6 ms·

They won't go after an attacker if there's not a high amount of damage, like $250K or more. FBI guys are swamped with people calling, and there's just not enoug

They won't go after an attacker if there's not a high amount of damage, like $250K or more. FBI guys are swamped with people calling, and there's just not enough agent time to go around. Same for bank fraud. Ever wonder how people get away with popping someone's bank account, transferring to another local account, and walking off with the cash? For a couple grand, no one's gonna spend the time and effort to track you down. Liability for data breaches limited to companies over X size would be a good idea though.

panic 9y ago
Maybe we should increase the number of agents investigating this stuff, then? Fraud affects many more people than terrorism, but nobody gives the "there's just not enough agents" excuse for that. Also, only investigating fraud when there's lots of money involved means we're only helping rich people, who need the least help. Losing less money doesn't mean less impact on someone's life if that's all they have.
- csomar 9y ago
  Because people are more terrified about a random bomb hitting a random place once in a while more than their accounts getting hacked and then finding themselves in a big trouble?
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    It takes a lot of work by the military-media-industrial complex to keep people that terrified about such a stupid ginned-up threat.
csomar 9y ago
Which is interesting because it should be the other way around. If you have $250k stolen, it is bad but you are probably wealthy enough you won't go in deep trouble stress. If your whole account is $2k it might be a different world for you and you might relying on these to pay rent, medical expenses which is more serious than an investor not having access to his $250k. Not meaning it is fine to steal $250k from wealthy people but that poor ones being affected (at $2k) is more urgent from a humanitarian perspective.
- gambiting 9y ago
  >> If you have $250k stolen, it is bad but you are probably wealthy enough you won't go in deep trouble stress. Or it might be your entire life's savings and if you can't get it back you kill yourself from the stress of losing 40+ years of work. It's very dangerous to make assumptions about other people's money.
  - csomar 9y ago
    Do you usually have your life savings in a checking bank account and not in an IRA account? Shouldn't that has more red-flags for the bank. I'm not saying that investigating the $250k is not important; but just not more urgent than the $2k theft.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      Taking money out of an IRA into your checking bank account is usually two clicks with my bank, I'd get a warning about losing interest if I take the money out but I can do it anyway and the money is available instantly - for all intentions and purposes it might just as well be in a checking account, and it certainly won't make any different to an attacker who got into my account. >>I'm not saying that investigating the $250k is not important; but just not more urgent than the $2k theft. I'd argue that it's a lot more urgent. What if you were paying for a house tomorrow, and the money is gone, so you lose the house? Or you are a small company that has to pay its tax bill for the year, but the money is gone? Or you have to pay for an expensive operation that won't go forward otherwise? 2k is not as important in a way that if you are really short of 2k, then there is a plethora of options to come up with 2k on a short notice(some astonishingly bad like payday loans but there are options) - while if you are out of 250k and need 250k then most likely you are absolutely screwed. Again, to repeat my final point - don't make assumptions about people's money.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      I have all my life savings in a checking account. So in my case if I got hacked and my money from that account stolen I would be in big trouble and have suicidal thoughts very likely. >>I'm not saying that investigating the $250k is not important; but just not more urgent than the $2k theft. Absolutely not. Ignore the case when this 250k was your entire life savings (30-40 years of saving remainder of your salary every month and slowly building savings for retirement). It could be mortgage money which you are about to buy a house with or it could be company money for payroll. Suddenly employees of a small business don't get paid. Those employees of course have to pay mortgage/rent/medical bills and suddenly paycheck they counted on doesn't come. This could affect many people in very negative ways. I think $250k stolen should definitely get a priority to be investigated by agents over $2k stolen as it is more likely it will mess up lives of many people in a bad way.
downandout 9y ago
And yet then you see things like this [1], where the 4 year old case of a very minor eBay scammer is personally prosecuted by a state Attorney General. I guess it depends on who has time to kill. These two guys are looking at decades in prison for a scam that looks to have netted about $3K. [1] http://ag.nv.gov/News/PR/2017/Attorney_General_Laxalt_Announces_Grand_Jury_Indictment_against_Two_Defendants_for_eBay_Scam/ http://ag.nv.gov/News/PR/2017/Attorney_General_Laxalt_Announ...
- scott00 9y ago
  Why do you think he personally prosecuted it? His name's on the complaint, but it's on all the complaints referenced in their press releases. The press release says the case "was investigated and is being prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Fraud Unit".

