I find myself again in the Crimean region of Ukraine, which has very close ties to Russia. The fabled Black Fleet is docked in her ports, only Russian is spoken on the streets, and our flat is across from Lenin Square. When the Ukrainian flag is displayed, the Russian flag is displayed alongside. Kiev is supposedly the seat of power, but it seems that Russia is pulling at least some of the strings. We noticed the flats had better heat in Crimea than in Kiev, which is not suprising, as most of the country's energy derives from its eastern neighbor.
So what defines a country? Geography? Culture? Randomness assigned by a former colonial power? In the case of Crimea, it was "given" as a gift to Ukraine by the Russians, who never at the time considered their empire would fade. Imagine the surprise of the former Russian inhabitants when they found out they needed new passports. And the resentment appears to have sustained a half century. The economic crisis that began in the US has certainly "trickled down" to Ukraine as well. The first day the electricity went out. I was told that all the utilities are scarce and unreliable. The usual trash exists in the streets, but it may be even worse now. And the hounds still have free roam in the land of 10,000 dogs.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Protect, Don't Eliminate Borders
In its report entitled "Building a North American Community: Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations," Global elitists advocate the elimination of North American nation-state borders. In other words, wages across North America and indeed the world will equalize as migrants from Mexico and other countries freely cross what used to be the southern border.
According to Forbes magazine (ref. 1), Pedro Aspe, one of the task force co-chairs, is also co-chairman/director of Evercore Partners, is a member of the board of the Carnegie Foundation, and sits on the Advisory Board of Stanford University's Institute of International Studies and the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
According to Carnegie (ref. 2), since 1996 he has advised in more than 200 transactions, including private equity placements, mergers and acquisitions, project financing, and municipal bonds. He has also held a number of positions with the Mexican government, including the Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Mexico from 1988 through 1994 (ref. 3) and Budget Minister from 1987 to 1988 (ref. 4). Perhaps no one is in a position to benefit more from such an open border policy than Mr. Aspe, as he and other globalists seek to drive down wages and raise revenue from privatized toll roads American taxpayers are forced to use.
In a section of the report entitled "What We Should do by 2010," the plan to bring in cheap labor and abandon the borders is clearly laid out:
By 2010, CFR want to "Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America."
Is CFR working in the best interest of the average American? Do you want Pedro Aspe to orchestrate mergers on your behalf and bring in busloads of Mexicans to take your job? Me neither.
For the full text of the report, please visit the link below:
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
References:
1. http://people.forbes.com/profile/pedro-aspe/51991
2. http://www.carnegie.org/sub/about/p.aspe.html
3. http://www.evercore.com/userdetail/index.php?userid=1247
4. http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?author=265
Contact the author at rick.newbold@identityeducation.org
According to Forbes magazine (ref. 1), Pedro Aspe, one of the task force co-chairs, is also co-chairman/director of Evercore Partners, is a member of the board of the Carnegie Foundation, and sits on the Advisory Board of Stanford University's Institute of International Studies and the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
According to Carnegie (ref. 2), since 1996 he has advised in more than 200 transactions, including private equity placements, mergers and acquisitions, project financing, and municipal bonds. He has also held a number of positions with the Mexican government, including the Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Mexico from 1988 through 1994 (ref. 3) and Budget Minister from 1987 to 1988 (ref. 4). Perhaps no one is in a position to benefit more from such an open border policy than Mr. Aspe, as he and other globalists seek to drive down wages and raise revenue from privatized toll roads American taxpayers are forced to use.
In a section of the report entitled "What We Should do by 2010," the plan to bring in cheap labor and abandon the borders is clearly laid out:
By 2010, CFR want to "Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America."
Is CFR working in the best interest of the average American? Do you want Pedro Aspe to orchestrate mergers on your behalf and bring in busloads of Mexicans to take your job? Me neither.
For the full text of the report, please visit the link below:
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
References:
1. http://people.forbes.com/profile/pedro-aspe/51991
2. http://www.carnegie.org/sub/about/p.aspe.html
3. http://www.evercore.com/userdetail/index.php?userid=1247
4. http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?author=265
Contact the author at rick.newbold@identityeducation.org
Thursday, October 23, 2008
New Federal Law Targets ID Theft, Cybercrime
Brian Krebs on Computer Security
Washington Post
October 2008
President Bush last week signed into law a bill that seeks to make it easier for prosecutors to go after cybercrooks, while ensuring that identity theft victims are compensated for their time and trouble when convicted identity thieves are forced to cough up ill-gotten gains.
The Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 lowers the bar prosecutors need to clear before bringing hacking and other cybercrime charges against an individual. Under current federal cybercrime laws, prosecutors must show that the illegal activity caused at least $5,000 in damages before they can bring charges for unauthorized access to a computer. The new law eliminates that requirement.
The law makes it a felony, during any one-year period, to damage 10 or more protected computers used by or for the federal government or a financial institution, and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines and consider increasing the penalties for those convicted of identity theft, computer fraud, illegal wiretapping or breaking into computer systems.
The new law allows federal courts to prosecute when the cybercriminal and the victim live in the same state. Under current law, federal courts only have jurisdiction if the thief uses interstate communication to access the victim's PC. In addition, the law also expands the definition of cyber-extortion.
Identity theft victims could find it easier to win compensation for their trouble as a result of this law, assuming their attackers are brought to justice. The law requires that in cases where convicted identity thieves are ordered to pay restitution, the victim should get a chunk of that money "equal to the value of the time reasonably spent by the victim in an attempt to remediate the intended or actual harm incurred by the victim from the offense."
Some ID theft victims can spend thousands of dollars and months or years dealing with credit bureaus and debtors from accounts fraudulently opened in their names, but the law doesn't appear to take into account lost opportunities associated with identity theft. According to the Federal Trade Commission, some consumers victimized by identity theft may lose out on job opportunities or be denied loans for education, housing or cars because of negative information on their credit reports. In rare cases, they may even be arrested for crimes they did not commit.
Washington Post
October 2008
President Bush last week signed into law a bill that seeks to make it easier for prosecutors to go after cybercrooks, while ensuring that identity theft victims are compensated for their time and trouble when convicted identity thieves are forced to cough up ill-gotten gains.
The Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 lowers the bar prosecutors need to clear before bringing hacking and other cybercrime charges against an individual. Under current federal cybercrime laws, prosecutors must show that the illegal activity caused at least $5,000 in damages before they can bring charges for unauthorized access to a computer. The new law eliminates that requirement.
The law makes it a felony, during any one-year period, to damage 10 or more protected computers used by or for the federal government or a financial institution, and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines and consider increasing the penalties for those convicted of identity theft, computer fraud, illegal wiretapping or breaking into computer systems.
The new law allows federal courts to prosecute when the cybercriminal and the victim live in the same state. Under current law, federal courts only have jurisdiction if the thief uses interstate communication to access the victim's PC. In addition, the law also expands the definition of cyber-extortion.
Identity theft victims could find it easier to win compensation for their trouble as a result of this law, assuming their attackers are brought to justice. The law requires that in cases where convicted identity thieves are ordered to pay restitution, the victim should get a chunk of that money "equal to the value of the time reasonably spent by the victim in an attempt to remediate the intended or actual harm incurred by the victim from the offense."
Some ID theft victims can spend thousands of dollars and months or years dealing with credit bureaus and debtors from accounts fraudulently opened in their names, but the law doesn't appear to take into account lost opportunities associated with identity theft. According to the Federal Trade Commission, some consumers victimized by identity theft may lose out on job opportunities or be denied loans for education, housing or cars because of negative information on their credit reports. In rare cases, they may even be arrested for crimes they did not commit.
Graduate Schools Consult Facebook
By Reilly Kiernan
Senior Writer
Published: Friday, September 26th, 2008
Calling all seniors: It may be time to clean up your facebook.com profiles. According to a survey conducted by Kaplan Test Prep between June and August, 15 percent of law school admissions officers and 10 percent of undergraduate admissions officers have “personally visited personal networking sites to help [them] evaluate an applicant.”
One hundred and fifty-two law schools and 320 of the top 500 colleges participated in the survey, though Princeton did not.
Kaplan annually surveys law schools, medical schools, business schools and undergraduate programs, “all for the purposes of getting information for students and applicants who come to use to give them the up-to-date landscape for admissions,” Glen Stohr, admissions and pre-law director at Kaplan, said in an interview.
Use of social networking sites by admissions officers has risen so dramatically in recent years that 17 percent of law schools are in the process of formulating a policy about how to deal with the use of personal networking sites in the admission process, Stohr explained.
“I think this is sort of a Wild Wild West time for admission officers,” Stohr said.
Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said that the University does not have a specific policy on searching social networking sites.
“If something were brought to our attention, we would of course check it out, but given that we have 21,000 applications, we are not scouring Facebook,” Rapelye said.
