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."

Comments

Your tax dollars hard at work

[Anonymous Coward]

subject says it all.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[i kan reed]

FYI, all other electronic money transfers in the US are required to go through money laundering and terrorist funding checks. By law the bank isn't even allowed to tell you why you can't get your money, if the scan hits a positive.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[F34nor]

You know that without a traceable currency tax dollars cease to exist right? Read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson (which on my most recent re-reading seems even more spot on) about what America would like like with online anonymous black banking.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[dmbasso]

And I can't even imagine how harsh would be the punishment for those who get caught laundering money for terrorists. Let's say if a big bank (i.e. HSBC, or Santander) got caught, certainly hundreds of people would go to jail, right?

I feel so safe with all these laws protecting us.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[InsultsByThePound]

Yeah, and in the last few decades law enforcement agencies on both the state and federal level have grown increasingly dependent on civil forfeiture in their insane drug war. Basically it's a guilty until proven innocent system, and good luck getting it back if the government took all your money to begin with.

This was a country with $500 and $1000 (and more) dollar bills already back in the 1920s.... and now you're suspicious if you carry more than a few hundred dollar bills. Modern hundred dollar bills that I may add have less value than a 1920s Hamilton ($10 bill).

Before anyone says it only happens to drug dealers, I had 2 friends go to CA with their life savings of $15k and a business plan get stopped in OK and the money seized and never seen again. Not an gram of drugs in the car, just some beer in the back. America looks more and more like a communist country every coming decade.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[farble1670]

subject says it all.

having an economy largely based on a digital currency that is (possibly) subject to corruption by terrorists. yes, that's a real threat.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[X.25]

FYI, all other electronic money transfers in the US are required to go through money laundering and terrorist funding checks. By law the bank isn't even allowed to tell you why you can't get your money, if the scan hits a positive.

Obama administration offers $27 million in additional help for Syrian rebels

Wonder how they'll transfer it...

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[khellendros1984]

America looks more and more like a communist country every coming decade.

I think the words you were looking for are "totalitarian police state", or the like.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[PRMan]

It seems like they should have put it in bitcoin and retrieved it when they got to CA.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[PRMan]

Seriously, though, it sounds like your friends need to give 1/3 of that to a lawyer so they can get the other 2/3 back.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[Sentrion]

I prefer the Swiss bank secrecy laws.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[Sentrion]

It would like kind of like Puerto Rico, but more high-tech.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[ArmoredDragon]

Cash is even more anonymous than bitcoin; I would figure it a bigger threat in that regard.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[mythosaz]

Great business minds!

Was step one of the business plan: "Withdraw every penny of their life savings in cash in order to transport it cross country by car?"

[As you know, EFTs can't get over the Rocky Mountains until the pass opens back up in the spring...]

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[rogoshen1]

foolishness is not illegal.
carrying cash is not illegal.
carrying cash should not used as a proxy to assign guilt for some other crime.
the police should not be able to press charges against *items* and deny standing to it's owner.

civil forfeiture is an abrogation of our civil rights and we should be throwing the ones responsible for it in jail. :(

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[IamTheRealMike]

Be careful what you wish for. It looks like Holder is going to actually try and jail some bankers.

However, these banks will not be accused of laundering money for terrorists, except under an extremely flexible definition of "terrorist". Most likely they will be accused of evading sanctions and/or helping naughty Americans avoid tax (let's ignore that some of these Americans had left America). Unfortunately last time the USA went on the war path over sanction-evading banks it turned out that the countries the financial activity was happening in didn't have those sanctions. Another minor detail for the US Govt. Jurisdiction doesn't seem to matter to them.

I do feel like we're entering dangerous new territory with this constant beating up of banks, often under deeply questionable covers. The DoJ and Treasury dept have realised that bankers are so politically weak they can be made to do anything because people automatically assume they're guilty, and just the threat of prosecution under bogus laws can cow them into subservience - which is a problem because by seizing control of the banks they seize control of the people, who cannot do without bank accounts. Hence Operation Choke Point.

