3 ms·

> no assets to cash out (legal defense cleaned me out completely) [...] being charged (though, never indicted), and ultimately pleading guilty to a single count

> no assets to cash out (legal defense cleaned me out completely) [...] being charged (though, never indicted), and ultimately pleading guilty to a single count of computer intrusion [...] no other charges were pursued Your legal defense cost you everything, and you pled out...over a single charge related to a curl request? > [...] I’ve always disclosed that I have baggage and can’t pass a background check. Even with this, I’ve had offers put on the table, only for them to be terminated or rescinded at some point. It's not because I'm not telling the whole truth: when people ask, I tell; if they just say "oh what'd you do" and I say "well, according to the government, this, but this is the real story" it's found to be fascinating, sad, and annoying at the same time. I call shenanigans. Investigating candidates like you is what I do for a living. Your offer rate is impressive, and yet they are constantly being rescinded. They're clearly discovering something about you during the background check that is worse than you're letting on, a process you are overly-unnerved by despite the pettiness of the conviction. Either this crime isn't as innocuous as you claim or you have an unfavorable history that extends beyond it. We've hired convicted sex offenders who were transparent and brought less drama to the table, so one wonders why you're having so much trouble with something so petty. You also come across as someone acting out the textbook definition of autistic, and your narrative raises every single red flag of a GoFundMe grift. I don't believe a word of your story, and caution anybody considering getting involved to perform thorough due diligence.

pomegranite 3y ago
If you do some digging you'll find multiple different computer and finance-related crimes spanning over a decade and the one from a couple years ago was a sustained, obviously illegal operation. Definitely not changing a single curl request. Not hard to see why the offers are being rescinded and I don't think it's in his best interest to downplay it here, necessarily, to a bunch of strangers trying to help. I wonder if he's downplaying it to potential employers and then background searches + googling reveals the truth?
- diggerdugger 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dangitdangitda 3y ago
    [dead]
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Almost none of that matches up to what OP says, but without outing him it's hard to know if we're even talking about the same person. I'm looking for the aforementioned high-profile "press releases by the justice department," because this would be the first time I've ever heard of the state or feds go to the trouble of prosecuting just one single charge against someone, without filing any others, convicting someone, and the sentence being "special assignments" instead of fines, prison, restitution and/or probation. This one sounds like Reddit "and then everyone clapped" nonsense. Look at what Swartz faced over downloading some bullshit-- they were going to fuck him so brutally, he killed himself. > I wonder if he's downplaying it to potential employers and then background searches + googling reveals the truth? That's usually what I find, hence my speculation. The pretext is always the same-- I have baggage, won't pass a background check, but here's what really happened. It's usually a semi-accurate account of their latest conviction and framed as though this is their biggest obstacle in life. Every now and then some well-meaning fool (or cheapskate) mistakes feigned honesty for integrity and skips the background check to feel good about themselves helping some poor soul overcome a hurdle, and never discovers the rest of the story.
  - dangitdangitda 3y ago
    [dead]
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    If the dox are accurate, I found the press release. We're looking at: > In addition to the prison sentence, [name], [age], of [location], was sentenced to [y] years of supervised release and ordered to pay [r] in restitution and [f] in forfeiture. lol, you wordsmith. "Wasn't incarcerated" indeed. You got both probation and restitution after all. This sentence was handed to him for a yearslong operation involving reselling of access to stolen credentials (running a platform that injected them into curl requests and submitted them to the destination on behalf of his own clients, I assume), and an extortion attempt (a shakedown over the vulnerability that facilitated this?), with the stated impact of: > One of the [victims] sustained losses of approximately $[m] million I recognize that claimants always exaggerate those numbers. So you made lot of money doing something illegal and have been ordered to pay it back. You can't escape garnishment for this, not even through bankruptcy, and you will be making things right over time. The crime itself, big fucking deal. You didn't kill anybody through reckless negligence. We all do dumb shit in our youth, and my own company wastes way more than that YoY on legit-but-broken SaaS products. So here's some constructive criticism: you are clearly a competent developer. Stop with the lies-by-omission and reframing of the situation and own what you did. Your lying about it is earning you those rejections, because there's only one way to respond to deception of this magnitude. Even if you slip past screening, anyone in Payroll who sees a multimillion-dollar garnishment order against you (or anyone who Googles your goddamn name) may ask questions, so you'll always be on borrowed time. Get ahead of the narrative by owning it. "Yes, I did this, it was a dumb idea when I was a stupid kid who didn't know any better, but I've learned my lesson." The "trust-me-I'm-autistic" stuff is deplorable-- cut that shit out.

