[HN Gopher] Dark Web - Justice League ___________________________________________________________________ Dark Web - Justice League Author : scottmessick Score : 173 points Date : 2022-01-12 20:17 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (analyst1.com) (TXT) w3m dump (analyst1.com) | flatiron wrote: | I live in NJ where weed is legal but you can't buy it (legally) | so we are sort of in a weird spot. | | anyway, it makes me really not care about ordering weed on the | dark web from CA. if the feds catch it, its an ounce of weed to a | residence, they don't care and im not gonna go in front of some | federal judge on federal drug crimes. if CA or NJ catch it, its | legal there, who cares. | | but the site I use uses an escrow system where if you don't get | the product or if you aren't satisfied you can file a complaint. | i've never used it as i always have gotten what i've ordered but | it is pretty odd. | jokethrowaway wrote: | I used that and got my money back when a shipping didn't | arrive. | | Also the quality and honesty of the sellers on the quantity | they're selling you is great. It's beautiful to see how the | market and a reputation system can work wonders, even among | strangers with anonymised identities. | | The street experience equivalent is terrible. A friend of mine | (who self medicated in one of the western totalitarian regimes | who prohibit weed) got a bag of tea, tissues smelling like | weed, he got a knife pulled on him, he got scammed in an | elaborate plot which involved him keeping a bag of flour | (supposedly coke) while the dealer supposedly went to get his | weed for a 50, he had homeless dragging him to a gang of | criminals under the pretence of buying weed. Eventually he | found someone reliable, a middle aged father with a stable but | low paying job and a family - but it's a miracle he's still | alive. | angryGhost wrote: | if they seize any powder, they might come a knockin'! | flatiron wrote: | i only do weed and just gummies for my anxiety and only buy | enough that its obviously personal use and not some weed | gummy empire i'm starting. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > I live in NJ where weed is legal but you can't buy it | (legally) so we are sort of in a weird spot. | | Isn't there a service in Maine where you can pay psychics to | find your lost weed and bring it back to you? | | https://www.incredibles.me/your-first-order-what-you-need-to... | | > If you have LOST your weed, please feel free to reach out to | us! Your word is good enough for us. If you say you LOST IT, we | will FIND IT, GUARANTEED or you pay nothing. | dylan604 wrote: | I love the creativity. Not sure how appreciative an old | crusty judge would feel though | msikora wrote: | Wow, this is amazing! Did they get into any legal troubles? | gime_tree_fiddy wrote: | I thought NJ legalized to the level of CA, where you can there | are dispensaries and stuff, no? | klodolph wrote: | It takes time from legalization to when businesses appear. | Most states, it seems, at least a couple years. | andrewxdiamond wrote: | That time delay is due to needing to spontaneously build an | entire supply chain for weed in-state, as it can't be moved | across state borders. Farms, transportation, financing, | retail space, zoning, regulations, and more. | | Takes a long time for weed to make it to consumers, but it | also creates a huge local industry since everyone has to | work within the state, at least when dealing directly with | the product. | [deleted] | unixhero wrote: | Kind of like the Vikings. | vmception wrote: | Do yourself a favor and demystify the dark web for yourself. | | Some of the best information is exclusively nestled in forums and | marketplaces over there. | | If you rely on an incentive model of being caught in order to | behave, something darknet doesnt offer, that says more about you | than anyone else. | scyzoryk_xyz wrote: | I'm interested - how do I find it? | | Is there a guide? List of places to visit? | vmception wrote: | Typically over a Tor circuit I visit dark.fail and then | switch to the onion url so that exit nodes arent being used | | Onion addresses frequently change so no use bookmarking them | | Dark.fail lists a variety of forums, marketplaces, | marketplaces with forums, and their current addresses and | whether those sites are up or down | | It also has links to a variety of mainstream media news | sources and various government resources that you can browse | on native onion routes | | Dread is the biggest forum, reddit clone. A variety of | subreddits to hang out in and chat. It is often down though, | at least compared to modern clearnet services. | dewey wrote: | You said that "Some of the best information" is on there. | What would be an example of that? | | Every time when I was checking it out it was just | marketplaces and otherwise just things I could find in the | clearnet. | vmception wrote: | A lot of times its in the marketplaces or their forums. I | mentioned an example good for me in another comment | ggerganov wrote: | Can you give a few examples of what sorts of information is | best found in the dark web? | vmception wrote: | Typically