“If there were any reason for us to doubt the character of a student because of what they put on their Facebook page, we would take that into consideration,” she added.
The survey found that law school admissions officers are the most likely to search social networking websites.
“Law schools, unlike medical schools or business schools, very rarely do face-to-face interviews,” Stohr said, adding that profiles give law schools a chance to assess applicants’ characters.
“[Law schools] are probably under the greatest pressure to say ‘this is a person of character,’ ” Stohr noted, explaining that the character and fitness of law school graduates will be carefully evaluated by bar associations.
Using discretion
Fifty-two percent of the admissions officers who responded that they had visited personal networking sites reported that their visit had a negative impact on the applicant’s chances.
Though many students believe that photos are the greatest danger to their application success, Stohr explained that wall posts may be much more damaging.
“Many people ... think it will be a picture of me drinking at a party,” he explained. “I think what is far more likely to hurt your chances is having a discussion on your wall about your [graduate school] applications.”
In fact, photos of parties and drinks may not necessarily cause a problem, Stohr said, explaining that he believes “that admission officers know that college kids are college kids.”
Wall posts or discussions that reveal damaging information, on the other hand, such as academic problems or past legal history, could be fatal to a graduate school application, Stohr explained.
“What you put on a social networking site ... [is] not very likely to get you into law school, but it could keep you out,” Stohr said.
Laurie Frey ’09, who is applying to law school, said she believes the use of Facebook by admissions officers “a bit like an invasion of privacy,” but added that she has made an effort to keep her profile “clean.”
“Really, you have to know that kind of thing is possible when you sign up for any kind of networking site, so it is your responsibility to only put up things you would be ok with an admissions office seeing,” Frey said.
Rapelye urged similar caution. “Students who are in the application process should be mindful of what they make public,” she said.
Though it is easy to get caught up in the privacy fixation, Stohr said that the thing that gets you into law school is still great grades, great scores and great personal statements.
“Seventy percent of those admissions officers said [the] LSAT is their number one criteria, and GPA is second,” Stohr said. Still, Stohr recommends that students play it safe.
Original URL: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/26/21548/
Senior Writer
Published: Friday, September 26th, 2008
Calling all seniors: It may be time to clean up your facebook.com profiles. According to a survey conducted by Kaplan Test Prep between June and August, 15 percent of law school admissions officers and 10 percent of undergraduate admissions officers have “personally visited personal networking sites to help [them] evaluate an applicant.”
One hundred and fifty-two law schools and 320 of the top 500 colleges participated in the survey, though Princeton did not.
Kaplan annually surveys law schools, medical schools, business schools and undergraduate programs, “all for the purposes of getting information for students and applicants who come to use to give them the up-to-date landscape for admissions,” Glen Stohr, admissions and pre-law director at Kaplan, said in an interview.
Use of social networking sites by admissions officers has risen so dramatically in recent years that 17 percent of law schools are in the process of formulating a policy about how to deal with the use of personal networking sites in the admission process, Stohr explained.
“I think this is sort of a Wild Wild West time for admission officers,” Stohr said.
Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said that the University does not have a specific policy on searching social networking sites.
“If something were brought to our attention, we would of course check it out, but given that we have 21,000 applications, we are not scouring Facebook,” Rapelye said.
“If there were any reason for us to doubt the character of a student because of what they put on their Facebook page, we would take that into consideration,” she added.
The survey found that law school admissions officers are the most likely to search social networking websites.
“Law schools, unlike medical schools or business schools, very rarely do face-to-face interviews,” Stohr said, adding that profiles give law schools a chance to assess applicants’ characters.
“[Law schools] are probably under the greatest pressure to say ‘this is a person of character,’ ” Stohr noted, explaining that the character and fitness of law school graduates will be carefully evaluated by bar associations.
Using discretion
Fifty-two percent of the admissions officers who responded that they had visited personal networking sites reported that their visit had a negative impact on the applicant’s chances.
Though many students believe that photos are the greatest danger to their application success, Stohr explained that wall posts may be much more damaging.
“Many people ... think it will be a picture of me drinking at a party,” he explained. “I think what is far more likely to hurt your chances is having a discussion on your wall about your [graduate school] applications.”
In fact, photos of parties and drinks may not necessarily cause a problem, Stohr said, explaining that he believes “that admission officers know that college kids are college kids.”
Wall posts or discussions that reveal damaging information, on the other hand, such as academic problems or past legal history, could be fatal to a graduate school application, Stohr explained.
