Here's a reason why it pays to do things that improve your critical thinking skills. Some people would argue that people who fall for computer scams have only themselves to blame. But we all have times of vulnerability - we're tired, busy, distracted, too trusting. Some people just do not have the cognitive skills to see through these things. There are lots of people out there - fetal alcohol syndrome folks - for example - who appear to function ok, but whose reasoning and judgment abilities are physically damaged.
So, I'm sure there will be some UAA email account holders that fall for this scam. Additionally, a lot of students are going to be pissed at the university for threatening to cut off their email in seven days. This is a total FRAUD.
Confirm Your University of Alaska Anchorage Web-Mail Account
Confirm Your University of Alaska Anchorage Web-Mail Account
Dear uaa.alaska.edu Web-Mail Account User, This message is from uaa.alaska.edu Web-Mail messaging center to all uaa.alaska.edu Web-Mail Account users. We are currently upgrading our data base and e-mail center. We are deleting all unused uaa.alaska.edu Web-Mail Accounts. You are required to verify and update your Web-Mail by confirming your Web-Mail identity. This will prevent your Web-Mail account from been closed during this exercise. In order to confirm you Web-Mail identity, you are to provide the following data;
Confirm Your Web-Mail Identity Below;
First Name:................... Last Name:................... Username : ............... Password : ................
Warning!!! Any uaa.alaska.edu Web-Mail Account user that refuses to verify and subsequently update his/her Web-Mail within Seven days of receiving this warning will lose his/her Web-Mail Account permanently.
Thank you for using uaa.alaska.edu! Warning Code:VX2G99AAJ
Thank you in anticipation for your co-operation.
Sincerely, Web-Mail Service University of Alaska Anchorage
Scam watch offers the following list of warning signs for phishing scams:
You receive an email claiming to be from a financial institution. This message may seem to be from your bank or from a bank that you don’t have an account with. The email contains a link which leads you to a website where you are prompted to enter your bank account details. This is scamming a university, not a financial institution.
The email does not address you by your proper name. There is no personal name at all.
The email might contain typing errors and grammatical mistakes. Web-Mail is usually written webmail. And they left the 'r' off 'you' here - "confirm you Web-Mail identity' but otherwise it's pretty good.
The email might claim that your details are needed for a security and maintenance upgrade, to ‘verify’ your account or to protect you from a fraud threat. The email might even state that you are due to receive a refund for a bill or other fee that it claims you have been charged. Here's where it gives itself away the most.
it claims the system is upgrading
it wants you to verify your account
instead of offering a refund, it threatens to shut down your account in seven days
Cynics Unlimited has an even more detailed list with another sample phishing email. They define phishing this way:
Phishing, in practical terms, is an attack used by hackers to gain access to private information such as credit card numbers, social insurance numbers and user passwords. Rather than breaking down a physical or technological barrier, phishing is a social engineering attack where targets are typically duped into providing this information directly to false versions of legitimate websites run by the hackers. Personal information can then be used for fraudulent purchases, resale to third parties and even identity theft. While there are no universal statistics on the number or nature of phishing scams, most security websites agree on the following:“ (then comes their list of things to look out for).
Last week I posted a copy of an email about a presentation in Chiang Mai entitled "Bio Fuel By Decree." Now I'm following that up with a little more substance. This is a report I got in an email from someone I met in Chiang Mai who works for EarthRights, a group that works to help Burmese Refugees in Thailand as well as Burmese still in Burma. I know a little about this organization and met various people who worked for them. They are dedicated and very competent. The people of Burma - including the last democratically elected President of Burma, Aung Sang Suu Kyi - have basically been imprisoned in their home by the SLORC for 20 years.
When people watched Schindler's List and other movies about the Holocaust, many asked, "How could people let this happen?" Well, variations of the Holocaust are happening now in various parts of the world, including Burma.
I'm posting here the EarthRights report. This report was done by people who have been working on these issues in and out of Burma for many years now. It is well documented. Certainly it does not tell everything because access to information in Burma and from Chevron is limited. But if you want to know what is happening in Burma, and how you support it when you buy Cheveron gasoline, read.
