31–40 of 200 posts
This is not about making ransom payments illegal, as many commenters have assumed. They are setting up an international information-sharing system to help track cryptocurrency wallets that are receiving ransom payments.
So there's that woman I follow who used to work in hostage and ransom negotiation business, and she's adamant there's no such thing as "no negotiations with terrorists" no matter public rhetoric or legislation. When push comes to shove, side channels and loopholes are inevitably found and third party contractors like her are getting hired. I strongly suspect this too will end up mostly a jurisdiction/accounting nuanc…
So there's that woman I follow who used to work in hostage and ransom negotiation business, and she's adamant there's no such thing as "no negotiations with terrorists" no matter public rhetoric or legislation. When push comes to shove, side channels and loopholes are inevitably found and third party contractors like her are getting hired. I strongly suspect this too will end up mostly a jurisdiction/accounting nuanc…
I've heard this as well. A professor was flying into a less than stable area or Afghanistan and for some reason they were descending just like a normal commercial flight.
"What are you doing, we're going to get shot down!". He was used to a steep descent or a spiral to the runway to minimize the risk of getting hit.
They then explained they had a deal with the local warlord. The military provided barrels of used oil from all their ground vehicles, and in exchange they don't fire on the airplanes as they takeoff or land. The warlord burns the oil for heating, and the military doesn't need to deal with (hopefully correctly) disposing of large quantities of used oil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fairly sure the 14th century hammer works just fine in hammering the 21st century nail.
Hey, but I can sell you a 21st century e-hammer with AuthentiCode licensing. Swing power savings of up to 2% can be achieved. (Requires constant internet connection).
>Neuberger told journalists a new “black list” will also be created by the US treasury department to identify and highlight digital wallets being used to deposit and move ransomware payments. >The establishment of these information sharing platforms means that “if one country is attacked, others can quickly be defended”, Neuberger said. pardon the dust whilst I apply my 14th century naval hammer to this clearly 21st…
I'm fairly sure the 14th century hammer works just fine in hammering the 21st century nail.
C'mon, anything to make the cyberpunk future less lame than it's turned out to be.
So there's that woman I follow who used to work in hostage and ransom negotiation business, and she's adamant there's no such thing as "no negotiations with terrorists" no matter public rhetoric or legislation. When push comes to shove, side channels and loopholes are inevitably found and third party contractors like her are getting hired. I strongly suspect this too will end up mostly a jurisdiction/accounting nuanc…
One, this article is not about banning crypto ransom. Two, if you wanted to do that, you’d criminalise it with the threat of sanctions. At that point your K&R retiree and anyone who signed off on paying them would be fugitives in almost anywhere in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't surprise me if places like Nigeria have a bunch of semi-whitewashed English speaking faces/voices to perform this kind of grey area work. Even better if some of their family is part of a hostage taking gang so they can burn the candle from both ends.
Nigeria (my country) is pretty bad, but we don't do ransomware, lol.
Travel.gov has an advisory for hostage taking in your country. I can assure you there are well spoken negotiators in your nation to deal with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One, this article is not about banning crypto ransom. Two, if you wanted to do that, you’d criminalise it with the threat of sanctions. At that point your K&R retiree and anyone who signed off on paying them would be fugitives in almost anywhere in the world.
As long as you have a non-signatory among otherwise first world nations (and there's always a handful on any treaty) there absolutely will be a legal way that you can't do much about.
No, that’s what the sanctions threat is for. It may be possible. But now you’re in the company of money launderers and terrorism financiers.
To be clear, I don’t think this is necessary. But it’s naïve to imagine it’s beyond D.C.’s capacity.
So there's that woman I follow who used to work in hostage and ransom negotiation business, and she's adamant there's no such thing as "no negotiations with terrorists" no matter public rhetoric or legislation. When push comes to shove, side channels and loopholes are inevitably found and third party contractors like her are getting hired. I strongly suspect this too will end up mostly a jurisdiction/accounting nuanc…