pomegranite 3y ago

If you do some digging you'll find multiple different computer and finance-related crimes spanning over a decade and the one from a couple years ago was a sustained, obviously illegal operation. Definitely not changing a single curl request. Not hard to see why the offers are being rescinded and I don't think it's in his best interest to downplay it here, necessarily, to a bunch of strangers trying to help. I wonder if he's downplaying it to potential employers and then background searches + googling reveals the truth?

diggerdugger 3y ago
[flagged]
- dangitdangitda 3y ago
  [dead]
jstarfish 3y ago
Almost none of that matches up to what OP says, but without outing him it's hard to know if we're even talking about the same person. I'm looking for the aforementioned high-profile "press releases by the justice department," because this would be the first time I've ever heard of the state or feds go to the trouble of prosecuting just one single charge against someone, without filing any others, convicting someone, and the sentence being "special assignments" instead of fines, prison, restitution and/or probation. This one sounds like Reddit "and then everyone clapped" nonsense. Look at what Swartz faced over downloading some bullshit-- they were going to fuck him so brutally, he killed himself. > I wonder if he's downplaying it to potential employers and then background searches + googling reveals the truth? That's usually what I find, hence my speculation. The pretext is always the same-- I have baggage, won't pass a background check, but here's what really happened. It's usually a semi-accurate account of their latest conviction and framed as though this is their biggest obstacle in life. Every now and then some well-meaning fool (or cheapskate) mistakes feigned honesty for integrity and skips the background check to feel good about themselves helping some poor soul overcome a hurdle, and never discovers the rest of the story.
- dangitdangitda 3y ago
  [dead]
- jstarfish 3y ago
  If the dox are accurate, I found the press release. We're looking at: > In addition to the prison sentence, [name], [age], of [location], was sentenced to [y] years of supervised release and ordered to pay [r] in restitution and [f] in forfeiture. lol, you wordsmith. "Wasn't incarcerated" indeed. You got both probation and restitution after all. This sentence was handed to him for a yearslong operation involving reselling of access to stolen credentials (running a platform that injected them into curl requests and submitted them to the destination on behalf of his own clients, I assume), and an extortion attempt (a shakedown over the vulnerability that facilitated this?), with the stated impact of: > One of the [victims] sustained losses of approximately $[m] million I recognize that claimants always exaggerate those numbers. So you made lot of money doing something illegal and have been ordered to pay it back. You can't escape garnishment for this, not even through bankruptcy, and you will be making things right over time. The crime itself, big fucking deal. You didn't kill anybody through reckless negligence. We all do dumb shit in our youth, and my own company wastes way more than that YoY on legit-but-broken SaaS products. So here's some constructive criticism: you are clearly a competent developer. Stop with the lies-by-omission and reframing of the situation and own what you did. Your lying about it is earning you those rejections, because there's only one way to respond to deception of this magnitude. Even if you slip past screening, anyone in Payroll who sees a multimillion-dollar garnishment order against you (or anyone who Googles your goddamn name) may ask questions, so you'll always be on borrowed time. Get ahead of the narrative by owning it. "Yes, I did this, it was a dumb idea when I was a stupid kid who didn't know any better, but I've learned my lesson." The "trust-me-I'm-autistic" stuff is deplorable-- cut that shit out.