Slashdot Mirror


Is Coinbase Closing Accounts For Paying Ransoms With Bitcoins? (coindesk.com)

Even as some comparnies are stockpiling bitcoins so they can quickly pay ransom demands, security firms that try paying those ransoms may face losing their accounts on Coinbase. Slashdot reader Mosquito Bites quotes a report from CoinDesk: Less than a year ago, Vinny Troia, CEO and principal security consultant of Night Lion Security and a certified white hat hacker, was sent a compliance form by US bitcoin exchange Coinbase, where he had an account. Coinbase wanted to know how Troia was using bitcoin and his account. "I told them I run a security firm. I pay for ransoms and buy documents on the dark web when clients request it," Troia told CoinDesk. The ransoms Troia helps his clients pay are those stemming from ransomware attacks, which have surged in number over the past few years. Many, like the well-publicized WannaCry attack, are asking for bitcoin.

And the documents? Troia said, "We do breach investigations a lot of times. If a fraudster is saying they're selling my client's stolen documents, the only way to make sure they have what they say they have is to buy those documents." According to Troia, Coinbase "did not like that at all." Coinbase then asked the IT expert whether he had a letter from the Department of Justice giving him permission to do those things. No, Troia said. Upon further research, Troia has not found that any such permission exists. But, "I have my clients authorizing me to do this," he said. Coinbase sent Troia back an email explaining that those actions were against the exchange's rules and shut down his account... "My entire family is blocked from Coinbase," he said.

111 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Punt coinbase? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vote with your feet. There are other exchanges.

    1. Re:Punt coinbase? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Editor Dsvid who can't be assed to proofread his own articles.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Punt coinbase? by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why do you even need an exchange for this kind of thing? Just use a wallet app, nobody can tell you what you can and cannot do with it.

      (That doesn't mean I endorse paying ransoms, of course)

    3. Re:Punt coinbase? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Ia! Ia! Coinbase fhtagn!

    4. Re:Punt coinbase? by DreadCthulhu · · Score: 1

      I will run my bitcoin exchange however I want to. ;)

    5. Re:Punt coinbase? by harryk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The issue is really about purchasing bitcoin (especially at significant volumes). Coinbase is more of a retail outlet, while GDAX is the exchange. And yes, you can use Local Bitcoin at about a 17% markup (depending on location) but if he's trying to run a business having a mark-up that high sucks.

      Really the issue is Coinbase and they super paranoia for risk avoidance. On the one hand, you can't blame them for protecting their business from auditors/regulators and the power they weild. On the other hand, they're really the only reputable place you can buy bitcoin in the US without paying ridiculous fees. Sure, you can setup accounts at Cex.IO, or Bitfinex (the latter of which is not currently accepting US deposits) but international wires are kind of a pain to deal with.

      What really needs to happen, IMO, is Coinbase needs to be clearer on activity they will and will not tolerate/accept risk for and there should be more of a discussion on how that risk is evaluated. Risk/Compliance departments aren't always so harsh on what they don't accept, Coinbase is definitely taking the extreme position in many of these cases making it more and more difficult for reputable purchasers to make legitimate buys.

      --
      think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
    6. Re:Punt coinbase? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Exactly, a bank/exchange has no business even asking its clients how they choose to spend their funds let alone passing judgement about it.

    7. Re:Punt coinbase? by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Since when does a bank have liability or say in how you spend your funds? At worst they have a reporting obligation for suspicious transaction patterns and since they don't deal in cash I don't see that applying here.

    8. Re:Punt coinbase? by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

      Ask the pot growers

    9. Re:Punt coinbase? by tazan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're in the wrong century. The feds now have the right to determine how a bank's customers use their funds. Or at least they think they do, which is the same thing, I guess.

    10. Re:Punt coinbase? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      If you don't mine bitcoins yourself, then you need to use an exchange to get them for money.

    11. Re:Punt coinbase? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That's the feds, not coinbase. This isn't a government request being passed on, this is coinbase itself nosing into the activities of its clients.

    12. Re:Punt coinbase? by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is Coinbase trying to avoid the Feds poking into their business.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Punt coinbase? by Cito · · Score: 1

      I use Gox , about 11 bitcoins worth

      it's safe right?

    14. Re:Punt coinbase? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, the remnants of Operation Choke Point ?

    15. Re:Punt coinbase? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Maybe not the wrong century, but the wrong decade, after Obama's "Operation Choke Point".

    16. Re:Punt coinbase? by darth+dickinson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Operation Choke Point

      To quote Wikipedia:

      "Operation Choke Point is an initiative of the United States Department of Justice that was announced in 2013, which is investigating banks in the United States and the business they do with payment processors, payday lenders, and other companies believed to be at higher risk for fraud and money laundering.

      This operation, disclosed in an August 2013 Wall Street Journal story, has been accused of bypassing due process; the government is pressuring the financial industry to cut off the companies' access to banking services including access to capital(loans), without first having shown that the targeted companies are violating the law. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, critics say, "it's a thinly veiled ideological attack on industries the Obama administration doesn't like, such as gun sellers and coal producers."