“What you put on a social networking site ... [is] not very likely to get you into law school, but it could keep you out,” Stohr said.
Laurie Frey ’09, who is applying to law school, said she believes the use of Facebook by admissions officers “a bit like an invasion of privacy,” but added that she has made an effort to keep her profile “clean.”
“Really, you have to know that kind of thing is possible when you sign up for any kind of networking site, so it is your responsibility to only put up things you would be ok with an admissions office seeing,” Frey said.
Rapelye urged similar caution. “Students who are in the application process should be mindful of what they make public,” she said.
Though it is easy to get caught up in the privacy fixation, Stohr said that the thing that gets you into law school is still great grades, great scores and great personal statements.
“Seventy percent of those admissions officers said [the] LSAT is their number one criteria, and GPA is second,” Stohr said. Still, Stohr recommends that students play it safe.
Original URL: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/26/21548/
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Privacy is a Thing of the Past
October 10, 2008 (Computerworld) In his 25 years in business, Steven Rambam has worked on some high-profile cases, including tracking down Nazi war criminals in Canada. He also owns PallTech, an investigative database service with more than 25 billion records on U.S. citizens and businesses.
What do you do as a private investigator?
We are not the traditional Rockford or Magnum, P.I. type of investigator. We'll do very difficult missing persons cases, a lot of sophisticated financial fraud work, a lot of insurance company work, a lot of disappearances.
What's in your PallTech databases?
We have pretty much every American's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, telephone number, personal relationships, businesses, motor vehicles, driver's licenses, bankruptcies, liens, judgments -- I could go on and on.
Who has access to your data?
This is a database that's restricted to law enforcement, private investigators, security directors of companies and people who have a genuine need.
How do you safeguard it?
The most restrictive rule is my own personal ethics. In 20 years, we haven't had a single lawsuit or complaint.
What has changed in the past few decades?
Two things. The first is computing power. I have in my office storage and databases and artificial intelligence scripts and behind-the-scenes links that are far more powerful and comprehensive than J. Edgar Hoover's wildest dreams.
Favorite technology: "E-mail with attachments. I don't think I've turned on my fax machine in years."
If he wasn't in this business, he'd probably be: A reporter.
Number of times he's been shot at on the job: "It's bad karma to count."
Favorite nonwork pastime: Anything on or near the water.
Philosophy in a nutshell: Do the right thing, no matter the personal cost.
Favorite vice: "I'm not going to tell you. I can assure you that it's not chocolate."
Favorite movie: "Ruggles of Red Gap, about a butler who is gambled away by a British lord and relocates with his new master to Montana. It's the most patriotically positive movie ever made about America."
The other thing is the mind-boggling level of self-contributed data. The average person now willingly puts on the Internet personal information about himself that 20 years ago people would hire an investigator to try and get. It's extraordinary. If you know how to use the Internet, 75% of an investigation can be conducted sitting in your pajamas.
Do you see this as a bad thing?
On the contrary, there are good reasons for most of this to be out there. It's not out there because these are nefarious, evil people trying to be the new Big Brother. It's because this is truly a new engine of capitalism. Where it gets a little creepy is when they aggregate all of this data together and have an extraordinary profile of you.
How can businesses protect their intellectual capital, particularly when it's in electronic form?
You can have five firewalls in a safe room with the most current locks monitored by 24/7 motion-detecting, IP-addressable cameras, and all of that is meaningless if a 16-year-old kid can social-engineer a root password out of you. The downside to all of this publicly available information is that it's now a lot easier to social-engineer somebody.
Should businesses hire a company like yours?
They should if they don't want a back door or a Trojan [horse] on their system. A year ago, a company called me from Hong Kong and said, "We're being extorted. We're getting e-mails from an individual saying if we don't give a series of payments through PayPal, he is going to take [our] source code and post it on the Internet."
We were able to determine who the guy was in 24 hours. He was a 14-year-old kid in California.
What about smear campaigns on the Web? If you're a victim, what should you do about it?
You have to have zero tolerance. You have to find out who the person is, and you have to sue them within an inch of their life, and you have to do it publicly and post it on your Web site, talking about the entire case from beginning to end.
Government databases are the biggest repository of private information. Should the public be concerned about that?
The scary thing to me is not that information is open, but that the government is trying to use every pretext and every trick to hide information from its citizens. That I think is much more nefarious and will be much more detrimental in the long run than having information out there.
Some of the things the Bush administration is doing are just incomprehensible. For example, they're reclassifying data that's been in the public eye -- that has been available to the public since 1991. Why, I can't begin to guess.
