Slashdot Mirror
US Government To Study Bitcoin As Possible Terrorist Threat
randomErr (172078) writes "The US Department of Defense is investigating whether Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are a potential terrorist threat. The Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO), a division within DOD that identifies and develops counter terrorism abilities and investigates irregular warfare and evolving threats, has listed Bitcoin among its topics for research and mission critical analysis related to terrorism."
subject says it all.
If BTC is a Terrorist Threat, then I'm the new leader of Bitcoin World Order
Sarcasm applies ^
n/t
Bitcoin has always been falling in conversion rates... it was big money to the programmer and a money loser for everybody else who touched it.
It was only a matter of time.
The TSA's already gotten started on this one: http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/...
When pointing a finger looking for threats to the US, in order to make the study sufficiently extensive and all-encompassing, they may want to consider examining their own behavior, and the behavior of other parts of the DoD, and consider whether they have become that which they seek to destroy.
Now everyone who imagines themselves rebellious for having issues with one of the confused democratic governments in the world is going to love bitcoin now.
Bacon is clearly not a terrorist threat. So, eat up, America!
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
It's a bit immature for people to be blindly making fun of this. At the risk of RTFA:
This sounds like a perfectly valid thing for someone to think about, and consider the implications of. Honestly, whatever your business (or governmental responsibility), if you aren't thinking about the impact of crypto-currency, you might be being negligent.
Face it there will be no currency the Rothchilds don't control.
That is right. Eat your bacon! Eat LOTS of it! Muhahahaha!!!
Our plan is finally coming to fruition!
http://www.standingonguard.com...
Errr, only look at the URL if you are in Canada. To everyone else, we're sorry eh. Just your nice friendly neighbors eh.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Given that pork-eating flight school students turned out to be Islamist terrorists, I'd have to say the answer is no.
Our success at preventing domestic terror attacks is usually credited partly to our ability to stop the terrorists from sending each-other money. BTC is specifically designed so that government's can't trace it, or interdict the cash-flow. This means the anti-terror cops damn well better have a plan for if AQ starts a major BTC mining operation.
uhm, voting republican?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
They are not investigating Bitcoin as a threat.They are investigating how crypto-currencies can be used to finance terrorism. The editors need to be fired.
Back in January, Bitcoin Magazine unearthed an unclassified memo detailing some of the CTTSO projects. "The introduction of virtual currency will likely shape threat finance by increasing the opaqueness, transactional velocity, and overall efficiencies of terrorist attacks”, the memo said.
I wouldn't lock up my vital operational funds in such a high profile and volatile vehicle. Cash is, so easy to deal with.
quite unreasonable.
don't you know the drill, by now?
if this competes with the existing power-brokers (and yes, it does) then it can't be allowed.
to stop things we don't like, we label them as child pron or terrorism.
nothing new about this; we've seen this old play redone hundreds of times during the last 10+ yrs.
this is just about controlling currency and stopping anonymity. has absolutely nothing to do with 'terror'. only an moran would buy that story.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
uhm, voting republican?
Are we not done pretending that any actionable difference exists between the two faces of the One Party?
The old "one party good, 'other' party bad" nonsense is just tiresome at this point.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Hard to imagine a currency requiring central coordination to facilitate all transactions would be looked upon as anything other than wet dream of any government/military industry.
If you misbehave, they turn off your chip.
Well, our (US) government seems to think every American citizen is a terrorist, so why couldn't a non-existant thing also be a terrorist?
And aliens? A.K.A "Extra-terroristrials"
Drama queen much?
More importantly, is there anyone who couldn't be classified as a terrorist?
Sure there's actionable differences. We wouldn't have gotten the ACA if the Republicans had stayed in power. There's just not as much difference as many think.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It means that it's the enemy.
This is why we shouldn't have stupid people who know nothing about today's world at the head of any corporation. They still think we're in the early days of computing.
Yea, how dare these Bitcoin people make a buck, without paying Goldman Sacks their tribute ..
Goldman Sachs Rules the World
I know two of Osama Bin Laden's biggest beefs with America was that we permit homosexuality and interest bearing loans...I can't help but wonder if he hated bacon every bit as much as those though.
We wouldn't have gotten the ACA
From what I've seen of it so far, I don't think that would have been a bad thing. For starters, there's nothing affordable about it.
