Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin Crime

Early Bitcoin Adopters Facing Extortion Threats 106

An anonymous reader writes Wired recounts the story of Hal Finney, one of the very first adopters of Bitcoin. Finney died earlier this year after a long fight with Lou Gehrig's disease. But for months before his death, he was a victim of constant harassment from somebody trying to extort his Bitcoins. He and his family faced a variety of threats, and had a SWAT team called on their residence. And it turns out Finney is not alone — other early adopters are being targeted with similar threats. "That's when someone using the names Nitrous and Savaged hacked into [early adopter Roger Ver's] email accounts and demanded that he cough up 37 bitcoins—about $20,000 at the time—in order to prevent his private information from being published online. Ver refused, and the hacker apparently backed off after Ver put a 37 bitcoin bounty on his head. Ver, who was himself sentenced to 10 months in federal prison for illegally shipping explosive across state lines, believes that Savaged is not only the same person who swatted Hal Finney, but also the person who gained access to Satoshi Nakamoto's email account earlier this year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Early Bitcoin Adopters Facing Extortion Threats

Comments Filter:
  • Told you so (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Unregulated currency FTW

    • Re:Told you so (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @11:31AM (#48696075)

      Unregulated currency FTW

      Bitcoin's not unregulated. Its regulations are simply enforced by technical rather than legal means. Or are you perhaps confusing currency regulations with regulations against extortion?

  • by Kobun ( 668169 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @10:15AM (#48695543)
    That swatting is a thing. How can it be that a single, anonymous phone call is all it takes to deploy a militarized police team to your front door? It blows my mind. That it keeps happening over and over ... ugh.
    • by Cigarra ( 652458 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @10:25AM (#48695597)
      Because police departments have all this budget and military gear and they're itching to use it?
      • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@NospAM.carpanet.net> on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @11:07AM (#48695891) Homepage

        That assumes they even are "departments". Here in MA swat teams are private companies, which seems to have gone unnoticed until someone tried to file FOIA requests for information about how often they are deployed; and they refused to answer.

        Because of course, knowing how often and why they are deployed is only reporting to the public on exactly what we pay them for, its not something the public has any right to know or anything.

        • What happens when you file a FOIA against the police/911 office that dispatched them?

        • by rtaylor ( 70602 )

          It's still not up to the private company to tell you that. In fact, disclosing those details might be a violation of their contract with their employer.

          Ask the public office that hires and pays the team how often they are deployed and what for.

        • by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

          .... Here in MA swat teams are private companies, ...

          Not gone un-noticed. I know about it clear down in Maryland. So do others. Last I knew they did that so they wouldn't have to answer FOIA requests. You know, try to hide their stupidity. I thought there was legislation to remove their ability to do that. MA is way out of my zone to care about, other than it could spread. Look into it and get it outlawed if that's not already under way. Understand that your life if you live in MA may depend on it. Less Rambo, more Sheriff Taylor.

          The end point to this po

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because if someone calls in and they don't break your house and kill your dogs, someone will sue them?

      Whereas if they follow procedure, heed the call, break your house and kill your dogs, they're in the clear.

      Doing this creates wealth (jobs).

      It's Capitalism 101.

      Captcha: misuses

      • by Translation Error ( 1176675 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @10:50AM (#48695777)

        Because if someone calls in and they don't break your house and kill your dogs, someone will sue them?

        Suing the police for not responding to actual violent crimes has been tried. The courts ruled [wikipedia.org] that the police have no obligation.

      • It's Capitalism 101.

        While the general snark in this comment is evident, I have to protest about conflating private ownership of the means of production with government agencies wasting money doing useless tasks (to say nothing of the risks associated with it).

        Perhaps the inability to differentiate these two is actually something that's common these days, though, which would explain a lot about modern discourse on the topic -- likewise the conflation of "jobs" and "wealth" (the former being a means to an

    • It applies to lots of things. In this instance here someone filed a fake claim of child abuse.
      http://www.bostonglobe.com/met... [bostonglobe.com]

    • Because in this day and age, people expect the government to do everything for them, and protect them from everything. Imagine if hundreds die, after the FBI gets a call that they ignore. Heads would role, major important people would get fired. So they have to treat every single suggestion of law breaking as true, as the voters do not care one wit is rights are routinely trodden on, of their police are militarized and budgets soar, they do care if there is a shooting or a bomb important enough to get news
      • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @12:25PM (#48696533)

        when you give people the simplified choice of, should this tragedy have happened, or do we prevent it in the future, they will always pick the "lets prevent this in the future option". Because they are not writing the budges, they are not directly taking money out of schools or medical care. They are not deciding exactly what rights to trampled on.

