Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#31

Post by [deleted] »

johnmarcus wrote: post #22
motohagiography wrote: post #15

When I read this I see a a niche, super premium hardware company that managed to acquire tens of thousands of customers by word of mouth. Not only that, their customers are all in-effect self employed or small businesses with huge average revenue per employee. They manage global supply chains, intense competition, all while taking on and managing huge legal/compliance risk. How is is that supposedly "dumb," criminals…

Your making a big assumption that criminal==stupid. Every single criminal has the exact human capacity of everyone else, the difference is in education. Check your privilege.

[deleted]

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#32

Post by gruez »

sweeneyrod wrote: post #5

Why would criminals use these kinds of apps rather than e.g. Signal?

signal probably isn't a good example because your identity is tied to your phone number, which can tie back to you unless you're really careful (eg. renting a VOIP number with cryptocurrency over tor).

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#33

Post by joemazerino »

motohagiography wrote: post #15

When I read this I see a a niche, super premium hardware company that managed to acquire tens of thousands of customers by word of mouth. Not only that, their customers are all in-effect self employed or small businesses with huge average revenue per employee. They manage global supply chains, intense competition, all while taking on and managing huge legal/compliance risk. How is is that supposedly "dumb," criminals…

The underground market has one thing legitimate business doesn't have: product that sells itself.

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#35

Post by kyboren »

motohagiography wrote: post #15

When I read this I see a a niche, super premium hardware company that managed to acquire tens of thousands of customers by word of mouth. Not only that, their customers are all in-effect self employed or small businesses with huge average revenue per employee. They manage global supply chains, intense competition, all while taking on and managing huge legal/compliance risk. How is is that supposedly "dumb," criminals…

> does it mean that if you sell something people actually want, literally nothing else matters about your intelligence, education, character, background, or anything at all.

Yes, although I think more specifically s/want/are addicted to/. See also: Saudi Aramco and Facebook.

> What I'm beginning to think is that the "smarter," people are in a company, the less anyone will want their product.

Do you not think Apple and Google are composed of very smart people? Tesla and SpaceX don't make the cut?

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#36

Post by rxsel »

raxxorrax wrote: post #10
rxsel wrote: post #7

So everyone moves to a new platform/vendor... what exactly is significant about this particular bust aside from “we did it” signaling of law enforcement? Things like this happen all the time... Silk Road and many other examples come to mind. I just hope this doesn’t become yet another incident used as an example to slowly erode the freedom and idea of privacy. The current anti-encryption sentiment and reactionary nat…

It is peculiar that this was my first thought too. Surveillance has caused indescribable damage to western nations and they still continue their insanity. Aside from that I think most hardware is actually still safe. I don't know of hardware backdoors that were actually implemented. I think self preservation keeps most companies in line.

I think the issue with hardware is the potential for infiltration and compromise of the hardware along the supply chain. Both in the component itself or in the assembly process.

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#38

Post by kyboren »

motohagiography wrote: post #26
johnmarcus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your making a big assumption that criminal==stupid. Every single criminal has the exact human capacity of everyone else, the difference is in education. Check your privilege.

Point of order to mods on this, is "check your privilege," within the realm of civil discourse? It seems unnecessarily provocative. However, if it is fair game, my response would be "check your reading comprehension," as the further implication of my comment is that societies are locking up their most entrepreneurial and productive members for creating too much value. Using the privilege dog whistle is just cheap int…

> the further implication of my comment is that societies are locking up their most entrepreneurial and productive members for creating too much value

This view seems flawed to me: "creating value" for the drug dealer by selling cut and fentanyl laced "heroin" is definitely not creating value for society. That said, there is no denying the entrepreneurial aspects of drug dealing.

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#39

Post by [deleted] »

motohagiography wrote: post #15

When I read this I see a a niche, super premium hardware company that managed to acquire tens of thousands of customers by word of mouth. Not only that, their customers are all in-effect self employed or small businesses with huge average revenue per employee. They manage global supply chains, intense competition, all while taking on and managing huge legal/compliance risk. How is is that supposedly "dumb," criminals…

[deleted]

Re: How Police Secretly Took over a Global Phone Network for Organized Crime

#40

Post by honkycat »

motohagiography wrote: post #26
johnmarcus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your making a big assumption that criminal==stupid. Every single criminal has the exact human capacity of everyone else, the difference is in education. Check your privilege.

Point of order to mods on this, is "check your privilege," within the realm of civil discourse? It seems unnecessarily provocative. However, if it is fair game, my response would be "check your reading comprehension," as the further implication of my comment is that societies are locking up their most entrepreneurial and productive members for creating too much value. Using the privilege dog whistle is just cheap int…

> as the further implication of my comment is that societies are locking up their most entrepreneurial and productive members for creating too much value.

Strange, right? People WANT to do these drugs, there are plenty of dangerous LEGAL drugs, yet the state is obsessed with them. How much do we spend a year to arrest and incarcerate these people? How much money could we be making my bringing these products out of the black market and into the light?

There is a strong case to be made that the "war on drugs" is less about "locking up dangerous criminals", and more about targeting anti-war, civil rights, and pro-labor movements. Nixon even outright said so.[0]

It is a potent weapon. Lots and lots of people do drugs. All the police need to do is trump up an excuse about "smelling weed", plant a drug[1], and BOOM. Police man meets his quota for arrests, the prison system gets a new worker they can pay $0.50/hr, and one less potential activist on the street.

0: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

1: It DOES happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z6RVGnoXeI

Post reply on HN