Next stop: cash as a potential terrorist threat. And soon enough you won't be able to buy groceries without NSA knowing what, when, where, how much you bought and your data mined for any "abnormal" and "suspicious" activity. And that great sex toy you always dreamt about? Better buy it while you still can, without having to explain to anyone how you're not a pervert.
quite unreasonable.
don't you know the drill, by now?
if this competes with the existing power-brokers (and yes, it does) then it can't be allowed.
to stop things we don't like, we label them as child pron or terrorism.
nothing new about this; we've seen this old play redone hundreds of times during the last 10+ yrs.
this is just about controlling currency and stopping anonymity. has absolutely nothing to do with 'terror'. only an moran would buy that story.
It's about control and destroying a free and open society..
Terrorism, rebellion against the government, and being able to move wealth without government knowledge is only preventable in an authoritarian police-state type of society.
A free and open society only exists when it is possible to keep one's finances a secret from government and organize without the governments' knowledge to commit acts of terrorism and rebellion.
More government "Safety" = Less Freedom, Less Actual Safety, and Less Money for You.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"Usually credited" by whom? People who have a vested interest in stopping people from sending each other money without going through them?
For that matter, how many "domestic terror attacks" have been stopped lately? Or is it simply that most people aren't crazy enough to want to blow up their own home?
Starting a BTC mining operation requires capital. Al-Qaeda is unlikely to outcompete miners who are in it for money, not if it keeps blowing its nest egg away.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The Federal Reserve, IRS and CIA spend freely on whatever they like with absolutely no oversight and complete impunity.
Bunch of hypocritical shit if you ask me.
Been away from Slashdot for a while now, When I come back in to take a look around at the new design I see a discussion I might like to get involved with.
Let me be simple.
Unbacked fiat currency most commonly traded from plastic cards via electronic device -or- Unbacked fiat currency most commonly traded via electronic device.
Unbacked fiat currency generated by the expansion of debt in the economy -or- Unbacked fiat currency generated by mining something that you can never hold.
Unbacked fiat currency wholly owned by an unaccountable private for profit untraded anonymous company -or- Unbacked fiat currency wholly owned by only those that use the currency.
The problem is not that bitcoin exists, the problem is that bitcoin had a space to exist into.
Please tell me this is not lost on the current slashdot generation.
Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
They class everything as either a terrorist threat or an enemy combatant.
What's their next trick? A war on breakfast cereals? Drone strikes against the color blue?
Whenever the US government links anything to terrorism, I know they are lying. Yes, crypto-currencies can certainly be used to fund terrorist acts. But then again so can gold, silver, oil, diamonds, dollars, euros, or just about any other kind of non-traceable cash or valuable commodity. They don't like bitcoin because it is currently popular and they don't have their thumb on it.
Just wait until the War on Cholesterol heats up in NY. THEN you won't be saying that...
... would be the potential threat of terrorists to take over the blockchain or make people think they could.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Usually credited" by whom? People who have a vested interest in stopping people from sending each other money without going through them?
For that matter, how many "domestic terror attacks" have been stopped lately? Or is it simply that most people aren't crazy enough to want to blow up their own home?
"Most people" being not crazy didn't help on S11. When there are 6-7 billion of us even a tiny minority of idiots is hundreds of millions of people.
Moreover since the military are some of the people who say anti-money-laundering initiatives help prevent terrorism, you're implying the military actually gets paid based on the volume of transactions in the international finance system. It doesn't.
As how many have been stopped, that's a really dumb way for you to bring up the point. The answer is 100% of the attacks that involve spending more a grand. Legally available firearms only cost more then $500 if you get a really nice one, which terrorists tend not to do, and pressure-cooker bombs are under $100. Congrats dummy, you just walked into that one. If you didn't suck at this you would have anticipated that argument, and claimed that no major attacks had been tried, and therefore my argument was ridiculous.
Frankly you're so bad at this I'm already half-convinced you're an anti-BTC agent provocateur.
Starting a BTC mining operation requires capital. Al-Qaeda is unlikely to outcompete miners who are in it for money, not if it keeps blowing its nest egg away.
You do realize there are entire staffs of people in the military whose entire job is to figure out "what happens if potential opponent x does this thing that nobody thinks he'll ever do?"
