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

U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 305 posts

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#241

Post by gogusrl »

tayo42 wrote: post #170
lupusreal wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto is hard for most scam victims to buy. Ban gift cards. Gift cards have always been a lame thoughtless gift anyway.

This is what I'm wondering. How do you get the typical person to fall for a scam to open a crypto account, buy it, go through kyc, etc

A friend of a friend (doctor as well) got taken for ~20.000 eur while being kept on the phone for over 6 hours using the "security breach at your bank" story. She said they got her so into the story that she really saw no issues going to the Crypto ATM at the local mall and doing 15 (FIFTEEN!) purchases there because a "police inspector" told her that's the only safe place for her money. They had a fake website where she could "see" her deposits but she was with the guy on the phone and was telling him "I made another deposit" ...

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#242

Post by creer »

Symbiote wrote: post #233
compootr wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just this week, I received a bug bounty from a company in bitcoin. No BS with banks or anything!* *: until I convert it to fiat

That sounds like more hassle than receiving a straightforward deposit into my bank account.

For whom? In which country?

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#243

Post by tw04 »

latchkey wrote: post #236
JamesBarney wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even that technically falls under the crime umbrella (though I don't believe it is immoral or unethical). It's basically the getting around government imposed capital controls.

The comment (and thread) isn't about getting around capital controls, which is why it is so powerful. The comment argues that for people in stable, wealthy countries, Bitcoin can seem unnecessary or overhyped. But for those living in countries with dysfunctional banking systems, currency controls, or even mild corruption (like Argentina), it solves very real problems. Traditional financial systems often restrict acce…

You’ve literally just described getting around capital controls.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#244

Post by latchkey »

tw04 wrote: post #243
latchkey wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment (and thread) isn't about getting around capital controls, which is why it is so powerful. The comment argues that for people in stable, wealthy countries, Bitcoin can seem unnecessary or overhyped. But for those living in countries with dysfunctional banking systems, currency controls, or even mild corruption (like Argentina), it solves very real problems. Traditional financial systems often restrict acce…

You’ve literally just described getting around capital controls.

In some countries, there is nothing to get around.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#245

Post by kelnos »

smeej wrote: post #238
mrguyorama wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Irreversible transactions are not desired by anyone in payment networks. Consumers don't want to get scammed out of money. Merchants want customers to feel like transactions are low risk so they are more willing to make them. That's a big reason why merchants put up with the outright hostile to them system of chargebacks. Sure, you will lose some money to chargebacks you might think were not valid, but you have…

The existence of wire transfers, cashier's checks, and, you know, CASH undermine your claim that people in payment networks don't desire irreversible transactions. Basically everybody who's ever sold something in person wants to know they get to keep the money when the other person walks away with their stuff. It's the fraudsters in those everyday transactions who want reversibility.

I am much more likely to buy something if I can pay with a credit card. Making a wire transfer is stressful; I'm worried that I got the wire instructions wrong, and my money will go to the wrong place and be gone forever. Paying with a cashier's check is stressful; I worry that I will get mugged between the bank and wherever I'm spending it, or that I'll just lose it on the way. Cash isn't quite as bad, and I almost always have some cash on me.

But given the choice of paying with cash or credit card, I will almost always choose the credit card. I like the idea that if I walk away from that transaction and then later realize that the merchant sold me something defective or outright fraudulent, I will have some recourse in getting that money back.

I get that a merchant will prefer an irreversible transaction, all else being equal. But I don't think all else is equal; I absolutely buy the GP's argument that purchasers will be more liberal with their spending if they don't have to worry so much about the merchant being a scammer. And regardless, there are many many more purchasers than merchants, and most (if not all) purchasers would at least have a slight preference toward a reversible transaction.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#246

Post by mmooss »

lesuorac wrote: post #221
jaoane wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They arrest people to put them in front of a judge. This is nothing like that.

I'm sure the treasury department would love for the guy to appear in front of a judge. However, he's also welcome to email an appeal [1]. Note: This is a civil penalty. Much like a traffic ticket and does not require a judge. --- You won't necessarily show up in front of a judge if you get arrested. You may get released with no charges. You might also not get court time until a year+ from now inwhich case you'll prob…

> a traffic ticket and does not require a judge

Yes it does. You can have a trial for your traffic ticket.

> Due process does not mean "judge approved". It just means consistent with written law.

That's just false. In fact, courts overrule laws and the procedures they authorize because they lack due process.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#247

Post by porridgeraisin »

naming_the_user wrote: post #147
porridgeraisin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if 57% in a country agree with a law, the remaining 43% should be allowed to circumvent that law through these means? Of course, the opposite argument is "what about north korea", but it's a package deal is my point.

Pretty much, yeah. If almost half of the population disagree with something then it’s probably a stupid restriction to begin with.

But most laws in democracies pass with just about majority. The president in america was selected with just-about majority. Do you suggest changing elections so that we keep doing them until the vote skews to 100%? 90%? What's the threshold?

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#248

Post by porridgeraisin »

johngladtj wrote: post #142
porridgeraisin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if 57% in a country agree with a law, the remaining 43% should be allowed to circumvent that law through these means? Of course, the opposite argument is "what about north korea", but it's a package deal is my point.

Generally speaking you shouldn't be able to impose your will on others

Sure, but in every democracy most laws pass with such just-about majorities.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#249

Post by mmooss »

resist_futility wrote: post #15
mmooss wrote: post #4

Don't fall into the trap: Government penalizing private parties without due process can be appealing when it's a private party you don't like, but even those people deserve due process - that's the point, everyone does. Also it's arbitrary, unchecked power that is used for corrupt purposes, and by supporting it in a situation where you like to see it, you are legitimizing that power in every case. Edit: It's tough to…

Evidence of active harm, if they were in the US they would have been raided. They get sanctioned and can sue instead.

> They get sanctioned and can sue instead.

Do you mean, if the government 'sanctions' you, your remedy is to sue the government?

The government can't sanction you without due process. Executive branch agencies have internal legal processes, with administrative judges, that can be appealed to the courts.

Also, you can't sue the government in most cases due to sovereign immunity.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#250

Post by mmooss »

School-Cotton wrote: post #59
mmooss wrote: post #4

Don't fall into the trap: Government penalizing private parties without due process can be appealing when it's a private party you don't like, but even those people deserve due process - that's the point, everyone does. Also it's arbitrary, unchecked power that is used for corrupt purposes, and by supporting it in a situation where you like to see it, you are legitimizing that power in every case. Edit: It's tough to…

[flagged]

There are laws about when you can shoot someone during warfare. For example, you need to be a uniformed soldier, in most cases, of a party to an active conflict. The declaration of war and your uniform make the homicide legal.

The US has not declared war and these aren't acts of war.

Post reply on HN