A violent gang's ruthless crypto-stealing home invasion spree(wired.com)
wired.com
A violent gang's ruthless crypto-stealing home invasion spree
https://www.wired.com/story/crypto-home-invasion-crime-ring/
21 comments
I dislike this sentiment and what it represents for/in US society now.
In the old country, we were constantly on guard, because when that guard was let down, you were taken advantage of. Case in point, my dad left his radio ( removable precisely, because of what happened next ) in the car once, when he came home for 15 minutes, within that 15 minutes the windows was broken and radio stolen. The parking lot was scoured regularly. You were being watched. Another time, my mom picked a bigger sum from a bank ( not her money, it was client's money for case ). She put it in a bag. She left the bag in her office for mere minutes to go to the bathroom and left her bag in her office as she normally does. The bag was gone when she came back.
By comparison, when I first came to US, I could not believe people kept cars and windows open. It felt like a very different world, which made me want to be a part of it. I absolutely hate that this old world mentality has been transferred here and was normalized.
edit: I will add one more thing. It used to be having money was not a bad thing ( it was the opposite; it was aspirational ), because it was not that hard to get money if you had some sense. It is harder now and it also appears to be at least related to vilification of anyone with money ( not even rich or wealthy ).
edit2: added for/in in first line
In the old country, we were constantly on guard, because when that guard was let down, you were taken advantage of. Case in point, my dad left his radio ( removable precisely, because of what happened next ) in the car once, when he came home for 15 minutes, within that 15 minutes the windows was broken and radio stolen. The parking lot was scoured regularly. You were being watched. Another time, my mom picked a bigger sum from a bank ( not her money, it was client's money for case ). She put it in a bag. She left the bag in her office for mere minutes to go to the bathroom and left her bag in her office as she normally does. The bag was gone when she came back.
By comparison, when I first came to US, I could not believe people kept cars and windows open. It felt like a very different world, which made me want to be a part of it. I absolutely hate that this old world mentality has been transferred here and was normalized.
edit: I will add one more thing. It used to be having money was not a bad thing ( it was the opposite; it was aspirational ), because it was not that hard to get money if you had some sense. It is harder now and it also appears to be at least related to vilification of anyone with money ( not even rich or wealthy ).
edit2: added for/in in first line
Lools like the victims in the article were discovered via email hacks. So an exchange like Coinbase or Gemini was sending some kind of indication of balance via email.
So it comes down to general OPSEC and weakest-link.
So it comes down to general OPSEC and weakest-link.
One thing that's left out of the privacy debate is that lack of privacy can lead to being targeted by organized crime. There should be more of a focus on hiding information that make people targets of extortion or harassment.
This targeting I think is why everyone in the crypto world likes to use pseudonyms, which gives it a bit of a goofy culture because everyone has to make up a personal anonymous brand.
This targeting I think is why everyone in the crypto world likes to use pseudonyms, which gives it a bit of a goofy culture because everyone has to make up a personal anonymous brand.
I've been wondering for a long time how on earth have not Vitalik (or any prominent blockchain nouveau riche) been abducted by a drug Lord or North Korean spy already.
It's without doubt the easiest way to make a hundred million dollars with violence.
It's without doubt the easiest way to make a hundred million dollars with violence.
Anyone with more than a 9 figure net worth usually has multiple full-time bodyguards. That's also because there are usually psychotic randos that are stalking them if they have any kind of fame. It's a trivial expense at that level of net worth. Public filings from Facebook show that Mark Zuckerberg spends $10 million annually on personal security. Elon said at Twitter he doesn't even go to the bathroom without his bodyguards.
A handful of bodyguards is enough to deter weirdos from assaulting you, but it's never gonna cut it against a determined and organized adversary who can make money out of this.
The hard thing with usual rich people is: “how are you gonna make money”, ransom could work but unless you are in some failed state it's actually kind of hard to get away with it. But when you have people who are immensely rich because of some liquid asset you can just steal, it lowers the bar a lot.
The hard thing with usual rich people is: “how are you gonna make money”, ransom could work but unless you are in some failed state it's actually kind of hard to get away with it. But when you have people who are immensely rich because of some liquid asset you can just steal, it lowers the bar a lot.
Yeah, but it's very much worth hitting the seven-or-eight figure crypto holders too - those guys don't have the liquidity to support 24/7 security staff. Sure, they could buy some tech, but security tech . . I'm trying to be nice, and it's just not working . . it's not going to keep out a determined and informed attacker. Their best defense gimmick is (would have been) anonymity, but staying anonymous on the chain requires extra steps, and not everyone is gonna do those.
Anonymity also requires you to give up one of the main reason to get rich at all…
XKCD saw this coming a long way off: https://xkcd.com/538/
See also https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attacks/blob/maste... , with examples dating all the way back to 2014.
See also https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attacks/blob/maste... , with examples dating all the way back to 2014.
While the XKCD illustrates the principle in play here, "crypto" did not have a meaning of "cryptocurrency" at the time it was published.
It's the same principle. Whatever credentials or system you are using to secure your cryptocurrency wallet, they probably can't stand up to you being physically intimidated or tortured until you grant access.
[deleted]
aintnolove(2)
Similar to not having valuables on show in a parked car.