Whenever bitcoin is involved with any breaking news story, you can bet that it will get an outsized amount of attention in the media. This was the case with the Department of Justice’s recent indictment against 12 Russian intelligence agents accused of hacking into the online accounts of various U.S. political actors. Unfortunately and somewhat distractingly, some in the press have fixated on DOJ’s reports that Russian agents used bitcoin in the course of their activities to argue that the cryptocurrency is to blame for these dark deeds. In fact, it might be more correct to argue the opposite.
Now, it is not exactly surprising that a criminal enterprise might try to use cryptocurrencies to make shady payments. This has been the case since at least 2013, when the rise of dark net markets that allowed individuals to buy and sell contraband like controlled substances and weapons was fueled in equal parts by cryptography and bitcoin. But as the experiences with dark net markets and Russian hacking both demonstrate, using cryptocurrency to commit crimes is far from a savvy evasive maneuver. It can be a textbook bonehead move.
The reason that some people misunderstand the risk factor that bitcoin poses in facilitating crime is that they incorrectly believe these digital monies to be “anonymous” in the way that a cash payment is anonymous. They are not. Rather, a cryptocurrency transaction is pseudonymous, kind of like sending an email. A person can choose to clearly associate their email address with their real life identity, just like a bitcoin user can post their wallet address on a social media page. Or, a person can take steps to create a large number of private email accounts that are not tied to their real identity, just like a bitcoin user can create as many different wallets as they want. But in both cases, there are still ways for service providers and law enforcement to trace a pseudonymous account back to the source. Andrea O’Sullivan explains more.
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2M7tNDY
via IFTTT