It's called contingency planning, and since the real world is fucking weird it's really useful. For example who would have predicted that Ukraine would break up in February?
So yes, I'd say the odds that Al Qaeda actually use BTC mining to get rich are fairly low. But that doesn't mean I don't want a couple $80k analysts to look into the question for a few months. And that's all this report is saying will happen.
Moreover it doesn't imply that a) future terrorist opponents won't be mining the latest altcoin, or b) AQ won't simply buy some BTC on a shady exchange, put it on a wallet, and mail the thumb-drive to DC.
Given that pork-eating flight school students turned out to be Islamist terrorists, I'd have to say the answer is no.
I hate to spoil your snark, but Islam, like Judaism, has a prohibition against eating pork. So you could argue that *not* eating bacon is a possible warning sign of terrorist potential...
Our success at preventing domestic terror attacks is usually credited partly to our ability to stop the terrorists from sending each-other money.
Uhm, what success? AFAIK, the only "terrorist plot" in the US that the government has prevented was that one where the idiots thought that if they blew up a fuel pipe at JFK, they could get an explosion all along that pipeline. Obviously, they didn't comprehend that for an explosion to happen, you need fuel *and* oxygen...
BTC is specifically designed so that government's can't trace it, or interdict the cash-flow. This means the anti-terror cops damn well better have a plan for if AQ starts a major BTC mining operation.
No, bitcoin is *not* designed to be untraceable. In fact, thanks to the blockchain, it's actually a lot easier to trace than normal cash. What's hard is taking the information from the blockchain, and connecting it to a specific individual or group. So it's pretty anonymous, but once a given wallet has been associated with someone like AQ, anyone monitoring the blockchains could extract a heck of a lot of info about where their money is coming from and going to.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
There are not 6-7 billion domestic terrorist in any country on Earth. I'll leave it as an excersize to the reader why that might be.
I'm asking who's making the claim. "The military" is still too vague, especially with zero evidence provided.
Really? Asking for numbers to assess effectiveness is a dumb way of doing so? Then how do you propose it's assessed?
And that's how many? Exactly speaking, or even as an order of magnitude figure?
So what, exactly speaking, are you claiming here? That terrorist attacks don't actually require a lot of money, so money transfers aren't really that important to terrorists, so watching money transfers is pointless from anti-terrorism point of view?
I'm entirely convinced that you're an idiot. The only question remains whether you genuinely lack intelligence, or just can't bear to be shown wrong on the Internet.
That's all nice and good. But it still doesn't address my point: Al-Qaeda can't compete against miners who put their money on their mining equipment, because Al-Qaeda put their money into explosives.
Also, you stated above that Al-Qaeda doesn't need money to stake attacks, or at least not money above what you can make in a minimum-wage job, so why would they bother? I'll let your weird scenario of mailing a couble hundred kilobytes - or, more likely, a single adress of 34 characters - slide. It's still stupid, though.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I'm guessing you've never heard of pork specific brain worms?
I wonder what conclusion they could possibly reach here. Terrorism is not the issue. The issue is control. Virtual currency, and any (well-)encrypted communication in general cannot be controlled by the powers that be, and they don't like it. Not because it's inherently evil or because they have an overarching mandate to keep citizens safe, but because it cuts them out of the loop. In particular, they have no ability to tax it, regulate it, or otherwise impose their will upon it.
I wonder too where they ever got the idea they were entitled to such control. Certainly the US Constitution gives the federal government the exclusive right to issue currency, but that only meant the actual, tangible stuff. The notes. the chunks of metal. Clearly that was all that was meant, because other forms of commerce that did not involve currency preceded the Constitution by centuries, and persist to this day. Only recently has it ever been suggested that currency had a broader definition. I think it started with the Sixteenth Amendment, wherein the federal government acquired an unprecedented interest in knowing each and every citizen's income.
One can understand the value of regulating currency itself. Especially fiat currency, which has no value other than that which it is trusted to have. But the powers that be, in their own interests, have over the years conflated "currency" with any means by which the differential of a commercial transaction might be settled, and indeed with the intimate details of any such account. The powerful were reasonably granted control over the artifacts with which an account might be settled, in the interest of protecting the acceptability of those artifacts. But however one might define currency, the powers are presently attempting to control all accounts and all accounting, period. This is not their right. This is not their mandate.
