing goes, and there was zero legitimate indication they had....
Being conventionally attractive is probably very helpful but I bet the bar is higher for women would-be con artists than men.
And to give credit where credit is due, she masterfully cultivated these relationships and used that mutual reputation network she built to create her own "truth" with her lies. Had she stuck to politics she may have been President. Hell, had she gone into software, her "fake it till you make it" strategy might have worked (not saying I'd want to work for her). Her downfall was simply that she applied this loose relationship with the truth to medical devices, which have a much higher bar for objective truth than other technologies.
Besides, I found this piece on Wikipedia funny:
> In 2015, Forbes named Holmes as the youngest and wealthiest self-made female billionaire in America due to a $9 billion valuation of Theranos. By the next year, following revelations of potential fraud, Forbes revised her net worth to zero dollars, and Fortune named Holmes one of the "World's Most Disappointing Leaders".
Oops, we were off by 9 billion dollars, how disappointing.
To be fair, a billion dollars was rare in history until recently.
Big scams weren't rare though. Only no one studies history, but this is not new either.
MMM what? 3M, or Mr Money Mustache's blog?
What about Better Place? There wasn't just a startup that tried and failed and paid its insiders too much money?
Madoff is an interesting case, because some of his customers were traditional conservative institutions, not just fools looking for a get rich quick scheme (who deserve what they get), but apparently avoided any auditing for many years?
This is after the bubble collapsed.
Great talk by the way, he's an incredibly charismatic and well spoken story teller, also a consultant for the FBI and a successful businessman - which makes you think about just how important likability and charisma are both to being a successful social engineer and being successful in-general. People will let you stray pretty far from reality if they like you - Holmes, Abagnale, and apparently Troy Woody (at least to this poor girl). Eventually reality catches up, one way or another.
If you've heard of them, its because they got caught
Fast & Furious comes to mind unbidden- lots of young men love cars, speed, driving. Here's a movie celebrating their earnest passion. Oh, by the way, in case you weren't paying attention the cast is a crime ring and fast cars are how they evade the law.
Same question goes for bitcoin- and lo, it seems these men were involved in that too.
It has changed over the years to a completely different meaning, hacking was never meant to be a direct reference to criminal activity but that seems to be where it has evolved
The hacking culture was more about using technology, systems, or anything really in ways not originally intended by the manufacturer, or administrator of said system, technology or object
That can be either legal or illegal but the act of hacking itself was not legal or illegal it depended on the system or object you where hacking
Today however people almost exclusively use the term hacker to refer to criminal activity
The life of the girl is of course really quite tragic, and that the two murderers can conceivably get away with it only deepens that tragedy, but on the other hand the whole gang didn't even try to appear trustworthy... lies are poisenous fruit, especially between persons. Liars cannot be trusted, and liars don't change.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no database connecting owners to guns let alone ballistics tests to serial numbers.
NIBIN is a database of shell casing toolmarks that can potentially link shell casings found at different shootings together.
Not everyone lives in California, and IIRC it's even legal to buy a gun in, say, Nevada, and bring it into California if it is legal to own there.
It is a violation of federal law to buy a handgun in a state you're not a legal resident unless you go through an FFL in your home state.
And in California (where this happened), all private sales must go through the DROS system
From that article,
"Since 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than have died in all our wars put together. In 2014: 33,599.
Who's doing all the shooting and where are they getting all those guns and how many do they have and can't we get control over this clusterfuck? Wouldn't a national gun registry give us a tool to stop some of the killing?"
Consider that ~ 2/3 of those are suicide when interpreting the numbers and impact a searchable federal registry may have.
>That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners.
I'm not a gun owner but the risk/reward of creating said digital registry is unclear to me. There was a newspaper (in NY I think) who published a list of registered gun owners names and addresses several years ago and it struck me as counter producitve.
USA may implement it differently or in a less secure way, but it can be implemented effectively.
There are certainly unregistered guns, but only guns rights groups with a barrow to push say unregistered guns make up an order of magnitude less than what you are saying - like, 25 times less.
This seems like a fairly wild speculation. To pick just one possible counter argument: are you suggesting that criminals, if they could choose, would prefer to rob homes that they know beforehand are heavily armed?
For example, in San Francisco it was illegal for many years to own an airsoft gun (replica firearm that fires little 0.2g plastic pellets). This was struck down only when Arnold Schwarzenegger passed a law to the effect that replica firearms were to be regulated at the state level. It is hard to see what a ban on airsoft guns was intended to accomplish, since they are not viable as weapons at all.
