11 ms·
Bay Area man must pay $136,000 in tech-support scam against elderly
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ra1n85 8y agoThis judgement has no teeth: >Under the settlement, Brar — who operated Genius Technologies and Avangatee Services and does not admit or deny the allegations, according to court documents — “is permanently restrained and enjoined from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale, or assisting in the advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale of Technical Support Services.” This guy is being made to pay 136,000 despite: “The cost to consumers ranged between several hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars,” the FTC said of the scam, which appeared to begin in 2015. This is not justice, and this judgement does not serve as a deterrent. This is grand larceny and needs to be accompanied with jail time for perpetrators.
- degenerate 8y agoCompletely agree. These scum definitely need to go to jail, to send fair warning to would-be scammers that it's simply not worth the risk. >The judgment was for $7.6 million, but it was partially suspended because of Brar's inability to pay the full amount, according to the FTC. Pushover justice system, weak.
- 908087 8y agoThe only lesson learned here is: If you're going to pull a scam like this one, be sure to spend all of the money or hide it really well before you get caught. Good job, FTC. That'll show 'em.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- drawnwren 8y agoI wouldn't be surprised to learn that Brar was a crypto 'pioneer'.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoUnless I'm mistaken, the data suggests that harsher punishments do not work as a form of deterrent. It seems inappropriate to cage someone for a non-violent offence.
- toss1 8y agoperhaps for a single non-violent offenses. But for theft by deception practiced at scale? Absolutely should be jailed for a significant amount of time. I'd argue for significant amount of jail time simply for the waste and violations of law involved in needlessly ringing so many phones and violating Do Not Call laws. these people create a real cost for society, and the penalty needs to be bigger than "oh, just give back some of your criminal gains". If you think that caging someone is inappropriate or doesn't work, you can go for lashing, or something else. What would you actually suggest as a deterrent?
- eftychis 8y agoI don't think the argument here is against jail time. Just that the reasoning it will work as a deterrent is flawed. Unfortunately, we/I don't have a good answer to your question what to use as a deterrent. The problem is a) people do not act rationally in a universal way b) people are bad with statistics c) arrest precision (Pr[you get arrested|you commit a crime] is not that great. (c) is subjective so let us forget about it. If the criminal was rational then they would think as follows: Pr[caught]Cost-Pr[not caught]Pr[succeed|not caught]payout >0 => commit crime. Humans are pretty bad at underestimating probability of events against them and overestimate their chance of success (people buy lottery tickets for instance). If a criminal is irrational, deterrents will not really work by definition -- you might be able to make due in a per case basis. You can view this as a different version of lottery ticket. No matter the risk of wasting your money, people are going to keep buying them. It really baffles me too. P.S. Consider now an extreme version tried in the past -- you commit even a simple crime, you are executed. First, this is a waste of resources (you could still use these individuals). In any system of law, yet in particular in a common law system, where the weight of precedence and law interpretation is much greater, every single one of us has almost surely committed a crime by some interpretation, obscure law etc. Second, as a criminal at that point you are going to escalate. The damage a single individual can cause to society on average has increased dramatically over time. Do not think about gun ownership. A man can just run over a busy intersection in their attempt to escape. To give some weight to my words, here is a personal story. My car was hit by an individual in a car a couple of years back on my way home. The driver drove the wrong way on a one way street, panicked and crushed into me. Instead of pulling over the they attempted to escape. In the process, pedestrians had to jump for their lives, while another car was hit also. That person endangered the lives of several people, damaged one more car, to avoid a DUI (my opinion from their erratic behavior and appearance). So only by luck, a possible DUI/crash did not upgrade to mass murder.
- javajosh 8y agoIt sounds to me like each individual he scammed also has a case. Which means there's hope for a more just outcome.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoThat is what I was thinking as well, a civil case from each person scammed, perhaps put into a class action which would result in a some justice for the folks who were scammed, and perhaps create a permanent garnishment on all of his wages from now until he dies where a percentage of anything he makes in any job goes to his victims.
