Ramblings of an old Doc

 

A sting operation has revealed a possible way to really hurt the networks, factories and biggies of pirated software and spam. Purchases were made, and the money was tracked:

“One bank alone was used to settle more than 60 percent of all transactions, and the top three banks—Azerigazbank in Azerbaijan, St Kitts & Nevis Anguilla National Bank in St Kitts &Nevis, and Danish-owned DnB Nord in Latvia—together accounted for more than 95 percent of all money paid to spam vendors. The implication is that many banks simply won't deal with spam outfits. Even when switching does occur, it's disruptive, with payment processors typically introducing delays of days or weeks for due diligence to be performed. The Latvian bank's Danish owners say that the spam customers were inherited when they bought the bank, and claim that they have terminated their relationship with the spam affiliate programs.” – arstechnica

Well, if the money was tracked to your bank, then I guess you haven’t done a good job, have you?

Combined with legislation, like the variety used to regulate online gambling and the kind designed to kill the botnets (good for computer security) might make a truly large dent in this illicit market whose profits go to support drugs (and therefore, indirectly terrorism), counterfeit software, and knock-off merchandise. The problem with going after only the botnets is that it yields short term results. Others spring up to handle the “customers”.

I say the economists are right in this. Go after the banks: Setting up payment systems is a lot harder than botnets, and really hurts their bottom line. That plus the the other two lines of attack should begin to show real results.

All that has to be done is to forbid certain types of credit card transactions, really. As for the penalties? They can be made more onerous than the profits (which is what it’s about for legitimate banks).

I strongly recommend reading the article in arstechnica.

Source:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/a-way-to-take-out-spammers-3-banks-process-95-of-spam-transactions.ars


Comments
on Jun 01, 2011

Sounds like a good idea - except.  Where the banks are located it may not be a crime.  WHile the detective work these guys did is good, the simple reality of the Internet is that it is INTERnational.  I doubt Spam is illegal in Antigua (who cares there?), so these banks simply do not care.  As far as they are concerned, the money is legit - and it is in most places.

We do not like SPAM or Snail Mail Junk Mail - but that does not make it always illegal.  Indeed, Spam is not illegal as long as you are using your own resources (it is illegal when you hijack other computers and that is where they are getting most of them).

on Jun 01, 2011

Dr Guy
Sounds like a good idea - except. Where the banks are located it may not be a crime.

True, but shut down their ability to do business with financial institutions that are in Countries where it is criminal (Pirated Software and Spambot network owners) and the banks will need a REALLY good reason to stick with that sort of customer.

on Jun 01, 2011

^ Correct. Also, seizing any assets they might have here, forbidding them to trade on the NASDAQ/NYSE, not allowing storage of gold in Ft. Knox, not allowing US Corporations/Subsidiaries and US citizens to have accounts, etc., etc.,etc. might make their lives absolutely miserable.

Time to get serious about crime, criminals and those who facilitate them. 

on Jun 02, 2011

Lantec
True, but shut down their ability to do business with financial institutions that are in Countries where it is criminal (Pirated Software and Spambot network owners) and the banks will need a REALLY good reason to stick with that sort of customer.

Yes but (don't you hate those things?) that could escalate into a trade war.  After all, if IAMBANK decides not to do business with them - that is a business decision and IAMBANK has to live with the plusses and minuses.  No big deal. However if the USA says "You cannot do business with them", then the host country has a legitimate beef against the USA as they can rightly claim the USA is trying to run the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

DrJBHL
Time to get serious about crime, criminals and those who facilitate them.

Again, if it is not a crime in that country, there is no crime or criminals or anyone facilitating them.  In Mexico it is not illegal to drive without a seat belt.  What right do we have to tell them they have to pass such a law?

on Jun 02, 2011

The monetary system, or banking system for that matter, isn't even legal, moral or ethical.

Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy knew this and when they voiced concern of it, they were eliminated.

But for all matters concerning money, the difference between something being illegal and [not illegal] is "regulation".