    17. Re: Punt coinbase? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Result - you lose access to your account until you give them what they want.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    18. Re:Punt coinbase? by harryk · · Score: 1

      Coinbase is not in the business of lending money though. They are selling a product (bitcoin) and providing a service that you're not required to actually use (you can buy and then transfer out your bitcoin to your own wallet).

      --
      think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
  2. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good.

    It's because asshole pricks like your clients buy bitcoins, pay the ransom, then go complaining to their bank or credit card provider that the payment was unauthorised or a result of blackmail, and try to do a chargeback against the innocent bitcoin merchant. Or gets them locked out of their accounts while being investigated for fraud.

    So you can just fuck off and buy your bitcoins somewhere else.

    1. Re:Good by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, good for Coinbase for taking a stand. Ransomeware exists because people pay ransoms, it's as simple as that. To take this further: is there any way an exchange could facilitate the tracing of Bitcoin payments?

    2. Re:Good by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When I read the summary, I thought to myself that "white hat" hackers are merely facilitating a security economy by buying hacks, documents, etc. They may not specifically commit criminal hacks and may actually be "defenders" of their clients, but in a lot of ways they kind of look like just middle men.

      I'm pretty sure there's been plenty of cons run where "the bad guys" steal something and a person claiming to be a "good guy" approaches the victim and says "I'm a white hat, I have contacts and can get your stuff back" and then they transfer the money to the bad guys in exchange for the goods. Meanwhile, does it matter in this transaction whether they belonged to the bad guys all along or whether they were independent good guys?

      From an economics perspective, it sounds like a distinction without a difference. Same transactions take place, with the only difference being that if the "good guy" really is an independent agent, it might actually cost more because the good guy will extract their own fee for handling the transaction (which, if he was a bad guy, may have also been rolled in for appearance sake).

  3. Well Done, Coinbase! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Security companies should not be allowed to act as front companies for cybercriminals anymore than they should be allowed to assassinate people for pay. Let's hope there's a criminal investigation as well. Perhaps this one was even directly involved in the original crimes, not only encouraging them...

    1. Re:Well Done, Coinbase! by Shoten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Security companies should not be allowed to act as front companies for cybercriminals anymore than they should be allowed to assassinate people for pay. Let's hope there's a criminal investigation as well. Perhaps this one was even directly involved in the original crimes, not only encouraging them...

      You're not paying attention.

      The security company wasn't accepting payment on behalf of ransomware actors. They were facilitating the payment TO ransomware actors on behalf of companies that aren't familiar with bitcoin and have no accounting methodology to make such a payment before the ransomware runs out. They were a front for the victims, not the criminals.

      It's akin, in a rough way, to what K&R companies like Control Risk do when it comes to ransoms in the real world. There are right ways and wrong ways to pay a ransom, and they are intimately familiar with the difference. As a result, they step in when one of their clients has a kidnapping situation and manage the whole thing to help get the person back safely. And yes, this usually does involve paying the ransom.

      The real motive by Coinbase is probably a fear that they'll be accused of helping facilitate criminal activity. Bitcoin exchanges are on the narrow edge of falling under regulation, but it could also go another way (*cough*Liberty Reserve*cough*) for any particular exchange if the regulators in their country feel that they are guilty of money laundering. As a result, Coinbase is taking proactive measures to be able to prove that they, well, proactively avoid facilitating crime. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can at least see where it came from.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    2. Re:Well Done, Coinbase! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      > The real motive by Coinbase is probably a fear that they'll be accused of helping facilitate criminal activity. Bitcoin exchanges are on the narrow edge of falling under regulation,

      I suspect that, since many exchanges do facilitate quasi-legal and illegal activity, it's important in business terms for them to avoid any involvement in clearly illegal activity that has the kind of paper trail or provenance that a security firm such as Control Risk might provide. An exchange for an illegal activity, such as laundering money paid for extortion, would seem to make a company ripe for examination by the FCC, the IRS, the FBI for participating in extortion, and the CIA for exchanging in wire fraud helping conceal the identity of the extortionists, and the UN Financial Action Task Force

    3. Re:Well Done, Coinbase! by munch117 · · Score: 1

      They're channeling money to organised crime. Legal or not, that makes them crooks in my book.

  4. Is it illegal? by muphin · · Score: 4, Informative

    As discussed here Cyber extortion - legality of ransom payments and the approach of businesses and insurers it shows under international law, cyber extortion payments arent illegal unless they are terrorism related.

    I dont believe Coinbase should be denying access to legitimate funds, that arent terrorism related, unless they want to get regulated... this would be the first step to ruining their little monopoly.

    --
    It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
    1. Re:Is it illegal? by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      What does legality have to do with anything?

      Coinbase can choose who their customers are and who they give service to, just like any brick & mortar store, or any other internet service provider.

    2. Re:Is it illegal? by mrbester · · Score: 2

      And everybody can choose to tell Coinbase to mind their own fucking business when it comes to what funds are being used for. They aren't a regulatory body.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:Is it illegal? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      Could it possibly be that Coinbase are themselves concerned that they will get into trouble for aiding and abetting due to the very transactions this guy wants to do, as currently they are not regulated and therefor have no scope within any regulation to be allowed to permit transactions to known fraud accounts while holding no responsibility for that transaction.