And while I cannot expect a government without such control to fully protect me from terrorists, I simply do not expect any such thing.
I do not think it is extreme to warn that such an invasive control of all commercial transactions by a central government can only lead - literally - to marks on everyone's wrist and forehead. I assert that virtual currency is constitutionally protected as a right NOT granted to the federal government. And it is an essential element of any society that would hope to remain free in the coming years.
If it falls under the 'war on terror' it will vanish overnight. Who wants to risk being labeled as a terrorist, and visiting club fed for using a coin, regardless of what you were doing?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The NSA already knows everything you do with your computer, including Bitcoin trades.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Bacon is clearly not a terrorist threat. So, eat up, America!
On the contrary, terrorists find bacon extremely threatening.
#1 cause of death: Heart Disease.
#2 accidents.
Every year, Heart Disease and Accidents kill 400 times the number of people that died in 9/11... every year. That's Four Thousand 9/11's we've taken in stride since 9/11. Are the terrorist even fucking trying? Know what's threatening to a terrorist? You're 4 times more likely to be struck by lightning than by terrorists, but you brave mother fuckers ain't even wearing rubber suits!
That's right, you've got the balls to risk shit hundreds of times more dangerous than any terrorist ever. You laugh death in the face and say, "Honey, I'm driving the kids to get a Happy Meal."
You give the order, "Put extra bacon on it." Biting the head off a Freedom Fry dripping with red, you watch your little badasses down 6 piece McNuggets with extra bacon like it's nothing. You give a proud nod, "Terrorists hate our bacon."
Terrorists eat apples! The apple farmers must be observed for possible terrorist connections.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
./ sarcasm Shhhh, we have to declare the next inanimate object the next evil incarnate.
Sure there's actionable differences. We would have gotten the RomneyCare if the Republicans had won in 2012. There's just not as much difference as many think.
There. FTFY.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Sure there's actionable differences. We would have gotten the RomneyCare if the Republicans had won in 2012. There's just not as much difference as many think.
There. FTFY.
Oh, wait...
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Some personalities see any change as frightening. New ideas change things and one never knows if one's position will be better or worse when change occurs. Tesla cars threaten the position of everyone else in the auto industry. Cable tv really destroyed the theater industry. It is wonderful that we have cable tv and can buy a car that gets us away from slavery to oil companies. But every time some good, new thing comes down the pike someone somewhere suffers loss of money or status. And now change is accelerating boldly. The latest is 3d printing which is wonderful yet threatens to put millions of people out of work permanently. Change is a form of revolution and that word bears a shocking fact that evolution and revolution are somehow really related.
"Reasonable internet residents around the world are investigating whether the US Government and other cartel-like oligarch groups are a potential terrorist threat. The Combating Big-Money Terrorism Technical Support Office (CBMTTSO), a division within IRC that identifies and develops counter terrorism abilities and investigates irregular warfare and evolving threats, has listed the US Government among its topics for research and mission critical analysis related to terrorism."
Home Depot is a terrorist threat. I can get all sorts of useful stuff there. Libraries are terrorist threats. That's where I learn what to get at Home Depot. The internet is a terrorist threat. Books are a terrorist threat. Colleges are a terrorist threat. People learn chemistry there!
Asses.....
Daylight Savings Time, beloved by school children the world over, except China and Japan and two counties in Indiana, has been determined by the Famous Brains in the Department of Homeland Security, Sig Hail, as the Number One Security Threat world wide.
The ability of Daylight Savings Time to disrupt global communications and transportation networks and societies is well documented.
Now, the Brains at DHS put 2 and 2 together and achieved ANTIMATTER !
"Anschundts, That's it. Now, complete the device ! Do It ! Sig Hail."
Ha ha
Banks are now obsolete. A citizen of any country is well advised to stop using banks, and carry digital cash only. Gold, Silver, large cash reserves will all be confiscated during times of war, or whenever the governments feel like it, because terror/drugs/think of the children!
Banks already loathe digital currency, because it has scarcity and utility, is decentralized, which leads to the fact that they have lost all control over the manufacture of Money. By Design.