Frankly, I do not believe bankers are a part of some cigar smoking Al-Qaeda terrorist conspiracy and I'd rather they were left alone than we go down this path .... it can only lead to even more gross abuses of power than what we've already seen.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[msobkow]

So which bank do you work for?

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[UnknownSoldier]

> Let's say if a big bank (i.e. HSBC, or Santander) got caught, certainly hundreds of people would go to jail, right?

. /sarcasm Yes; Oh wait ...

In October 2001, Birkenfeld began working at UBS in Geneva, Switzerland, handling private banking, primarily for clients located in the United States. In 2005, he learned that UBS's secret dealings with American customers violated an agreement the bank had reached with the IRS.

He resigned from UBS in October 2005 and provided written whistleblower complaints to Peter Kurer, Head Counsel for UBS, and other UBS senior executives regarding the illegal practices of U.S. cross-border business.

He is the first person to expose what has become a multi-billion dollar international tax fraud scandal over Swiss private banking Despite his unprecedented, extensive and voluntary cooperation, and registering as an IRS whistleblower, Birkenfeld is the only U.S. citizen to be sentenced to jail as a result of the scandal in March 2012.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Eventually justice is rendered

... As a result of the financial recoveries facilitated by his whistleblowing, Birkenfeld received a $104 million award from the IRS Whistleblower Office in September 2012.

HSBC had to (eventually) pay:

* http://www.salon.com/2012/12/1...

Greed knows no bounds ...

* http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

The ironic thing is that we were warned exactly about this situation:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered ... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies ... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[mythosaz]

...and, in almost every case, carrying large amounts of cash has little to no consequence.

I visit the WSOP every year, and while they accept wire transfers at the Rio cage, nearly every player brings cash -- and not just the main event players. There's thousands of people like myself playing smaller events who have thousands of dollars in cash on them at and en route to the WSOP every year.

Care to tell us the rest of the story that was worth mentioning "just some beer in the back?"

If their business plan was to run Coors to the east coast, it's been done already...

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[NotSanguine]

And I can't even imagine how harsh would be the punishment for those who get caught laundering money for terrorists. Let's say if a big bank (i.e. HSBC, or Santander) got caught, certainly hundreds of people would go to jail, right?

I feel so safe with all these laws protecting us.

Because our government would never allow a bank which financed drug dealers and fomented revolution to do business in the US, right?

Granted, this was a long time ago, but not much has changed, has it?

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[NotSanguine]

Frankly, I do not believe bankers are a part of some cigar smoking Al-Qaeda terrorist conspiracy and I'd rather they were left alone than we go down this path .... it can only lead to even more gross abuses of power than what we've already seen.

You're right. But they are members of the oligarch class who will happily watch us all end up in the streets as long as they can maintain their profits. Actually, they'd like us all in the streets, since poor people have fewer opportunities to challenge their supremacy.

You can call that paranoia if you want, but given the lobbying and politician buying activities of that group, it's clear that they are willing to sacrifice our economic and social well-being in the pursuit of more money for them.

It's ultimately self-defeating, since their profits are based on our consumer society, but they'll happily sacrifice the future for quarterly gains (and bonuses).

That's not terrorism, but it is antithetical to the ideals of freedom and opportunity for all. That we don't regulate these guys or incentivize economic opportunity and equality says a lot about how deeply these guys have their filthy paws into our government.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[AthanasiusKircher]

Seriously, though, it sounds like your friends need to give 1/3 of that to a lawyer so they can get the other 2/3 back.

Yeah, good luck with that. These confiscations are notoriously hard to fight. The "friends" are probably not even an official party to some criminal proceeding -- instead, many of these cases are filed as "State of X vs. $15,000" (I wish I were kidding). Many municipalities will charge thousands of dollars in fees just for the right to file a challenge for the confiscation, so they might be out 10-20% of their money just to get the process started. Add on complicated and lengthy legal proceedings, and they'd be very lucky to get a fraction of it back. It might not be worth it at all. The only way to fix these sorts of problems is probably a class-action lawsuit against the offending municipalities.

By the way, for those who don't realize the craziness of civil forfeiture laws: law enforcement have routinely seized people's cash, cars, even houses -- with no trial, no criminal proceeding, often just a bare hint of "probable cause" or trumped up "suspicion." Look it up (for example, here's a good recent summary of some egregious examples.