      A basic cover your ass situation. "Cyber extortion payments" may not strictly be illegal, but certainly an aiding and abetting criminal activity case can be made against any exchange which facilitates them...

    4. Re:Is it illegal? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      They aren't a regulatory body, but they also aren't a regulated body either - this is the equivalent of going to a chinese medicine doctor instead of a sexual health clinic when your john thomas is oozing green puss.

    5. Re:Is it illegal? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      But they can be held legally responsible if they knowingly help criminals use a "security" front company to collect blackmail money and kidnapping ransoms.

      Like how Western Union and Moneygram are held responsible when a mark sends money via their network?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Is it illegal? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      But they can be held legally responsible if they knowingly help criminals use a "security" front company to collect blackmail money and kidnapping ransoms.

      Like how Western Union and Moneygram are held responsible when a mark sends money via their network?

      The word "knowingly" is significant. Try wiring a friend money and mark it with "ransom", and see what happens.

    7. Re:Is it illegal? by Shoten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As discussed here Cyber extortion - legality of ransom payments and the approach of businesses and insurers it shows under international law, cyber extortion payments arent illegal unless they are terrorism related.

      I dont believe Coinbase should be denying access to legitimate funds, that arent terrorism related, unless they want to get regulated... this would be the first step to ruining their little monopoly.

      They aren't worried about "international law" (which, incidentally, is barely a thing unless you are a war criminal or something else so egregious that most of the world is willing to support a method around prosecuting you.) They're worried about local laws, which are a lot more real. The absence of relevant criminal statutes under international law will not protect you against regulatory or criminal proceedings in nations where you operate.

      They're worried about being blamed for money laundering, so they're being proactive and trying to catch anything in their system that they can possibly tie to criminal activity. Unfortunately for everyone, not too many options for doing this exist outside of going after ransomware payments...so that's what they've gone after. I can sort of understand it...bitcoin isn't exactly transparent, and the day is coming when regulators will be deciding who is good and who is bad here. It does make good business sense to demonstrate a "best effort" to steer clear of being designated as "bad," or at least "bad-friendly." I think it's a dick move, but I do understand the motivation behind it.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    8. Re:Is it illegal? by Shoten · · Score: 1

      They aren't a regulatory body, but they also aren't a regulated body either - this is the equivalent of going to a chinese medicine doctor instead of a sexual health clinic when your john thomas is oozing green puss.

      Yes, but the day is coming when that will change. And they know it. If you were in their shoes, what would you want those regulations to look like? They'll be crafted to deal with what happens before they are written.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    9. Re:Is it illegal? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I dont believe Coinbase should be denying access to legitimate funds, that arent terrorism related

      Nothing in the summary or story says anything about denying access to his funds. You just sort of pulled that out of nowhere.

      This is a story about a company that doesn't want to work with a guy who profits off of ransom payments (you didn't think he was doing this for free, did you?).

    10. Re:Is it illegal? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      There was that $586 million settlement and the FTC adding prohibitions against telemarketers using those services.

      But they... that was Obama era stuff. I'm sure it'll be rolled back as quickly as possible in the name of helping "small businesses"

    11. Re:Is it illegal? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      The article you cite seems to be based on ignoring _local_ law and its interaction with federal and international law. In the USA, extortion is normally considered a state matter, not a federal or international one. But as soon as the offence crosses state or international lines, it can easily become one.

      Please, be careful what you read from such an article. At least in the USA, there is considerable _state_ law about extortion. Much of it is easily discoverable at http://statelaws.findlaw.com/c.... While not every state has specifically mentioned computer extortion, the older extortion statutes should still apply with little confusion. As soon as money or goods cross state lines, it becomes a matter of federal interest to US law enforcement. If it crosses international lines, it becomes of interest the the UN FACT, which is concerned with money laundering.

      It's completely understandable that an exchange like Coinbase would not want state or federal investigators involved in their operations in any way.

    12. Re:Is it illegal? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      A basic cover your ass situation. "Cyber extortion payments" may not strictly be illegal, but certainly an aiding and abetting criminal activity case

      It is probably bad for the long-term viability of cryptocurrency to be associated/understood as a medium for making ransom payments.

      On the other hand: Once you have your coins, is it ANY of Coinbases' fucking business what you choose to use your money for after you take it out of the exchange?

      This would be as stupid as the bank questioning what you will do with$10,000 cash you are withdrawing occassionally. Why withdraw? Because it's my fucking money, and my right to privacy in my business affairs is a fundamental right.

      Okay, so maybe you buy the XXXX on a cryptocurrency exchange then hold coins unused for a long period of time, then you can answer you are spending the coins to holding wallets, and then for products and services as you need them.

    13. Re:Is it illegal? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They're worried about being blamed for money laundering

      That's my bet too. Getting put out of business and/or senior staff getting prosecuted for violations of AML laws is a very real risk and a sensible one for them to mitigate.

