4 ms·

As far as fighting fire with fire, I'd advise the FSB (or whatever relevant law enforcement body) that if you do not ably deter cybercriminals in your jurisdict

As far as fighting fire with fire, I'd advise the FSB (or whatever relevant law enforcement body) that if you do not ably deter cybercriminals in your jurisdiction we will not enforce cyber crime laws against criminals targeting Russian individuals and companies. Could American hacker groups cause sufficient problems for Russia that it would become worthwhile for Russia to enforce laws against its criminals?

bsder 5y ago
> Could American hacker groups cause sufficient problems for Russia that it would become worthwhile for Russia to enforce laws against its criminals? You don't need to do much to Russia. You just need to let some "hackers" empty the foreign bank accounts of some oligarchs a couple of times. Those are probably much easier to wipe out and it would send the appropriate message--clean up or stay home--indefinitely.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  And the US is better than Russia how then? Let's turn it around (with a real example): A US diplomats wife ran someone down in the UK while drunk driving and then ran home to the US. The US refuse to let justice run its course. Should everyone else then be just as dirty as the US and let every criminal do whatever they want and just laugh at the US when they want justice? It's a very steep and slippery slope. One cannot both be angry that Russia doesn't jump when we say jump and then not jump ourselves when it is the other way around.
  - bsder 5y ago
    There are degrees. When someone is shooting at you and won't stop, eventually you have to shoot back. And the fact that you have to choose an individual case where the US is wrong (and that it is exceptional) and compare it to entities blackmailing dozens to hundreds of people who will wind up with some of them dead and who have done it repeatedly demonstrates that. Or perhaps we can talk about the beatings at the Erdogan protests? Back to internet, even with the best security, how many entities could really stand up to a concerted attack? What everybody asking for OpSec that can stand up to this is really asking for is complete loss of sharing and trust in any group entity. I'm not sure people really grasp that solid security implies lack of sharing. Do you really want HR to require an ID with every interaction? Do you really want the line slowdown while every Karen fishes out her Target fob from her purse before she can check out? At base, you need at least a minimum level of trust between entities to operate. If someone is preventing even that, you will eventually have to do something drastic to them.
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  And then those oligarchs will put some bounties to have some people's head brought to them on a silver platter. And someone will deliver. If you shoot for the king you better not miss.
- bena 5y ago
  What you are describing is essentially an act of war. You know that, right? State-sanctioned attacks on a foreign nation is kind of the definition of war. And it's not like Russia is opposed to the idea. That's been their schtick for a while now. They've been baiting direct action for years now. The U.S. government has so far avoided responding directly even to actions that could also be seen as acts of war. Because war with Russia does not serve the U.S.'s interest as much as it would serve Russia's.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Why would it be an act of war if what Russia is currently doing is not an act of war? We won't enforce criminal penalties against people who commit crimes against people who do not enforce criminal penalties against people who commit crimes against us. Admittedly, it's a mouthful to say - but it's a simple symmetric proposition.
    - bena 5y ago
      Did you miss the part where I said the U.S. government was ignoring actions that could be seen as acts of war? War with Russia is not in the interests of the U.S. We can't really enforce penalties against citizens of other countries. We don't have the authority to do so.
hutzlibu 5y ago
Erm, with all the current sanctions against russia already in place and more probably coming, I doubt that threat would have a big meaning now.
aww_dang 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque There's historical precedent for this.

bsder 5y ago

> Could American hacker groups cause sufficient problems for Russia that it would become worthwhile for Russia to enforce laws against its criminals? You don't need to do much to Russia. You just need to let some "hackers" empty the foreign bank accounts of some oligarchs a couple of times. Those are probably much easier to wipe out and it would send the appropriate message--clean up or stay home--indefinitely.

Dah00n 5y ago
And the US is better than Russia how then? Let's turn it around (with a real example): A US diplomats wife ran someone down in the UK while drunk driving and then ran home to the US. The US refuse to let justice run its course. Should everyone else then be just as dirty as the US and let every criminal do whatever they want and just laugh at the US when they want justice? It's a very steep and slippery slope. One cannot both be angry that Russia doesn't jump when we say jump and then not jump ourselves when it is the other way around.
- bsder 5y ago
  There are degrees. When someone is shooting at you and won't stop, eventually you have to shoot back. And the fact that you have to choose an individual case where the US is wrong (and that it is exceptional) and compare it to entities blackmailing dozens to hundreds of people who will wind up with some of them dead and who have done it repeatedly demonstrates that. Or perhaps we can talk about the beatings at the Erdogan protests? Back to internet, even with the best security, how many entities could really stand up to a concerted attack? What everybody asking for OpSec that can stand up to this is really asking for is complete loss of sharing and trust in any group entity. I'm not sure people really grasp that solid security implies lack of sharing. Do you really want HR to require an ID with every interaction? Do you really want the line slowdown while every Karen fishes out her Target fob from her purse before she can check out? At base, you need at least a minimum level of trust between entities to operate. If someone is preventing even that, you will eventually have to do something drastic to them.
ReptileMan 5y ago
And then those oligarchs will put some bounties to have some people's head brought to them on a silver platter. And someone will deliver. If you shoot for the king you better not miss.
bena 5y ago
What you are describing is essentially an act of war. You know that, right? State-sanctioned attacks on a foreign nation is kind of the definition of war. And it's not like Russia is opposed to the idea. That's been their schtick for a while now. They've been baiting direct action for years now. The U.S. government has so far avoided responding directly even to actions that could also be seen as acts of war. Because war with Russia does not serve the U.S.'s interest as much as it would serve Russia's.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Why would it be an act of war if what Russia is currently doing is not an act of war? We won't enforce criminal penalties against people who commit crimes against people who do not enforce criminal penalties against people who commit crimes against us. Admittedly, it's a mouthful to say - but it's a simple symmetric proposition.
  - bena 5y ago
    Did you miss the part where I said the U.S. government was ignoring actions that could be seen as acts of war? War with Russia is not in the interests of the U.S. We can't really enforce penalties against citizens of other countries. We don't have the authority to do so.

hutzlibu 5y ago

Erm, with all the current sanctions against russia already in place and more probably coming, I doubt that threat would have a big meaning now.

aww_dang 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque There's historical precedent for this.