<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;hoax&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Nov 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Nothing To Fear, Maybe</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/10471511637/turns-out-the-evil-halloween-candy-poisoners-was-just-fud-that-got-you-to-buy-prepackaged-candy.shtml">urban legend</a> about poisoned candy on Halloween has pushed parents away from handing out home-made treats -- even though the realistic odds of finding dangerous treats is vanishingly small. Still, there are some crazy people out there, so maybe it's better safe than sorry. Just know that getting hit by a car while crossing the street is a far more frequent occurrence on Halloween....

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.udel.edu/soc/faculty/best/site/halloween.html" href="http://bit.ly/T8eAQY">Joel Best has been investigating Halloween Sadism reports since 1985, and while he can't prove a negative (ie. that no kids have ever been sadistically poisoned by Halloween candy), the evidence for any widespread Halloween threat to children is pretty thin.</a> The last update for this study was done in 2010, and 1982 was a particularly bad year for poisoned candy scares. But since the mid-80s, there haven't been more than 2 reported incidents per Halloween -- and so far, follow-up investigations have only found evidence of hoaxes. [<a href="http://www.udel.edu/soc/faculty/best/site/halloween.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://murderpedia.org/male.O/o1/obryan-ronald-clark.htm" href="http://bit.ly/VEef8G">Timothy O'Bryan was actually killed by a cyanide-laced pixie stick in 1974.</a> However, the murderer was the boy's own father who had taken out a $60,000 life insurance policy for his son and was later convicted and executed for killing him. [<a href="http://murderpedia.org/male.O/o1/obryan-ronald-clark.htm">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/razor-in-halloween-candy_n_1072804.html" href="http://huff.to/QV2TNG">Last year, there was at least one report of a razor found in a Reese's peanut butter cup by a father in New Mexico.</a> Chocolate and peanut butter are two great tastes that taste great together, but razors are not part of that recipe. [<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/razor-in-halloween-candy_n_1072804.html">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090508/2313164812</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:42:48 PST</pubDate>
<title>US Paid Millions For Bogus (Patented) Intelligence Software; Now Trying To Cover It Up Claiming 'National Security'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/18583513178/us-paid-millions-bogus-patented-intelligence-software-now-trying-to-cover-it-up-claiming-national-security.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/18583513178/us-paid-millions-bogus-patented-intelligence-software-now-trying-to-cover-it-up-claiming-national-security.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are so many ridiculous aspects to a NY Times story from this weekend about a nearly decade-long relationship between the US government <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20data.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">and what appears to be a con man who conned them out of tens of millions of dollars</a> that it's hard to know where to start, so let's break it down in sections:
<br><br>
<b>Conned</b>
<br>
First off, the crux of the story is that a guy named Dennis Montgomery seems to have concocted an elaborate con on the US government that worked for years.  He created some software, supposedly originally designed to help colorize movies, but it was later pitched for its capability to (I'm not joking) read coded messages in the "crawl bar" on Al Jazeera which (it was claimed) provided clues to planned terrorist attacks.  Various US government agencies basically kept handing over millions and millions of dollars to Mr. Montgomery and partners.  Some of those former partners now admit that Montgomery's technology was a hoax, and his presentations included doctored videos and test results.
<br><br>
<b>Known, but still purchasing</b>
<br>
Next up, there's the news that the CIA figured all of this out way back in 2003 and knew the software was useless, but the government was still paying millions of dollars in new contracts for it and using the software at least until 2009, when it was supposedly used to "detect" Somali terrorist plans during Obama's inauguration -- terrorist plans that later turned out not to exist at all.
<br><br>
And, it wasn't just the CIA that had figured this out.  The NY Times report notes that the media -- including reports from both Bloomberg and (of all places) <i>Playboy</i> -- had previously called out "hints of fraud by Mr. Montgomery."  Separately, a Pentagon report notes that the government had paid an astounding <i>$285 billion in just three years</i> to contractors accused of fraud or wrongdoing.
<br><br>
Feeling safer?
<br><br>
<b>Relied on the info to make big decisions</b>
<br>
What's really scary is how much the government seemed to rely on bogus info from this system that the CIA knew didn't work.  In one case, it actually caused an international incident:
<blockquote><i>
In December 2003, Mr. Montgomery reported alarming news: hidden in the crawl bars broadcast by Al Jazeera, someone had planted information about specific American-bound flights from Britain, France and Mexico that were hijacking targets.
