Aussie Police Probe Virtual Worlds For Money Trail

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussie Police Probe Virtual Worlds For Money Trail

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday March 27, 2011 @06:49PM from the follow-the-gold-farmers dept.

schliz writes "Australian law enforcement has flagged virtual worlds as a 'growing area of interest' in its fight against money laundering and cybercrime. Police are reportedly investigating unnamed virtual worlds, as well as online money transfer services such as e-gold and Hawala/Hundi."

87 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In other words... by JimboG · 2011-03-27 18:55 · Score: 0

They can sit at thier desks and eat donuts.
1. Re:In other words... by JimboG · 2011-03-27 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  Damn you Slashdot. I want to edit my spelling mistakes.
2. Re:In other words... by jhoegl · 2011-03-27 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't worry too much about it, your comment is pretty mundane, uneducated, and invalid.
3. Re:In other words... by GrpA · 2011-03-27 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  No... They can sit at their desks and play WoW during work hours... I mean, chase cybermoneylaunderers...
  Next week, they'll extend it to chasing Cyber-Jaywalkers and issue on-the-spot fines of 3-gold per incident.
  GrpA
  
  --
  Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
4. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  They're not just playing WoW. They're fighting terrorism and child trafficking! They're heroes! Fat, greasy heroes that get winded on their way to the coffee machine! God bless them!
5. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry constable.
6. Re:In other words... by mjwx · 2011-03-27 19:40 · Score: 2
  
  They can sit at thier desks and eat donuts.
  * doughnuts,
  
  En_AU mate.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
7. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah it's spelt "doughnuts".
8. Re:In other words... by c0lo · 2011-03-27 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  No... They can sit at their desks and play WoW during work hours... I mean, chase cybermoneylaunderers...
  Tell ya, mate... time for ATO open some offices in WoW and the like. If they do, I promise to work extra hours and pay all the taxes in WoW-gold.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
9. Re:In other words... by Sulphur · 2011-03-27 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  They can sit at thier desks and eat donuts.
  Until they are glazed.
10. Re:In other words... by Sulphur · 2011-03-27 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry constable.
  I have a hundred pounds of death dealing lard, but no weapons.
11. Re:In other words... by Sulphur · 2011-03-27 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  They're not just playing WoW. They're fighting terrorism and child trafficking! They're heroes! Fat, greasy heroes that get winded on their way to the coffee machine! God bless them!
  He lost his job to automation -- the Mr. Coffee machine.
12. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, Dough-nuts! That would be quite different than chasing actual couriers around pacific rim banks in real time. Kinda like sittin back at the cop shop watchin them get away on traffic cameras and hoping your buddy pulls them over for a broken taillight. Probably not even that, gimme a glazed.
13. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  No, no, no, no.
  "Sorry cuntstable" and "Yes, orificer"
14. Re:In other words... by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-28 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Donut" is an acceptable American spelling of "Doughnut." But then again, so is "Ax" in place of "Axe."
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
15. Re:In other words... by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-28 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  NEW GUY! BATHROOM!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
16. Re:In other words... by Coren22 · 2011-03-28 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Don't make me ax you again!
  
  I hate that one...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
nosuch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 19:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

There is no such thing as money laundering, only the claim that big government has a right to know how you spend your money.
1. Re:nosuch by bunbuntheminilop · 2011-03-27 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  So, therefore, this IS such a thing called money laundering then? Logic beats libertarians every time.
2. Re:nosuch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, unless what you claim is your money is actually someone else's money that you got through illegal activity such as extortion or robbery. For details, look up how Al Capone was taken down.
3. Re:nosuch by DrXym · 2011-03-27 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing as money laundering, only the claim that big government has a right to know how you spend your money.
  Actually there is such a thing as money laundering. It where you illegally obtain money or financial instruments and then attempt to legitimize how you appeared to obtain that money. It's also quite obvious why "big government" would wish to have measures to detect it - the prevention of crime, the means to seize the proceeds of crime and for tax audits.
4. Re:nosuch by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-28 02:32 · Score: 2
  