While people traveling with a wad of cash are probably the most common target, this is a much bigger issue -- a truly shocking and extreme violation of basic rights.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[AthanasiusKircher]

...and, in almost every case, carrying large amounts of cash has little to no consequence.

I visit the WSOP every year, and while they accept wire transfers at the Rio cage, nearly every player brings cash -- and not just the main event players. There's thousands of people like myself playing smaller events who have thousands of dollars in cash on them at and en route to the WSOP every year.

Yeah, good for you. Many, many people have been less lucky -- and perhaps you should pay close attention to what municipalities and states you travel through with your cash. (Some stories of how crazy this can get here.)

Care to tell us the rest of the story that was worth mentioning "just some beer in the back?"

Sounded like a reference to the kinds of things that allow law enforcement to arbitrarily seize assets to me. They spot something "suspicious," which is enough to constitute some minimum of "probable cause" ("I smelled something weird, and I spotted a case of beer in the back seat..."), ask to search the car, find a wad of cash, file a pseudo-lawsuit "State of X vs. $15,000," and the money disappears into the government's bank accounts.

Maybe there's more to the story, but it's also very possible that these people just happened to be driving through the wrong place and hit the cop who has a profit motive to arbitrarily seize assets. (And yeah, if you've never heard of this stuff happening before, it sounds freakin' CRAZY, but it does happen... all the time.)

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[radiumsoup]

well, Marx did say that Socialism was just the stepping stone on the path to Communism. (paraphrasing)

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[Ralph Wiggam]

And I can't even imagine how harsh would be the punishment for those who get caught laundering money for terrorists. Let's say if a big bank (i.e. HSBC, or Santander) got caught, certainly hundreds of people would go to jail, right?

I feel so safe with all these laws protecting us.

I'm so sick of seeing the HSBC case referenced by people who have no clue about the actual case. Nobody at the bank had any involvement in "laundering money for terrorists". Other people laundered money using HSBC's accounts. The HSBC employees did not follow regulatory reporting rules that might have revealed the laundering. So like any regulatory violation, they were slapped with a massive fine. It would have been ridiculous to charge anyone with a crime.

If the night security guard at a bank falls asleep, and someone robs the bank without him noticing- you wouldn't charge the security guard with bank robbery.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[currently_awake]

Bankers have shown they will do whatever gives them the most money, even if doing so will bring down the nations financial system. The only thing keeping (most) bankers from laundering money for terrorists is the fear of getting caught.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[catchblue22]

America looks more and more like a communist country every coming decade.

I think the words you were looking for are "totalitarian police state", or the like.

I think given this speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Congress in 1938, the best description would be a fascist state. It certainly isn't communism.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The American government has been bought and paid for by private interests/corporations. Under FDR's description, that makes it fascist, or nearly so. Elect Chris Christy as President and that will settle it. He is a dangerous man.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[erikkemperman]

Because our government would never allow a bank which financed drug dealers and fomented revolution to do business in the US, right?

Granted, this was a long time ago, but not much has changed, has it?

Actually, that same bank, among others, was recently found guilty of pretty much similar crimes. But other than a slap on the wrist, nothing happened because:

the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal. It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. "Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, "HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[Anonymous Coward]

OOOH BUT THE PRIVACY BOOGEYMAN

Why not just let people install surveillance cameras everywhere in your house? OOOH BUT THE PRIVACY BOOGEYMAN ... what the hell people.

I guess that only applies when it's privacy that *you* care about. I don't want corporations or government tracking everything I do or buy. Privacy is what helps us maintain our liberty.

With that said, if you want real privacy, use cash. Checks are not private.

There is nothing you can legally buy that is going to put you on some list somewhere for some reason.

Just like only Bad Guys get put on the no fly list? Just like only Bad Guys get molested by the TSA, get spied on by the NSA, get put in internment camps, get spied on by some other agency (MLK must've been a terrorist), get stopped-and-frisked, or just generally get abused by the government. Those hundreds of millions of people abused by governments throughout history must've all been Bad Guys.