- pc86 8y agoAll a class action will do is make one firm 80% or more of the judgment. And it appears the defendant is judgment proof as this is a low single digit percentage of the original award.
- briandear 8y agoClass actions are worthless as a form of justice to the victim. They might get a $30 check.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoI wasn't clear in my communications ;-). In cases like these (non-violent economic crimes) there is often a call for "justice" which includes incarcerating the perpetrator. I am of the opinion that locking them up furthers the damage of their crime by costing tax payers to pay to lock them up, house, and feed them. Because of that opinion, I lean toward justice solutions whereby the perpetrator is allowed to live in the 'outside' world but a percentage of all their earnings going forward is paid into a victim's restitution fund. This is analagous with "mortgaging their life", think of it as a student loan debt for criminals that can't be discharged through bankruptcy. The idea being that "justice" means impacting the rest of the perpetrators life with an economic cost equivalent to the economic impact they had on their victims lives. And doing so with a minimal increase in tax cost to enforce.
- haspoken 8y agoPaid to the FCC, and not the victims? It appears that the government is not interested in the victims, rather just wants a cut of the scam for themselves.
- maxk42 8y agoFTC, although to be fair it doesn't say what will be done with the funds.
- ithilglin909 8y agoI seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself.
- throwawayjava 8y ago> I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself. The money goes to the Treasury. Congress holds the purse strings. FTC fines are not designed to make victims whole; fines are inherently punitive. In our current system, restitution and civil damages fill that role; i.e., victims who want to be made whole should sue Mr. Brar individually, sue him as a class, and/or find a prosecutor who will go after criminal charges with restitution and make sure they're included as victims. The good news for victims is that the FTC settlement generally makes civil suits easier for victims to win. The settlement significantly increases the probability of success and significantly decreasing the cost of each individual victim's lawsuit. In particularly egregious cases, FTC settlements will require an explicit admission of guilt. Those admissions make victims' cases even easier to win (the victim only has to prove that they were defrauded; the question of whether the interaction was fraudulent is already settled). IMO the most appropriate structure for an FTC fine would be ${some multiple of the money you made scamming people, AFTER paying back all victims who decide to file a civil suit}. I think the ordering is exactly the opposite, though, unless the civil suits include punitive damanges. We'd have to find a bankrupcy lawyer to be sure.
- justboxing 8y agoIf you hit the paywall, here's the story https://outline.com/GS6Yz8 https://outline.com/GS6Yz8
- vorpalhex 8y agoI realize this is constrained somewhat by what the prosecutors can actually prove... but it seems like the person in question should go to jail for outright fraud and identity theft.
- icebraining 8y agoI don't think the FTC can prosecute someone for criminal charges, regardless of proof. They would need the DoJ or an US Attorney to follow up on those. AFAIK, IANAL.
- ellatrue 8y agoI think the DOJ could potentially build off of this case, though.
- nothrabannosir 8y agoAmateur question : would that fall under double jeopardy ?
- anchpop 8y agoIANAL but no, double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vorpalhex 8y agoAre there ways we as citizens can push them to follow up on this?
- nvr219 8y agoThis guy should be in jail though
- mulmen 8y agoThis misunderstanding of the US Legal system seems to come up frequently on HN. Most recently about Theraos I believe. The FTC cannot press criminal charges which means they cannot put people in jail. Those types of charges fall to the Department of Justice who can continue pursuing these cases if they believe a criminal offense has taken place.
- sbov 8y agoBeyond that, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is much higher. So it wouldn't be unheard of for the DOJ to not pursue criminal charges if it doesn't think it can pass that higher bar.
- Retric 8y agoFraud is still a crime punishable by jail time. So, even after the FTC get's involved he can and should still be sent to prison.
