Slashdot Mirror


Robin Hood Hacker Donates $11,000 of Stolen Bitcoin to Help Fight ISIS (newsweek.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Kurdish region of Syria that borders territory held by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has received an $11,000 donation in allegedly stolen bitcoin from a vigilante hacker. (paywalled, alternate source) The pseudonymous Phineas Fisher donated 25 bitcoins to a crowdfunding campaign set up by members of the Rojava region's economic committee, described by Fisher as "one of the most inspiring revolutionary projects in the world." Fisher claims that the bitcoin donation, recorded publicly on the blockchain ledger and listed on the crowdfunding campaign page, came from hacking into a bank. "The money did come from robbing a bank," Fisher said. "Bank robbing is more viable than ever, it's just done differently these days."Phisher adds: "Unfortunately, our world is backwards. You get rich by doing bad things and go to jail for doing good."

66 comments

  1. Re:Fuzzy On The Whole Good Bad Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1, Stupid

  2. 11 grand, that's it, GWOT is over I'm calling it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pack your illegal wars up, it's over. 11 grand surely means the imminent defeat of Israel/Saudi/Gulf destabilization campaigns.

  3. No, it is NOT fuzzy by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stolen property is stolen property. You can't un-steal it by giving it to a cause, no matter how worthy.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Amen, brother. Sing it!
      All praise the god of personal property. What's mine is mine, no matter how I got it. Dirty. Clean. It's all the same under the graces of the World Bank.
      Praise be to the currency!

    2. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Luthair · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even sound like he stole it form someone 'bad' like the people who caused the sub-prime crash and walked away with their millions of bonuses over the years prior.

    3. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean like the HUD Secretary under Clinton who sued banks for not making enough sub-prime mortgages (which were created in the first place by government officials in the Carter administration). Are you surprised that banks did not want to keep this paper?

      The key people to blame are all kind-hearted progressives who commanded evil bankers to make loans to people the banks knew wouldn't pay back.

      As a good progressive you ignore that and blame the banks.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    4. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, it's 2016 and people still believe this bullshit?

      Over half of the subprime mortgages were created by non-bank entities that the government did not regulate (like General Motors, who had sunk a ton of money into a website you might have heard of called "ditech.com" ... any wonder why they needed a bailout when the other car companies didn't?). Further, even with the anti-redlining rules in place, the regulations that the government had still mandated that some level of due diligence was required. The undocumented NINJA loans were completely noncompliant with even the reduced requirements for subprime loans. Banks created those loans themselves all on their own initiative because they believed that they could get them rated AAA++++ and sold on to other suckers without being left holding the bag.

      If you want someone to blame for the mess, then if Moodys, SnP, and the rest had actually reviewed the documentation (or lack thereof) and rated these loans junk, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have bought any of them to back their prime mortgage insurance. Of course, neither would anyone else, and the banks would have quickly stopped creating these instruments when they ended up without any suckers to sell them to.

    5. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by AlphaBro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't even read this crap, I just see word salad with "republican" sprinkled about. This is not a partisan issue. Do you understand that?

    6. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by AlphaBro · · Score: 2

      Found the communist.

    7. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      This.

      And in case the AC is still here: I'm definitely not a Republican.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by smugfunt · · Score: 1

      You need to read The Monster.

    9. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, the poor banks, who lobbied for changes in laws to get rid of oversight, the poor banks who fraudulently swore affidavits to foreclose on houses, the poor banks who convinced the government to bail them out for billions.

      Truly, they are the suffering victims here, and only a wise and profound soul like you can look past all of their criminal conduct to see that they, they, unlike the people impoverished and taxed to pay for all of their activities, are and always will be the real victims.

      After all, they're a public service. They're in existence to make our lives better.

      If only those depraved progressives would realize that. If only.

      Blessed be the rich, for they shall raze the earth.

    10. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no! the bits have been arranged differently!

    11. Re: No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so what? Is it a crime to believe that sharing material things? Not everyone os egoist.

    12. Re: No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant, is it a crime to believe that sharing material things is the best path for humanity?

    13. Re: No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A recent research found out that about 75% of world's people is stupid. There, found the capitalists!

    14. Re: No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything? Really?

    15. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Its not even simply the banks, its the fact that they were then subsequently grouped up as low risk investments.