Privacy is dead. Get over it. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Another slippery, slimy thing is that the FBI has signed contracts with some private data providers. Polygraphs [and] background investigations are being outsourced, and the Freedom of Information Act does not apply. If you say to the FBI, "I want the report that ChoicePoint furnished to you about me," they say to you, "Sorry, we can't give that to you. That's a private business record." This is really a fairly sinister development. And it's one that's profoundly un-American.
Given the amount of personal information out there and the fact that you aggregate it, does the public have reason to fear the misuse of personal data controlled by PallTech or other aggregators?
No, because frankly, we are more accountable than the U.S. government. You can sue us; you can subpoena us. You can hold us to task if we do something improper. Not so the U.S. government.
What do you do as a private investigator?
We are not the traditional Rockford or Magnum, P.I. type of investigator. We'll do very difficult missing persons cases, a lot of sophisticated financial fraud work, a lot of insurance company work, a lot of disappearances.
What's in your PallTech databases?
We have pretty much every American's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, telephone number, personal relationships, businesses, motor vehicles, driver's licenses, bankruptcies, liens, judgments -- I could go on and on.
Who has access to your data?
This is a database that's restricted to law enforcement, private investigators, security directors of companies and people who have a genuine need.
How do you safeguard it?
The most restrictive rule is my own personal ethics. In 20 years, we haven't had a single lawsuit or complaint.
What has changed in the past few decades?
Two things. The first is computing power. I have in my office storage and databases and artificial intelligence scripts and behind-the-scenes links that are far more powerful and comprehensive than J. Edgar Hoover's wildest dreams.
Favorite technology: "E-mail with attachments. I don't think I've turned on my fax machine in years."
If he wasn't in this business, he'd probably be: A reporter.
Number of times he's been shot at on the job: "It's bad karma to count."
Favorite nonwork pastime: Anything on or near the water.
Philosophy in a nutshell: Do the right thing, no matter the personal cost.
Favorite vice: "I'm not going to tell you. I can assure you that it's not chocolate."
Favorite movie: "Ruggles of Red Gap, about a butler who is gambled away by a British lord and relocates with his new master to Montana. It's the most patriotically positive movie ever made about America."
The other thing is the mind-boggling level of self-contributed data. The average person now willingly puts on the Internet personal information about himself that 20 years ago people would hire an investigator to try and get. It's extraordinary. If you know how to use the Internet, 75% of an investigation can be conducted sitting in your pajamas.
Do you see this as a bad thing?
On the contrary, there are good reasons for most of this to be out there. It's not out there because these are nefarious, evil people trying to be the new Big Brother. It's because this is truly a new engine of capitalism. Where it gets a little creepy is when they aggregate all of this data together and have an extraordinary profile of you.
How can businesses protect their intellectual capital, particularly when it's in electronic form?
You can have five firewalls in a safe room with the most current locks monitored by 24/7 motion-detecting, IP-addressable cameras, and all of that is meaningless if a 16-year-old kid can social-engineer a root password out of you. The downside to all of this publicly available information is that it's now a lot easier to social-engineer somebody.
Should businesses hire a company like yours?
They should if they don't want a back door or a Trojan [horse] on their system. A year ago, a company called me from Hong Kong and said, "We're being extorted. We're getting e-mails from an individual saying if we don't give a series of payments through PayPal, he is going to take [our] source code and post it on the Internet."
We were able to determine who the guy was in 24 hours. He was a 14-year-old kid in California.
What about smear campaigns on the Web? If you're a victim, what should you do about it?
You have to have zero tolerance. You have to find out who the person is, and you have to sue them within an inch of their life, and you have to do it publicly and post it on your Web site, talking about the entire case from beginning to end.
Government databases are the biggest repository of private information. Should the public be concerned about that?
The scary thing to me is not that information is open, but that the government is trying to use every pretext and every trick to hide information from its citizens. That I think is much more nefarious and will be much more detrimental in the long run than having information out there.
Some of the things the Bush administration is doing are just incomprehensible. For example, they're reclassifying data that's been in the public eye -- that has been available to the public since 1991. Why, I can't begin to guess.
Privacy is dead. Get over it. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Another slippery, slimy thing is that the FBI has signed contracts with some private data providers. Polygraphs [and] background investigations are being outsourced, and the Freedom of Information Act does not apply. If you say to the FBI, "I want the report that ChoicePoint furnished to you about me," they say to you, "Sorry, we can't give that to you. That's a private business record." This is really a fairly sinister development. And it's one that's profoundly un-American.