- gowld 8y agoThere's no misunderstanding. This guy should be in jail. Parent poster didn't say the FTC should put him in jail.
- keepper 8y agoanyone find this a bit funny? "...and can never offer tech support again." I've never heard of a non licensed profession being barred from "practicing" Brar Mom: Hey Brar, can you help me setup my new iPhone. Brar: Not under my parole conditions.. Does that mean that an illegal street food vendor can be barred from cooking, ever? hehe
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- notahacker 8y agoI imagine the barrier is on offering the service for payment Although I guess the sort of person that provides this expensive "service" to confused elderly people might be the sort of person that would charge their own mother for setting up their iPhone anyway.
- ben_w 8y ago> Does that mean that an illegal street food vendor can be barred from cooking, ever? hehe Someone in the UK was given an Anti-Social Behaviour Order for being too loud when they had sex, so in some jurisdictions probably yes.
- hluska 8y agoI had to Google it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2858802/Woman-noisy-love-making-left-neighbours-fuming-led-30-visits-police-ASBO-TWO-prison-sentences-doesn-t-regret-thing.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2858802/Woman-nois...
- legohead 8y agoKitboga on twitch [1] calls these scammers and pretends to be various characters and waste their time. He puts funny moments on youtube [2]. At the "end" of his calls he confronts them and tries to talk to them about scamming old people. Most don't take it too well... [1]: https://www.twitch.tv/kitboga https://www.twitch.tv/kitboga [2]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm22FAXZMw1BaWeFszZxUKw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm22FAXZMw1BaWeFszZxUKw
- deadmetheny 8y agoThere's a very interesting two part episode of the podcast Reply All[1] where they delve into one of these tech support scams. Worth taking the time to listen to. [1] https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/long-distance https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/long-distance
- no0e9nceo 8y agoThis one's great because they actually fly to India and meet the scammers! Definitely worth listening to both parts!
- matheus2740 8y agoThank you for linking this podcast! I just listened to the two episodes, and man, that was some awesome journalism. [Edit]: Styling and phrasing
- ddtaylor 8y agoNot sure if he is part of it, but there is a large amount of people faking this kind of content on YouTube for those juicy views and clicks. Kind of amazing to be scamming with an anti-scamming vibe.
- tudelo 8y agoIt surely seems impossible to fake at the scale he does it. I'm going to assume you have not seen much of it.
- monksy 8y agoWhy are they calling a scammer a "businessman"?
- bittercynic 8y agoWhat else could that title mean?
- ellatrue 8y ago$136,000? He probably won'e even stop running his "business." Sounds like he was making bank - just pay the fine and keep going. The problem with a lot of illegal telemarketers/advertisers is its super easy for them to just pretend to be someone else after they get caught and continue on their way.
- bruthafez 8y agoReal talk. $136,000? That's just "the cost of doing business." That fine is so small it's almost like, nice to the guy they're fining.
- Filligree 8y ago$136,000 plus an injunction against ever practicing tech support again, whether legally or otherwise. If he tries it again, and gets caught, then the next judgement will involve serious jail time.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rconti 8y agoBut how would he get caught again? Let's say he starts a legitimate tech support business. I don't think there would be any connection between his new business license and the FTC. Nor his tax returns. I think the ONLY way he could get caught is to break ANOTHER law and end up before the FTC again. Otherwise, I can't see how the FTC would have any idea what he's up to. It's not like businesspeople register with the FTC.
- ggg9990 8y agoI would have preferred the needle but this is better than nothing.
- wcarron 8y agoThis is not an appropriate sentiment. Advocating the death penalty for what is essentially larceny is barbaric.
- JackCh 8y ago> "what is essentially larceny" Quantity has a quality all of it's own.
- gowld 8y agoBankrupting an elderly person can kill them.