    16. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

    17. Re: No, it is NOT fuzzy by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The crime is in the coercion. You can willingly share all of your things, but when you try to force others who don't want to live that way, that is criminal. What indication is there that this bank earned their money in a "bad" way?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    18. Re:No, it is NOT fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention that niggers prefer sleeping under the trees in the park. It reminds them of the jungle where they come from.

  4. Re:Fuzzy On The Whole Good Bad Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One act of charity does not undo a lifetime of greed.
    Giving a portion of what he stole to a good cause does not in any way lessen the fact that he stole it in the first place.
    IFF he was stealing resources from ISIS and donating it to oppose them, you could make an argument that his actions were all done to defend and protect the bystanders getting caught up in ISIS's violence. This was most clearly not that case, as he admits to stealing the BitCoins from a bank.

  5. Good things? by goobie123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Phisher adds: "Unfortunately, our world is backwards. You get rich by doing bad things and go to jail for doing good."

    I had never heard of theft being called 'doing good' before.

    1. Re:Good things? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

      I had never heard of theft being called 'doing good' before

      Usually it's in the context of war, but people fully support theft on a grand scale. This guy writes like an American, so he might be in more trouble than he thinks, though. I forget if it's the CIA that's supporting ISIL or the military, and which one is funding the remains of Al Q'ue'da, but either way, he's funding opposition to the USG.

      Also, there are plenty of cheerleaders for taxation, we all know what taxation is...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And which of those Kurdish fighter groups were now classified as terrorists again? Phineas Fisher is now an evil potential terrorist supporter who have an all-weather cage waiting in Cuba. Or was that a drone missile targeted in the down-town Philly area where he lives? These holy terror punishment methods are sometimes so confusing.

    3. Re:Good things? by xdor · · Score: 0

      In more polite company (and under certain governments) taking property from someone else and giving to those deemed by the taker to be needy is called social justice.

    4. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or taxation / social welfare programs.

    5. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      S/he did two things. One "good", one "bad".

      I can't possibly be assed to discuss the sum, or if s/he is a "good person". Particularly if among oversimplifying participants such as yourself.

    6. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I've been getting tired of the moral absolutism that leads to things like "taxes == theft!" They also can't seem to understand systemic theft such as the kind the 0.1% are engaged in. I wish moral absolutists would all just move to Somalia and see for themselves how long barking "theft is wrong!" works.

    7. Re:Good things? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People have no sense of economics. The guys who did the (crappy) movie, In Time, kind of got it right, but not in any serious way: you steal from the banks, the banks start charging everyone a shitload. In the movie, they framed it the same way as all normal people think: the banks charged more because they're assholes.

      In reality, the cost of production is, essentially, wage-labor time. Wage-labor time includes overhead that's diffused through production (e.g. the CEO doesn't do a damned thing to make hamburgers, but hamburgers carry the partial cost of his salary; I often have to point out this is like $20 or $200 per employee per year, except a Chipotle where their overpaid executive is making $3,400 per employee per year), and *risk* is overhead. Risk has to cover losses sustained in the long-term of operating by amortizing them, charging more than costs in near-term good times and less than costs in near-term bad times. In other words: you charge an extra million dollars per year because, once every 10 years, you experience an average $10 million loss; when you get hit with those, you don't raise prices, because you *already* raised prices.

      Our society protects corporations perhaps a little... inefficiently. The basic concept of protecting corporations--from robbery, vandalism, and other risks--is *not* inefficient: if people spent their time stealing from the big bad businesses and passing it out to their friends, we'd have operating cost increases, and thus the price of goods would increase, effectively transferring money from the consumer base to whoever Robin Hood deems worthy. Businesses who don't carry out this transfer go out of business, because eventually they turn negative profits and carry negative assets and have no money to continue operating.

      I've had people argue at length that it should be a crime to rob "normal people" because people like us (the guy was middle-class) need our money to get by. He was mad that the police shot someone who was trying to rob a rich guy, and arguing that it's okay for you and me and him to shoot someone who breaks into our homes and steals our shit, because it's wrong to steal from regular folks, but okay to steal from the rich. People see businesses and rich individuals as endless sources of income and, frankly, as a symbol of unfairness, and so they think all kinds of weird shit about that, and then get mad when wage increases turn into price increases.

    8. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alleged job providers are using their superior economic force to create poverty so right back at them.

    9. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you are trying to intellectualize something that is governed by much more obvious behavior. If Wendy's sells hamburgers for 2$ versus McDonald's 1$ because they are trying to recoup losses from internal theft, then they aren't going to sell ANY hamburgers. Prices of goods are governed by what people are willing to pay, not what they are forced to pay.