Governments are beginning to see the probability that their powerbase will become significantly diluted, as the populace become empowered to seize control of their finances. A global currency, accepted, used and embraced by all, concurrently neutering the sting out of the global leadership's tail - governments will be reduced to providing service(s) to the public, and to design/amend and employ legislation. Which was their original function, before the 1% took liberties that were not theirs.
I look forward to witnessing the tipping point for the collapse of the current system. The corrupt power structure as it stands needs to be razed. The act of mining Bitcoin/Altcoins is analogous to ripping the rug from beneath the feet of the elete. This is wealth redistribution on a grand, bloodless, grassroots scale. Embrace the absence of social architecture that is coming.
Anything that bunch of knee jerk tossers cant control is a terrorist threat .
I cant control them therefore i class them as active dangerous and armed terrorists playing games with nukes if they dont get complete world domination .. talk about playing five knuckle shuffle or what! .
Bitcoin money is issued to a maximum recorded amount. US Dollars are printed 'ad nauseam'. Which currency is sustainable on the long run?
Except smoked bacon, which causes cancer and is clearly evil, therefore a terrorist threat.
Obama is a terrorist threat too, and no one does anything about it. This is not fair.
Well, the US should consider the universe itself a threat against them. No lie, it's full of yet-to-discover potential threatening matter. They should consider starting ASAP building a huge stellar-explosions-proof shield around the United States to protect from the arising danger. The whole project should be kept secret, of course, too many interests involved securing the sovereign nation.
I hate to spoil your snark, but Islam, like Judaism, has a prohibition against eating pork. So you could argue that *not* eating bacon is a possible warning sign of terrorist potential...
Getting my info from a film, I know, but part of the premise in the "Traitor" was that it was allowed to assume the traits of your enemies in order to attack them, i.e. Eating pork, drinking alcohol in order to appear western and therefore pass undetected. No idea how accurate it is, but it at least groks as far as my understanding of whackjob theology is concerned.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Are you some sort of Christianist racist?
Best Slashdot Co
As an outside observer I wouldn't say that is true. Both parties are very close on many issues and clearly in the pocket's of people making large donations to their campaigns, but for example the Republicans would never have introduced something like Obamacare. Unarguably Obamacare has had a very real and tangible effect on millions of people's lives, so voting one way or the other clearly does have some meaning.
Of course you are correct that both parties are pretty bad, but they are not entirely homogeneous.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."
Tell me again, how is it that you believe that this happened without the bank realizing it was money laundering?
Citing the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466
HSBC in the US had not treated its Mexican affiliate as high risk, despite the country's money laundering and drug trafficking challenges
The Mexican bank had transported $7bn in US bank notes to HSBC in the US, more than any other Mexican bank, but had not considered that to be suspicious
It had circumvented US safeguards designed to block transactions involving terrorists drug lords and rogue states, including allowing 25,000 transactions over seven years without disclosing their links to Iran
Providing US dollars and banking services to some banks in Saudi Arabia despite their links to terrorist financing
In less than four years it had cleared $290m in "obviously suspicious" US travellers' cheques for a Japanese bank, benefiting Russians who claimed to be in the used car business
If the guard at a bank were to get a huge bonus if the money was stolen, and he purposely looked the other way while the robbers were at work, THEN you would have a valid analogy. That's what the bank authorities did with their money laundering provisions, because it benefitted them personally. The narcos were in some cases using boxes that fitted precisely the teller windows! How can you FAIL to spot that as suspicious, if not on purpose!
Citing the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466
HSBC in the US had not treated its Mexican affiliate as high risk, despite the country's money laundering and drug trafficking challenges
The Mexican bank had transported $7bn in US bank notes to HSBC in the US, more than any other Mexican bank, but had not considered that to be suspicious
It had circumvented US safeguards designed to block transactions involving terrorists drug lords and rogue states, including allowing 25,000 transactions over seven years without disclosing their links to Iran
Providing US dollars and banking services to some banks in Saudi Arabia despite their links to terrorist financing
In less than four years it had cleared $290m in "obviously suspicious" US travellers' cheques for a Japanese bank, benefiting Russians who claimed to be in the used car business
Clearly they both understand bitcoin enough to explain it in their own words:
So this is what high school english teachers spend their time reading, sections of the text book, barely edited.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
One doesn't mine bitcoins to launder cash. One buys the bitcoins, sends them around, then cashes back out.