Given the amount of personal information out there and the fact that you aggregate it, does the public have reason to fear the misuse of personal data controlled by PallTech or other aggregators?
No, because frankly, we are more accountable than the U.S. government. You can sue us; you can subpoena us. You can hold us to task if we do something improper. Not so the U.S. government.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Der Echte Clark Rockefeller, Bitte
Although the news of Clark Rockefeller has begun to die down, it is still disturbing that evil doers can hide in plain sight under assumed names after the war on terrorism has been waged for the better part of a decade. If anonymity were the goal, an alias like John Smith would have been a more suitable choice. Apparently "Clark Rockefeller" was only feeding his ego.
Fox News reported the following story on August 9th regarding
A German man who lives in a small mountain town called Bergen positively identified photographs of Rockefeller and a man known as Christopher Chichester as his long-lost older brother, Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, who left home at age 17.
Fox News reported the following story on August 9th regarding
A German man who lives in a small mountain town called Bergen positively identified photographs of Rockefeller and a man known as Christopher Chichester as his long-lost older brother, Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, who left home at age 17.
Alexander Gerhartsreiter, 34, who was only 5 or 6 when his brother left home, said the man told the family in his last phone call to them in 1985 that he had changed his name to Christopher Chichester because Americans were unable to pronounce his birth name.
"It seems you found my brother," Alexander, who was only 5 or 6 when his brother left home, said to the Boston Herald from his home in Upper Bavaria, Germany. "It really is a shock. That is definitely him. ... This is quite heavy."
Rockefeller's attorney, Stephen Hrones, had an hourlong jailhouse meeting with his client Friday afternoon and said Rockefeller speaks German but only remembers "bits and pieces" of his childhood, according to The Boston Globe.
Rockefeller, 48, who is in a Boston jail, is accused of parental kidnapping for allegedly snatching his 7-year-old daughter, Reigh "Snooks" Storrow Mills Boss, from a city street on July 27 during a supervised visit.
He was caught in Baltimore with the child, allegedly using another assumed name, Charles "Chip" Smith, and had purchased a home and boat in an apparent attempt to start a new life. About $12,000 in cash and 300 1-ounce gold coins also were found in his apartment after his arrest, police said.
Christopher Chichester has been wanted for questioning in the 1985 disappearance and presumed murder of Jonathan and Linda Sohus, a San Marino, Calif., couple from whom he rented a carriage house.
In 1994, bones believed to be those of John Sohus were found in three separate bags on the property when the residents were installing a swimming pool. But police have never been able to positively identify the skeleton as belonging to the missing man, and the remains of his wife have never been found.
Shortly after the newlywed couple vanished, their tenant Chichester did, too.
Detectives allege Rockefeller is a con artist who has for decades been traveling across the United States, concocting stories and using multiple aliases to live a lavish life.
Authorities have not confirmed that Christian Gerhartsreiter, Christopher Chichester and Clark Rockefeller are the same person. Gerhartsreiter was a German exchange student who lived with at least two Connecticut families when he came to the United States.
But the Suffolk District Attorney's Office in Massachusetts estimates that Rockefeller has at least a dozen different aliases. Another they're investigating is Christopher Crowe, the name of a Connecticut man who tried to sell a pickup truck belonging to John Sohus after he disappeared.
Rockefeller's attorney said his client's memory is spotty. He recalls, for instance, a Scottish nanny and a family road trip to Mount Rushmore in a station wagon, Hrones said.
"He has no memory of being from Germany or of having a German brother," his lawyer told the Globe on Friday. "He tells me he's Clark Rockefeller. I believe him. I haven't been shown any hard evidence that he's something other than what he tells me he is."
Hrones said his client has no recollection of coming to the United States in the late '70s and living in Berlin, Conn., as an exchange student, according to the Globe. He also doesn't remember marrying a Wisconsin woman named Amy Jersild in 1981 at the very young age of 19, only to leave her a day after their wedding, according to marriage papers.
Rockefeller doesn't recall being a tenant of John and Linda Sohus, though he remembers living in California. And though he has memories of working on New York's Wall Street as a stockbroker, he doesn't know what name he used or where and when he had the job.
"He tells me he still doesn't remember about the past. He remembers bits and pieces, silly sorts of things," Hrones told the Globe. "He doesn't remember murdering anybody ... and he doesn't remember being a tenant of the couple that were murdered."