  There is no such thing as crime, only the claim that big government has a right to know how many dead hookers are in your trunk.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
5. Re:nosuch by tehcyder · 2011-03-28 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing as money laundering, only the claim that big government has a right to know how you spend your money.
  So society has no right to protect itself from criminals?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Bit Coins? by VortexCortex · 2011-03-27 19:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wonder how hard it is to track Bitcoin laundering considering that each wallet has over 100 different keys it can use in any given transaction...
From the Bitcoin FAQ:

Bitcoin transactions need to be public, so that every client can confirm what account has how much money available. However since accounts are just numbers, it's very hard to figure out what is behind each individual transaction. Here is an example for a Bitcoin transaction:

IN: 1NqwGDRi9Gs4xm1BmPnGeMwgz1CowP6CeQ: 25.09 OUT: 1GZZUd25jbDpUghYD1EA3URdtbzobedqWr: 25.09

As you can see, the transaction only includes the Bitcoin addresses involved which by themselves don't tell you much at all. Every Bitcoin wallet contains a hundred or more addresses, which makes associating users with their wallets even more difficult.
So, I guess some sort of massive transaction "mining" operation would be needed in order to make a correlation between the keys / account holders. Launderers: get started now while transactions are still free!
1. Re:Bit Coins? by DFurno2003 · 2011-03-27 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  How about tracking funding through Project Entropia: http://www.entropiauniverse.com/
2. Re:Bit Coins? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-27 20:54 · Score: 2
  
  If only there were some way for government to eavesdrop on Internet communications.
3. Re:Bit Coins? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tor
4. Re:Bit Coins? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-27 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  The first problem with Tor is that its threat model assumes a non-global adversary. If only there were some way for government to eavesdrop on Internet communications.
  The second problem is that not even that assumption is sufficient.
5. Re:Bit Coins? by genjix · 2011-03-27 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  It is possible to run Bitcoin through Freenet. There's even a project underway to do that.
6. Re:Bit Coins? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  What is interesting is you do not have to connect a node to receive payment. The payment is in the blockchain. So if the sender and receiver are connected any place not their homes then their BC client will transfer the coins just fine. That is very hard to tap.
7. Re:Bit Coins? by DrXym · 2011-03-27 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how hard it is to track Bitcoin laundering considering that each wallet has over 100 different keys it can use in any given transaction...
  Send me some bitcoins on 13jvPmUNSjXFvw5dUTTBS116UghJJi438s and I'll tell you.
8. Re:Bit Coins? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-28 00:05 · Score: 2
  
  At some point the receiver is going to read the transaction. At some point he's going to do something with the BitCoin representation of his wealth.
  BitCoin is absurd because the moment someone has a file on their hard drive representing the value of a house, the profitability of cracking that computer, installing a keylogger for passphrase and taking the file becomes so significant that not just average joes but even the geekiest geek will be outsmarted by organised criminals. It's a typical case of a computer scientist catching the mouse and ignoring the elephant in the room: great in a theoretical world which only has mice.
  (Oh, and the government. But the government would just outlaw significant anonymous Bitcoin usage under AML regulations.)
9. Re:Bit Coins? by RotHorseKid · 2011-03-28 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Good idea. As dead as the market is, there can only be launderers left in that game. Wasn't there even an Aussie allegedly evading taxes?
  
