4 ms·

Indeed, cybercrime is cross-border because that makes it difficult to reverse fraudulent transactions. There should simply be an international treaty such that

by ajb 3y ago

Indeed, cybercrime is cross-border because that makes it difficult to reverse fraudulent transactions. There should simply be an international treaty such that fraudulent transactions crossing a border can be reclaimed from the government of the destination country, leaving them with the problem of reclaiming it within their own country.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
This is assuming you even know where they are. Suppose you want to impose tariffs on China because of cybercrime originating from there. Then China comes back and says they've investigated your claims, the computer you say the attack was coming from was actually another victim being used as a proxy and the real perpetrators are in North Korea or wherever. Then they make up some IP address in North Korea and tell you to go after them, which you can't because they don't have any money or don't trade with you or already hate you. Or cybercriminals in whatever country actually do just compromise some machines in other countries and use them as proxies to keep their own local authorities from having to care, and then you legitimately don't know where they are.
- ajb 3y ago
  Any such crime involves a transfer of money, and the destination country is easily determined. The point is not to figure out where the criminals are, but to place responsibility on the country that can act on it. That's why I said the refund should come from the destination country, not the country where the criminals are located. If the criminals are not located there, then that country will have a claim on the next country that the money is transferred to, etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Money isn't any easier to trace than data packets. Dollars get converted into bullion or Monero some other fungible commodity with no tracking attached, then back into money. The country where the conversion happens isn't inherently the country where the criminals are, and you can't plausibly make it illegal to buy <fungible commodity> for every value of <fungible commodity>.
    - grotorea 3y ago
      Is it completely implausible to tell the country where that exchange took place that it's their problem if they failed to enforce KYC/AML laws and check who is exchanging those fungible commodities and its origins?
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Yes? The transaction you know how to track is the unlawful one. Some ransomware requires you to pay them, so you do, and they take possession of whatever untraceable commodity and then give you the decryption keys (or don't). Or they buy a commodity on a stolen credit card and have possession of it before the fraud is reported. Then the victim goes to the police or files a dispute with the credit card company. The KYC/AML data is just going to give you the name of the account holder, i.e. the victim. The criminal didn't receive government currency, they received something they can anonymously resell for government currency, which could be anything with a market value.

by ajb 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

This is assuming you even know where they are. Suppose you want to impose tariffs on China because of cybercrime originating from there. Then China comes back and says they've investigated your claims, the computer you say the attack was coming from was actually another victim being used as a proxy and the real perpetrators are in North Korea or wherever. Then they make up some IP address in North Korea and tell you to go after them, which you can't because they don't have any money or don't trade with you or already hate you. Or cybercriminals in whatever country actually do just compromise some machines in other countries and use them as proxies to keep their own local authorities from having to care, and then you legitimately don't know where they are.

ajb 3y ago
Any such crime involves a transfer of money, and the destination country is easily determined. The point is not to figure out where the criminals are, but to place responsibility on the country that can act on it. That's why I said the refund should come from the destination country, not the country where the criminals are located. If the criminals are not located there, then that country will have a claim on the next country that the money is transferred to, etc.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Money isn't any easier to trace than data packets. Dollars get converted into bullion or Monero some other fungible commodity with no tracking attached, then back into money. The country where the conversion happens isn't inherently the country where the criminals are, and you can't plausibly make it illegal to buy <fungible commodity> for every value of <fungible commodity>.
  - grotorea 3y ago
    Is it completely implausible to tell the country where that exchange took place that it's their problem if they failed to enforce KYC/AML laws and check who is exchanging those fungible commodities and its origins?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Yes? The transaction you know how to track is the unlawful one. Some ransomware requires you to pay them, so you do, and they take possession of whatever untraceable commodity and then give you the decryption keys (or don't). Or they buy a commodity on a stolen credit card and have possession of it before the fraud is reported. Then the victim goes to the police or files a dispute with the credit card company. The KYC/AML data is just going to give you the name of the account holder, i.e. the victim. The criminal didn't receive government currency, they received something they can anonymously resell for government currency, which could be anything with a market value.