how to use Tor and general OPSEC | | For the longest time the best information obfs4 bridges | (which are one step in masking Tor use to your network and | ISP) was most easily found on the Dread forum there. | Fortunately TailsOS uses bridges by default now. But when | troubleshooting on clearnet I typically only found out of | date stuff on the Tor subreddit. Was useful and better for | me. | typon wrote: | Tried it. Found mostly junk information and terrible people. | Not worth the effort and time tbh | vmception wrote: | Depends on the site, time and listing. I'm sure someone in | Myanmar is conflating their experience on Facebook with "the | internet" too. | zepto wrote: | > If you rely on an incentive model of being caught in order to | behave, something darknet doesnt offer, that says more about | you than anyone else. | | People who rely on an incentive model _only_ are typically | psychopaths or sociopaths. | | What you are saying is that Darknet has no mechanism for | policing sociopaths, and therefore is likely to attract them. | vmception wrote: | Which has nothing to do with you or any specific persons use | of onion services | [deleted] | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | I'm curious about the dark web like I am with a lot of | technology, but I've always been subject to a (perhaps self- | imposed) chilling effect where I fear being "marked" simply for | researching the tools. Am I just being paranoid/chicken? | IAmGraydon wrote: | I have little doubt that my ISP logs each time I connect to | Tor. What happens to this information from that point? Who | knows. I won't live in fear, as that is the same thing as | oppression, only self-imposed. | conductr wrote: | I'd imagine you're also on some NSA lists. Depending on | what's going on around you and what else you've done within | the profile they've built for you they may be surveilling | you a bit closer than they otherwise would be. | vmception wrote: | I would say chicken. There's lists for everything. You're | afraid of lists and havent articulated the consequences. | Cheetos10 wrote: | smm11 wrote: | And nobody wants to make a comment. | 3np wrote: | If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, better say | nothing at all | nashashmi wrote: | This makes a whole lot of sense. How can a transaction happen if | reputation is not vouched for or established? It is why crooks | start building networks and start asking lots of questions about | groups. Wherever there is a case of money , there is an angle for | reputation building. For the more mature, they categorize this as | acceptable losses. | chris_wot wrote: | Yeah, this will eventually go wrong. It's inevitable that someone | will work out how to socially game this system. | reggieband wrote: | There is a comic I remember from my childhood, "Tom the Dancing | Bug" written by Ruben Bolling. He had a character called "Harvey | Richard, Lawyer for Children". I linked a couple of examples [1], | [2], [3], [4] but the satire, IMO, is incredible. It lampoons | humanities proclivity to layer pseudo-rationality onto the | irrational things that we do. | | It also reminds me of the TV show "The Wire" when Stringer Bell, | a senior member of a street drug distribution ring of urban | thugs, forces them to conduct their meetings using Rules of | Order. [5] If you watch to the end, you see that in those | circumstances order means nothing, it is just a facade. | | I guess you could say that I'm cynical about the prospects of | such a court and I tend to see the underlying truth in the | satires that point it out. | | 1. https://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2015/02/26 | | 2. https://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2014/12/25 | | 3. https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/545850417313484171/ | | 4. https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/178807047675716661/ | | 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO1zxPRRf4g | swayvil wrote: | To be considered a "sane adult" type person in our society you | only need to 1) pay respect to the authorities of the hour 2) | talk straight. | | I think that covers it. | | You could be a raving loon and a gibbering infant. Nobody will | know it. | ghostbrainalpha wrote: | Those comics were genius. Thanks for putting them together for | us. | JoelMcCracken wrote: | These kinds of alternative justice systems always seem | fascinating to me. I feel like a sociological study on | "alternative forms of justice" could be very fruitful. | jeffrwells wrote: | There's a book I really enjoyed called Narconomics. | | It helps explain all aspects of the drug trade through the lens | of business. | | One of the most fascinating takeaways was how they handle | "contract enforcement" in the absence of a legal system or | courts (hint: Violence) | | I recall an anecdote that Mexican cartels would hire Mexicans | --- and not Dutch --- in order to serve as drug mules smuggling | product into Amsterdam. Dutch mules would get caught less | often, but Mexicans were much less likely to steal the drugs | entirely. Because when you sign up to be a mule they take down | the names and