  --
  Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
10. Re:Bit Coins? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Done.
  Now please encode your message in binary and enter it in the field labeled "amount" when you send me a response (1Aj8eye6mPnFH6ymn449qArW7FQ1ahfV5a).
11. Re:Bit Coins? by DrXym · 2011-03-28 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Heh I didn't have 2 bitcoins to rub together but thanks for the response. Hopefully your money is on its way back original binary form intact.
  As for how to detected money launderers, the simplest would be to look for repeating transactions. Even 100 keys means things repeat on average 50 times. Or stick an invisible proxy on port 8333 at the ISP and listen in - I may be mistaken but node activity appears to be plaintext. More sophisticated would be to spoof the initial IRC connect for seeds maybe listening on who was calling that, sending back a few P2P clients that log stuff on the way through.
  The source code for the standard bitcoin client is really sloppy and all over the place with global functions, some C++ and a bit of everything mixed together. I expect there are quite a few points of attack ways to intercept traffic, DDOS a node, or even take down the network. I doubt clients or the network would cope well AT ALL with bogus transactions. For example imagine performing a billion 0.00000001 transactions back and forth. The code suggests it has an antiswamping behaviour but at the same time it still has to process transactions eventually. Bitcoin (the network's) best defence would be for a few independently implemented clients to appear. I doubt it will help with the regulatory side of things though.
12. Re:Bit Coins? by Deefburger · 2011-03-29 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  What is money "laundering" except the removal of the value from the view of someone outside the transaction? Who is outside the transaction that does not want to be excluded? The banks that issue and utilize the money they have the positive "right" to create exclusively. Real money does not have a bank attached to it, or a government, or a positive right associated with it's creation and/or distribution. If laundering money is a crime, you have to ask yourself who the victim of this crime is. It is not you and me.
  
  --
  Most people are mostly good most of the time.
A little late? by Compaqt · 2011-03-27 19:26 · Score: 3, Informative

This seems to say that e-gold was shut down by the authorities (the ones that make it illegal to keep secrets from them, but also illegal to publicize their secrets), and all they're doing now is trying to get people's money back in some way or another.
Sidenote:

Beginning January 2006, eBay has restricted buyers and sellers from using many online payment systems and encouraged them to use Paypal, ... owned by eBay. ... eBay cited e-gold's policy of non-reversible transactions as a detriment to the buyer experience.[26]
Non-reversible is good. Are payment processors supposed to be modes of payment, or net-nannies? If anything, non-reversible would mean fewer problems as people won't buy from anything other than reputable stores.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:A little late? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Non-reversible is good. Are payment processors supposed to be modes of payment, or net-nannies? If anything, non-reversible would mean fewer problems as people won't buy from anything other than reputable stores.
  Please sir! I am having 10,000,000 USD in bank account of Nigerian Prince and am needing your help to withdraw funds out of country. Please be wiring to me 100$ by wire-transfer to arrange the transportations of your moneys to an account of your choosing. I am very reputable person and promise to give money back if not 100% satisfied.
2. Re:A little late? by Americium · 2011-03-27 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  I agree E-gold with non-reversible transactions would be great. What would be much better is if capital gains taxes on gold were eliminated, thereby elimination the need of records of every transaction along with calculations and taxes incurred, sent to the government and kept on record. Until that happens, I don't see Gold being able to give us what it's can, monetary freedom, which is actually is large part of freedom.
3. Re:A little late? by Americium · 2011-03-27 19:53 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  And almost all of those scams start with them giving you a REVERSIBLE payment. Because that first payment is REVERSIBLE, you send them their portion, which happens to go through. Remove their payment getting reversed, and the scam is removed.
4. Re:A little late? by Compaqt · 2011-03-27 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ha ha. Anyway, again, the point stands: Is PayPal supposed allow you to pay, or is it supposed to be your "pal"? I guess they couldn't decide, so they named it both.
  Either only send money to people you know (personally or professionally), or use only reputable vendors (Amazon, Sears, whatever).
  If you send a check to someone, and they don't send you what you expected, do you expect your bank to handhold you through the process of getting fair value back?
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
5. Re:A little late? by Joce640k · 2011-03-27 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  eBay cited e-gold's policy of non-reversible transactions as a detriment to the buyer experience.[26]
  eBay *loves* buyers who can 'buy' your stuff then reverse the transaction right after receive it.
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:A little late? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-27 21:11 · Score: 2
  
  Without the audit trail, you are proposing what, exactly? That we physically transport gold to each other? That the amount of gold we own is represented by a single entry in a database with no evidence to back it up in case of malfunction/dispute? Who protects this gold and the systems surrounding it?
  Since we are eliminating reversibility and record-keeping, I look forward to working for your bank and transferring your balance to my account. That is monetary freedom, which is actually a large part of freedom. Have a nice day!
7. Re:A little late? by Compaqt · 2011-03-27 21:30 · Score: 0
  