panic 9y ago

Maybe we should increase the number of agents investigating this stuff, then? Fraud affects many more people than terrorism, but nobody gives the "there's just not enough agents" excuse for that. Also, only investigating fraud when there's lots of money involved means we're only helping rich people, who need the least help. Losing less money doesn't mean less impact on someone's life if that's all they have.

csomar 9y ago
Because people are more terrified about a random bomb hitting a random place once in a while more than their accounts getting hacked and then finding themselves in a big trouble?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  It takes a lot of work by the military-media-industrial complex to keep people that terrified about such a stupid ginned-up threat.

csomar 9y ago

Which is interesting because it should be the other way around. If you have $250k stolen, it is bad but you are probably wealthy enough you won't go in deep trouble stress. If your whole account is $2k it might be a different world for you and you might relying on these to pay rent, medical expenses which is more serious than an investor not having access to his $250k. Not meaning it is fine to steal $250k from wealthy people but that poor ones being affected (at $2k) is more urgent from a humanitarian perspective.

gambiting 9y ago
>> If you have $250k stolen, it is bad but you are probably wealthy enough you won't go in deep trouble stress. Or it might be your entire life's savings and if you can't get it back you kill yourself from the stress of losing 40+ years of work. It's very dangerous to make assumptions about other people's money.
- csomar 9y ago
  Do you usually have your life savings in a checking bank account and not in an IRA account? Shouldn't that has more red-flags for the bank. I'm not saying that investigating the $250k is not important; but just not more urgent than the $2k theft.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    Taking money out of an IRA into your checking bank account is usually two clicks with my bank, I'd get a warning about losing interest if I take the money out but I can do it anyway and the money is available instantly - for all intentions and purposes it might just as well be in a checking account, and it certainly won't make any different to an attacker who got into my account. >>I'm not saying that investigating the $250k is not important; but just not more urgent than the $2k theft. I'd argue that it's a lot more urgent. What if you were paying for a house tomorrow, and the money is gone, so you lose the house? Or you are a small company that has to pay its tax bill for the year, but the money is gone? Or you have to pay for an expensive operation that won't go forward otherwise? 2k is not as important in a way that if you are really short of 2k, then there is a plethora of options to come up with 2k on a short notice(some astonishingly bad like payday loans but there are options) - while if you are out of 250k and need 250k then most likely you are absolutely screwed. Again, to repeat my final point - don't make assumptions about people's money.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    I have all my life savings in a checking account. So in my case if I got hacked and my money from that account stolen I would be in big trouble and have suicidal thoughts very likely. >>I'm not saying that investigating the $250k is not important; but just not more urgent than the $2k theft. Absolutely not. Ignore the case when this 250k was your entire life savings (30-40 years of saving remainder of your salary every month and slowly building savings for retirement). It could be mortgage money which you are about to buy a house with or it could be company money for payroll. Suddenly employees of a small business don't get paid. Those employees of course have to pay mortgage/rent/medical bills and suddenly paycheck they counted on doesn't come. This could affect many people in very negative ways. I think $250k stolen should definitely get a priority to be investigated by agents over $2k stolen as it is more likely it will mess up lives of many people in a bad way.

downandout 9y ago

And yet then you see things like this [1], where the 4 year old case of a very minor eBay scammer is personally prosecuted by a state Attorney General. I guess it depends on who has time to kill. These two guys are looking at decades in prison for a scam that looks to have netted about $3K. [1] http://ag.nv.gov/News/PR/2017/Attorney_General_Laxalt_Announces_Grand_Jury_Indictment_against_Two_Defendants_for_eBay_Scam/ http://ag.nv.gov/News/PR/2017/Attorney_General_Laxalt_Announ...

scott00 9y ago
Why do you think he personally prosecuted it? His name's on the complaint, but it's on all the complaints referenced in their press releases. The press release says the case "was investigated and is being prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Fraud Unit".