      It's one thing reporting likely money laundering activity to the relevant authorities, but when you're dealing in currency exchange it's also rather useful to be able to highlight that you're not accepting as customers people that habitually make payments for criminal activity.

      There's plenty of legitimate activity to be making money on, why risk getting fucked for someone else's stupidity.

    14. Re:Is it illegal? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      This would be as stupid as the bank questioning what you will do with$10,000 cash you are withdrawing occassionally. Why withdraw? Because it's my fucking money, and my right to privacy in my business affairs is a fundamental right.

      They may not ask you what you are doing with it, but they are required to report the transaction to the government. You can thank the drug war and the "small government" Republicans (as well as the "big government" Democrats). As long as people keep voting for these authoritarian jackwads these kinds of laws will continue to be made. The new Attorney General is ramping the drug war back up, because so far we have spent trillions of dollars with no appreciable impact on drug supply or demand, so obviously what we need to do is double down and spend even more money have have even more intrusive laws.

      --

      Enigma

    15. Re:Is it illegal? by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      But they can be held legally responsible if they knowingly help criminals use a "security" front company to collect blackmail money and kidnapping ransoms.

      ....as opposed to all those legal, legitimate uses of crypto-currency.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    16. Re:Is it illegal? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Its Coinbases business as much as it is a club owners business to know if people are dealing drugs on their premises - its on their premises which makes it their business.

      You could easily transfer everything to your own local wallet and conduct the transaction there, and then Coinbase wouldnt have any business having an issue.

    17. Re:Is it illegal? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      unless they want to get regulated...

      Without the threat of regulation Coinbase would just be an exchange, like every other non-judgmental currency exchange in the world, and I'm sure they'd much rather not do this extra work.

      But, in the real world, they're a US company in the crosshairs of the Federal Reserve and if they are already not feeding all of their data to the NSA (in which case they might actually be looking to protect customers) then they're at risk of that happening any time now.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:Is it illegal? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They may not ask you what you are doing with it, but they are required to report the transaction to the government.

      I guess so, sure they can report the transaction, since the transaction will be subject to reporting, but after it is done,
      then where I choose to put my cash or whomever or whatever I choose to buy and/or spend it with is none of their business,
      beyond that point Neither they nor the government will have any right to inquire further, and furthermore,
      I have a right to keep those affairs private.

    19. Re:Is it illegal? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You seem to misunderstand the motives for ramping up the drug war. What that does is convict more people, ruin their lives, and send them to prison at the taxpayers' expense, and that is very good for the private prison industry that takes government funding to use slave labor.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re: Is it illegal? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Are you above 70 years of age?

      I thought that nobody uses checks anymore.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    21. Re: Is it illegal? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      They can lock the account pending investigation.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    22. Re: Is it illegal? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Yep, the bank can do that if the transaction is abnormal.

      Depends on where you live though.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  5. Well.. by cen1 · · Score: 1

    Looks like I am changing my wallet provider.

  6. Re:Use a real node. by Lanthanide · · Score: 2

    Unless you're going to mine, then you need some way to acquire bitcoin, generally this is by converting fiat currency at an exchange.

    Since everything in bitcoin is public, the exchange could easily track what happens to the bitcoins after they leave their wallet.

  7. Oh the irony by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin becomes more restrictive than the traditional banks

    1. Re:Oh the irony by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Coinbase ain't Bitcoin.

  8. Abiding by the law by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Coinbase sent Troia back an email explaining that those actions were against the exchange's rules and shut down his account.

    That seems reasonable. Coinbase is an american company. There are laws against financing or facilitating the financing of terrorist and/or criminal activities.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  9. Re:Muslim attack in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the latest terrorist attack in London was perpetrated by a non-Muslim, targeting Muslims.

  10. two problems here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    a "security" expert that owns a "security" company should know better than to respond to "form", one not required by any federal law or regulation, asking questions from the exchange. don't hire them, folks. they don't know shit from rainbows.

    and the "news site" linked to in tfs is partially owned by that same exchange.. so is hardly unbiased. "Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Coinbase." -- not even any actual copies of the "compliance form" or email exchanges between them and their (former?) client -- ya know, things a "real" news outlet would publish to back their story.

    1. Re:two problems here.... by Megol · · Score: 1

      What? You really is a special kind of clueless fuck. Yeah one doesn't need to reply to a "form" (which was a form -> nothing "" about it) from a company one use the service from - but then the company doesn't need to provide any service to you either.

    2. Re:two problems here.... by harryk · · Score: 1

      In the 'buyers' defense, he felt he was doing nothing wrong and more than likely wanted to be honest about his usage. The issue here is honesty in this case got his account closed. The larger issue (IMO) is that once Coinbase has made a decision, there is no path to mediation that would allow the closed account holder to plead his case.

      This is not the first time Coinbase has chosen to close an account and most definitely will not be the last. What sucks is that there is no recourse for individuals with closed accounts to have them re-opened.

      --
      think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
    3. Re:two problems here.... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I'll take his clueless over your insultingly rude assholeism any day.

