5 ms·

That's what they claim, how would we know it's true? It's the word of the extortionists, there is no reason we should just believe them. Governments in certain

That's what they claim, how would we know it's true? It's the word of the extortionists, there is no reason we should just believe them. Governments in certain countries obviously tolerate this sort of hacking, if not outright support it. If you wanted to destabilize the US without directly starting a war, wouldn't that be a good way to go about it?

edgyquant 5y ago
I’m just guessing here but I imagine it’s like how certain groups in South America refrain from kidnapping/violence on large tourist destinations. These groups don’t exist to be evil they exist to make money and bringing the weight of powerful nation states (the US) on you is bad for business.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "In Russia, for example, authorities there generally will not initiate a cybercrime investigation against one of their own unless a company or individual within the country’s borders files an official complaint as a victim. Ensuring that no affiliates can produce victims in their own countries is the easiest way for these criminals to stay off the radar of domestic law enforcement agencies." From the article. So I guess it is the same principle.
- totalZero 5y ago
  Additionally, you can presumably make more money by selling drugs to tourists in Cancún than by kidnapping them.
hutzlibu 5y ago
It is, but ... do you really think, China or Russia really want the US to be destabilized even further? A US falling apart for real, would be bad for Russia as well as China. And vice versa. Because desperate people tend to do desperate actions - not a good thing with so many nukes involved. So I also think, it is likely that at least some russian hacker groups have direct or indirect links to the FSB, and have to work for them occasionally - but most of them probably have indeed their own pocket as the main motivator.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > not a good thing with so many nukes involved. We don't even need to go that far. A collapsing US would take down most of the world's financial system with it. In a place like Russia, where rich people with global financial holdings call the shots, that's not something they'd likely get behind.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > In a place like Russia, where rich people with global financial holdings call the shots So, pretty much like any other place, then?
mumblemumble 5y ago
There's a good chance that you're failing to properly intuit their motivations. If it really is an organization that is out to make money, then it wouldn't want to destabilize a country like the US in the first place, any more than a dairy farmer wants to destabilize the health of a cow. It might happen accidentally, as an unintentional side effect of efforts to extract a greater yield. (e.g, Colonial Pipeline.) But nobody wants to actually wreck the source of their livelihood. And I don't think we have any reason to infer any other motive. This is certainly well outside my area of expertise, but their pattern of behavior doesn't really say, "state actor," to me.
- indigochill 5y ago
  > their pattern of behavior doesn't really say, "state actor," to me. This is the fascinating thing about Russian hackers to me. Maybe sometimes political favors change hands, but ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets. IMO Russia's brilliant in how they've managed their offensive hacking assets.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    The downside is that this approach seems to only be available to nation-states that aren't particularly governed by rule of law.
    - naniwaduni 5y ago
      Wait, that was supposed to be a downside?
  - jopsen 5y ago
    > ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets You could say the same for Afghanistan 20 years ago, but plausible deniability will only go so far.. If these hackers eventually end up hurting a lot of people, then who knows what happens next?
    - 5y ago

edgyquant 5y ago

I’m just guessing here but I imagine it’s like how certain groups in South America refrain from kidnapping/violence on large tourist destinations. These groups don’t exist to be evil they exist to make money and bringing the weight of powerful nation states (the US) on you is bad for business.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"In Russia, for example, authorities there generally will not initiate a cybercrime investigation against one of their own unless a company or individual within the country’s borders files an official complaint as a victim. Ensuring that no affiliates can produce victims in their own countries is the easiest way for these criminals to stay off the radar of domestic law enforcement agencies." From the article. So I guess it is the same principle.
totalZero 5y ago
Additionally, you can presumably make more money by selling drugs to tourists in Cancún than by kidnapping them.

hutzlibu 5y ago

It is, but ... do you really think, China or Russia really want the US to be destabilized even further? A US falling apart for real, would be bad for Russia as well as China. And vice versa. Because desperate people tend to do desperate actions - not a good thing with so many nukes involved. So I also think, it is likely that at least some russian hacker groups have direct or indirect links to the FSB, and have to work for them occasionally - but most of them probably have indeed their own pocket as the main motivator.

kelnos 5y ago
> not a good thing with so many nukes involved. We don't even need to go that far. A collapsing US would take down most of the world's financial system with it. In a place like Russia, where rich people with global financial holdings call the shots, that's not something they'd likely get behind.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > In a place like Russia, where rich people with global financial holdings call the shots So, pretty much like any other place, then?

mumblemumble 5y ago

There's a good chance that you're failing to properly intuit their motivations. If it really is an organization that is out to make money, then it wouldn't want to destabilize a country like the US in the first place, any more than a dairy farmer wants to destabilize the health of a cow. It might happen accidentally, as an unintentional side effect of efforts to extract a greater yield. (e.g, Colonial Pipeline.) But nobody wants to actually wreck the source of their livelihood. And I don't think we have any reason to infer any other motive. This is certainly well outside my area of expertise, but their pattern of behavior doesn't really say, "state actor," to me.

indigochill 5y ago
> their pattern of behavior doesn't really say, "state actor," to me. This is the fascinating thing about Russian hackers to me. Maybe sometimes political favors change hands, but ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets. IMO Russia's brilliant in how they've managed their offensive hacking assets.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  The downside is that this approach seems to only be available to nation-states that aren't particularly governed by rule of law.
  - naniwaduni 5y ago
    Wait, that was supposed to be a downside?
- jopsen 5y ago
  > ultimately they're autonomous, self-funding, self-training, completely deniable assets You could say the same for Afghanistan 20 years ago, but plausible deniability will only go so far.. If these hackers eventually end up hurting a lot of people, then who knows what happens next?
  - 5y ago