-.-

on Jun 02, 2011

Dr Guy
However if the USA says "You cannot do business with them", then the host country has a legitimate beef against the USA as they can rightly claim the USA is trying to run the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

What I'm saying, Dr Guy isn't that at all. What I'm saying is "You can't do business with them and with us." That is well within our rights (and obligations) to say.

Dr Guy
Again, if it is not a crime in that country, there is no crime or criminals or anyone facilitating them. In Mexico it is not illegal to drive without a seat belt. What right do we have to tell them they have to pass such a law?

We can't pass a law that states, "Mexicans have to wear seat belts while driving in Mexico." (well we could but it wouldn't mean anything through lack of enforcability).

We have the obligation to notify Americans driving in Mexico, "Watch out, they don't drive with seat belts and may not have them in their cars." 

We can (and do) tell Mexicans, "It is the law in the USA to wear seat belts while driving, and we enforce it." 

on Jun 02, 2011

DrJBHL
What I'm saying, Dr Guy isn't that at all. What I'm saying is "You can't do business with them and with us." That is well within our rights (and obligations) to say.

As long as it is business to business.  Not nation to business.

DrJBHL
We can't pass a law that states, "Mexicans have to wear seat belts while driving in Mexico." (well we could but it wouldn't mean anything through lack of enforcability).

I am not saying we pass a law - I am saying the US tells Mexico that they have to pass a law, or we ban trade with them.  That in effect is what a nation to business is doing and it will only precipitate a trade war.

on Jun 02, 2011

Dr JBHL  new avatar!  Cool.  (sorry - off topic)

on Jun 02, 2011

Dr Guy
As long as it is business to business. Not nation to business.

Nations make laws. Not businesses. Nations determine national policy. I see no problem with that. The government says "No business with Iran nor terrorist entities." which are businesses, and which are funded through drug money which is part of the pirate/hacker syndicates.

Dr Guy
I am saying the US tells Mexico that they have to pass a law, or we ban trade with them. That in effect is what a nation to business is doing and it will only precipitate a trade war.
 

You can read what I said. It remains unchanged. The above does not relate to what I wrote. 

@Elana - Thanks.  The AVMan is truly an amazing avatar maker.

on Jun 02, 2011

aeligos
residents Lincoln and Kennedy knew this and when they voiced concern of it, they were eliminated.

on Jun 03, 2011

aeligos
Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy knew this and when they voiced concern of it, they were eliminated.

Lincoln was shot in the head by a confederate sympathizer and Kennedy was shot by Oswald who lived for a time in Russia but also worked for the 'Mob'. Hired to be the fall guy and eliminated by Jack Ruby to keep his trap shut. Nobody wanted everyone to know Kennedy was playing with Marilyn Monroe who was playing with his brother and certain 'Mob' figures. Banks and legitimacy? Yeah right.

on Jun 03, 2011

Hired to be the fall guy and eliminated by Jack Ruby to keep his trap shut.

So Jack Ruby wanted you to believe.  I don't think so.

on Jun 06, 2011

DrJBHL
You can read what I said. It remains unchanged. The above does not relate to what I wrote.

I did.  I think we may be arguing at cross purposes.  I did not say that a nation "cannot". and the examples you gave are valid.  But you usually do not want to piss off your friends, so you "May Not".  A nation does not care if it is pissing off its enemies.  It does care if it is pissing off its friends.

on Jun 06, 2011

Online casinos are hated by politicians not because they shelter potentially questionable activity but because they are making a lot of nontaxable income that they feel should be taxed.  Can you imagine if the whole domestic gambling industry went online and nontaxable?  The financial loss would cause our leaders to riot.  What other industries would follow in its wake?  Taking money from a pet program is seen like stealing from the politicians own personal piggy bank.  Of course there has been considerable lobbying from the competition to it shut down.

on Jun 06, 2011

Dr Guy
But you usually do not want to piss off your friends, so you "May Not".

I to it as a stronger (ie. as it's used in the tax code) prohibition. "Might not wish to" is considerably closer to what I perceive you now explain.

Actually, "friendly" nations stand a great deal by making sure these criminals don't operate within their borders.