Hacker News Reader

Comment by mseebach | Hacker News Reader

> You know what I like about this guy? that he did not prey on the weak. He preyed on those bigger and stronger than him.

Oh please with the righteous Robin Hood ethics. First, they were not stronger than him, that how he got in. Second, just because you're a bank, it doesn't mean having hundreds of thousands stolen doesn't impact anyone, or is somehow just, for that matter. Third, what do you call framing the Brink-guy for smoke-screen? Fourth, or withdrawing from thousands of pirated credit- and debit cards? Fifth, or stealing a national treasure from the people of Austria, only to stick it in a cellar, to be lost?

Even though he didn't exploit personal weaknesses in the same way a drug-dealer does, he did indeed inflict harm on actual people.

View on HN

It's an interesting dilemma.

One one side what he does is obviously wrong. On the other side what fantastic skills.

With regards to the people of Austria I am pretty sure that the star wasn't made without exploiting other people.

Things like these are not so black and white.

That story is a film worthy.

Fantastic skills? He kept documentation of his false identities and jobs. He filmed his heists. He carelessly used names on the phone. He was sloppy, and he paid for it.

It was actually really surprising how inept he was at that side of it, and the ease with which he'd incriminate himself and everyone else via cell phones and email.

It just seemed like a really weird contrast, smart enough to plan and execute flawless robberies and escapes repeatedly, yet so stupid in that aspect. If he watched any crime serials or movies he'd probably have been unstoppable.

Don't you think that he wanted to get caught eventually?

I think this was the safest way out of criminal lifestyle that could probably lead him to premature death.

It worked out great for him. Just selling movie rights would earn him loads of cash. Not to mention being most renown bank security consultant in the world.

Not really. Your skills and what you apply said skills to don't overlap.

What's a dilemma is that we only hear about these people when they apply their skills to evil. If he'd done a career in bank security, it's very likely we'd never have heard a word about what he did.

> I am pretty sure that the star wasn't made without exploiting other people

Sure, that's why it belongs to, and should belong to, the austrian people.

> That story is a film worthy.

Catch me if You Can II: The Austrian Job :)

What's a dilemma is that we only hear about these people when they apply their skills to evil.

It's a dilemma in the same sense that rain on your wedding day is ironic. You've just written Ms. Morissette's comeback single.

I'm sorry, it's a shame then :)

The dilemma is that on one side I am fascinated by a guy like that on the other what he is doing is obviously wrong from at a legal point of view.

He is not just a criminal who do what he do because he have no choice. He could have been doing "good" and still be highly successful.

It's not just the skills it's the guts to do what he do. To live a life that is almost crazier than any story you can think off.

In some ways he is an artist.

With regards to the Austrian people you are missing the point. That star is not just made through hard work from the Austrian people. I am pretty sure that diamond didn't come from Austria although I could be wrong of course.

No harm of any degree should purposefully be inflicted on anyone.

Interesting, that you would attribute "righteous Robin Hood ethics" to my post. Not so. Read what I wrote.

They were stronger than him in the sense that they had more resources than he did. That they failed to utilize those in an efficient manner is another matter altogether.

Nor did I say that stealing from a bank is just, or that it did not impact anyone.

Framing the brinks guy? Was the man charged or convicted? No. Therefore, no frame.

Withdrawing from thousands of cards, thereby circumventing the security of financial institutions (who have billions available to them) qualifies as taking on stronger forces.

Stealing that jewel is another instance of that.

Nor did I say that he inflicted no harm on anyone.

Please, quote me on what I wrote, not what you fantasized and imagined I wrote.

How ridiculous, one states something, and here comes someone with deficient reading skills and whips up a slew of crap that has no bearing on what I stated.

Once again, go ahead, quote me on what I wrote. If I wanted to express the things you claim I did, I could have and can do so quite explicitly and clearly.

"Withdrawing from thousands of cards, thereby circumventing the security of financial institutions (who have billions available to them) qualifies as taking on stronger forces."

No. He stole money from people. Thousands of them. Actual people's actual cards. If someone did this with your card, I doubt you would say they stole from your bank.

> How ridiculous, one states something, and here comes someone with deficient reading skills and whips up a slew of crap that has no bearing on what I stated.

So, I'm not going to waste any time getting into an argument with someone with deficient argumentation skills, except to clarify one bit:

> Framing the brinks guy? Was the man charged or convicted? No. Therefore, no frame.

So the police bust into his home, hauled him into custody, scaring the crap out of his wife and children, and searched everything. He was likely suspended from work, pending his clearing. And even after being cleared, there's no guarantee that the suspicion disappeared before the Dan guy was convicted. Not a frame? BS, it's the definition of a frame.

> So, I'm not going to waste any time getting into an argument with someone with deficient argumentation skills

Right, coming from someone whose debating skills amount to putting words into another person's mouth (or writing)

Now, just where did you read about "the police bust into his home, hauled him into custody, scaring the crap out of his wife and children, and searched everything. He was likely suspended from work, pending his clearing. And even after being cleared, there's no guarantee that the suspicion disappeared before the Dan guy was convicted."?

Seriously, where did you get that?

You seem to fabricate more and more fantasy as you go along . . .

> Right, coming from someone whose debating skills amount to putting words into another person's mouth (or writing)

I called it as I read it. You pointed it out as something commendable that he preyed on the strong rather than the weak. I responded that preying is never commendable, and that he prayed on plenty of weak people. So far you've done nothing to explain your position to me, except to throw profanities.

> Now, just where did you read about "the police bust into his home .." Seriously, where did you get that?

I didn't, but extrapolated it from the the way Dan was apprehended (by a SWAT team one time, though at no point is it mentioned that anyone considered him even remotely dangerous). I should have added "it's likely that ..". Fantasy? Perhaps - but what do you think happens to a security-systems-installer who's named as the perpetrator behind a multi-$100.000 hoist?

I used profanity?

What?

Serious question: are you drinking right now?

> I used profanity? What?

You called my post "a slew of crap". If that doesn't qualify as profanity, you still did nothing to rectify my apparent misrepresentation of your original post.

> Serious question: are you drinking right now?

No.

crap is a slang word, not profanity. There is a difference.

My initial post is clear, and I elaborated upon it once already. If you can't understand it, that is your problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com