Germany's BKA, the equivalent of the FBI, told FOX it has no criminal record associated with anyone by the name of Christian Gerhartsreiter.
U.S. law enforcement officials have enlisted the help of German authorities to figure out Rockefeller's identity, the Foreign Ministry in Berlin confirmed to the Globe.
"We are now checking if he could be the German citizen Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter," a spokeswoman told the paper during an interview in German.
Police in Boston and Los Angeles say they have no record of Rockefeller before 1993, which is about when his foggy memories become clearer. He remembers marrying Reigh's mother, Sandra Boss, in 1995. The couple divorced in December, in large part because she grew suspicious about his past.
Childhood friends have described Gerhartsreiter as a mischievous, restless loner, the Globe and the Herald reported.
Alexander and Christian Gerhartsreiter's ailing mother, 78-year-old Irmengard Gerhartsreiter, told the Herald that she didn't know the man in the pictures of Rockefeller and Chichester.
But her younger son recognized him right away.
Alexander said the older brother he barely knew was born in Siegsdorf, Germany, in 1961, left home as a teenager to move to Connecticut as a student and then cut ties with the family about 20 years ago, around the time the Sohus couple disappeared.
Germany and his hometown in the Alps were "too small" for Christian, who had his sights set on bigger and better things, his brother told the Herald.
"He wants always to be in a big world," Alexander said.
When the Herald reporter informed him of the Clark Rockefeller alias, Alexander wasn't surprised.
"Sounds like my brother."
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Justice: Hackers Steal 40 Million Credit Card Numbers
(CNN) -- Eleven people were indicted Tuesday for allegedly stealing more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers, federal authorities said.
The indictments, which alleged that at least nine major U.S. retailers were hacked, were unsealed Tuesday in Boston, Massachusetts, and San Diego, California, prosecutors said.
It is believed to be the largest hacking case that the Justice Department has ever tried to prosecute.
Three of the defendants are from the United States; three are from Estonia; three are from Ukraine, two are from China and one is from Belarus.
The remaining individual is known only by an alias and authorities do not know where that person is.
Under the indictments, three Miami, Florida, men -- Albert "Segvec" Gonzalez, Christopher Scott and Damon Patrick Toey -- are accused of hacking into the wireless computer networks of retailers including TJX Companies, whose stores include Marshall's and T.J. Maxx, BJ's Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Barnes and Noble and Sports Authority, among others.
The three men installed "sniffer" programs designed to capture credit card numbers, passwords and account information as they moved through the retailers' card processing networks, said Michael Sullivan, the U.S. attorney in Boston.
"This has other personal numbers that could give them access to credit or debit cards that have already been issued and are active," Sullivan told CNN.
The probe began in late 2006, Sullivan said. In addition to the Justice Department, the Secret Service has been conducting an undercover investigation for more than three years through the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego, he said.
The three then concealed the data in encrypted computer servers they controlled in the United States and eastern Europe, the Justice Department said.
Some credit and debit card numbers were sold on the Internet, and were "cashed out" by encoding the numbers on the magnetic strips of blank cards. "The defendants then used these cards to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars at a time from ATMs," authorities said.
Gonzalez and the others used anonymous Internet-based currencies to conceal and launder their proceeds, as well as channeling funds through bank accounts in Eastern Europe, the department said.
"There are ties between all three districts and ties internationally that go all the way to the Ukraine and Latvia," Sullivan said. "The 41 million credit and debit numbers were used internationally."
Gonzalez was previously arrested in 2003 by the Secret Service on suspicion of access device fraud, the Department of Justice said, and was working as a confidential informant for the agency. However, the Secret Service discovered during the investigation that Gonzalez was involved in this case, authorities said.
The California indictment charged eight others with operating an international stolen credit and debit card distribution ring, selling stolen card information for personal gain -- millions of dollars, in at least one case, authorities said.
Three of the defendants in the most recent case, among them Gonzalez, were also charged in May in a related indictment in New York, Justice said. Those charges allege the three were engaged in a scheme to hack into computer networks run by the Dave & Buster's restaurant chain and steal credit and debit card numbers from at least 11 locations.
The three installed "sniffer" programs at the cash register terminals of the locations, capturing credit and debit card numbers, authorities said. At one location, the sniffer captured data for some 5,000 cards, causing some $600,000 in losses to the banks that issued the credit and debit cards.
Gonzalez is awaiting trial on the New York charges. The other two of the international defendants are also in custody, police said.