  11. Re:"la" Coinbase? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Everyone who needs to know it knows what "Ia" means!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:Muslim attack in London by Coisiche · · Score: 1

    I think you misunderstood the rolling news feed. The attack last night was a muslim attack in that muslims outside a mosque were attacked not that muslims were the perpetrators.

  13. ...or just invest in better backup solutions by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> The ransoms Troia helps his clients pay are those stemming from ransomware attacks, which have surged in number over the past few years.

    Well, duh. Maybe if they didn't make it a successful business model in the first place, it would go away.

    I'm thinking what those companies actually need to spend their money on is better backup solutions.

    1. Re:...or just invest in better backup solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If their security and backup policies is done according to advice from security consultants who get cuts of every ransom- and blackmail payment their clients pay out, even a management actually wanting to do the right thing won't be able to do so.

  14. Bizzare by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

    That Coibase is asking for "a letter from the DoJ" seems very strange; especially if this isn't actually obtainable. If I was running a security company that ran into such a requirement, I would immediately engage my legal council...especially if Coinbase closing my accounts actually cost me "real world loss" in the form of me loosing access to my bitcoin wallet stored on their system. Requirements that are impossible to fulfill might constitute fraud, especially if there is a demonstrable "loss of income" due to Coinbase's activities from Troia's (currently) legal activities. Right now, there has only been a (A HREF="https://coincenter.org/entry/it-should-not-be-a-crime-to-help-victims-of-ransomware">single court case in the New York southern district court that has touched on the idea that paying ransom with bitcoin violates 18 U.S.C. 1960.

    1. Re:Bizzare by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      He paid ransoms, which is illegal both where he and Coinbase do their business. Whether he actively partook in the original thefts is (or ought to be) subject to a criminal investigation.

      Please cite the law that makes this illegal.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Bizzare by x0ra · · Score: 1

      It would seem "Terrorism" is the new "Think of the children"...

    3. Re:Bizzare by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Please cite the law that makes this illegal.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  15. Two things at odds by nohup · · Score: 1
    The government has a lot of draconian rules when it comes to regulated financial companies like Coinbase. In order to stay in business, Coinbase has to stay away from anything even remotely connected to something that looks criminal.

    The irony of this is that the FBI itself has no good answer to ransomware and has even themselves recommended that people pay the ransoms: http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Yet the same government regulations make it nearly impossible for Coinbase to let people use their Bitcoin like that, ironically forcing people to unregulated or dark markets to buy Bitcoin.

  16. Re:Use a real node. by Goaway · · Score: 1

    He does, actually, and what he describes happens all the time.

  17. Deregulated regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting pattern (which often becomes also an antipattern) which I like to call "deregulated regulation": private enterprise takes over things which used to be done by the executive and (hopefully) double-checked by courts.

    You find many examples out there, like DMCA takedown, firmware lockdown in WIFI devices, "censorship" by dominant platforms (technically not censorship, but when a platform has near-monopoly position, well... tough luck), ISP "blocking" of "pirates", yadda, yadda.

    As the "anorectic state" becomes more and more fashionable, we'll see more of that. Watch, e.g. the German justice minister telling Facebook to suppress "hate speech". Now I don't like hate speech. I'm even of the position that free speech isn't absolute and that each society has to find some kind of balance, which will always be a difficult process. But outsourcing that to a private company, with all their conflicts of interests and that? And this in halfway democratic societies, which have taken so long (and so much blood, sweat and tears -- excuse my dramatic language) to find out about democracy, state of right, separation of powers, checks & balances?

    I don't think that's a good idea.

    1. Re:Deregulated regulation by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      "censorship" by dominant platforms (technically not censorship,

      Censorship is defined by the action, not who does it - that merely dictates acceptability, lack thereof, etc.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  18. Using Coinbase is asking for trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are, AFAIK, only two exchanges that 1) mind your privacy, 2) are out of reach of U.S. gov, and 3) comply with regulations for financial institutes, and that's Paymium and Bitstamp in the EU.

    Use Coinbase and you risk losing your Bitcoin and your personal detaisl to the U.S. gov.

  19. Re:Muslim attack in London by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I think you misunderstood the rolling news feed. The attack last night was a muslim attack in that muslims outside a mosque were attacked not that muslims were the perpetrators.

    Sounds more like they misunderstood a trolling news feed. If the attack is against muslims, and not by muslims, That is not a muslim attack. That is an anti-muslim attack. This is what happens when people fundamentally fail to comprehend English.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Again with the Amazon spam link whoring.

  21. la Coinbase closing accounts? by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Okay, but why would it be just the Los Angeles branch closing these accounts?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  22. Why? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why the hell are people paying the ransoms in the first place? This is just encouraging more people to make these types of viruses. Make fucking backups of your shit, fire the moron that unleashed the virus in your network, restore from backup, and carry on with life.

    1. Re:Why? by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      Why the hell are people paying the ransoms in the first place? This is just encouraging more people to make these types of viruses. Make fucking backups of your shit, fire the moron that unleashed the virus in your network, restore from backup, and carry on with life.