tell that to folks who could NOT get insurance NO MATTER WHAT. I know lots of folks (i'm older) who have pre-existing conditions and they were LOCKED OUT of insurance. 100% locked out. could not get it even if they paid $2k/mo.
so, for those folks (and it COULD happen to you later on) its a godsend.
cost is not great but do you think that the american system will EVER get lower in cost? I don't think it will be allowed; too many interests in keeping cost too high and not insuring everyone (the conservatives really hate spreading common things around to everyone; they think that only some people 'deserve' healthcare and the rest can go rot in hell).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The only terrorist are Obama and the Federal Reserve.
its true, though, that the republicans are the main force in the 'culture of fear' that we are stuck in the middle of.
republicans are the owners of the military machine. that exists only when there is fear in us of some foreign boogeyman.
the dems are in the pockets of entertainment (as a contrast) and that's not that much of a fear-based business (other than the threat of suits from mpaa/riaa).
fear of terrorism is mostly an invention of the republicans, though. they love to see us all cower and do whatever they say.
dems are shit-fucks, too; but their main business is not about controlling people by fear of terrorism. there is some of that, but its not their main party platform like it is for the R's.
I'll give you that both parties suck shit so bad, we need to dissolve them both. but one is most certainly a lot more evil than the other.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Is it beneficial to U.S. economy? No? Then it is a terrorist threat.
So I agree that the US government along with many others should be studying exactly this sorta thing.
Studying it is better than banning it. They have a certain mission and their job is to deal with warfare. The rest of us don't have to be concerned with war and terrorism 24/7.
But let's not pretend like there wont someday be a gang of terrorists who try to use Bitcoin because that is bound to happen someday. The better it is studied the more likely terrorism can be stopped.
The basic concepts of "freedom" and "privacy" are the perceived threats here.
The fundamental concept that anyone could be doing anything without first getting permission is the threat here.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
This is what they are paid ot do. They should study stuff like this and find ways to prevent terrorism.
There are always going to be users of anything good whether it be Bitcoin or the Internet, who will try to exploit or abuse the tool.
There are cults and terrorists out there. There are sex traffickers out there. These sorts of tools may empower them so what is wrong with studying that?
I'm sure other governments are studying how to use Bitcoin for cyberwarfare or for state sponsored terrorism so of course the United States should be looking at how to defend itself.
They are investigating how Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies can be abused. Isn't that exactly what they should be investigating?
Bitcoin is not illegal, they aren't banning or criminalizing it. Terrorist finance doesn't benefit any of us.
its true, though, that the republicans are the main force in the 'culture of fear' that we are stuck in the middle of.
Democrats use fear just as much as Republicans do, albeit in regards to different issues; using people's natural fear of mass-killings to try and diminish our right to self-armament, for example.
republicans are the owners of the military machine. that exists only when there is fear in us of some foreign boogeyman.
I'd bet dollars against pesos that if you did a little research, you'd find just as many names with a D next to them that are getting rich off the MIC as you'd see names with an R.
the dems are in the pockets of entertainment (as a contrast) and that's not that much of a fear-based business (other than the threat of suits from mpaa/riaa).
FEAR your neighbor, he might own a gun!
FEAR all the bad that will happen due to your your lack of health insurance, and sign up for Obamacare!
FEAR your district being taken over by a Republican, he'll take away your right to make your own medical decisions*!
Shall I go on? As I pointed out before, Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans for playing off people's fears to garner support.
* Ironic, juxtaposed against the previous statement, isn't it?
fear of terrorism is mostly an invention of the republicans, though. they love to see us all cower and do whatever they say.
Ever hear of a lady named Diane Feinstein? She's built a career out of convincing the (very wealthy) people in her district that those of us who are not (very wealthy and) in her district are a bunch of gun-toting terrorists who need to be disarmed - you know, for our own good.
dems are shit-fucks, too; but their main business is not about controlling people by fear of terrorism. there is some of that, but its not their main party platform like it is for the R's.
I'll give you that both parties suck shit so bad, we need to dissolve them both. but one is most certainly a lot more evil than the other.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They don't seem to be having issues moving funds around and storing money and spending it right now so I don't see how bitcoins could make it that much worse.