Average Joe White Collar and Miss average Jane blue collar has nothing to worry about unless they're buying precursors for questionable activities.

Simply incorrect. You assume the government is full of perfect beings for some reason. This is not true, has never been true, and never will be true. Power corrupts, and anyone who does something the government doesn't like (even a 'normal' person) has a chance of being harassed if we give the government the wrong powers, or even if we don't.

You are naive.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[NotSanguine]

Carrying more than $100,000 in cash without a approval(or was it simple notification? or declared reason?) is illegal, though.

AFAIK, you must declare cash amounts above $10,000 if you are traveling internationally to/from the US. Traveling within the US, however, there is no reporting requirement or any restriction. It's probably dumb to carry that much cash, but being dumb isn't illegal either.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[sfcat]

If the night security guard at a bank falls asleep, and someone robs the bank without him noticing- you wouldn't charge the security guard with bank robbery.

At least they should be fired for falling asleep while the bank is robbed. Where those involved fired?

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[captainpanic]

In those days, tax was not a percentage. You just had to pay a certain amount, or else. That's not a system that I'd like to see reinstalled.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[michelcolman]

Yeah, those were the good old days...

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[sirlark]

No, you wouldn't charge him with bank robbery... but you would sure as hell do a DEEP investigation into conspiracy to commit bank robbery.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[Ralph Wiggam]

The government doesn't really care, since the fine was against the corporation. But when you are involved in losing your employer 2 billion dollars due to a fine, you tend to get fired.

Re: Your tax dollars hard at work

[KramberryKoncerto]

With cash, many transactions can happen between getting from a checkpoint (banks) to another, and some bills simply don't go to banks so often. Sometimes a bill just used for payment is given out again as change. Sometimes a transaction can happen in private, such as in internet auctions. Sometimes there's a vendor that doesn't go through banks so much. Finally, shops simply don't take note of your own identity, so even when the police traces the money back to a shop owner, the shop owner won't be able to tell which bad guy gave him a $20 bill with a certain ID on what day.

In Bitcoin, every single transaction is traceable, it's just not so easy to identify the endpoints. Up till now there have been many ways to avoid being identified, but as more regulations and infrastructure are brought in, eventually it's going to be less anonymous than cash.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[coastwalker]

Your view is not congruent with mine. Banking staff just increase their annual bonus following the sophisticated application of the Banks way of doing business - Basically take sweets from babies, steal, kill and burn to death anything in the way of increasing the takings and ones own three times annual salary bonus.

So no, its pointless trying to send people to jail for following the rules of the game.

The problem is that the regulators are basically working for the banks, as are academics, as are media commentators. So no surprise that they all got together and shafted main-street.

Sending Bankers to Jail is pointless until the regulators actually regulate instead of taking home bribes.

The fact that the bankers knew they were screwing, and indeed still are screwing the rest of us we will leave for their consciences to deal with.

The real blame lies with the Politicians who would rather surf the wave of the boom whilst they are in power rather than take any long term action to prevent the inevitable crash. After all boom and bust is good for the economy, its just a bit hard on all the people it fucks. Lets hope that this incompetent handling of the economy doesn't ever fuck you, as you seem quite happy for it to continue. After all you believe that the free market will be perfectly fair and will operate just like the theoretical model of a free market that seems intellectually fair and optimally successful. There is no such thing as a free market, its either run by the government regulator, the mafia, a powerful entity overseas or the local criminal who has invented their own tax on you.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[TheCarp]

Not specifically illegal, however, if you are caught with it, it can be confiscated and accused of being part of a drug crime. Then, being a civil suit, the standards of evidence require that you to show that the property was not used in a crime, as the standard of guilt is significantly lower.

As an added bonus, if its more than one bill, some portion of the money certainly will test positive for cocaine or some other drug, so there is already evidence to be used against you if they feel they need it.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[NotSanguine]

Not specifically illegal, however, if you are caught with it, it can be confiscated and accused of being part of a drug crime. Then, being a civil suit, the standards of evidence require that you to show that the property was not used in a crime, as the standard of guilt is significantly lower.