        Yes, it's the dumb public who's at fault. Except... for some strange reason the police don't behave this way in, say, Nordic countries, despite them being openly and officially huge-government welfare nanny states straight from Ayn Rand's worst nightmares. So perhaps, just perhaps, the problem behind the police acting like an occupying force is not the public but the police themselves?

  • Fireworks (Score:5, Informative)

    by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @10:15AM (#48695545)

    http://dailyanarchist.com/2012... [dailyanarchist.com]

    http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroo... [cpsc.gov]

    He was charged for selling agricultural fireworks (to scare away pests) on ebay. Turns out that the manufacturer was making them too powerful and/or not following regulations that limit their sale to farmers, ranchers, and growers.

    He was also the only person prosecuted over the incident, despite the same fireworks being sold all over, including Cabelas. (Ken Shearer is mentioned in the CPSC press release, but his case is unrelated.)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Ver refused, and the hacker apparently backed off after Ver put a 37 bitcoin bounty on his head.

    From TFA: "Then Ver responded with a link to a Facebook post offering that 37-bitcoin bounty for information leading to Nitrous’s arrest, and Nitrous immediately backed down. To be clear, Ver didn’t put a bounty on Nitrous’s head. He merely said he’ll pay out the money when Nitrous is arrested for hacking his accounts."

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Whoops! I fail this time.

      From TFA: "Ver refused, and the hacker apparently backed off after Ver put a 37 bitcoin bounty on his head."

      However, that statement links to this article [wired.com] which states that: "Then Ver responded with a link to a Facebook post offering that 37-bitcoin bounty for information leading to Nitrous’s arrest, and Nitrous immediately backed down. To be clear, Ver didn’t put a bounty on Nitrous’s head. He merely said he’ll pay out the money when Nitrous is arrested for

    • Its a perfectly reasonable modern use of the term.

  • 10 months in federal prison for illegally shipping explosive across state lines? That's it? Ten months?
    • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @10:51AM (#48695779) Journal

      If you go camping and take a pack of Black Cats with you, you may have just illegally transported explosives. Details matter.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I had a cousin convicted and spent time in jail under a "manufacturing explosives" charge for putting drain cleaner & tin foil in a pop bottle. Our "justice" system is certifiably insane these days.

        • How much time? If he spent a day in jail and that nipped it in the bud, so he didn't make acetone peroxide without a license, I'm okay with that. If he spent a month, probably meaning nobody bailed him out, that sucks.

    • The "explosives" in question were firecrackers designed to scare birds sold on ebay...

  • by puddingebola ( 2036796 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @10:48AM (#48695757) Journal
    I don't know, extortion is evil but you've got some cojones to try and squeeze somebody who ships explosives across state lines. Maybe you're 37 bitcoins will include a special package delivery from Hal Finney. That's odd, this box is ticking.
  • anonymous! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @10:52AM (#48695785) Journal
    Aren't bitcoins supposed to be anonymous? So anonymous no government jack booted thugs can find you? So great you could pay off goons in bitcoins to knock off spouses with inconvenient pre-nuptial agreements?

    If random hackers find you and shake you down, your imagined immunity from FBI is just imaginary, isn't it? Shows without a legal government backing it up and providing for a non-violent conflict resolution options and contract enforcement options, all these "digital anonymous currencies" are just jokes, created by folks unconnected with reality creating castles in the air.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Aren't bitcoins supposed to be anonymous?"

      No, they aren't. This has been covered many times already.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by koan ( 80826 )

        They can be, however people keeping their mouths shut is another thing all together.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        They are, so long as you create an infinite number of wallets, and transfer them randomly around them to "launder" them.
    • He might not have tried to be anonymous, though. No amount of obfuscation or anonymity can stop you from proclaiming who you are.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      BitCoins are not anonymous. Wallets are.

      It isn't tough to guard your BitCoin stash from the bad guys:

      1: Keep it offline. Buy a cheapie netbook, slap Linux on it, create and do your wallet stuff on that. Make sure to back the wallet up. This can be done in a number of ways.

      2: If you have a real stash of BTC, go with a paper wallet. If you want a proper "currency" feeling, go to bitcoinpaperwallet.com, and buy some pieces of paper, seals, bags, and even a Ubuntu live CD with the wallet software on it f

  • by koan ( 80826 )

    but also the person who gained access to Satoshi Nakamoto's email account earlier this year."

    Wait... now we know who Satoshi Nakamoto is? Or rather he has an email account.

  • Anonymous and secure. LOL.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The first rule of bitcoin. Don't talk about bitcoin.

    • Anonymous

      The creators of bitcoin never claimed that.

      and secure. LOL.

      That's more or less equivalent to saying "lol RSA 4096 isn't secure because someone can beat you up and force you to reveal the password lol". Bitcoin is secure.

With your bare hands?!?

Working...