    10. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never heard of Robin Hood before?

    11. Re:Good things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Robin Hood" was not a real person. It was a term used to describe thieves back in the old days. "That guy is nothing but a robbing hood!"

    12. Re:Good things? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Please, point to any evidence of the US government in any way supporting ISIS, or supporting Al Qaeda in the past 10 years.

      Did you just make that up, or are you posting from a conspiracy theory group?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  6. I'm going to steal some of your bitcoin by nhat11 · · Score: 2

    and force you to donate to something good, I'm doing a good job right?

    1. Re:I'm going to steal some of your bitcoin by Paco103 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the governments job. They call it taxes.

    2. Re:I'm going to steal some of your bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you Ayn Rand.
      Unless you want to live in the world of Snow Crash, I suggest you pay up.

    3. Re:I'm going to steal some of your bitcoin by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It seemed to work out well for most of those in the book. Frankly, if it wasn't for the lack of an actual US government (in the book), I would say we pretty much already live there.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  7. Re:11 grand, that's it, GWOT is over I'm calling i by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    They could wait until those 25 bitcoins are worth 1 billion dollar each, though.

  8. Re:gentleman, i see this news like this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have any idea what you were trying to comment on.

    Post makes no sense.

  9. Re: Fuzzy On The Whole Good Bad Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From a bank that supported ISIS.

    Don't bother to fact check. I made that part up :P

  10. Clarity on that whole Robin Hood thing. by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    I thought Robin hood recovered tax revenues and returned those to the taxpayers?

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    1. Re:Clarity on that whole Robin Hood thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Robin hood recovered tax revenues and returned those to the taxpayers?

      Obligatory Oglaf.

  11. It's not the banks money by phishybongwaters · · Score: 1

    He's stealing from any customers of that bank, and hopefully they haven't fucked with the deposit insurance or it's pretty despicable to be honest. It went to a good cause, I suppose, but that "good deed" might have meant a child went hungry. Well played "vigilante"

  12. So why doesn't this haxx0r kid turn himself in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he can go to jail for his theft? It's what he wants, right?

  13. Stolen bitcoins or stolen money? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Hang on, were the bitcoins stolen from the bank? Or was $11,000 stolen from a bank in some other fashion, then donated via bitcoin?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  14. Maybe it's like Fractional Reserve Banking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had never heard of theft being called 'doing good' before.

    Nor had I. Then I discovered Fractional-reserve banking, which is used universally in banking today.

    FRB explained (the short version): When you take a loan from a bank, the bank doesn't give you its own money. Instead, it conjures the existence of the agreed sum out of thin air, "loans" this figment of their imagination to you, and then requires you to pay them your hard-earned money back, plus interest of course. In other words, they are taking your repayments to reimburse a sum of money which they never owned in the first place. They could not have handed you that sum even if they'd wanted to, because that money simply does not exist until you pay it into their coffers.

    In any industry except banking, that would be a form of theft by fraudulent accounting.

    So it seems that theft is just fine and dandy, at least when banks do it.

    1. Re:Maybe it's like Fractional Reserve Banking? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 0

      If you find that upsetting, just wait until you find out that the value of real money is made up anyway.

      Seriously though, what you're describing is actually pretty basic economic stuff. Money is not a price tag you put on the economy, it's a medium of exchange. And as it turns out, there doesn't have to be as much actual money in existence as there is value in the economy in order for things to function. The bank lends more money than it has in reserve because the expectation is that it will make more money in return. It's based on the reliability of the debtors. If a ton of people start defaulting on their loans, you'll suddenly see banks much less willing to lend.

      There is a balance, of course, the bank should be careful not to become over-leveraged. When the 2008 crash hit, I remember hearing that some banks were leveraged at 60:1. That's a huge problem, because only 1/60 people have to default before the bank's reserve is depleted; the bank is insolvent in spite of >98% of the debtors paying on time.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    2. Re:Maybe it's like Fractional Reserve Banking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bank lends more money than it has in reserve

      You seem to have missed the key point. The bank doesn't just "lend out more money than it has in reserve" (which would imply that they'd first have to borrow the excess from some other source at preferential rates) --- that would be fine, effectively just normal buying and selling with markup.