Below is most of the executive summary for those who don't have time to read the whole report. And for those thinking, "What can I do?" there is a recommendation highlighted in the executive summary below of recommendations "To the United States and the world community." [You can easily enlarge the pages of the document by clicking on the magnifying glass]
. . . EarthRights International (ERI) began documenting the human Residents and refugees from fourteen villages throughout the pipeline region, with whom ERI conducted over 70 formal interviews in the past five years as well as additional corroborative contacts, confirm that, for the people of Burma, “human energy” means human exploitation. Chevron and its consor- tium partners continue to rely on the Burmese army for pipeline security, and those forces continue to conscript thousands of villagers for forced labor, and to commit torture, rape, murder and other serious abuses in the course of
Part 1 describes the background of the Yadana Project, which involves a pipeline constructed to carry gas from offshore fields, across Burma, and into Thailand. In 2005, Chevron became part of the Yadana Project through its acquisition of Unocal, one of the original developers of the project. The Burmese military junta, a brutal regime routinely condemned by the United Nations and the world community for its widespread violations of basic human rights, is one of Chevron’s partners in the project through its military-run oil company, Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise.
Part 2 explains how the Yadana Proj- ect finances oppression. The project is the single largest source of income for the Burmese military; it was instru- mental in bailing out the junta when it faced a severe financial crisis in the late 1990s, and it has enabled the regime to dramatically increase its military spending and continue its rule without popular support.
Part 3 describes how Chevron was fully aware of the human rights abuses associated with the Yadana Project when it acquired Unocal in 2005, but nonethe- less chose to stay involved with the project and the Burmese military. The Yadana pipeline is guarded by the Bur- mese army, and the human rights abuses committed by the army in the course of providing security have been widely re- ported and documented; victims of the project sued Unocal in U.S. courts in the landmark case Doe v. Unocal.
Part 4 documents the continuing seri- ous human rights abuses by the pipeline security forces, including torture, rape, murder, and forced labor. Seventeen years after abuses connected to the Yadana Project were first documented, and years after they were highlighted in Doe v. Unocal, these human rights abuses continue in the pipeline corri- dor. Residents and refugees fleeing the pipeline region report that they are still forced to work for the pipeline security forces, who continue to commit acts of violence and terrorize the local popula- tion. This forced labor occurs thousands of times each year.
Part 5 debunks the oil companies’ claims that life in the pipeline region has improved. While some villages have re- alized minimal benefits from the compa- nies’ socio-economic program, the ben- efits do not reach the entire population affected by the pipeline security forces. Even for the chosen “pipeline villages” life remains so difficult and dangerous that families continue to flee for the rela- tive safety of the Thai-Burma border.
Part 6 discusses Chevron’s response to the 2007 demonstrations in Burma against the military regime and the re- gime’s crackdown. Despite its threefold status as the largest U.S. investor in Burma, the military’s direct business partner, and a partner in the project that constitutes the largest source of income for the regime, Chevron has failed to take any noticeable steps to condemn the violent repression or to pressure the military to respect human rights.
Finally, Part 7 describes Chevron’s ongoing potential legal liability for its role in the Yadana Project. Although the Doe v. Unocal litigation resulted in a settlement in 2005, that settlement only covers the claims of the victims involved in that suit; Chevron remains responsible for compensating the thou- sands of other residents of the pipeline region who have suffered abuse by pipe- line security forces.
Two appendices offer additional detail on oil and gas investment in Burma. Appendix A details the Shwe Project, a new gas project which could dwarf Yadana both in revenues for the military and in the abusive impact on the local population. The project is being devel- oped by South Korea’s Daewoo Interna- tional along with other companies from Korea, India and China. Appendix B briefly outlines China’s growing involve- ment in Burma, especially in the oil and gas sector. The Yadana Project remains a serious problem both for the people of Burma and for Chevron itself.
In light of this, EarthRights International makes the following recommendations: To the Burmese military regime: » The SPDC should cease human rights abuses against the people of the pipe- line region and throughout Burma, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, torture, excessive force, ar- bitrary detentions and imprisonment, forced labor, and forced relocation, and abide by its obligations under in- ternational law to respect fundamen- tal human rights and environmental protection.