<br><br>
C.I.A. officials rushed the information to Mr. Bush, who ordered those flights to be turned around or grounded before they could enter American airspace.
<br><br>
"The intelligence people were telling us this was real and credible, and we had to do something to act on it," recalled Asa Hutchinson, who oversaw federal aviation safety at the time. Senior administration officials even talked about shooting down planes identified as targets because they feared that supposed hijackers would use the planes to attack the United States, according to a former senior intelligence official who was at a meeting where the idea was discussed. The official later called the idea of firing on the planes "crazy."
</i></blockquote>
The French then conducted a study, and also concluded that the technology Mr. Montgomery used was a total hoax, and told the Bush administration, leading them to claim "we got played," though it didn't stop the federal government from continuing to buy the technology for at least another five years.
<br><br>
Oh, also there were no <i>actual</i> repercussions to this massive international incident.  The guy at the CIA who had been one of the main supporters of the technology, Donald Kerr, got <i>promoted</i> after this.  Another CIA official noted that not only was no one blamed for this massive misstep, but "they acted like it never happened."
<br><br>
<b>FBI's improper search</b>
<br>
In 2006, the FBI began investigating things, after Mr. Montgomery and his then business partner had a dispute and split up.  There were claims that Montgomery had illegally copied data from the company when he left, and it was during this investigation that employees apparently told the FBI that "Montgomery had manipulated tests in demonstrations with military officials to make it appear that his video recognition software had worked."  So, once again, the government discovered the hoax... but, the whole investigation was dropped after a court determined that the FBI screwed up by conducting "an improper search" of Montgomery's home.  So the technology lived on, and was still being purchased and used by government agencies.
<br><br>
<b>Patenting software that doesn't work</b>
<br>
Oh yeah, did we mention that Montgomery "patented" this apparent hoax of a technology?  The NY Times mentions this in passing.  In doing a quick search, I've <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=eI54AAAAEBAJ&dq=Etreppid+Technologies,+LLC">turned</a> up <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Jhd4AAAAEBAJ&dq=dennis+montgomery">a bunch</a> of <A href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=IFgVAAAAEBAJ&dq=dennis+montgomery">different</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=kEF9AAAAEBAJ&dq=dennis+montgomery">patents</a> from <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=r0l4AAAAEBAJ&dq=Etreppid+Technologies,+LLC">Montgomery</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=aQzLAAAAEBAJ&dq=Etreppid+Technologies,+LLC">others</a> who worked with him.
<br><br>
Nice to see that you can patent fraudulent systems, huh?
<br><br>
<b>Cover up</b>
<br>
Oh yeah, the biggest point in all of this is that the Federal government is working over time to cover this entire story up.  It still hasn't admitted to any of this.  It hasn't taken Montgomery to court at all (he's facing other legal problems related to passing bad checks at casinos).  However, the Justice Department is apparently working overtime to keep this story totally secret:
<blockquote><i>
The Justice Department, which in the last few months has gotten protective orders from two federal judges keeping details of the technology out of court, says it is guarding state secrets that would threaten national security if disclosed. But others involved in the case say that what the government is trying to avoid is public embarrassment over evidence that Mr. Montgomery bamboozled federal officials.
</i></blockquote>
Once again, it appears the government is using secrecy and totally bogus claims of "national security" to hide embarrassing details, rather than for any legitimate reason.  This is an unfortunate result of giving the government too much power to declare things as "secret" with little to no oversight.  It clearly will abuse that power to hide mistakes, rather than admit them and maybe even learn from them.  Instead, we allow a con artist to cost tax payers tens of millions of dollars, and then the government tries to brush it all under the rug.