As an added bonus, if its more than one bill, some portion of the money certainly will test positive for cocaine or some other drug, so there is already evidence to be used against you if they feel they need it.

Yes. I am aware of the abuses of "Civil Forfeiture" in the US. I was addressing the incorrect assertion made that carrying large amounts of cash was *illegal*. I did say it was dumb. But that's not illegal either.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[coinreturn]

I visit the WSOP every year, and while they accept wire transfers at the Rio cage, nearly every player brings cash -- and not just the main event players. There's thousands of people like myself playing smaller events who have thousands of dollars in cash on them at and en route to the WSOP every year.

Hey, can I get a ride with you next year?

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[ehiris]

Easy, send them outdated equipment of that retail value that can't be easily thrown in the trash.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[MooseMiester]

So the bankers are evil because they act in their own self interest, and the politicians are evil because they act in their own self interest, people who believe in the free market are wrong because it doesn't exist... which leaves us with one choice that you think will make you happy - A totalitarian dictatorship.

Which, at the end of the day, in your own words, fucks everybody except the small number of people at the top.

And yet, the greatest country in the world - with the strongest economy in the world - occurred because of CAPITALISM - which is now evil.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[mythosaz]

Carrying more than $100,000 in cash without a approval(or was it simple notification? or declared reason?) is illegal, though.

Citation needed.

Good luck though, because you're full of shit.

Similarly, you can gladly take more than $10k out of the country.

There is no limit on the total amount of money or monetary instruments that may be brought into or taken out of the United States. However, if you transport or cause to be transported, more than $10,000 in monetary instruments on any occasion into or out of the United States, or if you receive more than that amount, in behalf of someone else and then transport it, you must file a Customs Form 4790 with U.S. Customs.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[F34nor]

All I want is a transaction tax. Read about the "Tobin Tax" at 1/10 of 1% of every dollar transaction it would generate more revenue than the current system.

Re:Your tax dollars hard at work

[F34nor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

lol wat?

[Anonymous Coward]

If BTC is a Terrorist Threat, then I'm the new leader of Bitcoin World Order

Sarcasm applies ^

Re:lol wat?

[ArcadeMan]

Please send many BTC at 17Yvsma9tfiuqVP7QhsFE2VmsFpTEMy17P, the funds will be used to buy game consoles of mass distraction.

Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat?

[Spy Handler]

n/t

Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[The New Guy 2.0]

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.

Re: Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when it wasn't falling of course, but other than those times your statement is correct.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[bobbied]

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.

Huh? It's surely been falling of late, but it started at an exchange rate of ZERO. Being I don't know of anybody who is paying me to accept BitCoin (i.e. an exchange rate of less than zero) I don't see how your statement is true.

Not that I wouldn't agree that BTC is going to prove to be a boondoggle... It's just not as bad as you claim.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[BasilBrush]

Huh? It's surely been falling of late, but it started at an exchange rate of ZERO.

That's the dynamic of a Ponzi scheme, as is the OPs description of who benefits.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[ShanghaiBill]

That's the dynamic of a Ponzi scheme, as is the OPs description of who benefits.

His description of who benefits was "the programmer", which is nonsense. You don't have to be a programmer to be miner, and you certainly don't have to be "the" programmer. Anybody could/can mine bitcoins. Bitcoins may or may not turn out to be a good long term investment, but the bitcoin system has almost nothing in common with a Ponzi scheme. People claiming Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme understand neither how bitcoins work, nor how Ponzi schemes work.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[ShanghaiBill]

Yeah, almost like the USD. Big money for those who print it and a money loser for everybody else.

USDs are only a big loser for people that stuff it under their mattresses. If you spend it shortly after receiving it, on things like rent or groceries, it will lose only an insignificant amount of value. If you invest it, then your return on that investment will compensate for expected inflation. Mild inflation is basically a tax on hoarding.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[PRMan]

Really? News to me. I made 1000% so far in a year.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[PRMan]

And Satoshi hasn't spent one...well...Satoshi as far as anybody knows.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[ArcadeMan]

Please send 10 BTC to 17Yvsma9tfiuqVP7QhsFE2VmsFpTEMy17P, I will try to duplicate your 1000% profits as proof.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[david_thornley]

If that was a almost certain outcome, people are using it similarly to a Ponzi scheme. If not, you're doing some serious gambling there, pardner.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[The New Guy 2.0]

If you got that profit, then you were lucky. This thing has been a bumpy ride down since the 1990s.

