We truly do live in a simulation.
It won't work as well for the hackers, of course, as they aren't paying for lobbyists, crisis PR, and political donations, however much they're trying to be more "professional". [1] I expect this ransomware crew just got a 10x bump in the number of federal agents going after them.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/ransomware-gone-corporate-darksi...
Before this hack, you had insurance companies wanting to stop these guys. They were comfortable with that level of heat. Having the NSA and CIA trying to track them down is a totally different level. Even if they don't get caught, they have to spend a lot more time worrying about opsec, which leaves them less for actually making money.
Until we can shift our assets and upgrade our chimney, we promise to refrain from poking large-ish toes. Nevertheless, we do poke toes, so we must continue to poke small ones.
We are sure that everyone understands the nuanced and unexpected realities of our predicament, especially those voters who can't get to work today."
The degree to which US can craft an internationally persuasive story of Russia's culpability is the degree to which Russia will have to launch an internal investigation, and like, treat the matter Very Seriously and Stuff.
No, we truly live in a world where human beings have decided that it is ok to exploit others for their own gain. These criminals use corporate-speak because that's the language of exploitation.
"don't let me detain you."
Wouldn’t this add to their “liability” given that now are they not only selling hacking tools but greelighting specific illegal activity?
>1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create public fear through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
>2. The use of unlawful violence against people or property to achieve political objectives.
>3. A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region
If you don't have an agenda behind it, it's not terrorism.
It can't be that easy - if some government is going to charge you, they'll do it based on what you achieved, not what you say.
But that's not what's happening? It's not like we have IRA setting off bombs and then saying "it's us but it's accidental wink wink". Terrorists are interested in creating fear, hence why they take attributions in the first place.
>It can't be that easy - if some government is going to charge you, they'll do it based on what you achieved, not what you say.
You do realize something can be a crime and still not be terrorism, right?
But their loudly and public disclaiming all intent to harm puts them a huge step away from being terrorists in the public’s eyes. Even if the government designates them so, they still have to make a case as to why money should be spent in going after them instead of criminals the population actually cares about.
1. who's calling them terrorists? Some shmuck off the street? Some writer for a tabloid? People on wallstreetbets think that hedge funds are "financial terrorists", doesn't mean they are.
2. drug lords can absolutely engage in actual terrorist activities, eg. "we will attack innocent civilians unless you stop arresting us".
So seems my example was wrong. Whoops.
That's one possible way, but not always needed. The message for fear may be "us gas infrastructure can be broken for days by internet exploits" - that's been done. Adding "by Russian groups" at the end does change the message and creates a lot of issues as we've seen - so the preference may be to deny it.