  Thing is: either be a payment service,
  - or -
  be a "pal" (i.e., escrow service). Not both.
  Trying to be both is what is making them do both tasks badly.
  By the way, what is Amazon's exchange policy? (I've never needed to return stuff--can you just return stuff because you want to, and they'll take it?)
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
8. Re:A little late? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 21:57 · Score: 0
  
  or use only reputable vendors (Amazon, Sears, whatever)
  Yea screw small and medium-sized businesses!
  Don't come whining about monopolies and how corporations got too powerful, though.
9. Re:A little late? by DerekLyons · 2011-03-28 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Non-reversible is good.
  Non reversible is bad. Non reversible means the payee has no rights and no recourse after payment is made if the services or goods paid for are not provided or turn out to be faulty. (Or at a minimum, it means exercising those legally protected rights becomes more difficult.)
  
  Are payment processors supposed to be modes of payment, or net-nannies? If anything, non-reversible would mean fewer problems as people won't buy from anything other than reputable stores.
  Payment processors should be held to the same standards as banks and credit card companies - and that they've operated outside the regulatory envelope to date is a problem, a big one. And even reputable stores have problems and bad days now and again. How they react to that problems and bad days is how they became reputable - and non reversible transactions significantly reduces incentives to behave responsibly.
10. Re:A little late? by Compaqt · 2011-03-28 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you in the sense there's no rhyme or reason for Paypal to hold your money for 180 days "for your protection".
  But banks don't hold your hand when you send money to someone by mistake. It's caveat emptor.
  I agree that no processor should be able to take your money and then not reverse that transaction, but I'm talking about where you send money, and then change your mind.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
11. Re:A little late? by DerekLyons · 2011-03-28 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  But banks don't hold your hand when you send money to someone by mistake. It's caveat emptor.
  You can cancel checks - and you can reverse credit card charges. So no, it's not caveat emptor. Being able to reverse transactions is not the same thing as holding you hand.
  
  I agree that no processor should be able to take your money and then not reverse that transaction, but I'm talking about where you send money, and then change your mind.
  The problem is, under the law and in certain circumstances, I'm allowed to change my mind. Your suggestion removes that legally protected right and basically places me at the mercy of the processor. No thank you.
12. Re:A little late? by JesseMcDonald · 2011-03-28 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the GP is advocating an end to record-keeping in general. The problem is specifically with the need to maintain tax records tracking IRS-acceptable market valuations (in US$) every time you make a deposit, withdrawal, or transfer. Imagine, for a moment, that every time you moved US$ into or out of your (US$) bank account you had to come up with an IRS-acceptable valuation of that money in units of Euros, or grams of gold, or whatever, and not only report this to the IRS but also keep it on file for years—even though you never actually traded in anything but US$. The situation with alternate currencies like e-Gold is the same, but with US$ and gold reversed. You may never actually touch a US$ at any point in the exchange, but the IRS requires that you continuously track the estimated value of your currency in US$ anyway, adding significant overhead to every transaction.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
13. Re:A little late? by Americium · 2011-03-28 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  I just meant the trail isn't kept by the government. Private companies keeping their OWN paper trails to conduct business is fine with me. By freedom, I mean't my bank account can't be undermined by inflation, and lose 50% or more of it's value over my lifetime.
14. Re:A little late? by capnchicken · 2011-03-28 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Try canceling a cash payment.
  Non-Reversible is good and already exists, it just doesn't have a commonplace existence electronically yet.
  