Re:Bitcoin never made cents or sense....

[BasilBrush]

The programmer is of course the first one with access to mining, and could therefore mine coins without competition. It's a known fact that he has a significant percentage of the bitcoins from those early days. If it's a Ponzi scheme, then he is indeed the person at the top that will reap most of the rewards.

Sure, with many Ponzi schemes, those enrolled very early may also make some profit. But far fewer than imagine they will.

Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only a matter of time.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has actually taken longer than I thought it would

Related

[jonyen]

The TSA's already gotten started on this one: http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/...

Turn that finger around 180

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Turn that finger around 180

[Sentrion]

The enemy wants to take away your freedom. The only way to stop them is to dominate, track and control every facet of life. You do believe in protecting freedom now, don't you?

Welp, if it wasn't popular before

[i kan reed]

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.

Re:Welp, if it wasn't popular before

[Sentrion]

Nobody knows WHO "invented" bitcoin. Odds are fair that bitcoin is just another NSA program to track those who are seeking to remain anonymous. Who else with a decent R&D budget would fund such a project without taking credit for it, raising awareness for their cause, or making a profit from the effort?

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[Rob Riggs]

Bacon is clearly not a terrorist threat. So, eat up, America!

Sounds reasonable

[Mr 44]

It's a bit immature for people to be blindly making fun of this. At the risk of RTFA:

An unclassified memo from January unearthed by Bitcoin Magazine detailed solicitations for CTTSO projects. The memo states that one of the mission requirements is for "innovative...solutions to develop and/or enhance new concepts and constructs for understanding the role of virtual currencies" in financing threats against the United States.

The memo said the blurring of national lines is facilitating the transfer of virtual currencies: "The introduction of virtual currency will likely shape threat finance by increasing the opaqueness, transactional velocity, and overall efficiencies of terrorist attacks," it stated.

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.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Stargoat]

It's simply about the US losing the power to police its borders. The real reason you go through the scantron is to keep you from packing hundreds to your torso and walking out of the country. The same is true with gold. The US government hates the idea of people moving money without their consent.

PATRIOT Act has mainly been used to suppress this activity.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[supervillainsf]

The real reason you go through the scantron is to keep you from packing hundreds to your torso and walking out of the country.

What if I forgot a #2 pencil and used a pen - can the scantron still see them?

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Stargoat]

Probably. It can also give you cancer.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[Sentrion]

You're immature and naive if you believe that Democrats aren't being paid by the same corporate lobbyists to pursue the exact same agenda.

Re:Sounds reasonable

[UnknownSoldier]

What, you don't like the mandatory weekly BitCoin "news" ? :-)

Re:Sounds reasonable

[currently_awake]

I don't think so. I believe the real reason for the porno-scanner is to take 3d biometric scans of all travelers. Then when they bring in grainy vid footage of some terrorist they can use the global biometric database to make a short-list of suspects.

No currency

[LeepII]

Face it there will be no currency the Rothchilds don't control.

Re:No currency

[Richy_T]

I believe he's talking about someone who was born into a scene of angriness and greed, dominance and persecution. Whose mother was a queen, father was never seen and was never meant to be. Yeah...

Eat Your Bacon

[HannethCom]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[NicBenjamin]

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.

Stupid headline and summary.

[jklovanc]

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.

Re:Stupid headline and summary.

[bobbied]

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.

How about we just dock their pay... Oh, right... On Slashdot these things are contributed by people who don't get paid...

Re:Stupid headline and summary.

[farble1670]

On Slashdot these things are contributed by people who don't get paid...

i think you meant "can't get paid".

Re:Stupid headline and summary.

[GrumpySteen]

And yet you'll see the actual post was put up by someone (samzenpus) who is a paid employee. God forbid the editors actually edit anything, though, right?

Re:Stupid headline and summary.