addresses of your entire family (nearby), and | will kill them if you steal the product. Contract enforcement. | joshmarlow wrote: | Interestingly, Medieval Iceland had a polycentric legal system | where you could sell the wrong done to you to someone who had | more money to prosecute. | | There's an interesting discussion/description in "The Machinery | of Freedom", a book about anarchocapitalism. | | It's freely available online - | http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf | joshuaissac wrote: | That sounds similar to creditors selling the right to collect | debt repayments to a debt collector, or patent holders | selling their patents to a patent enforcement company or | patent troll (usually the same). | ruined wrote: | >legal system where you could sell the wrong done to you to | someone who had more money to prosecute. | | and now we just have contingency | _0ffh wrote: | The (consequentialist-)anarchist economist David Friedman (son | of Milton) wrote a book about this very topic! | | I hope you'll find it as interesting as I did! | | Book: | http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsCo... | | Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOB2qxRO5vQ | | [Ed. Seems I'm late, but I'll leave the comment up for the | video link.] | tgb wrote: | You might enjoy "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours" by | David Friedman. | WFHRenaissance wrote: | Fun little rabbit-hole for you to dive into: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law | Fenrisulfr wrote: | There's been some good research into the history of legal | systems. See David Friedman's book Legal Systems Very Different | From Ours [1]. There's a small section about prisoners. But a | new chapter could definitely be written about cyber-criminals! | | [1] | http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsCo... | BitwiseFool wrote: | +1 for this fascinating read. As soon as I read the GP's | comment I wanted to link this. | cs702 wrote: | "Meet the new boss: same as the old boss." - The Who | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfAdHBtK_Q | | Actually, I suspect the new "bosses" of the dark web's newfangled | justice system are in fact _much worse_ than the old "bosses" of | the traditional justice system -- also known as judges and | lawyers. | papito wrote: | This just shows that people naturally gravitate toward a system | of social harmony and the rule of law, as it lets you reasonably | adjust your behavior, as the expectations are formalized, and | everyone else is assumed to be abiding by them. | | The irony is that _real_ world is increasingly moving away from | that, toward the "everyone for themselves, nothing matters" | chaos. | justicezyx wrote: | Words are thoughts. Thoughts are mental processes. Be careful | with treating similarity in appearance with equivalence in | substance. | | > social harmony and the rule of law | | The association between the story and social harmony seems | plausible, but actually superficial. | | Social harmony would be that people involuntarily work together | without an authority, and reached mutual agreement on their | dispute. To me, it is a sign of social conflicts that dark web | actors need arbitration. | | Although that by itself matches our impression that dark web | actors are lawless individuals should be punished. More | ironically, the story actually shows that they are not lawless | in the absolute sense. They just breakd the laws majority of | the society abides by (or the majority actually do not even | realize exits). | | > rule of law | | You know, rule of law is more of a political term nowadays. It | refers to a western style of political organization framework | centered on written laws and a voting process to revising them, | and many other subtle details. | | Is arbitration on darkweb an example of rule by law? | | I tend to say no. Arbiter is necessary in all steps, and they | seem are not codifying their "laws" for dealing with the future | occrance of similar litigation at all. | papito wrote: | Well, obviously, this is almost a metaphor, as it's a stretch | to literally apply the term Rule of Law to something as | sketchy as the dark web. Also, note that I did not use | something like "Law and Order", as that can have a pretty | unpleasant meaning. | heavyarms wrote: | There's a good book by Kevin Poulsen called "The Kingpin: How one | Hacker Took Over the Billion-Dollar Cybercrime Underground" that | is a bit out of date at this point (2011), but it goes into great | length on all of the dynamics of the early forums where all of | carding/spam/botnet operators did business. | | In a forum/marketplace like this, your reputation is worth a lot | of money. And if you scam someone and get banned, sure, you can | just join again under a new identity, but building your | reputation up again means you will lose out on a lot of potential | sales. | devwastaken wrote: | No ability to enforce makes it moot. At most you get banned from | the forum. | edwnj wrote: | You're doing shady stuff with some fucked up people and it | could be anybody incl the feds so reputation is invaluable. | | I imagine its like ratings on ebay but much much higher stakes. | bowmessage wrote: | Mute? Or moot? | flubert wrote: | "When the parties agreed, they could lay their dispute before | the moot, whose members, much like present-day mediators, | attempted to facilitate an accommodation that the disputing | parties found acceptable. When reached, such accommodations | resolved the dispute in a way that preserved the peace of the | community." | | https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=586941 | | This is like a buy-one-get-one-free comment, not only is the | above about evolved dispute resolution systems, it mention | the moot. | devwastaken wrote: | Autocorrect. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Yes a blockchain escrow with this judge as the decider of how | the funds are apportioned would be better. | cosmodisk wrote: | Not surprising at all. Most criminal organisations, especially | larger ones have these mechanisms in place both for internal and | external situations. For instance if there are two gangs with | overlapping territories,disputes start and can get escalated very | quickly into situations where each side is focusing on fighting | instead of bringing on money. Sometimes the gang leaders would | try to resolve it but often external help is required. Usually | it's a well respected person by both sides who is impartial and | has the necessary negotiation or political skills to make both | sides happy. This is almost universal across the criminal world. | motohagiography wrote: | One wonders if being a judge on one of these cases would be | illegal as well. | actually_a_dog wrote: | I could see the logic for a judge being considered an | accessory. | Cupertino95014 wrote: | Some enterprising prosecutor is probably, even now, getting | ready to bring those judges in and depose them. They don't have | any attorney-client privilege, and they certainly know all | about some illegal activity. | empressplay wrote: | And the movie / TV series based on it is already in development, | I imagine | dS0rrow wrote: | clearnet link to the complaint section of said forum: | https://xss.is/threads/34768/ | csdvrx wrote: | IRL this is called binding arbitration, and it's often opt-out | for your ISP and cellphone provider. | | Most companies prefer this, as it's faster and more efficient | than the judicial system. | Cupertino95014 wrote: | > it's faster and more efficient than the judicial system | | Only in theory, or maybe if you take averages. As soon as you | give people rights (to see the evidence against them, to | confront witnesses, etc.) you have to create processes to | manage those rights, and it ends up resembling the judicial | system. | | I had a friend go through a wrongful termination arbitration, | and it took two years. Lawyers were present on both sides; the | larger party could (and did) stretch out the process so as to | bankrupt the smaller one; settlement negotiations were | interminable. It's not clear to me that a court case would have | been appreciably longer. | ThrustVectoring wrote: | It's a bit more specific than just being "faster" and "more | efficient". There's two main advantages: | | First, waiver of class-action rights. This is a big deal | because there's a cottage industry of enterprising lawyers who | do find a couple main plaintiffs, generate a suit on behalf of | a large class against a deep-pocketed defendant, and settle for | something around a dollar per class member plus millions in | legal fees. | | Second is a limitation on discovery and subpoena rights for | plaintiffs. In a traditional court setting, you may be allowed | to force a company to turn over _extensive_ communication | records and other documents, corporate executives to testify or | be deposed, and even burden non-party witnesses (eg, part | suppliers). | | In many jurisdictions, companies that wish to use binding | arbitration have to pay the entirety of the significant fees to | fund the arbitration system (and in a timely manner). It's | still worthwhile for them to do so, even if they aren't tipping | the scales of justice one micrometer. With the exact same | outcome as a court case, the arbitration fees are fully worth | it to avoid discovery, better protect executives from being | forced to testify, dodge class-action fishing expeditions, etc. | matsemann wrote: | True reason is of course that the arbitration courts side | with those paying the bills. Otherwise they would have few | repeat customers. | t0suj4 wrote: | If you can buy a judgement wouldn't people just refuse to | be judged by such courts? | | The arbiter would risk losing all their customers. | lovich wrote: | When it's a take it or leave it agreement and every | company has added it to their offers, there's not really | a whole lot of choice | AutumnCurtain wrote: | See Epic v. Lewis | null0pointer wrote: | Is this anarchism? That being naturally emergent formal processes | for things which would normally be handled by the | government/legal system. | jorblumesea wrote: | Most anarchist theories revolve around formal power structures, | just decentralized ones, but, they are all voluntary. This | seems to be involuntary, as being are being "brought" to court. | monocasa wrote: | There doesn't seem to be an involuntary component; it's a | virtual court so 'brought to court' just seems to mean that | proceedings have started. You can simply not show up anymore | and sort of self select for banishment (once again, from a | purely virtual marketplace, not a physical location). | | Seems pretty anarchist to me. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | No. There would need to be many more meetings and countless | committees from groups of random people who all acclaim to hold | some sort of power. | __blockcipher__ wrote: | > There would need to be many more meetings and countless | committees from groups of random people who all acclaim to | hold some sort of power. | | That's a description of our statist status quo :) | catillac wrote: | I think that's the joke | notdemo88 wrote: | goodluckchuck wrote: | Yeah, one might say the anarchists are forming a government. | jokethrowaway wrote: | I wouldn't say so. This is all opt-in, they're not forcing | anyone. | | This is just a private dispute resolution system, not too | dissimilar from what can be offered by private companies on | clearnet (think eBay). | RobertoG wrote: | Maybe, but how do you distinguish it from the natural emergence | of a government and legal system? | mhitza wrote: | By it being opt-in. | Retric wrote: | Closer to a gang style parallel government structure. The | penalties are backed up by banishment from the group rather | than violence. | [deleted] | _0ffh wrote: | Yes, it's the free market taking over and providing a service | that is in demand, in this case arbitration. | csee wrote: | I don't think it's naturally emergent. It's just another case | of a centralized entity making some rules people need to follow | or else they get banned. It's not too dissimilar from what | would happen on eBay if someone complains about a seller. | slibhb wrote: | What if centralized authories are naturally emergent because | individuals demand them? | csee wrote: | I'm happy to call it naturally emergent as long as we also | call Amazon and eBay's policies naturally emergent, but | doing that would be rather vacuous. | mediocregopher wrote: | Turns out, all of existence is naturally emergent. | ryanSrich wrote: | Doesn't anarchism require no hierarchies? A court system is a | hierarchy. So no. This isn't anarchism. | Miner49er wrote: | No, it requires no unjust or involuntary hierarchies. This is | all voluntary, as far as I can tell. | paxys wrote: | It ceases to be anarchism the moment it becomes involuntary. | Otherwise it's just another system of authority. | tshaddox wrote: | Isn't any system of governance in a given region (geographic, | or virtual) involuntary? Unless you just mean "you can leave | if you don't like it," but that's true for all systems of | governance. | joshgrib wrote: | Not an expert on the topic, but my understanding is that | anarchy rejects governance in general - there wouldn't be | any "elevated decision-making body". It's not as much "you | can leave if you don't like it" as it's "if you're here | then you can change things". | | I'm not prepared to defend this but that's the view - if | you have a system of governance it isn't anarchy so if the | argument is "all systems of governance are at least | partially involuntary" then that may be true but doesn't | say anything related to anarchy | tshaddox wrote: | When I say "governance" I mean in the broadest sense | possible: the ways in which interactions between people | are organized. If there's a better term for this I will | happily use it! | notch656a wrote: | Yes, that is why many anarchists consider government a | coercive system and seek alternatives to that coercion. Of | course, coercion can't be eliminated, but we can | acknowledge the right of legitimate self defense against | that coercion. | hypertele-Xii wrote: | > "you can leave if you don't like it," but that's true for | all systems of governance. | | Is it? Can you just leave North Korea if you please? | tshaddox wrote: | Okay, fair enough. It's true for _most_ systems of | governance. | joshgrib wrote: | The best explanation of anarchy I've heard is by debunking | the common view that people think anarchy is when a a | disaster happens and a warlord takes over - but it's really | when a disaster happens and neighbors start checking on each | other to make sure everyone is alright and see if anyone | needs help. If the community isn't voluntarily doing it then | it isn't anarchy | notch656a wrote: | During Katrina the war lords did come in, and then | proceeded to disarm and take legally owned guns in private | residence [0]. | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo&t=60s | mediocregopher wrote: | I wouldn't describe this as involuntary. The losing party can | simply leave (be banished) at any point, rather than face the | consequences prescribed by the group. There's no threat of | violence or imprisonment, at least as described in this | article. | | If you take "involuntary" to mean "faced with consequences | for one's actions within a group", then maybe it is | involuntary, but that's not how the word is used