      But that money doesn't exist at all yet, so it can't be loaned out by the bank, nor indeed by anyone else. It simply doesn't exist, and you can't give someone something that you don't have. Instead, what the the bank is really doing is unilaterally declaring ownership of money which never existed until that moment and which it certainly never owned, passing it into electronic ownership of the person taking the "loan", and requiring that it be paid back to them as if they had actually owned it. But they didn't own it. It never existed.

      This is financial fraud taken to new heights. It's not the issue of fiat currency at all, that's a relatively straightforward virtualization of tokens of exchange, which still have value and still have ownership which is passed around. Nor is it the issue of interest on a loan, which is not unreasonable since a service is being offered in exchange for the temporary use of money. The issue with FRB is entirely different, it's the claiming of ownership by the bank of something which they do not possess nor own, and requiring that it be "reimbursed" to them after a period as if they had possessed and owned it, which they didn't.

      That's laying claim to property which was never their property.

    3. Re:Maybe it's like Fractional Reserve Banking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The documentary Money As Debt describes fractional reserve banking perfectly. This documentary should be mandatory in every high school.

  15. Re:gentleman, i see this news like this: by LocutusMIT · · Score: 1

    Kadir beneath Mo Moteh. Kiteo, his eyes closed.

  16. Re:11 grand, that's it, GWOT is over I'm calling i by Rei · · Score: 1

    Does anyone even know which Kurdish group is getting this money? The Kurds in the northeast are 75% fighting against Daesh, 25% against Assad and are working with the US. The Kurds in the northwest (Afrin-area) are 100% fighting against the anti-Assad, anti-Daesh arab rebel groups (both islamic and FSA), often alongside Assad's forces, and have been supplied by the Russians. They nearly cut off the rebels' northern supply lines under Russian air cover until Turkey stopped them with cross-border fire. The net result of their actions is that Daesh has become much stronger in area east of Azaz and has overrun a number of refugee camps, to devastating effect.

    --
    Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
  17. Self-righteous hacker by erapert · · Score: 1

    Phisher adds: "Unfortunately, our world is backwards. You get rich by doing bad things and go to jail for doing good."

    No, you get no brownie points for having done wrong to do right. Reminds me of a passage from the Bible-- Romans 3:1-31

  18. Swing and a miss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people not read anymore. The story is Robin Hood stole from the King who was OVER taxing the people into poverty and RETURNED the money that was taken back to the people it was taken from. Not redistributing it, not from "Rich" people. It was From unjust taxation. Bunch of muppets!

  19. Re:Fuzzy On The Whole Good Bad Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This looks like a False Flag operation by Hacking Team or someone else that hates this guy for being awesome! This is the guy that fucked over some powerful people, don't trust any news that are not digitally signed by him.

  20. Re:11 grand, that's it, GWOT is over I'm calling i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is an illegal war? I have a feeling that your definition of "illegal war" could be applied to every war fought over the past 5000 years. There are no rules in war and even if there were the winner would decide what is legal and what is not after the fact. One thing for certain is that all of the conflicts of today will continue without end because those capable of stopping ongoing conflicts are hampered by people who fail to recognize that their anti-war politics actually prolong the conflicts. The US only could have stopped every war in the ME if they were allowed to employ WW2 tactics and just level anything or anyone until there is no one left to continue fighting. In WW2 there was no such thing as non-combatants or worries over collateral damage.

  21. This fucker ain't Robin Hood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This fucker is nothing more than a common thief. If someone were to track him down and break his legs, we would all understand and even approve, because that is what can happen to you when you steal a hell of a lot less than $11k.

  22. Re: 11 grand, that's it, GWOT is over I'm calling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An illegal war is one where a nation state that signed a the nato treaty goes to war for reasons either stated as invalid to go to war over or not stated as valid, depending on if the other nation state is also a signatory to the nato treaty.

    Wars prior to nato and their treaties can't be said to qualify as illegal nessacerily.
    Wars between two nation states in which nether have signed such treaties also can't really be called illegal.

    But for nations bound by those treaties, there are clear and defined processes to follow to attempt to resolve disputes peacefully first, and war is only a legal option if those attempts are made and fail.

    One can also ask nato specifically how to proceed, and going against such a recommendation is generally considered by other nato signatories to be wrong and not deserving of support. Not illegal per see but only one mark below.

    Not even attempting to follow established guidelines however is considered illegal and in fact has specified consequences and sanctions by other nato members against the aggressor.

  23. Back in my day... by johnsnails · · Score: 1

    Back in my day, 11000 bitcoins could buy you two pizzas delivered. Now get off my safe space!