- ggg9990 8y ago“Barbaric” is largely a matter of opinion. What I find barbaric is that someone press on some of the most vulnerable people in society, ruins their lives, and is allowed to proceed with just a library fine. It doesn’t create any negative incentive for the next person thinking about doing this, which the needle certainly would.
- liveoneggs 8y agolast year a family friend got her whole identity stolen and gave the guys a few hundred dollars. Last week (!) my father ended up on the phone with someone before realizing he was being scammed. He is going to just throw his computer in the trash and buy a new one.
- toast0 8y agoGet your father a chromebook -- the tech support scammers don't know how to work them yet, and it's easy to "powerwash" them back to stock if they do get taken over.
- Tyr42 8y agoIt's not true, they do know how to install a bunch of extensions and stuff. Happened to a family member. Fake search bars, etc. It was easy enough to wipe though.
- liveoneggs 8y agoI buy him refurbished windows desktops. They are the same price. :)
- joshu 8y agoThis is stupid :)
- afo 8y agoEven with all these high profile settlements, it's still not stopping the problem. Just today, we (Nomorobo) see 25 different numbers pushing Windows tech support scams. It's like that every. single. day. This is an emergency call from Windows Microsoft. Your Windows license key have been expired all services are suspended on your computer. To renew call our toll free 1-877-231-6134. https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/844-805-7111 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/844-805-7111 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/855-328-4888 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/855-328-4888 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/844-517-8655 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/844-517-8655 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/844-904-1444 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/844-904-1444 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/972-441-0548 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/972-441-0548 ... https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/855-895-6786 https://www.nomorobo.com/lookup/855-895-6786 (edit: formatting)
- forapurpose 8y agoI hadn't heard of your service and just looked at it. If you're willing, a few questions I didn't see answered on the website: From what I can tell, every incoming call rings simultaneously on the user's phone and Nomorobo's systems. If Nomorobo detects a blacklisted number, you pickup the call, play a 'you've been blocked' message, and hangup. Is that basically correct? So Nomorobo ends up with a log of all my incoming calls. What happens with that data? Nomorobo is free for landlines (which I think means VOIP lines); is data collection the tradeoff? Also, can I submit a whitelist, to prevent important numbers from being blocked? And is that list confidential? Finally, do you work with old-fashioned POTS landlines? I'm interested in Nomorobo for an elderly couple who still have POTS.
- afo 8y agoHappy to talk about the landline product. Just for clarification, the mobile product works completely differently. 1. Yes, pretty much. Here's a more in-depth answer to what happens when the call is answered - http://www.6083716666.com/ http://www.6083716666.com/ 2. Yes, we do get a log of the incoming calls. We use that to analyze the high frequency calling patterns across millions of phone lines and build the blacklist. The more people that contribute, the better the algorithm gets. 3. We globally manage the whitelist and good robocalls (school closings, pharmacies, doctors offices, etc) 4. We don't work with POTS lines yet. The older technologies are tougher to protect than the modern ones.
- alsetmusic 8y agoUnable to read article due to “ad-blocker.” Can anyone please summarize?
- driverdan 8y agoSwitch to uBlock Origin. The site loads fine with it.
- supermdguy 8y agohttps://txt.fyi/+/3777e84f/ https://txt.fyi/+/3777e84f/
- iamleppert 8y agoYears ago when wifi first became a thing my friends and I would drive around with early Wireshark and a Pringles can antenna and change all the open SSID's we could find to "Call [some number] to secure your network". All the routers back then were open by default so we could easily do a few dozen per day. When they would call (and they always called), we would then show up and charge the person between $50-$250 (or however much we thought we could get) to change the SSID and setup WEP. When times got desperate and we needed a new flat screen TV we returned back to our previous victims, and, having their WEP passwords we setup, changed it back to the original message: "It's a good thing you called us -- the hackers got in again, but we have some new defenses against them. Stick with us. We'll protect you." As a bunch of tech-savvy poor kids, it was very satisfying taking money from rich, old (mostly white) people. We were able to quit our jobs working fast food with our new found venture. That somehow made up for the unethical nature of it all in the youthful minds of late teen and early 20's punks.