  --
  A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
15. Re:A little late? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-28 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  The government gets the trail only by following a particular legislatively approved procedure. What I think you're asking for is a change in the list of occasions where the procedure is applicable. There are times, such as criminal investigation of people trafficking (that's newspeak for "slavery"), where surely you see that it is reasonable for the police to investigate the flow of money. AML isn't just about tax evasion and drugs money.
  As for inflation, you're assuming that the supply of gold remains constant. This includes the absurdly luddite assumption that deflation and technology won't make synthesis of gold cheaper than its purchase. Also hoarding => class system, rinse, repeat.
16. Re:A little late? by Americium · 2011-03-28 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  You missed the point, the Capital Gains Tax on gold makes every transaction, every time you sell gold for dollars to make a purchase, every time you transact in gold, if the price of gold went up, you need to report those capital gains to the government and pay 15% taxes on those gains. Therefore, every transaction is required to be recorded and sent with appropriate forms to the government, every single legal transaction every time the price of gold goes up from the date you originally purchased it. It makes using gold as money infinitely more complex and less free.
  Gold only grows by about 1%/yr, it's still an exponential increase in money supply, but it's very stable, and for the most part uncontrolled by governments. Swings in gold supply aren't drastic and aren't short term, it takes years for a new mine to open, let alone enough to effect the money supply in a meaningful way. Hording is a problem, but most people will just leave it in banks, hording is more a problem now since people don't trust paper dollars to keep their value.
17. Re:A little late? by Americium · 2011-03-28 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Synthesis of gold? I mean besides neutron absorption (billions of times more expensive than mining), that technology seems extremely far off. By the time that occurs, I assume everything will basically be free, and I won't be working. Creating gold from other elements may likely come far after molecular and atomic 3d printers are available. If that's the case, I could already print anything I desire.
  Deflation is the entire point of a growing economy, my wages and savings gain value, and everything is cheaper, life gets better. Why do you think technology is so great, because electronics prices deflation outpaces the US dollar inflation, so cells phones and computers are getting cheaper. Wouldn't it be nice if everything else also got cheaper, it's just that 10% inflation in money supply outpaces the lower deflation rates other products have, like cars, food, and energy.
18. Re:A little late? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-28 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  It makes using gold as money infinitely more complex
  
  We have computers now. Record-keeping makes using gold as money very slightly more complex - and can be done by the guy actually holding the gold on your behalf. (Unless you propose trading by physically exchanging chunks of gold, which I hope you don't.)
  
  and for the most part uncontrolled by governments
  For the most part.
  
  Hording is a problem, but most people will just leave it in banks
  Leaving in bank = hoarding, assuming that you're eliminating fractional reserve banking (and that by "leaving in bank" you didn't mean "investing").
  
  hording is more a problem now since people don't trust paper dollars to keep their value.
  Inflation tends to increase spending and borrowing.
19. Re:A little late? by Americium · 2011-03-28 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to not be concerned that the government would need records of every transaction you make, odd, and one of the reasons the income tax is so invasive already.
  Mines opening and closing is usually not controlled by governments. Gold stored in central banks would be part of the money supply, and since the governments never just destroy their gold, it doesn't influence the supply at all. They influence supply through regulations and permits for gold mining.
  Even with fractional reserve banking removed, any timed deposit can still be loaned out, or invested, although I'm not opposed to fractional reserve banking, as long as the capital requirement is backed by gold, not paper dollars.
  
  Inflation tends to increase spending and borrowing.
  That's the entire problem, we want to encourage saving and investment, not spending and borrowing. Inflation also increases riskier investments, since not investing gives a negative return. The tax code further encourages spending and borrowing, they are tax deductible, but savings and investments are taxed again.
20. Re:A little late? by Tuoqui · 2011-04-03 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  Even cheques are reversable... Why do you think most companies only take cheques with 2 forms of ID. It's so they can get you in court if you screw them over.
  Ofcourse they are also reversable so that if say the merchant does something like add a 1 infront of78.28 you can reverse it as the fraud it is.
  
  --
  09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 19:28 · Score: 0

Aussie Aussie, catch that Mozzie
What Second Life does by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 19:35 · Score: 1

