5 ms·

"Hackers" want to publicly snitch on those with supposed "links" to financial crime and sanctions. Not convictions nor actual sanctions, but links. Like the sam

"Hackers" want to publicly snitch on those with supposed "links" to financial crime and sanctions. Not convictions nor actual sanctions, but links. Like the same brand of hacker that is all in on bitcoin, anarchy, etc? Hackers are shaming agents in service of the State Department now? Sell us another one. People should not be de-personed because a bank thinks that they are risky. The population, in general, needs to stop pretending that anonymous "hackers" are legitimate justice advocates instead of the likely state actors that they are. Unless they want anything of the sort to be co-opted and then utilized against them.

nradov 2y ago
Hackers come in many different flavors. It's entirely possible that this group is state sponsored. Would that really change anything? I don't see anyone seriously claiming that leaking this data would deliver any sort of legitimate justice.
- mrangle 2y ago
  My point was that it should change public support for their intended data release. Because no one should be ok with the State anonymously doxxing uncharged targets, let alone people who are merely on lists as being known to have "links". I assume that such an action would be to create both leverage and punishment, outside of what legal constraints would otherwise allow. The nature of democracy is such that the government can't punish individual citizens via stealth practices, and the citizenry can't be ok with it. Generally speaking, this type of thing would have been vetted by a journalist. Who would have acted as the final release valve, after verifying that the source was legitimate and not, for example, the government itself. While keeping the source confidential, and vetting the information for the ethics and justification for its release. But today it would be foolish to trust most journalists with that process. And so the public are left with the judgement as to the possible motivations, identities, and probable legitimacy of the actions of anonymous sources who, for whatever reason, aren't first releasing to journalists. Backstops removed, such an action represents a lot of social risk and begs questions.
nimbius 2y ago
These are KYC checks so the information is very interesting if you're the average joe. the US Bank Secrecy act prohibits you from ever knowing the details of a SAR, or suspicious activity report. there are criminal punishments if a bank were to tell you a SAR had even been filed against you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report if this agency does not capitulate to the demands of hackers, then 5.3 million people would suddenly know their SAR/KYC status. it would do quantifiable harm to the prosecution of financial crimes globally.
- radlad 2y ago
  From your link: > A 2020 Bank Policy Institute study found that American SARs elicited a response from law enforcement in a median of 4% of reports, and that a tiny subset of those responses resulted in arrest and conviction, suggesting that 90% to 95% of SARs reports were false positives of unlawful activity.[5] Anecdotally, I've heard of many people having issues with this system. I find the claim that "it would do quantifiable harm to the prosecution of financial crimes globally" technically true (it is quantifiable), but to be overall exaggerated as to its actual harm.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    That's not surprising. There are plenty of suspicious things that aren't illegal. Moving $10k in cash around can often be legal, but could trigger a SAR. SARs aren't just supposed to catch illegal things. They catch suspicious things, and illegal things will be a small subset of those.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      Is it just cash? I was doing some freelancing and as I invoiced each month, I'd often generate a cashier's check from my business checking account to my personal checking, that varied between 9-12K a month. I was "warned" by my credit union about this and that there could be flags raised, but my response was, "what am I meant to do? That number is derived from my consulting hourly rate and the work I put in each month."
krunck 2y ago
If I was incorrectly "linked" to some financial crimes I'd like to know about it. If others make decisions based on this data that affect me personally then I'd like to know about it. I have to pay to know about it. But any powerful/wealthy person who has done things that could get them on the list probably have the means to see the list for themselves.
- fullspectrumdev 2y ago
  Send a data access request (under GDPR if you are in the EU). I did so a few years ago and found I’m on their shit list :)
  - redavni 2y ago
    I'd be wondering if sending the request was enough to get you on the list.
Terr_ 2y ago
I'm confused, is this a restatement of "call the bad ones crackers not hackers" debates of a couple decades ago?

nradov 2y ago

Hackers come in many different flavors. It's entirely possible that this group is state sponsored. Would that really change anything? I don't see anyone seriously claiming that leaking this data would deliver any sort of legitimate justice.

mrangle 2y ago
My point was that it should change public support for their intended data release. Because no one should be ok with the State anonymously doxxing uncharged targets, let alone people who are merely on lists as being known to have "links". I assume that such an action would be to create both leverage and punishment, outside of what legal constraints would otherwise allow. The nature of democracy is such that the government can't punish individual citizens via stealth practices, and the citizenry can't be ok with it. Generally speaking, this type of thing would have been vetted by a journalist. Who would have acted as the final release valve, after verifying that the source was legitimate and not, for example, the government itself. While keeping the source confidential, and vetting the information for the ethics and justification for its release. But today it would be foolish to trust most journalists with that process. And so the public are left with the judgement as to the possible motivations, identities, and probable legitimacy of the actions of anonymous sources who, for whatever reason, aren't first releasing to journalists. Backstops removed, such an action represents a lot of social risk and begs questions.

nimbius 2y ago

These are KYC checks so the information is very interesting if you're the average joe. the US Bank Secrecy act prohibits you from ever knowing the details of a SAR, or suspicious activity report. there are criminal punishments if a bank were to tell you a SAR had even been filed against you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report if this agency does not capitulate to the demands of hackers, then 5.3 million people would suddenly know their SAR/KYC status. it would do quantifiable harm to the prosecution of financial crimes globally.

radlad 2y ago
From your link: > A 2020 Bank Policy Institute study found that American SARs elicited a response from law enforcement in a median of 4% of reports, and that a tiny subset of those responses resulted in arrest and conviction, suggesting that 90% to 95% of SARs reports were false positives of unlawful activity.[5] Anecdotally, I've heard of many people having issues with this system. I find the claim that "it would do quantifiable harm to the prosecution of financial crimes globally" technically true (it is quantifiable), but to be overall exaggerated as to its actual harm.
- kube-system 2y ago
  That's not surprising. There are plenty of suspicious things that aren't illegal. Moving $10k in cash around can often be legal, but could trigger a SAR. SARs aren't just supposed to catch illegal things. They catch suspicious things, and illegal things will be a small subset of those.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Is it just cash? I was doing some freelancing and as I invoiced each month, I'd often generate a cashier's check from my business checking account to my personal checking, that varied between 9-12K a month. I was "warned" by my credit union about this and that there could be flags raised, but my response was, "what am I meant to do? That number is derived from my consulting hourly rate and the work I put in each month."

krunck 2y ago

If I was incorrectly "linked" to some financial crimes I'd like to know about it. If others make decisions based on this data that affect me personally then I'd like to know about it. I have to pay to know about it. But any powerful/wealthy person who has done things that could get them on the list probably have the means to see the list for themselves.

fullspectrumdev 2y ago
Send a data access request (under GDPR if you are in the EU). I did so a few years ago and found I’m on their shit list :)
- redavni 2y ago
  I'd be wondering if sending the request was enough to get you on the list.

Terr_ 2y ago

I'm confused, is this a restatement of "call the bad ones crackers not hackers" debates of a couple decades ago?