<br><br>
And, yes, all of this really should make you wonder about all of those claims from politicians supporting the renewals on the Patriot Act and other such legislation, who claim that the government has protected us from multiple terrorist attack attempts.  While I'm sure there have been some attempts, it does make you wonder how many such "thwarted" attempts included the ones that were apparently totally made up by Montgomery.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/18583513178/us-paid-millions-bogus-patented-intelligence-software-now-trying-to-cover-it-up-claiming-national-security.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/18583513178/us-paid-millions-bogus-patented-intelligence-software-now-trying-to-cover-it-up-claiming-national-security.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/18583513178/us-paid-millions-bogus-patented-intelligence-software-now-trying-to-cover-it-up-claiming-national-security.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>government-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110220/18583513178</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:52:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Project Vigilant A Hoax?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/12401610481.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/12401610481.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We just wrote about the new publicity campaign from a group called <i>Project Vigilant</i>, linking to three separate articles discussing how it was a private organization monitoring internet traffic and providing it to the US government.  The whole thing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100802/18083510458.shtml">seemed dubious</a> on a legal basis, and now plenty of people are questioning whether or not the whole thing is real or some sort of hoax or publicity stunt.  Julian Sanchez points out that the "parent company" behind the Project, one "BBHC Global" looks <a href="http://www.bbhc-global.com/" target="_blank">painfully amateurish</a> (and right now appears down).  Then, a bunch of security experts are <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180047/Secretive_group_seeks_recruits_at_Defcon_finds_skepticism" target="_blank">skeptical of the whole concept</a>, noting that if it's been around for 14 years, how come no one's heard of it, and it hasn't participated in any serious security efforts.  Others point out that it's almost certainly <a href="http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2010/08/project-vigilant-is-publicity-stunt.html" target="_blank">a publicity stunt of some kind</a>, pointing out that the website was registered just last year. The suggestion there is it's an attempt to jumpstart a new security company.  I'm guessing it's more of a hoax to try to show how gullible some people are.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/12401610481.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/12401610481.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/12401610481.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>looking-questionable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100803/12401610481</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:09:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Day After Veteran's Day Is April Fool's Day 2.0</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2133432817.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2133432817.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When The Daily Show ran with its "<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=209420&#038;title=sarah-palin-is-so-dumb...">Palin is so dumb</a>" jokes, I was actually wondering where the jokes ended and the truth began (while laughing at the same time).  And it seems I'm still left somewhat puzzled -- due to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all">reports that MSNBC fell for a hoax</a> in which Martin Eisenstadt claims to be the source for the rumor that Sarah Palin didn't know if Africa was a country or a continent.  

<blockquote>
... the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months.
</blockquote>

But the reported hoax is about how Eisenstadt isn't a real person and that his <a href="http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/">blog</a> and job at the "<a href="http://www.hardinginstitute.org/">Harding Institute</a>" are entirely made up.  That doesn't quite address whether or not Fox News (which broke the Africa story) used Eisenstadt as a source, though....  And it's actually very easy to mis-read the report on the hoax as saying that the whole Africa anecdote is untrue because the source was fake.  However, no one knows who the real source is for Fox's story (except for Fox News, of course). So it's very possible that Fox didn't use Eisenstadt as a source, and with all the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/12/new-york-times-spoof">hoaxes</a> going around recently, it's also possible that there's a very elaborate string of hoaxes going on.  In fact, the joke continues as Eisenstadt states on his blog: "I deny any and all accusations that I somehow don't exist." 
<br /><br />
I'm willing to grant that Palin knows Africa is a continent, but Fox News isn't running an apology for its own reporting (as far as I can tell) -- so where does this joke really end?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2133432817.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2133432817.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/2133432817.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fake-fake-news</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081112/2133432817</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:53:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Prosecutors Go Overboard In Indicting Woman Involved In MySpace Hoax That Resulted In Suicide</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1832441128.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1832441128.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Before we get into the details, I think everyone can agree that the story of Megan Meier is quite tragic.  She was the 13-year-old girl who was "friended" on MySpace by a boy with whom she became close online.  After a certain amount of time, the boy turned on her, trying to end the friendship and saying that "the world would be better off without her."  After receiving this message, Megan committed suicide.  Later, it was discovered that the boy in question never existed -- and was part of a hoax perpetrated by some of Megan's friends/neighbors, including the mother of one of Megan's former friends.  The story is, most definitely, sad and tragic -- and it's no surprise that there are people out for vengeance, with the main target being Lori Drew, the adult who participated in some manner in the hoax.  However, as we said back when state prosecutors in Missouri couldn't find any law to prosecute, being a total jerk online <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/180607.shtml">is not</a> a crime.  As stupid as the prank was, it wasn't designed to make the girl commit suicide.