Best signature line.... Ever.
Murphy was an optimist
Bacon is pork. Pork is not eaten by terrorists. Therfore bacon could be given to the Americans to kill them.
This warrants a multi million dollar investigation.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Bacon is pork. Pork is not eaten by terrorists.
That only applies to fundamentalist Islamic or orthodox Jewish terrorists. What about Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian and atheist terrorists? My god, just think of the terror tools an agnostic might use! Killer cigarettes. A slushy machine. Television!
"A free and open society only exists when it is possible to keep one's finances a secret from government..."
Er, no. A quick glance at oh, y'know, HISTORY would show you that is utter bollocks. What are you, like 14? It's only since the advent of electronic banking (basically the 1960's) that tracking financial transactions was possible as we know it today. Cash econmies have exisited since the dawn of currency and that sure didn't stop a bazillion types of oppression.
Spend a little less time jerking off in your mother's basement (and her underwear) and go read a book, FFS.
Bacon terrorize your hearts and veins. You hit their hearts and loins, they hit back to your hearts and veins.
There are not 6-7 billion domestic terrorist in any country on Earth. I'll leave it as an excersize to the reader why that might be.
I'm asking who's making the claim. "The military" is still too vague, especially with zero evidence provided.
Let me google that for you. An Army report explicitly linking terrorism to money laundering good enough for you?
Probably not, seeing as you just demanded a source for something that is easily googled. You're probably a troll.
How much is the banking industry paying you to make BTC activists sound like jerks on the internet? Because they'd probably pay me more. You just don't have the talent required to be an effective jerk on the internet.
Really? Asking for numbers to assess effectiveness is a dumb way of doing so? Then how do you propose it's assessed?
And that's how many? Exactly speaking, or even as an order of magnitude figure?
So what, exactly speaking, are you claiming here? That terrorist attacks don't actually require a lot of money, so money transfers aren't really that important to terrorists, so watching money transfers is pointless from anti-terrorism point of view?
If you were literate, which is doubtful given your inability to google anything, you could probably figure this out yourself.
Big attacks require multi-thousand budgets. That hasn't happened.
I'm entirely convinced that you're an idiot. The only question remains whether you genuinely lack intelligence, or just can't bear to be shown wrong on the Internet.
"Idiot?" You're not even good at ad hominem.
That's all nice and good. But it still doesn't address my point: Al-Qaeda can't compete against miners who put their money on their mini
I thought that, too, before 2009. Obama has made the TSA regulations considerably more objectionable, which is the main reason I no longer believe it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Given that pork-eating flight school students turned out to be Islamist terrorists, I'd have to say the answer is no.
I hate to spoil your snark, but Islam, like Judaism, has a prohibition against eating pork. So you could argue that *not* eating bacon is a possible warning sign of terrorist potential...
That's why the snark is funny. Pork-eating Islamist is by definition a contradiction, yet that shit actually happened.
There is nothing that is so completely innocent that it would not be possible to draw a link between said activity and terrorism. If you could find such an activity the terrorists would immediately start doing it as cover.
I'm not saying the feds need to investigate all people all the time, but if you think there's some activity that is so virtuous and innocent that no Federal official should ever spend a couple months figuring out how it could be abused, you are are mistaken.
Our success at preventing domestic terror attacks is usually credited partly to our ability to stop the terrorists from sending each-other money.
Uhm, what success? AFAIK, the only "terrorist plot" in the US that the government has prevented was that one where the idiots thought that if they blew up a fuel pipe at JFK, they could get an explosion all along that pipeline. Obviously, they didn't comprehend that for an explosion to happen, you need fuel *and* oxygen...
That's kinda the point.
We had one set of attacks that required a fairly large amount of cash ($100k or so, IIRC) and happened, then we implemented these controls and all attacks have either been a) so physically impossible that their "perpetrators" should probably not be prosecuted, or b) very small beans.
I'll admit it's not a conclusive point, Bush's Iraq War was a tragic mistake but it also drew a generation of terrorists to the place, in many ways the S11 attack was largely luck, etc.
But, unfortunately for us, the real world doesn't allow for controlled experiments. So all the data we have is that there was an absolutely terrible attack, then we did some shit, and there hasn't been another one. The Shit We Did (SWD) probably did something good, but proving conclusively which element of SWD worked is impossible.