- mark_edward 8y agoWhy would you share this story? It really is horrible. Anyway, glad you changed.
- 456hdsaq234g 8y agoWhat is the indication that this person has changed? OP ran an extortion scheme against non-technical folks, and then extorted the victims again. Its a horrible horrible story and the OP should be ashamed with themselves, and rethink their life.
- mark_edward 8y agoI just kind of assumed they did. Also the sibling indicates this might be a troll so I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt.
- iamleppert 8y agoWhy should I rethink my life? What is the difference between what I did, and what Symantec does on a massive scale? Or even Equifax? Or Facebook? We changed the names of the SSIDs, which were publicly open at the time and there was no legal president set as to if it was legal or not to do so, since we were on public property. We were providing a service to the community, letting people know there is someone who can help them secure their network. I do admit the changing them back part was a bit evil, but don't act like you're some saint who hasn't done anything wrong especially as a teenager or in your early adulthood.
- no0e9nceo 8y agoSo I'm wondering if they did any work to find out who was on the India side of this so our law enforcement could work with theirs and maybe, I don't know, capture them, extradite them, and you know, punish them for their international crime? I can dream.
- RandomCSGeek 8y agoExtradiction would be unlikely for such crime(even cases of terrorism can take years for extradiction, or may not even take place). But it would be possible to get them arrested in India. That said, there are literally millions of people in India who have graduated with whatever degree/certificate, can speak English, and are willing to work in any kind of scam, as long as they get money to buy food. You can setup a office in Noida/Mumbai/Pune/Bangalore etc, and hire these people for dime a dozen. Things getting risky? Close everything and start anew in another city. Problem lies in poor law enforcement in India, and lack of awareness among old americans.
- ddtaylor 8y ago> The judgment was for $7.6 million, but it was partially suspended because of Brar’s inability to pay the full amount, according to the FTC. Seems unlikely anyone else will be deterred from running these scams and I'll still have to be helping my grandparents every few months do chargebacks on scammers.
- pc86 8y agoAgreed but to be fair if there is a judgment awarded that you cannot reasonably pay, the entire thing will get kicked out. It's better to hit them with a crippling amount that they can pay than to try to get what is actually owed but they end up paying nothing.
- tjpaudio 8y agoPretty sure this guy got my mother. I remember her describing exactly this trying to get her computer fixed. I had to explain to her it was a scam, help her replace all her credit cards and wipe her machine to factory since computer was compromised with remote access. It was a huge headache, this guy deserves jail.
- circa 8y agoSlightly off topic, but the "Reply All" podcast did a great episode on the foreign IT phone support scams about a year ago. https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/long-distance#episode-player https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/long-distance#episode-...
- ryandrake 8y agoThis guy should get the max punishment, but come on—it’s 2018! Who on earth is still falling for this crap? If you haven’t yet had “the talk” with your parents and/or grandparents, consider taking a half hour today and doing it. End user education is the only way to stop these obvious (to us) scams.
- dingdongding 8y agoYou're on hacker news so it is easier for you to say that who falls for this crap. Ground reality is completely different. Lot of young and mature people can fall for this crap. It's like saying who falls for fake news these days. It is gonna be a learning curve for normal people to understand nuances of these scams.
- JohnClark1337 8y agoGuess he'll be moving on to IRS scamming
- desireco42 8y agoAmerican prisons are scary places and I believe we lock people too easily. In this case however, this guy should serve the time and not get that easily off the hook.
- srishtigupta 8y agoOur measurement study on understanding the threat landscape of Tech Support Scam across multiple Online Social Networks (http://precog.iiitd.edu.in/pubs/shadow-sunshine-characterizing-websci18.pdf http://precog.iiitd.edu.in/pubs/shadow-sunshine-characterizi...)