      Do you really think they are paying if they have good backups? Or do you expect them to rent a time machine and go back and fix/implement the backups? Yes, they should have good backups but when they don't, and when the documents that get encrypted are make or break for their company (and yes, such a thing does exist) then you pay.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Why? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the hell are people paying the ransoms in the first place? This is just encouraging more people to make these types of viruses. Make fucking backups of your shit, fire the moron that unleashed the virus in your network, restore from backup, and carry on with life.

      Do you really have to ask? The number of people who'll just use anything until it breaks without proper maintenance is staggering. I'll gladly admit that while computers is "my thing" there's probably something about some filters on my washing machine or leather care for my couch or oiling the terrace boards I don't do. If you start asking when somebody last checked my electrical system, plumbing etc. I get even more "eh..." and if my car didn't have to be checked every two years by law I'd probably forget all about that too.

      Backups are the computer equivalent of painting the garage, it's always almost at the top of your list but mysteriously enough never reaches the top. I finally caved in and decided to hire a maid service not because I can't scrub a toilet but whenever that floated to the top of my TODO list I kept putting it off over and over again. So I understand people, should have had backups. Should have tested the backups. Should have patched Windows. Should have updated their anti-virus. Except they never got around to it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Why? by GrabbaTheButt · · Score: 1

      And today I'm out of mod points..... this is about as insightful as it gets...mod up

    4. Re:Why? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Tragedy of the commons. We're all better off if nobody ever pays a ransom demand, since that will mostly stop people from trying to extort ransom. However, I may well be better off paying a ransom if my files or a family member are held hostage. I would go to considerable lengths to get my wife or son back safe from kidnappers. A business looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost business or something else might well figure that paying a few thousand is in their best interest.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. Re:Muslim attack in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Holy shit you really don't get it.

    This is what they do. They infiltrate countries under the guise of refugees, then slowly manipulate and demand their way to instigate Shariah Law. Once they've done that, you'd better fucking believe the sword awaits anyone who dares stand against them.

    This. Is. What. They. Do.

    They do *exactly* what you lefties claim to hate, "meddling in the business of people who aren't part of their own religion", and yet you still let them in to your countries, get your warm fuzzies about supporting an apparently underprivileged minority, then wonder why they won't integrate into your society. It's just cultural, you tell yourself.

    They are worse in every measurable way than the Christians whom you apparently despise so much, but you can't see the cognitive dissonance.

    You still think "we" are the bullies? You almost deserve what's coming.

  24. If only... by Cyryathorn · · Score: 1

    If only there was a way to conduct financial transactions beyond the reach of 3rd-party interference!

  25. Re:"la" Coinbase? by chill · · Score: 2

    Yep.

    Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  26. Law-abiding life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... against the exchange's rules and shut down his account ...

    We know the government is dangerous because they've got the biggest guns but what about corporations? We've seen Facebook deciding what you can say (real name policy, Compulsory Facebook email) plus actual censorship result in alarming control over someone's online existence. The current situation of a few corporations making the internet work, means one can easily be ostracized. What if PayPal (there are PayPal-only shops) or VISA/MasterCard decided you couldn't shop online? What if all supermarkets decided to close your online accounts?

    How quickly should someone be blacklisted be they might be supporting, enabling or inciting a crime? We've faced similar questions over trolls and SJW on Twitter and Reddit: But Twitter and Reddit aren't essential like banking or grocery shopping. Twitter refusing to spread hate speech causes no damage unlike PayPal deciding someone can't pay their bills.

  27. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    What's a "half-cent"? Oh, you mean a Dogecoin!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  28. Re:Muslim attack in London by Calibax · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There speaks someone who is totally clueless and has been radicalized by Alex Jones and his ilk.

    I was brought up in a multicultural area of a large city. I had (and still have) friends who are Muslims, Jews and probably other religions. Guess what, they are no different from my Christian family. They may worship differently from me, but they have the same values and the same outlook on life. They certainly have no interest in changing the law to fit their beliefs or converting the country to their religion.

    They go to work every day, they love their families, they give to charity, they have the same concerns as me, and they enjoy life in the community. In short, they are fully integrated and indistinguishable unless you look at the way they worship.

    There are extremists of all faiths. Including Christians. The post I'm replying to is a prime example. He (or she) probably doesn't know any Muslims and is an avid reader of alt-right web sites spewing incorrect garbage - no different in their aims from the ISIS sites doing the same.

    Hate is the enemy. The people who want to create a religious war are the enemy. These are the people who look for the lonely, the people who are easily persuaded, the people who are marginally ill mentally, the people who were brought up in households that advocated violence. They use them to foment more hate in the hope that a religious war will be the eventual result.

  29. Doing business with known criminals by Bert64 · · Score: 2

    In some jurisdictions it is illegal to knowingly do business with criminals... By giving criminals money you are encouraging further crime by demonstrating that crime does pay, and many police forces will come down pretty hard on this.

    Obtaining documents that you believe may have been illegally obtained from your clients is also questionably legal, you are collecting evidence which is the job of law enforcement, and there is also the chance that those aren't your clients documents and your obtaining something totally illegal.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Doing business with known criminals by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Private investigators, security guards, repo agents, bountry hunters, etc, all have authority from the government to do their jobs, yet aren't part of the government's law enforcement. Hardly a monopoly.