<br /><br />
But, of course, when you have a high profile case that includes a 13-year-old girl committing suicide after being misled, people are still going to push for <i>something</i> to be done (or they end up doing something themselves).  So with state prosecutors failing to find anything, federal prosecutors stepped in, and have now <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/15/internet.suicide.ap/index.html?eref=rss_tech" target="_new">indicted Lori Drew on a number of different charges</a>, relating to "conspiracy and fraudulently gaining access to someone else's computer."  This seems like a serious stretch.  It's an effort to twist existing laws just to punish this particular woman because people are upset by the outcome.  Legal scholars are <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/myspace-indictm.html">already quite worried about how the indictments appear to twist the law</a> in potentially unconstitutional ways.
<br /><br />
Why?  Well, some of the charges are based on computer anti-fraud laws that prevent "unauthorized access."  And, here's where the prosecutors got creative: they claim that in not providing truthful info to MySpace when registering (i.e., in breaking the terms of service), effectively Lori Drew "hacked" into MySpace's computers in an unauthorized manner.  Now, no matter what you think of what Lori Drew did (or what happened as a result), this would basically make anyone who fails to follow the exact terms of service of an online service a potential felony hacker.  That is a problem.  I recognize the desire to punish someone for what happened to Megan -- but twisting the law this way will have very dangerous consequences.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1832441128.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1832441128.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1832441128.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>out-for-vengeance</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080515/1832441128</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Hoax Analyst Showing Up On Earnings Calls</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080217/185138269.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080217/185138269.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I don't follow the process behind earnings conference calls too closely, but apparently there's an element of trust involved.  People dial in, tell a moderator who they are, and a bunch of analysts from the most well-known firms are allowed to ask questions.  That system is ripe for gaming, and apparently, some unknown guy has been doing exactly that over the past few months, <a href="http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&#038;etMailToID=2071928884">calling into earnings calls and getting to ask questions by pretending to be someone else</a>.  No one seems entirely sure what game the guy is playing -- but it doesn't appear to be an attempt to hoax the overall system or be a practical joker -- as his questions aren't amusing.  He just brings up odd questions about operations: supply chain initiatives, lean manufacturing, six sigma, etc.  That has some believing that he's really working for some consulting firm, either trying to dig up dirt on other company's operations, or even trying to kick up more interest in supply chain work.  Either way, it's fairly amazing to find out how the conference call system works and how easy it is to game.  It's surprising that this hasn't been done more frequently, honestly.  In response, some firms are now handing out special codes to analysts to let them ask questions in future conference calls, rather than just relying on who people say they are -- though, of course, that brings up a different issue: what's wrong with letting people other than your preferred analysts ask questions?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080217/185138269.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080217/185138269.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080217/185138269.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>six-sigma-indeed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080217/185138269</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:35:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Boston Police Still Calling Random Light-Up Devices 'Hoax' Bombs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/163030.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/163030.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, a Cartoon Network marketing promotion became a huge story in the city of Boston when police assumed that some promotional light-up boxes were actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070131/144709.shtml">bombs</a>.  Rather than admit that they made a mistake and overreacted, the authorities in Boston continued to accuse the folks behind the promotion of perpetrating a "hoax" on the city.  Of course, a hoax is where you try and trick people.  None of the folks involved in the promotion were trying to trick anyone into believing the promotional devices were bombs.  They were simply promotional.  However, Boston still seems to be focused on calling any electronics device they don't understand a hoax device.  The latest situation involves <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/21/mit-student-arrested.html">an MIT student wearing a sweatshirt</a> that included a homemade electrical component that would light up LEDs on the sweatshirt.  It's certainly understandable that security would want to check out the device and understand it.  It's even somewhat understandable that they would be quite concerned about a homemade electrical device found in a sweatshirt.  Walking into an airport with such a device is asking for trouble.  However, to then accuse her of possessing a "hoax device," seems a bit absurd.  This wasn't a "hoax" device at all.  She wasn't trying to trick anyone.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/163030.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/163030.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/163030.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-not-a-hoax</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070921/163030</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>