Slashdot Mirror
US Cyber Criminal Underground a Shopping Free-For-All (csoonline.com)
itwbennett writes: According to a new report by Trend Micro, the North American cyber criminal underground has "[essentially] become a gun show for everyone as long as they can participate and are willing to pay," said Tom Kellermann, chief cybersecurity officer at Trend Micro. Their research revealed that 15% of underground sites sell offer crimeware and allow criminals to buy a variety of malware and hacking services, such as crypting. It's the hottest-selling item, other than drugs, said Kellermann. In case you're wondering, murder for hire sites make up just 1% of the underground mall.
>> has become a gun show
So...only "small arm", non-automated hacks are for sale then?
Doesn't making it easy for cybercriminals to find your business also make it easy for law enforcement to find your business? Why isn't law enforcement spending money to try to contact each of these, as well as put up multiple honeypot sites to go after their customer base? How many of the murder-for-hire sites were created by law enforcement in the first place? Much like beautiful women on dating sites, I suspect the count of criminal enterprises is greatly exagerated by ringers put up by law enforcement personnel.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
About the only time I ever hear about contract killings is when people get arrested trying to hire somebody to commit murder on their behalf. It never works, they always seem to get caught. As they say, good help is hard to find.
Have there been any actual killings attributed to a murder for hire website? It sounds like a scam.
What is it?
You left out Google, Boeing, IBM, probably more I can't think of at the moment.
Well the moral of the story here is you should not pass laws you can't enforce you should not outlaw things people generally don't see as terribly objectionable.
Letting people use apps t get rides and paying people to take them places in cars does not offend anyone other than rent seeking cabbies. The result is you get a general public that breaks the law. Ditto for soft drugs like weed, gambling, more discrete prostitution eg call girls who do happy endings, etc.
Other people see people they know and respect being scoff laws and respect for the law is lost. After that its only short mental leap to 'i probably won't get caught so what the hell' and that is why we can't have nice things.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Nice F'ing analogy; a gun show. Has he ever been to a gun show? Most of the tables selling guns are FFL. The rest beef jerky, tools, ammo, etc. Sheesh, you have to be an FFL to be a "dealer". There are no unlicensed "dealers". Sure, there are a few with signs hung on their backs with a long gun on shoulder, advertising a private sale, but they are few.http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/12/07/203211/us-cyber-criminal-underground-a-shopping-free-for-all#
Which is why we shouldn't be passing unenforceable laws in the first place. If we didn't have the taxi monopolies and the laws supporting them, Uber and Lyft wouldn't be such a big deal because we would already have large numbers of small companies. But by passing first the monopolistic taxi laws and then passing more laws to try and regulate Uber and Lyft, you're pretty much ensuring that only big companies with deep pockets and lots of lawyers can remain in the market.
Well, sure. There aren't that many FBI agents.
That quote is ridiculous. Anybody who's ever been to a gun show can tell you it's one of the safest most orderly mass congregations of people you'll ever have the pleasure of attending. The stuff that's for sale adheres to strict local, state, and federal laws. And there is no tolerance by the show management, attendees, or other vendors of shenanigans.
I am sure the report was totally unbiased...
The authors have no clue about gun shows. Almost every gun show I have visited had a cop at the front door, and I have been to a lot of gun shows.
Since the authors of this story imply that gun shows are places where lots of illegal guns are sold to criminals, I wonder how well they understand criminals. Probably not very well.
It's time to take note of their names and remember to search for them monthly for a few decades. This ridiculous misunderstanding of criminality will be very useful in discrediting them for decades to come.
Uber and Lyft are perfectly legal. Your mistake is thinking that taxi laws apply to them; they don't. They don't have taximeters, and therefore are not taxis. They're limosines, and operate under those laws.
There is something to be said for some regulation, however. This is from having seen the unregulated "Black Taxis" of South Africa...
Let's do those crimes! Let's get some sushi and not pay!
Not if you pay with Bitcoin
Except that, with the bitcoin protocole, every single transation is broadcast to the whole network (on purpose, that's the way it works without a central authority.
And eventually, the guy will want to actually spend them. These bitcoins arent going to sit collecting dust.