  30. Re: Muslim attack in London by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

    And about 30% of Americans think the bible is the literal word of God.

    And what percentage of Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of Allah? 100%?

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  31. Re: They were also buying stolen goods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Catch22, you cannot know until you buy them if you are committing a felony or not.

  32. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You'd think the fat asshole's arms would be too tired to type after his 8000 pound cable row sessions.

    Cable rows affect the middle back muscles and makes me tired in a good way. I've been typing on typewriters and keyboards since kindergarten, so my finger muscles are will developed.

  33. Re:Use a real node. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    You have no fucking clue what a 'public ledger' does, do you?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  34. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they had "typewriters" in kindergarten.

    The IBM Selectric II was in the principal's office. I was fascinated with spinning silver ball that put black letters on white paper. I later got a toy typewriter. As I got older, I had two manual and one electronic typewriters from Brother. The electronic typewriter lasted 20 years and carried me through college when instructors weren't accepting printouts from NLQ dot matrix and laser printers. Never got around to owning an IBM typewriter.

  35. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You were sent to the principal's office ... in kindergarten? You were a gangster!

    I was BATMAN! And got a couple of goose eggs from jumping off the slide the wrong way.

  36. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because the principal of an elementary school 40 years ago would totally have said [...]

    That I was mentally retarded, needed to go to special ed classes and may never live a normal adult life. Except I wasn't mentally retarded, skipped high school to go into community college, and I'm living a normal adult life.

  37. Re:Muslim attack in London by kainosnous · · Score: 1

    I was brought up in a multicultural area of a large city. I had (and still have) friends who are Muslims, Jews and probably other religions. Guess what, they are no different from my Christian family. They may worship differently from me, but they have the same values and the same outlook on life. They certainly have no interest in changing the law to fit their beliefs or converting the country to their religion.

    There are all sorts of people, and there are many people who don't follow what their religion teaches. If you picked about any random belief, you might find people of every religion who agree with that belief. However, you're missing a very critical fact. The people who are killing people in the name of Allah are generally doing so in perfect agreement with Islamic teaching and the Quran. There are few religions out there which truly demand that you kill people. Most consider it a sin or place other heavy restrictions on it. To the contrary, devout following of the Quran means that you should be seeking total subjection of other religious people and even killing them. The "good" people who you speak of may in fact not view these actions as acceptable, but when they disagree with Jihad, they disagree with Muhammad, and they disagree with their holy book, and their disagreement is not based on religion, but personal preference.

    They go to work every day, they love their families, they give to charity, they have the same concerns as me, and they enjoy life in the community. In short, they are fully integrated and indistinguishable unless you look at the way they worship.

    One other difference with their religion and our culture's expectation is that their religion does not teach honesty, but deception. They believe that Allah is a trickster type of god who has no problem causing deception or allowing his followers to deceive. I don't believe this is one of his most notable attributes, but you can find indication in the Quran where he caused deception and you can find where Muslims are instructed to deceive where it accomplishes a goal in line with their teaching. Therefor, it is quite possible that some of them, even the ones who seem sincere, are deceiving you because they believe fervently that such deception is the truly good thing to do. Most of the time, the liars we know of would also be people without much of a moral framework. It would be harder for us to detect deception from people who fervently think it's a good thing.

    There are extremists of all faiths. Including Christians.

    Once again, the difference is whether the "extreme" behavior is inspired by the religious belief or in contradiction to it. Yes, a person can kill and claim it to be caused by any religion. They could kill and claim Dr. Sues told them. But these extreme Muslims can give good, solid, and complete explanations from their holy book which not only point to historical example, but direct scripture which tells them to do so. Christians could, at best, use some very fuzzy logic and have to ignore massive amounts of their holy book to be able to excuse killing somebody, and I don't even know the fuzziest of logic they could use to justify terrorist activity. The same is probably true of many religious groups other than Muslims.

    --
    There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
  38. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Since when is community college a badge of honor?

    When you're the first one in your blue collar family to graduate from college.

  39. Not well done at all by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    The real motive by Coinbase is probably a fear that they'll be accused of helping facilitate criminal activity.

    I really do not understand this. I've never heard of a bank closing someone's account because they used the money in it to pay a ransom. Surely if there is no danger to the bank from facilitating payment of a ransom in fiat currency why would there be any danger to Coinbase for doing the same in Bitcoin? The people committing the crime here are those extorting the ransom, not those who pay it whatever your position may be on paying ransoms.

    1. Re:Not well done at all by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Banks have already closed account of porn stars and firearm businesses. This is no different.

  40. Re:Muslim attack in London by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

    Are you claiming to be Jesus Christ or claiming to quote something said by him? If the latter, please provide a source.

    The quote is one translation of a line from the Bhagavad Gita by the way. Nothing to do with Islam, Jesus Christ, let alone the subject at hand.

  41. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Your family understands that it requires no special ability or intelligence to attend, right, just the ability to pay the fees?