[bobbied]

On Slashdot these things are contributed by people who don't get paid...

i think you meant "can't get paid".

LOL.. I like that one.. Thanks I needed the laugh.

Re:Stupid headline and summary.

[jklovanc]

Notice I said "editors" and not "contributors"? They have different jobs. Contributors submit crap. The editors are supposed to make it look pretty and be accurate before it is displayed to the readers (us).

Re:Stupid headline and summary.

[1s44c]

They are not investigating Bitcoin as a threat.They are investigating how crypto-currencies can be used to finance terrorism.

Because the US government doesn't have enough ways of supporting terrorism as it is?

Re:Stupid headline and summary.

[Richy_T]

And are worth every penny.

Re:Sounds UNreasonable

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Hard to imagine

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[Charliemopps]

More importantly, is there anyone who couldn't be classified as a terrorist?

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[david_thornley]

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.

Goldman Sacks rules the world ..

[lippydude]

Yea, how dare these Bitcoin people make a buck, without paying Goldman Sacks their tribute ..

Goldman Sachs Rules the World

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Sounds UNreasonable

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[ultranova]

Our success at preventing domestic terror attacks is usually credited partly to our ability to stop the terrorists from sending each-other money.

"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?

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.

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.

Meanwhile the biggest money launders

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Electronic currency or Bitcoin?

[wubboy]

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.

Re:How about cash?

[AHuxley]

Cash is already suspect for people. Trying to take it out of a bank and you get a chat down after electronic means flag you and your invited in to see a real person.
Driving with some cash makes you something unknown and you might face "civil forfeiture" depending on the area you where randomly stopped in.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/in...
Enjoying a hotel or renting a car? Enjoy that friendly chat down as you make enquiries and pay your bill.
Now we see the same for online efforts unless your using one for 3 or 4 allowed US backed credit cards?

Re:How about cash?

[jklovanc]

There are already rules dealing with large volumes of cash. For example one must declare the import of $10k or more in cash. Cash is hard to transfer as it is bulky. Crypto-currencies can be transferred much more easily.

Stoopid government

[1s44c]

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?

Re:How about cash?

[1s44c]

It's always been easy enough to transport large amounts of diamonds. Yet the US government hasn't declared diamonds a terrorist threat yet.

I think the US government just went off the deep end.

Re:To be fair...

[1s44c]

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?

The US government has really lost the plot by calling math a terrorist threat. No wonder China is on course to become the world's biggest economy.

Re:How about cash?

[jklovanc]

Terrorist plots run on cash not diamonds. Lets see, to transfer money by diamonds you need to do the following.
1. find someone to sell you diamonds who would have to report the transaction if it is over $10k in cash. The seller may also report you for the reward.
2. transport the diamonds to the destination with the risk involved.
3. Find someone to buy the diamonds for near the price you bought them who would also have to report the transaction if more then $10K is involved. The buyer may also report you for the reward.
There is time involved in every step and loss of value in steps 1 and 3. Transporting diamonds is easy but getting the same value out of them as was put into them is much more difficult and risky.
Conversely crypto-currency has no reporting requirements.

Yet the US government hasn't declared diamonds a terrorist threat yet.

They have not declared crypto-currency a terrorist threat. The headline and summary are inaccurate. In fact, they have not declared anything yet. They are investigating crypto-currency as a medium to transfer terrorist funding and that is all.

I think the US government just went off the deep end.

They are doing due diligence by investigating every viable funding route for terrorism. To do less would leave a door open that could be exploited.

Possibly of more concern...

[davidwr]

... would be the potential threat of terrorists to take over the blockchain or make people think they could.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[Lloyd_Bryant]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[ultranova]

"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.

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.

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.

I'm asking who's making the claim. "The military" is still too vague, especially with zero evidence provided.

As how many have been stopped, that's a really dumb way for you to bring up the point.

Really? Asking for numbers to assess effectiveness is a dumb way of doing so? Then how do you propose it's assessed?

The answer is 100% of the attacks that involve spending more a grand.

And that's how many? Exactly speaking, or even as an order of magnitude figure?

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.

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?

