I get the concerns about conflict of interest, but I can get behind the CEO's point that their expertise in the space helps them to build better defenses.
A fraudster who by all accounts continued fraud by making up a life story filled with largely fictional details (including that he worked with the FBI)? Some people are like George Santos and exaggerate constantly in addition to constructing wholesale false stories about themselves.
It’s fascinating how easy it is to fall prey to a fraudster when they claim they’ve gone legit. You’re probably better off believing they’re still a fraudster.
That Wikipedia section makes it sound like his whole life story is just an elaborate work of fiction. I don't think that counts as fraud. It's more like santa claus and the deception fits in with his story. Is he doing any actual damage other than annoying the FBI?
Fraud /frôd/ noun. wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
I would say that lying about your life story to write a successful book & then get a movie made about that book by the world’s most preeminent directory would count as a wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. But that’s just me.
His whole Wikipedia page is a list of constant fraud and larceny. Some persecuted, probably most not. As for how much damage he’s causing these days I don’t know, but he clearly has in the past.
Some examples:
> in March 1965, Abagnale identified himself as a Scarsdale, New York, police officer and entered the apartment of a Mount Vernon, New York, resident claiming that he was investigating her teenaged daughter.
> After being released into the custody of his father to face the stolen-car charges, 17-year-old Abagnale decided to impersonate a pilot.
Couldn’t you make a similar argument about protection rackets? Their experience shaking down places for money helps them build better defenses against it, right?
You could, particularly since protection rackets actually do compete with each other. I wouldn't want to hire a criminal, but if someone did, they'd likely be effective.
I kind of agree, but there does need to be a baseline of trust, and that's rather difficult to give when they're operating both types of services at the same thing.
If it had been "I have worked on identity-selling services for 15 years, saw it wasn't a good thing, and now I'm trying to fix the problem" then okay, fair enough. This is something we can at least start with. but this doesn't seem to be that.
Good catch - I have noticed that Mozilla gets a lot of unjustified hate and criticism. Does Mozilla make mistakes? Yes. Does it do a lot of good? Yes. Does it deserve the abuse it gets online? Absolutely not.
I really believe it's because deep down, people love the big shiny brand Google Chrome, yet they know it's kinda fucked. So when they see things like this, they are able to justify it in their minds that they made the right decision. Confirmation Bias?
Not Mozilla; the silly "hmm isn't it actually good he ran it? whats the difference between that and black hat hackers?", except its slow drip one at a time one sentence comments that don't acknowledge his interlocutor at all.