Which means either using them to pay for something (and thus sending them to a payment processor) or exchange them (and thus sending them to an online exchange platform).
And these sites (exchage and payment processors) are require by law (laws against money laundering) to collect the data of their members.
So with some data big-analysis it's possible to eventually put a name on the public keys (making the pseudonymity of the network).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I wouldn't say they are perfectly legal. I do not think that most of those working for Uber or Lyft have commercial insurance to be transporting people for profit and do not follow DOT guidelines for safety and drug testing. That's part of why they are getting in trouble.
Sweet! Now when I flex my pale muscles to pickup chicks I can ask them if they want two tickets to the _cyber_ gun show!
It offends me. It offends me because I live in a city where I know I can go to the nearest hotel if I need a cab, something I will not be able to do when they are gone. Where some of the infrastructure is too narrow, and there is enough traffic as it is. Where I know that my disabled relatives can also get cabs only because the companies are legislated to have a certain number of handicapped equipped cars. When people vote with their wallets, they make very selfish choices. This is why there are laws. I have no way to vote, but you know, thanks for asking how I felt about it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"When people vote with their wallets, they make very selfish choices."
So in other words, you're against personal choices and in favor of government forcing you to subsidize special interests against your will? Doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's still freedom because the government only prevents you from hurting others in ways that may be lost on the individual. I'm willing to pay an overhead if it means more people get what they need, yes.
It happens all over.. prescription meds, buildings, power grids, city planning, etc etc Nothing new. It's called civilized society.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Using the GREAT BIG GRAPH from the story we see 2% of traffic is gun-related, but somehow it's a "gun show"? I guess you are one of the gun-hating crowd, amirite? Sheesh.
It offends me. It offends me because I live in a city where I know I can go to the nearest hotel if I need a cab, something I will not be able to do when they are gone.
First, only the largest major hotels in the largest US cities have cabs waiting and/or continuously picking up & dropping fares. You'd have to hope the clerk doesn't tell you to leave the property if you simply walked in and asked them to call a cab for you as a non-guest, in most places.
Second, why would you assume all the existing taxi companies would disappear? Having to actually compete, some will surely fail, but it's not a given that would be equally true for every taxi company. The ones that offer quick-responding, clean, honest, pleasant, and competitively-priced services can survive.
Where I know that my disabled relatives can also get cabs only because the companies are legislated to have a certain number of handicapped equipped cars.
Usually transportation for disabled/special needs/seniors is provided at no cost in most places in the US by city/township/county municipal governments, even in smaller towns. Here in a city of ~35K there are municipal special needs/disabled/senior transportation vehicles available by telephone at no cost that cover the entire county.
I don't ever recall seeing any kind of special accommodation vehicles operated by either of the two major-name taxi companies in town. Having had to ride in those cabs on a few occasions over the years, it would seem cruel to subject a disabled person to similarly-maintained & operated special needs vehicles.
Given all that, can't another business exist that isn't intended nor suited to be a special needs transportation specialty service? Are we next to prosecute shoe stores for selling shoes which offend and don't accommodate the legless?
If the goal is actually to provide transportation options for disabled/senior/handicapped, I think that's already seen massive improvement in recent years, and in many if not the majority of cases taxi companies have had no or little involvement. I believe the existence of other private at-will services has no real impact on this area and that this is FUD from the taxi industry.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"Second, why would you assume all the existing taxi companies would disappear?"
Because you're allowing a company to ignore the laws that hold their market together. No enforcement, no laws. No laws, no market. No market, no taxis. that much is pretty clear, actually
Why should people of limited mobility only have 'special' services to use? A lot of government agencies only support the vary disabled. There is a whole group in the spectrum in between that should not be taking resources from the ones at the deepest end of the spectrum. It will only raise costs for them and the government, and it will raise my local taxes a great deal more than I will ever pay for a taxi. There is nothing wrong with the able bodied users of the service chipping in a bit as well so that the less able bodied can use it. At any rate it is all beside the point, because this is how my locality has decided that the transportation system will work. Now if it is going to be changed, I don't trust the market to 'correct' itself naturally. Not when people are out there only doing things for profit.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If its free for all count me in - i love free stuff!