That said, it is equally impossible for the skeptics of SWD to actually prove their cases. It's not like they can go back in time, remove all money laundering-controls just for Kansas City, and see whether terrorism happens. Therefore when something that changes SWD we should probably have both sides present their cases. This new study will probably be the pro SWD, anti-BTC as money-laundering side. Presumably the pro-BTC and anti-government geeks at Slashdot will present the other side with enthusiasm, just as soon as they have something to rebut.
BTC is specifically designed so that government's can't trace it, or interdict the cash-flow. This means the anti-terror cops damn well better have a plan for if AQ starts a major BTC mining operation.
No, bitcoin is *not* designed to be untraceable. In fact, thanks to the blockchain, it's actually a lot easier to trace than normal cash. What's hard is taking the information from the blockchain, and connecting it to a specific individual or group. So it's pretty anonymous, but once a given wallet has been associated with someone like AQ, anyone monitoring the blockchains could extract a heck of a lot of info about where their money is coming from and going to.
So it's not untraceable, it's just almost impossible to figure out which humans a) sent the money, and b) received the money? I believe that is the dictionary definition of "untraceable."
In other words let's assume AQ has an IQ above room temperature. They have $15k from some wealthy-ass Arab Sheik. They create a new wallet. They buy $15k BTC. They can now either a) send their guy the wallet ph
"study this" is a euphemism for: "If we can't control it, we will find a way to destroy it." TBTB is scared poopless that they are losing control...
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Well, just look at the drug-trade.. They seems to manage quite good without being traced..
Bitcoin is much more traceable than any physical currency.. First hit on google gave this link http://www.technologyreview.co...
Getting rid of banks and their crazy transaction-costs is a good thing. Being able to transfer money in a secure way to anyone i want at any time i want is a even better incentive to use it.. And it could even be used as a rating system on how established (and in a way to be trusted) a store is by checking how many transactions that goes into it's bitcoin-address.
For taxes it could be a very nice too, at least for goverments. All transactions to and from a company must go via registered bitcoin addresses. All salaries must be paid to registered addresses.. This way they have full and absolute access to all transactions, even person to person, within their country and any country they chose to share the list of address->person.
But sure they would loose the possibility to confiscate accounts, but it would be easy to add functionality that would check a black-list of addresses if required in a country.. Sure people could use non-blacklist checking clients to get funds but those can be traced and blocked too. And the last part is the same as someone hiding tons of cash under their bed at home, but with the added feature of being fully traceable in the future.
You could even require stores to only accept bitcoins from registered addresses.
The thing that usually puts people behind bars is not being able to send money between each other but the paper-trace of how money flows..
Money-laundering in bitcoins is closly related to bitcoin-tumblers, and those can be easily be located by just looking at the block-chain and people that has or will receive money from it can be investigated..
Bitcoin != anonymous money
Bitcoin == non-regulated/non-blockable (for now atleast) cheap and fast transactions with secure escrow-functionality with more trace-ability than physical money.
And it's probably cheaper and faster for them to just buy the bitcoins at random exchanges than to invest in bitcoin-mining.. Tracing transactions between a number of banks in different, non-cooperating nations, is also much harder than having access to the block-chain and seeing that it went to Person1->unknown-user->unknown-user->Person2. It just adds to the list of interesting-addresses to keep track of in the future.
But even if you send them around for a while you can still see the flow of money and see that it originated at X and then ended up at Y (or even Y,Z,P).
Bitcoin tumblers are easy to locate just by looking at the blockchain, and not that hard to figure out with some number-crunching.. And it would even be a good thing to outlaw bitcoin tumblers since they are (to my knowledge atleast) only used to try and hide illegal trades, so just go investigate people receiving money from tumblers..
It's not as simple as that. One could buy Dogecoin in the US with US dollars, send it to someone in France, sell it to someone in Germany, buy Bitcoin in Euros, send those to someone in Iran or Syria, sell them for whatever currency, and hand that currency over to whoever. The US or France would have very little control at the far end of the (people, not block-) chain. To get at the Link 0 in the US they would have to prove that Link 0 knew where that cash would end up and what would be done with it on the other end of the chain of custody of the money.