» The regime should begin a full transi- tion to a system of government that allows for all of Burma’s peoples to fully participate in development deci- sions and freely determine their own futures.
To Chevron Corporation and its partners: » Chevron, Total, PTTEP, and all other oil and gas companies in Burma should suspend ongoing projects, cease de- velopment of new projects, and refuse to sell gas that enriches the Burmese regime until the SPDC fully respects internationally-guaranteed human rights and environmental protections and allows for a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above.
» The Yadana consortium and other com- panies should terminate any contracts that require them to provide monetary support to the military regime or that contemplate or require the use of the Burmese military as security forces.
» The companies should publicly con- demn past human rights abuses and use their influence with the SPDC, their business partner, to press for respect for human rights in the future, not only in the pipeline region itself but throughout the country.
» The companies should immediately stop relying on the Burmese military for any security or other services. If alternate security measures are taken, Chevron and its partners must provide adequate human rights train- ing and supervision in order to ensure respect for fundamental human rights (in accordance with international law and Chevron’s stated commitment to respect human rights).
» The companies should allow indepen- dent third-parties with experience documenting human rights abuses in Burma access to the pipeline region, without military supervision, in order to monitor the situation. Such moni- toring should include a mechanism to allow local residents to bring com- plaints to an independent body on a confidential basis.
» The companies should provide ad- equate compensation to all individu- als and communities harmed by the Yadana Project.
» The companies should demonstrate a serious commitment to their socio- economic program by expanding it to include all of the villages that have suffered adverse impacts from the Yadana Project, and by inviting groups experienced in documenting condi- tions in Burma to participate in de- veloping, implementing, and regularly evaluating the effectiveness of, their programs.
» The companies should support efforts that promote transparency through disclosure of payments to all govern- ment and state-owned or state-con- trolled partners.
To Chevron’s shareholders: » The shareholders of Chevron should support shareholder resolutions that promote policies and practices de- signed to improve the promotion and protection of human rights, the envi- ronment, rule of law, transparency, and the rights of indigenous peoples and affected communities to informed consent before projects begin and dur- ing operation phases.
» The shareholders of Chevron should communicate their concern over the situation in Burma, the reputational and legal risks it poses to their com- pany, and their wish for Chevron to follow the recommendations outlined above, to Chevron’s CEO and Board of Directors.
To the Royal Thai government: » Thailand should immediately cease purchasing gas from the SPDC and cease payments for such gas until the Burmese regime respects fundamental human rights and environmental pro- tections and begins a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above. Alternatively, Thailand should place all such pay- ments in escrow for the benefit of the people of Burma under a future gov- ernment.
» Thailand should immediately require that its state-owned company PTTEP suspend its ongoing natural gas explo- ration in the Bay of Bengal until the company conducts environmental and human rights impact assessments, and until appropriate preconditions for responsible investment in Burma are in place, such as a full transition to a participatory system of govern- ment as described above.
» Thailand should allow safe refuge to all Burmese refugees fleeing the abuses there, in accordance with in- ternational law.
» Thailand should provide legal mecha- nisms that allow Thai companies, such as PTTEP, to be held accountable for their responsibility and complicity in human rights abuses in Burma. Civil society organizations and citizens of Thailand should advocate for legisla- tion to create such mechanisms.
To the United States and the world community: » The United States and the world com- munity should make immediate efforts to cut the flow of money to the Bur- mese regime, including stopping the Yadana Project payments and other gas payments through targeted finan- cial sanctions.
» The United States and the world com- munity should condemn the abuses committed in Burma on projects ben- efiting multinational corporations, including Chevron, and pressure the companies to end these abuses and adopt the recommendations outlined above.
» The United States should continue to pressure the Burmese regime to respect human rights and the environ- ment and begin a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above; the world communi- ty, especially China, India, Korea, and Thailand, should join in these efforts. for complicity in abuses abroad, and enable access to justice for survivors of abuses abroad. Civil society organi- zations and citizens of these countries should advocate for legislation to cre- ate such mechanisms.