Those aren't really "taxis" but minibuses, like you find in many third world nations. And the problem isn't with lack of regulation, it's with lack of enforcement of criminal law (or alternative private mechanisms).
It's also hard to say whether the current situation is worse than the original situation. After all, large numbers of people are transported by the current system, and relatively cheaply. A state-granted monopoly would be more orderly and safer, but would likely serve the people much less well.
you lefties are a riot. Equating murder for hire with taxi services is the mark of crazy.
Sorry, whenever I see the word "cyber" in an article, I know it's crap and stop reading. Doesn't matter whether it's about cybernetics or the "US cyber underground".
Well the moral of the story here is you should not pass laws you can't enforce you should not outlaw things people generally don't see as terribly objectionable.
Letting people use apps t get rides and paying people to take them places in cars does not offend anyone other than rent seeking cabbies. The result is you get a general public that breaks the law. Ditto for soft drugs like weed, gambling, more discrete prostitution eg call girls who do happy endings, etc.
Other people see people they know and respect being scoff laws and respect for the law is lost. After that its only short mental leap to 'i probably won't get caught so what the hell' and that is why we can't have nice things.
That's insightful? You can't enforce laws against murder - you can only punish after the fact and then only if there's evidence to do so. So we shouldn't have laws that make murder illegal? That's not so insightful, I think.
Laws have never been about stopping anything. They've been about establishing punishment for what is deemed harmful behavior by the powers that made those laws.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I would think righties wouldn't want to see millions more on welfare. Uber will decimate an entire industry that has been promised to people. Families are depending on this income, and now no one will make significant money driving people in cars again. In the end the entire economy will take another spin downwards. But I guess you righties tend to complain a lot about people who live off the system but as long as you are happy you'll let the industries fail like dominos. The funny thing is you'll probably still go on complaining.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Yeah, but it's the left that's been anti uber/lyft. You can bitch about uber's pricing but it's not like taxi service hasn't been a ripoff. Some competition should help settle market prices. Look what lack of competition did to the american car market. There's a reason americans buy foreign, and why detroit is now a hellhole. Competition is a needed element to keep businesses limber. Otherwise, they turn into bloated, inefficient monopolies like any other state service.
Part of the problem of 'living wage' is the unseen inflation caused by deficit spending. This hurts the 20-30k/yr working class much more than your 1% (which includes a lot of liberals btw). The left wing solutions always revolve around increasing minimum wages, welfare services, and taxes, which in turn inflates the currency yet more. If you want to help those people, reduce their tax load and support paying down debt. Eliminate tax loopholes and simplify.
The taxi service has been charging exactly what they need to charge according to the laws and regulations that were made by the people who live in the cities they operate in. If we yank the carpet out from underneath them now, there will be all kinds of lawsuits and rightfully so. If someone took something the value of my house away from me (ie. the value of a medallion) just because they didn't like my house and how it was built, I'd need to sue as well.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It's common to just trade the bitcoins for cash,
Either you do it on a small scale (as do normal people, and which would be of limited use for a criminal earning a LOT of BTC money).
Or you need to constantly exchange huge wads of cash (so you need to find a neighbourhood with HIGH needs for bitcoins, and trade a LOT of money which is bound to attract the curiosity of law enforcement and/or tax services)
Remember the discussion is not about "how can I anonymously trade my 0.03 BTC ?" the discussion is about criminals whose main source of revenue is in BTC and who need to conver whole salaries' worth of BTC into cash.
or pass them through enough tangles of split transactions that they become super hard to trace
super hard to trace for your aunt ? maybe.
super hard to trace for government with access to tons of computing power and big data analysis ? not so sure.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Laws and regulation != competition. Therefore what is being charged isn't necessarily represented by what the market will bear. This leads to crazy fares. Of course, that's ok, but when uber does it, it's the end of the world, right? There's nothing special about transportation services that requires 'medallions' and artificial exclusivity.
Uh, Medallians only came about because too many people were on the road trying to be a taxi so I'm not quite sure how you can say there is no purpose to them. There were a lot of accidents and injuries because cars were literally swarming the roads looking for fares and it had to be restricted,
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.