Frankly you're so bad at this I'm already half-convinced you're an anti-BTC agent provocateur.

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.

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.

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.

Don't worry

[penguinoid]

The NSA already knows everything you do with your computer, including Bitcoin trades.

Terrorist Threat: What terrorists find threatening

[VortexCortex]

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."

apples too

[superwiz]

Terrorists eat apples! The apple farmers must be observed for possible terrorist connections.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[UnknownSoldier]

./ sarcasm Shhhh, we have to declare the next inanimate object the next evil incarnate.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[NotSanguine]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[NotSanguine]

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...

Terror Everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How about cash?

[dryeo]

And to make things more fun, there are whole classes of people who can't get a bank account or credit card and according to the story the other day, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... trades that the government don't like are getting their bank accounts closed by the helpful bank. Even if the banks are voluntarily closing undesirables accounts, it makes it hard to function in society.

Re:How about cash?

[currently_awake]

If you monitor and control all financial transactions you know what is happening and can block those that threaten you. Given they only care about results and not morality it's an easy call for the powers that be.

Re:How about cash?

[AHuxley]

Yes its chilling to understnd the total control over aspect of 'international' payment options that really link back their historical nation state origins.
Recall the wikileaks donations saga http://www.cnet.com/news/credi...

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[Hypotensive]

Except smoked bacon, which causes cancer and is clearly evil, therefore a terrorist threat.

In my book

[ruir]

Obama is a terrorist threat too, and no one does anything about it. This is not fair.

Re:One step closer to having everyone chipped

[gmhowell]

Carrousel, carrousel, carrousel[sic]...

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[L4t3r4lu5]

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.

Why do you hate Muslims?

[wiredog]

Are you some sort of Christianist racist?

Re:Why do you hate Muslims?

[Rob Riggs]

Are you some sort of Christianist racist?

No. Do you see a "Jews and/or Muslims don't eat pork" subtext in all jokes involving bacon? Do you fret about the fact that orthodox Jews will never truly understand Jimmy Buffett's song "Cheeseburger in Paradise"?

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[AmiMoJo]

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.

How to tell the reporters don't get it either

[TheCarp]

Clearly they both understand bitcoin enough to explain it in their own words:

Himanshu Arora: The biggest concern associated with Bitcoin is the anonymity built into the virtual currency's architecture. Although transactions are public, the parties involved are kept anonymous. Bitcoins can allow illegal operations with the ease and speed of the Internet, but with the secrecy of a cash deal.

Ryan W Neal: At the heart of the concern is the anonymity built into the bitcoin architecture. While every bitcoin transaction is public, the parties involved are kept anonymous. With bitcoins, illegal operations can be made with the speed and ease of the Internet and with the secrecy of cash.

So this is what high school english teachers spend their time reading, sections of the text book, barely edited.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[mr_mischief]

One doesn't mine bitcoins to launder cash. One buys the bitcoins, sends them around, then cashes back out.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[TheGratefulNet]

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).

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

Cryptocurrencies are a potential terrorist threat

[elucido]

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.

They could be doing *anything* with that "money"!

[karlandtanya]

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.

If the government is doing nothing else

[elucido]

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.

You have it right

[elucido]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[CanHasDIY]

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.

not really

[slashmydots]

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.

Re:Sounds UNreasonable

[MooseMiester]

Best signature line.... Ever.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[houghi]

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[NicBenjamin]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

As how many have been stopped, that's a really dumb way for you to bring up the point.

Really? Asking for numbers to assess effectiveness is a dumb way of doing so? Then how do you propose it's assessed?

The answer is 100% of the attacks that involve spending more a grand.

And that's how many? Exactly speaking, or even as an order of magnitude figure?

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.

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.

Frankly you're so bad at this I'm already half-convinced you're an anti-BTC agent provocateur.

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.

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.

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

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[david_thornley]

its true, though, that the republicans are the main force in the 'culture of fear' that we are stuck in the middle of.

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.

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[NicBenjamin]

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

Re:Cryptocurrencies are a potential terrorist thre

[messymerry]

"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...

Re:Is there anything that's not a terrorist threat

[mr_mischief]

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.