To Daewoo and its partners in the Shwe Project, and other gas compa- nies in Burma: [See Complete Document for more]
This is clear - Kott was an Alaska State Representative.
Second, the defendant obtained property which he knew he was not entitled to, with all of you agreeing on what that property was;
Prosecutor Goeke listed these in the closing:
$7,993 check for flooring
$1000 cash [payment for contribution to Murkowski]
political polls
lucrative job as a lobbyist for Veco
I think that the prosecution, using the tapes, using various invoices, and witness testimony, showed clearly that the $7,993 check was fiddled around with enough that it was clear that the money was for Kott to use to pay Peter Kott Jr. to be his campaign manager full time. At one point we were told the money was for work on a Sharon Durant's floor and Rick Smith's floor. Another time it was Bill Allen and Rick Smith's floors. And if it were really for flooring, how come the work still hasn't been done? Plus, Kott had the $30,000 in cash in his closet he could have used to pay his son if necessary, and there was $10,000 left over in campaign funds that could have been used.
It was clear the $1000 cash was given to Kott to reimburse him for a $1000 contribution Allen had asked Kott to make to the Murkowski campaign. Jurors could say he was just paying him back. Kott, in his testimony, said he only got $900. We heard testimony that Veco had a program for its employees where they got special bonuses which they were expected to contribute to specific political campaigns. It was pointed out this was illegal because it was in effect a corporate contribution which isn't allowed. Presumably, Allen had already given his limit, and this was a way for him to give more than his limit. But I don't recall that being pointed out. So some jurors may feel that this was just payback for the contribution. But I think the others will see this as Kott's gain.
Kott Jr. said the family didn't believe in polls, never ever used them. Kott said the same. But his consultant ordered the poll. Kott went over it in a phone call with Dave Dittman, and in one conversation confirming to Rick Smith he knew they'd had a poll done, he said something like, "And we may need a second one to see how the ad went."
I thought it was pretty clear that Kott was looking for a consulting job with Veco when he left the legislature. At one point he and Smith talked about it on tape. Kott mentioned Chris Knauss (Kott's former staffer who had been hired to lobby for Veco) and Kott said he wanted to be a lobbyist. But the stuff about being a prison warden in Barbados muddies things a bit. Someone testified that Barbados was a code word for the consulting job. Everyone knew he didn't want to be a warden, but it was a way to bring up the consulting job without asking directly.
But they don't need all four. Just one. But they have to agree on that one.
Third, the defendant knew that the property was given in return for his agreement or understanding whether explicit or implicit, for taking some official action; and
I think the cumulative affect of all the tapes suggests there is an implicit agreement that Kott has access to favors from Allen (like the four things listed above) if he does a good job working bills through the legislature for Veco. In the May 6, 2006 audio tape, Kott asks Smith whether they have Weyhrauch (presumably to help with ppt). Then Kott says, well I hear he's asked you for a job.. This seems to link the idea of doing Veco's work in exchange for a job. There are long pauses where you wonder if Kott is sending esp messages to Smith saying, "And I'm gonna get one from you guys too, right?" A September 26, 2005 phone conversation between Kott and Smith has Kott saying, "I need a job." Smith says, "You've a got a job. Get us a pipeline." Smith, "What are you gonna do?" Kott: "I gonna be a consultant like Knauss." But you can take that to mean, "You've got a job, it's to get us a pipeline." But that would have problems for Kott too. You can judge for yourself. Smith and Kott phone call - Sept. 26, 2005 The saving grace for the prosecution here, is that it says, "whether implicit or explicit" in the jury instructions.
Fourth, commerce or the movement of an article or commodity in commerce from one state to another was affected in some way.
In his closing, Goeke said this was all about getting a gas pipeline, so that counts as interstate commerce. I guess if that is in debate, they can ask the judge.
I think this and the bribery charges are the easiest to convict on. If the jury has trouble with this one, Kott's going to be in good shape.
")'>UAA UPGRADE TEAM *BETA* 