    My parents refused to support my decision to go to college. I spent my first year collecting bottles and cans after classes to pay for classes and books. I later got a job at the bookstore warehouse and worked my way though college. My parents didn't accept my decision to go to college until after I graduated.

    It's like touting being the first person in your family to go to Wal-Mart.

    I may come from a family of rednecks but we're not white trailer trash.

  42. Re: Muslim attack in London by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Shariah law could only *ever* exist in the context of family law, and only if both parties agree to it. In other words, divorce/custody proceedings. EVEN *IF* voters in some city overwhelmingly voted to impose "Shariah Law" on residents, it would never pass court muster, any more than a city with a majority of Orthodox Jews could make it a crime to violate Shabbat, or a city run by Evangelicals could criminalize consensual sex by unmarried adults.

    A law might end up on the books, but it would be overturned almost instantly, for the same reason why a high school that insisted upon public prayer before football games would eventually have to tolerate invocations by Mormons, Scientologists, Satanists, Hindus, Buddhists, and Pastafarians (just to name a few diverse religious sects). The evangelicals who push for those prayers can barely even grudgingly tolerate an occasional Rabbi or Catholic Priest. You could get the friendliest American Imam who's a die-hard midwestern football fan to give a prayer for the local team to crush its opponents on the field, and they'd still go into convulsions if they heard the word, "Allah".

  43. Re:The Silk Road paved with bitcoins... by boneglorious · · Score: 1

    This is off-topic and you're a horrible person, but community colleges are great. Not everyone needs a 4-year degree and the claim that we do is just one symptom of our completely fucked-up economy, but community colleges are good for people who don't need/can't afford a 4-year, and also people who just want to do their first 2 years very cost-effectively.

    --
    Can I mod something +1 Scary if it's true but I wish it weren't?
  44. Those bastards! by Phusion · · Score: 1

    Cancelling ransomware payouts, pffbt of course, I ran into the same problem when I tried paying for drugs with my coinbase account.. they're so touchy! jeez, no illicit substances, no shady malware authors, what the fuck coinbase.

    --
    640k ought to be enough for anyone.
  45. Well there's a simple solution by OfMiceAndMenus · · Score: 1

    Don't use Coinbase. Ever. When they dry up, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves and their ignorance.

    1. Re:Well there's a simple solution by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Who do you use then? All the exchanges forbid illegal activity.

      If he was in fact recovering stolen goods for someone else, he needs authority from the government to do so.
      If he wasn't, he was buying stolen goods.

    2. Re:Well there's a simple solution by OfMiceAndMenus · · Score: 1

      I use anyone I want as an exchange, because I "don't conduct" any "illegal activity" on the "internet". It's also illegal to store drug money in a bank, but do you know how many drug dealers still have a bank account?

  46. Prohibited Use by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    The first prohibited use in their terms of use

    Unlawful Activity: Activity which would violate, or assist in violation of, any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation, sanctions programs administered in the countries where Coinbase conducts business, including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC"), or which would involve proceeds of any unlawful activity; publish, distribute or disseminate any unlawful material or information

    Paying someone to obtain stolen goods is illegal in many places.
    The user didn't have authority from DoJ to recover stolen goods on someone else's behalf.

    If you see someone with your stolen stuff, you tell the police. You don't pay some random guy to do your dirty work.

    Repo agents, etc, are authorised by the government to do their work.

    Buying stolen goods from someone that you know are stolen is illegal.

  47. Re:I have my clients authorizing me to do this... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Where I'm from it is perfectly legal to pay a hooker. What backwards country are you from?

  48. screw this guy! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    This asshole should be in prison! You DO NOT pay ransoms. It should be against federal law to pay ransoms like this. You're supporting terrorists, drug dealers, and at the very least, criminal groups overseas. That in itself is illegal so why not extrapolate it to making paying ransoms illegal. Every single ransom this asshole pays encourages more people to do the same thing because it makes money. This idiot needs to be stopped.

  49. Re: Muslim attack in London by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    The same courts that blocked quite a few executive orders from Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and every president before them.

    Executive orders are just a way for Congress to humor the current president to do things they approve of, but don't want to personally support themselves. All that's changed in recent years is the willingness of Presidents to push their luck, and the willingness of courts to support plaintiffs' assertions that the President is overstepping his bounds (basically telling Congress, "have the balls to make this an explicit law so the President *can* do it, or get out of the way and let this action of questionable merit die").

    Executive Orders aren't some magical power. If the President issues an EO to which Congress objects, the law that implicitly authorized that EO will be changed within days or weeks... and Congress' *own* actions to revoke/change such a law can itself justify a court putting an immediate hold on such an order pending the outcome in Congress.

    Democracy is NOT synonymous with "gotcha, I found a loophole today that I can exploit in the 3 weeks it'll take you to notice & fix it! Na, na, na, na, na!". It's part of the reason why so many actions in American democracy require supermajorities, and why so few things can be authoritatively decided by a first-past-the-post plurality... it was part of the founding fathers' strategy for constraining future tyranny and mob rule.