"Identity theft can involve a single criminal stealing the personal financial information of a single victim or, as it did here, it can involve a group of criminals stealing the credit card numbers of millions of people, many of whom may not even learn that they were victims for months or years," said Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
"Identity theft victims suffer well beyond the immediate financial costs; they suffer lost confidence in their privacy and security, as well as the emotional strain and the time it can take to repair damaged financial lives and credit histories. In many cases, the effects of these crimes can be felt for years after they are committed."
Mukasey and other officials said the case serves as a reminder that computer crimes can cross international borders.
"We have been working with countries around the world to identify and address technical vulnerabilities in computer networks, and to ensure that laws and procedures are adequate to deal with these kinds of crime," Mukasey said. "And we have been working closely with our international partners to crack specific cases when they take us beyond our borders."
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/05/card.fraud.charges/index.html)
The indictments, which alleged that at least nine major U.S. retailers were hacked, were unsealed Tuesday in Boston, Massachusetts, and San Diego, California, prosecutors said.
It is believed to be the largest hacking case that the Justice Department has ever tried to prosecute.
Three of the defendants are from the United States; three are from Estonia; three are from Ukraine, two are from China and one is from Belarus.
The remaining individual is known only by an alias and authorities do not know where that person is.
Under the indictments, three Miami, Florida, men -- Albert "Segvec" Gonzalez, Christopher Scott and Damon Patrick Toey -- are accused of hacking into the wireless computer networks of retailers including TJX Companies, whose stores include Marshall's and T.J. Maxx, BJ's Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Barnes and Noble and Sports Authority, among others.
The three men installed "sniffer" programs designed to capture credit card numbers, passwords and account information as they moved through the retailers' card processing networks, said Michael Sullivan, the U.S. attorney in Boston.
"This has other personal numbers that could give them access to credit or debit cards that have already been issued and are active," Sullivan told CNN.
The probe began in late 2006, Sullivan said. In addition to the Justice Department, the Secret Service has been conducting an undercover investigation for more than three years through the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego, he said.
The three then concealed the data in encrypted computer servers they controlled in the United States and eastern Europe, the Justice Department said.
Some credit and debit card numbers were sold on the Internet, and were "cashed out" by encoding the numbers on the magnetic strips of blank cards. "The defendants then used these cards to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars at a time from ATMs," authorities said.
Gonzalez and the others used anonymous Internet-based currencies to conceal and launder their proceeds, as well as channeling funds through bank accounts in Eastern Europe, the department said.
"There are ties between all three districts and ties internationally that go all the way to the Ukraine and Latvia," Sullivan said. "The 41 million credit and debit numbers were used internationally."
Gonzalez was previously arrested in 2003 by the Secret Service on suspicion of access device fraud, the Department of Justice said, and was working as a confidential informant for the agency. However, the Secret Service discovered during the investigation that Gonzalez was involved in this case, authorities said.
The California indictment charged eight others with operating an international stolen credit and debit card distribution ring, selling stolen card information for personal gain -- millions of dollars, in at least one case, authorities said.
Three of the defendants in the most recent case, among them Gonzalez, were also charged in May in a related indictment in New York, Justice said. Those charges allege the three were engaged in a scheme to hack into computer networks run by the Dave & Buster's restaurant chain and steal credit and debit card numbers from at least 11 locations.
The three installed "sniffer" programs at the cash register terminals of the locations, capturing credit and debit card numbers, authorities said. At one location, the sniffer captured data for some 5,000 cards, causing some $600,000 in losses to the banks that issued the credit and debit cards.
Gonzalez is awaiting trial on the New York charges. The other two of the international defendants are also in custody, police said.
"Identity theft can involve a single criminal stealing the personal financial information of a single victim or, as it did here, it can involve a group of criminals stealing the credit card numbers of millions of people, many of whom may not even learn that they were victims for months or years," said Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
"Identity theft victims suffer well beyond the immediate financial costs; they suffer lost confidence in their privacy and security, as well as the emotional strain and the time it can take to repair damaged financial lives and credit histories. In many cases, the effects of these crimes can be felt for years after they are committed."
Mukasey and other officials said the case serves as a reminder that computer crimes can cross international borders.
"We have been working with countries around the world to identify and address technical vulnerabilities in computer networks, and to ensure that laws and procedures are adequate to deal with these kinds of crime," Mukasey said. "And we have been working closely with our international partners to crack specific cases when they take us beyond our borders."
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/05/card.fraud.charges/index.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