with | relation to anarchism as I've seen it. | dmitriid wrote: | Every system ends up needing: | | - trust | | - rules | | - enforcement | | I'm not even surprised such a system exists, because full anarchy | where no one trusts anyone is not good even in theory. | jokethrowaway wrote: | This is a common misconception. Anarchy doesn't stand for | "without rules", it stands for "without ruler". | | The idea behind is to get rid of centralised, corruptible | bottlenecks and decentralise decision and rule making. | | There are different models and theories on how that could work | (The Machinery of Freedom gets quoted often) and zero interest | from any politician to push for it; the appeal of getting into | politics is having power - and a model where politicians should | give away all of it is obviously not very popular with career | politicians. | Miner49er wrote: | > full anarchy | | I know what you mean, but it's unfortunate that anarchism is | sometimes a synonym for "no rules" when it doesn't mean that at | all. I think this system is actually very anarchist. | dimitrios1 wrote: | Right. I used to think this as well. In its most basic form, | it means no ruler. I view anarchism as the ultimate counter | to authoritarianism. The older I get, the more it becomes | apparent to me that all of our world governments are | authoritarian to a degree, including supposed democratic | ones, and there seems to be this arbitrary threshold of "ok | now we call this regime authoritarian". But every government | rules through multiple forms of coercion. Some are more | authoritarian than others, but nonetheless, authoritarian. | smokey_circles wrote: | > Over the past few weeks the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), | Interpol, and other international law enforcement agencies have | worked together to incarcerate and indict ransomware threat | actors. Through this effort, millions of dollars in ransom | payments have been recovered. | | yet still, cryptocurrency gets blamed for all the ransomware. | nevermind that clearly the law is able to find some course to | take, or the unsolved cases unrelated unrelated crypto or any of | the myriad of studies about why crime exists. no, the mere | existence of monero is why we have international criminal | syndicates. never happened with drug cartels or insider trading | rings. heck even warlords are bitcoins fault. | | odd rant, I know, but the argument that "all that crypto does is | encourage criminals" is willfully ignorant. tale as old as time. | | "what did they do before crypto then smartie pants" | | cash. | | and before that: gold. probably shiny rocks before that. | | we could try defeat these actors but honestly I am unable to | believe it's just human nature. we suck sometimes | quickthrower2 wrote: | How do I send $1m in cash to Russia to pay the ransom? Or $1000 | for that matter? | Animats wrote: | Bitcoin, of course. | | Classically, kidnappers and extortionists were caught when | the money passed. It was hard to find an untraceable way to | do that. But with modern cryptocurrency technology, criminals | have solved that problem. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Thats my point :-). Cash is too cumbersome and susceptible | to MITM be that criminal, government or sunk boat. | notch656a wrote: | Narco submarine type scenario with sacrificial mule is one | plausible scenario where very large cash collection might | occur. | | -- Fictional Scenario -- | | 1) You're told to meet the narco submarine at some abandoned | waterway with cash | | 2) A mule in the narco-submarine takes the money. Mule | doesn't know where he's going, just that he isn't going to | see his family if he fails. | | 3) The mule is not told where to go until deep in | international waters. GPS tracking ensures the mule is | actually where he says. | | 4) Friendly fishing vessels radio assurances the submarine | \is not being tracked, using GPS location | | 5) Destination sent to mule, deep in port in Columbia / | Venezuela / whatever. | | 6) Cash unloaded deep in jungle and then funneled into local | financial systems. | | --------- | | For smaller sums like $1000 no one is going to bother to | investigate, I would imagine they would just tell you to mail | to some abandoned house or whatever they're watching. If the | money doesn't show up, it's treated as non-payment. | strombofulous wrote: | Are there any examples of widespread ransomware that demanded | payment in cash, gold, or shiny rocks? | gigaflop wrote: | I think it was the norm for ransoms to be paid in gold or | some kind of physical wealth back in the Y1K era. | strombofulous wrote: | That's true but the article is specifically talking about | ransomware | BlueGh0st wrote: | Before crypto, it was Liberty Reserve and similar money-gram | services and before/during/after that it was/is Green Dot and | other gift cards. | Kneecaps07 wrote: | > Through this effort, millions of dollars in ransom payments | have been recovered | | I'm curious about who gets this money? I certainly have never | heard of a company getting their money back from the feds. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-12 23:00 UTC)