6 ms·
> LCX and Lead ID were responsible for many of these fake comments, letters, and petition signatures. Across four advocacy campaigns in 2017 and 2018, LCX fabri
by Jupe 3y ago
> LCX and Lead ID were responsible for many of these fake comments, letters, and petition signatures. Across four advocacy campaigns in 2017 and 2018, LCX fabricated consumer responses used in approximately 900,000 public comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Similarly, in advocacy campaigns between 2017 and 2019, Lead ID fabricated more than half a million consumer responses. These campaigns targeted a variety of government agencies and officials at the federal and state levels.
Wow. Just wow. How can anyone at these companies be avoiding jail time?
And who hired them? Is there no money trail?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y agoI’m curious if prosecutors could try someone for 900k counts of a crime.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Fezzik 3y agoI don’t believe there’s a limit to the number of charges in an indictment… I know I have seen 100+ count charging instruments (for credit card fraud).
- tootie 3y agoI found this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/internet-providers-fake-comments-net-neutrality-new-york.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/internet-provi... Says a bunch of companies received millions in fines a few years ago and it names AT&T, Charter, Comcast and some lobbying group.
- HlessClaudesman 3y agoImagine if your water pipe decided to only serve you water occasionally, and when it did threw some random bull-crap in there? Who would vote for that system?
- MathMonkeyMan 3y agoImagine if your television only showed you ads and propaganda.
- firsttimebigboy 3y agoI don't have to imagine that
- oefnak 3y agoI assume that's what he meant.
- bluSCALE4 3y agoIt works so well too. Was on a r/visible, a Verizon subsidiary and they claim unlimited but it's really 1TB or less otherwise they threaten you. The thing is there are laws in place that bar carriers from doing this and the guy pointing this out is downvoted to hell because everyone there are all corporate defenders. Blow my mind that the phone consumer market are so gullible. When Comcast was pulling this shit, people were pissed. Nowadays people are falling in line.
- Sai_ 3y ago> defenders I read your comment as “…corporate defrauders…” and it made just as much sense in context.
- tootie 3y agoIn reality we haven't seen the worst case at all. In fact, we have companies like cloudflare arguing that they are obligated as an infrastructure provider to serve neonazi websites.
- nine_k 3y agoThis is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is, or not being heard (e.g. because everyone will assume a petition without hard proofs of identity fake). Yes, this is disenfranchising. But not being heard while some company pretends to speak for you is even more disenfranchising.
- lubujackson 3y agoWe don't need an ironclad identity system, we need stronger laws making individuals behind companies like this personally and criminally liable with harsh penalties. That is how scenarios like this can be avoided: destroy the cost/benefit ratio of pursuing it. Yes, fraud can still happen. But if you fake 100,000 comments eventually you will be discovered and held responsible. What this would reduce is systemic fraud at scale.
- lockhouse 3y agoCan you even function in modern society without a government issued photo ID? It’s required to drive, collect benefits, fly, purchase alcohol, purchase tobacco, or even purchase Sudafed. I just can’t fathom that there are any actual petitioners or voters that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise.
- kevviiinn 3y agoI guess the homeless and poor don't matter
- lockhouse 3y agoIs there a state where you can sign up for public assistance without proving your identity with government issued ID? I'm not aware of any. I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram of people without access to government issued ID and legal, eligible voters is two distinct circles.
- kevviiinn 3y ago
- eega 3y agoNot only no jail, but the fine is laughable as well …
- lmeyerov 3y agoYeah this, setting the price to $100k to guide core laws around $B businesses in a way to override public feedback is cheap. Sounds like it is now officially open season.
- frankharv 3y agoWhy is it that a STATE AG is pressing for money while US AG does nothing? STATE AG used Federal IG investigation to extract money from these crooks. Why didn't FBI raid these companies? They raided a ex-Presidents private residence for papers. Identity Theft x 1 Million counts
- grayhatter 3y ago> Why didn't FBI raid these companies? > They raided a ex-Presidents private residence for papers. Because that's not really how the FBI works. Recovering classified material from someone not entitled to be in possession of it is totally different. You probably want to read more, you seem to be speaking only at a very surface level, probably more than just Facebook too. That said, while your rational for why they should be raided by the FBI is insane. I'm with you on the underlying idea. It seems crazy to me too that no federal agency is seeking charges under 18 USC 1001. How'd they avoid that?
- morsch 3y agoSo we know they manipulated the net neutrality debate, but what are the EPA and the BOEM processes that they attacked?
- netzego 3y agoThat bit friendly fraud must stay profitable. Otherwise the enemy would do it for half the price! And besides, they just protected their jobs. That reasonable and everybody would have done this!!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- eternalban 3y ago> And who hired them? Is there no money trail? This is the most galling aspect of that article - crickets on who paid them to do the deed. The companies named are obviously front company for hire. The clients are telecomms that require FCC licenses to operate. They should get their licenses revoked.
- skizm 3y agoThey hire ad / "lead" companies to collect emails of people who have clicked on an ad, or entered their email saying they support A, B, or C and give them permission to post a comment on their behalf. So in theory each comment has someone who gave the company permission to post a comment for them. BUT if you tell an ad company "hey here is $2 million, get us X number of emails" they're going to produce X emails even if there are not X amount of people. The actual fake profiles come from "publisher" websites that generate fake clicks or leads. Usually the ad or lead companies will have some sort of system to detect fake / spam responses... but $2 million is a decent incentive to maybe loosen their standards a bit.
- Bran_son 3y ago> emails of people who have clicked on an ad, or entered their email saying they support A, B, or C and give them permission to post a comment on their behalf Even supposing they did it this way, and people gave their informed consent (fat chance, but for the sake of the hypothetical), that's still fraud. Unless every single comment had a "written and submitted on behalf of X by firm Y" disclaimer, it's still misrepresenting the comments as coming directly from individuals. Regardless of what fine print unwary consumers agreed to, the agencies being deceived didn't agree to any of it.