More seriously, California laws concerning handgun sales prevent Californians from benefitting from safety improvements in newer firearms (as well as preventing them from benefitting from the coolness of new firearms). Only handguns on a select list are permitted to be sold in California, and Kamala Harris closed the list some years ago. Ostensibly this is because the state of California would (a) like to see newer handguns implement "micro-stamping", where the gun imprints its serial number on each shell and bullet as it is fired and (b) believes this technology to be generally available. It's not that (a) is a bad thing but (b) is completely false; there are virtually no firearms that implement micro-stamping.
Most absurdly, the ban on "assault weapons" is in practice a ban on rifles with a pistol grip, as opposed to those with a classic stock. Rifles are used in a small minority -- 5% -- of shootings, in any event. They are (a) inconvenient to transport and (b) harder to use for a robbery, where the robber would like to have one hand free to grab stuff. The ban on rifles with pistol grips is something that is more a matter of showing the flag than affecting a real positive public benefit.
Travel restrictions on firearms are also more onerous than useful. In California, we can travel with firearms to any place where we may legitimately use firearms or transship them, but woe betide us if we should stop for a coffee on the way there. Thus we may travel to and from a shooting range, but not stop for lunch at any point. Given that we are to lock our unloaded firearms up when we travel with them, it's hard to see what is gained by preventing us from stopping along the way.
An example of this 50 miles north: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Andy_Lopez
Openly carrying a replica firearm like that can be unwise. In SF, it is still unlawful. It seems like restricting brandishment and not ownership would be the minimal and reasonable legislation.
I don't want to turn this into a political flamewar, but please don't assume malicious intent as the primary motivation for a tool's existence. That's like saying lockpicks are only good for burglary, axes for dismemberment, or knives for stabbing.
https://www.navalcompany.com line throwing shotgun
And blanks are used to sink things in concrete.
It's a tool. It has a function. The function of the tool is independent of the intents of it's wielder.
Is it different from martial arts people who are eloquent and informed about swords?
Airsoft guns are effective in robberies / when making threats, as they look pretty real. This allows people to use them like they would use a real gun.
There was an amnesty similar to what you're talking about in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, and it's the only firearms amnesty that's been offered.
The "Firearms Owners Protection Act" of 1986 (why is it that these bills always do the opposite of their title) did not have amnesty provisions. The big thing it did was ban civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms with specific exceptions where stringent requirements are met.
If, in fact, what you're arguing is correct, then they must have added a serial number when registered.
The NFA requires all registered weapons to have a serial anyway, so I doubt what you're claiming happened.
They've won numerous awards for journalism, including being finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. I can't find the source where I read this, but essentially Buzzfeed exists to fund Buzzfeed News.
Here's what Wikipedia has for the "general definition" :
1. an adherent of the technology and programming subculture; see hacker culture.
2. someone who is able to subvert computer security. If doing so for malicious purposes, the person can also be called a cracker
And while UGNazi sounds like it ended up being a bunch of assholes acting like assholes, its origin story shares a lot of themes with other widely-recognized hackers:
> Around this time, Islam started UGNazi with the intention, he said, of protesting aggressive proposed anti-piracy and cybersecurity legislation
Ignoring the argument over whether social engineering is "hacking", the attacks linked to UGNazi have included SQL injections/0-day exploits. Eric Taylor, the UGNazi founder not implicated in the woman's murder, is apparently now a cybersecurity researcher at Path  (not the social network, but a network systems startup). There's no indication that he was the only one of the 3 UGNazis to have technical chops.
For comparison, this is a compliant site: https://i.imgur.com/Xp0sHe6.png
For those downvoting OP, could you please provide reasoning? GDPR is pretty clear that you need to be able to not opt into tracking.
So this is how a young woman followed the lies for two hackers, and died.
"How A Young Woman Followed Two Hackers' Lies To Her Death"
The apostrophe after "hackers" shows that the lies belonged to the hackers. The phrase "Two Hackers' Lies" is a noun phrase, it's a thing, it's the collection of lies told by two hackers.
Does that help?
You can't "follow lies" literally -- I'm not sure what the figure of speech is here though. Metonymy?
So when someone tells lies, and you act on the (false) information therein, then I think it's reasonable to say that you are following the lies.
I was expecting a story where two guys tricked a woman into making her own diet pills from castor beans or something. Which I imagine was the point of the title. I may not have clicked on "A boyfriend and his buddy killed his girlfriend."
The lies belong to the hackers
A young woman followed those lies until she was no longer alive
This would be the worst place for a semicolon