Money laundering through Second Life isn't very effective since all transaction history is kept for at least 30 days (but is much longer than this, this is just user accessible). You can only withdraw your credit (exchange for US$) by wire transfer or PayPal, not only that but they have a Risk API to determine the risk of a real-world transaction which must also be used for any third party L$ exchanges. The paper trail is there, it's not difficult to reach if you're law enforcement, it's called a subpoena.
1. Re:What Second Life does by DrXym · 2011-03-27 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  It is effective in the sense that you pay money to one service, transfer it virtually and redeem it on the other side through another account. At the very least this would cause jurisdictional hassle as you try and obtain court orders to look at those records.
2. Re:What Second Life does by RobertLTux · 2011-03-28 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  your problem comes from the limits involved in amounts transfered. as a non paid member you are severely limited as to how much money you can have in your account.
  Even if you are a paid member you can't have a lot of money until your account is a bit older.
  And any very large amounts for a new member will trigger the anti fraud stops. (hint if you want to be Lady Heather in SL you will have to be a member for a couple months at least and adult verified and have payment info on file)
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
3. Re:What Second Life does by DrXym · 2011-03-28 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  For Second Life replace with any game where you can virtualize currency and retrieve it on the other side. Personally I think there must be better ways to launder money.
4. Re:What Second Life does by SuricouRaven · 2011-03-28 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  The sheer *amount* of virtual currency would raise suspicion. If you're routinely tradeing the equivilent of tens of thousands of dollars in real money at grey market rates, the administrators will notice. They'd probably assume you were running a gold-farming operation.
5. Re:What Second Life does by DrXym · 2011-03-28 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Gold farming is something else again, e.g. I pay 10 people to sit there and grind out for items which I then covertly sell to other players through secret means. As far as the game is concerned they just have 10 subscribers. They'd have to actually what the subs are doing to detect farming. I guess a farming operation could be used to launder money but not very easily unless you had 100 people all playing so that their sub & wages was equivalent to the amount of money you wanted to launder..
6. Re:What Second Life does by SuricouRaven · 2011-03-28 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Time online is a good indicator. A major expense for a gold farmer is subscription cost, so he'll want to work them all to maximum profit. That means characters being operated for as many hours as possible a day, even if it means very long working hours or operating in shifts. If the game operator sees a character is active for twenty hours a day, seven days a week, then it's a fair bet it's being used by more than one person.
  
  Another indicator, and one which would detect money laundering too, would be the transfer of vast amounts of in-game currency from one account to another. MMORPG money has a rubbish exchange rate - that's why people like to buy it with real cash, a little real money goes a very long way in game - so to launder any significent amount of real money would take a truely ridiculous amount of game-money being transfers. If you see someone moving more money in a week than most players would in a year, something funny is going on.
  
  The only way a launderer would avoid that is the same way they can in the real world - lots and lots of small transactions, between members of two organisations. But this is impractical for any sizeable sum of money.
beating libertarians.... by mevets · 2011-03-27 19:55 · Score: 1

Usually nap time takes the sting out of them too, and if that fails a few minutes of sitting in the corner will suffice. You don't need to unleash fancy tools like logic....
I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but... by sirlatrom · 2011-03-27 20:19 · Score: 1

... how many polices is the editor talking about which probe virtual worlds for money trail(s)? Or perhaps they (in the 3rd person singular sense of "they") meant to write "Aussie Police Probes ..."
Or maybe they're discussing some police probe based virtual worlds in which the communities are collectively in favour of a particular money trail?
I'm not a native English speaker, so I might be wrong in pointing out that there is a problem here. But I don't think I am.
1. Re:I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but... by dbIII · 2011-03-27 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's the Australian Federal Police cybercrime unit so it's just a guy named Barry and the trainee Tim. The other two in the unit are trying to catch pedophiles and online fraud.
  I'm joking but staff levels are about that low despite it being for an entire country.
2. Re:I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Hey! That's a bit unfair.... he prefers to be called Bazza!
3. Re:I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-28 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a native English speaker
  True, but you may be a native American speaker. The US have this habit of regarding organisations as persons in their own right. British English recognises that organisation = group of people. Plural.
4. Re:I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but... by cromar · 2011-03-28 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bit more complicated than that. In American English, "the police" is a plural noun. Whereas, "the police department" is a singular noun.
investigate this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 20:23 · Score: 0

