11–20 of 33 posts
Norway has public tax records. This is one of the potential flaws of an otherwise, kinda cool openness. You can't be rich and have a 'normal' life. You have money in Norway, you have to have walls, staff, etc. just to have a bit of safety.
Norway has public tax records. This is one of the potential flaws of an otherwise, kinda cool openness. You can't be rich and have a 'normal' life. You have money in Norway, you have to have walls, staff, etc. just to have a bit of safety.
> "“Police have so far advised the family not to meet the requirements.” This is good advice from their point of view because it lowers the incentive to commit these types of crimes in the future. For the individual person, it is most wise to pay the ransom and ignore what law enforcement tells you if you want to see the person back.
How long will it be until people realize cryptocurrency is a problem?
Norway has public tax records. This is one of the potential flaws of an otherwise, kinda cool openness. You can't be rich and have a 'normal' life. You have money in Norway, you have to have walls, staff, etc. just to have a bit of safety.
This is terrible. I wonder, what is the comment about the ransom note intended to signify? That the kidnappers are not Norwegian? ISTM that extreme confidence would be required to commit a crime of this nature in a foreign country.
It signifies that either a foreigner or recent immigrant, or perhaps a dyslectic or anyone who would like it to appear as if a foreigner or recent immigrant or a dyslectic wrote the note.
Verily the poorly-skilled can never write better, and the better never poorer.
But are there known 'kidnap ransomers' that could be deduced through language? It seems unlikely, I guess, unless Norway has enough local variances that would give a native speaker away through dialect.
How long will it be until people realize cryptocurrency is a problem?
Yes, cryptocurrency is clearly to blame for kidnappings. It's not like we ever had kidnappings before Bitcoin.
> "“Police have so far advised the family not to meet the requirements.” This is good advice from their point of view because it lowers the incentive to commit these types of crimes in the future. For the individual person, it is most wise to pay the ransom and ignore what law enforcement tells you if you want to see the person back.
Yet at the same time, as an individual criminal there is no incentive to actually return the person or even keep them alive once payment has been recieved
Ethics aside, killing the person after you receive your ransom simply worsens your punishment for little gain (provided the hostage can't identify you). Besides, should you want to take future hostages, it lowers the likelihood of being paid.