Try and trace my bitcoin transfers... I dare you.. I double dare you!
1. Re:investigate this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone want to lay odds on cryptocurrencies becoming illegal in a host of countries within five years?
2. Re:investigate this by SuricouRaven · 2011-03-27 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Possible, but it seems more likely they just won't catch on. To be of any value, a currency needs to be either backed by something of intrinsic value (Precious metals have their use here) or have some organisation of sufficient economic power backing it (Typically a government). Cryptocurrencies have neither of these, which leads to a problem: You can't pay your taxes in bitcoins.
3. Re:investigate this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  You can't pay your taxes in bitcoins.
  Maybe not, but you can get other fine goods and services: http://www.bitcoinsextoys.com/
4. Re:investigate this by DrXym · 2011-03-28 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone want to lay odds on cryptocurrencies becoming illegal in a host of countries within five years?
  I expect that's likely. I also think they'll be helped along by criminals running phoney exchanges, escrow services, money laundering, gambling, ponzis etc.
  And if that doesn't do them in, I think it's quite feasible that a hacker could poison entire system with bogus transactions corrupted values that DDOS or crash clients / erase wallets. Or someone with a large amount of resources, e.g. CIA using their distributed computing power to swipe up all the unmined coins and fuck up the economy. Or early adopters taking their real money causing a run on the exchanges which means they close down. Or a commercial provider appearing with a more palatable system which satisfies regulators and is pegged to real money.
5. Re:investigate this by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-28 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Muahahaha! Now I just have to sell those dildos and artificial vaginas to turn processing power into REAL MONEY! I'm gonna be RICH!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Nice sentiment but by Chrisq · 2011-03-27 20:50 · Score: 1

Nice sentiment but not all criminals are Muslims.
1. Re:Nice sentiment but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 00:21 · Score: 0
  
  Mozzie = Mosquito.
That's insane! by VincenzoRomano · 2011-03-27 21:05 · Score: 1

Shouldn't it be enough to check bank money transfer and credit cards?
Or do they think the bad guys can get real money from virtual worlds in some other way?

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
1. Re:That's insane! by cowboy76Spain · 2011-03-28 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it must be another tool for profiling money laundering against legal behaviour.
  For example, you may really be doing bussiness in virtual currency (selling plugins or whatever you can sell there, playing 24x7 and converting your gold for $, etc.) and getting, let's say, 1000$ a month. Or maybe you just sell auction a rock and "someone" buys it for the equivalent of 1000$. The money transfer only shows the 1000$ that you get.
  
  --
  Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
they can also probe your butt without permission by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 21:23 · Score: 0

talk about dirty money? the right to remain silent is still working well?
cease aggression, disarm.
edit/remove the georgia stone.
leave
I thought it was spelled . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2011-03-27 21:26 · Score: 1

Doh! Nuts!
With apologies to General Antony McAuliffe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
nail chewing becoming less satisfying by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 21:42 · Score: 0

the fog of tax free (for some, list available) invisible (changlings?) enemy war can do that? did we say tax free? pardon, the non-taxpayers actually profit ($billionerrors$) on the heavy weapon (keeping ALL sides supplied including mexico) murder massacre business outings. so that's good?
we support the views of this former person
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8&NR=1&feature=fvwp ("stop killing")
we do not support the material in this cnn propaganda video from pr.con
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXB75IK6pL4 ("we can win this, with my help")
same guy? clone? confused? we must focus... on the images. we must....saw a picture of one of those godaffy psycho-killer freaks being paraded around our military bases (may have paid for them, along with our holycost/increasing tithings which we give freely so that our rulers may continue to rule us) like royalty, only to become our very worst 'enemy' just weaks/leaks later? focus-pocus?
babys rule, with tiny chubby soft fingers, advanced dna etc..... unclear?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down (rat them out). If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "varied & interchangeable"
the truth does not acknowledge censorship
will not end well by Charliemopps · 2011-03-27 23:50 · Score: 1

This will not end well and is entirely the gaming industries fault. They should have never allowed real money for virtual items in their games, but they were too damned greedy. Eventually I expect them to consider the entire RMT world as nothing more than online gambling (which is what it actually is) and to either outlaw it completely or levy exorbitant taxes on the industry.
1. Re:will not end well by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, so those MMOs should have just allowed their monthly server costs to pay for themselves? Or they could switch over from free-to-play to monthly-fees.
anal hired goon police probe themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-28 00:12 · Score: 0

deleted from The Truth About USMessageboard.com, where they get the red out too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lSp-oIOhq00#at=55
not for the timid/completely satisfied with everything