Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.development > #9340

Re: The morality of operating system security

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
"Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 8:18:21 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> > But, why they would steal the home
> > computer is beyond me.  They want stuff which is non-traceable,
> > liquid, and easily salable, e.g., cash, credit cards, common
> > jewelry, smartphones, GPS devices.  In general, they don't want
> > gold coin, rare coins, stamps, gold bars, exquisite jewelry,
> > because all that stuff is unique, sometimes marked with a serial
> > number, and is easily tracked by law enforcement via pawn shops
> > or jewelry stores.   
> 
> While computers and cell phones have a bunch of unique IDs
> (serial numbers and whatnot, e.g. MAC addresses), they still
> get stolen and resold. 

Yes, mostly, they get exported to other countries, usually poor
countries, especially if they were stolen near port cities in
California, New York or New Jersey, or around the Mississippi
river.  They're usually collected by gangs in trade for drugs.

> Cars have license plates and VINs. There are many cams these
> days to track the plates. And yet your car can get stolen
> and then found moths later abandoned somewhere and somehow
> all this time it would be "under the radar" as if
> instantaneously vanishing and then instantaneously reappearing
> out of nowhere.

In the port cities, they'll be exported to Africa, especially
from California, New York, and New Jersey.  Criminal groups
typically have undue influence on unionized dock workers.  The
government closely monitors imports for terrorism and criminality,
but lacks funds to thoroughly vet exports, which allows for stolen
product, e.g., stolen cars via New York mafia, and trade-based money
laundering, e.g., imported Chinese clothing via Mexican cartels paid
for with U.S. drug money.  In other states, cars are reduced to parts.
In such states, the stripped car body with VIN constitutes the car.
So, the car parts, e.g., doors, engine, transmission, etc, once
stripped from a stolen car, don't constitute stolen parts, and are
perfectly legal to sell ...  The stolen car body is quickly crushed
for recycling.  Other states classify car parts as stolen if the car
was stolen.  Of course, the owner has the right to sell parts from
their car in all states.  The mixing of stolen parts, legally removed
parts, and legal parts removed from stolen cars,  obscures criminal
activity.  Most of the time, these parts don't have serial numbers.
The parts are typically shipped throughout the country to repair
shops or to someone buying a part for repair, e.g., from a junk yard
or from a car repair shop or found at a parts swap.  Junk yards do a
huge amount of business this way with legally obtained cars.  One
automotive junk yard near me does such a thorough job of breaking
down cars, that you can literally buy a bag of all the nuts, bolts,
screws, and connectors for any specific make and model of car, SUV,
or truck, minus any damaged parts.  Two of them literally have all
the car parts, like doors, engines, transmissions, wheels, tires,
etc hanging from the ceiling or placed on shelves.  One of them
even has a fully computerized inventory system like a modern auto
parts store.  There is no need to go out into a muddy field to
remove parts or bring tools.  Cash and carry.


Rod Pemberton

Back to alt.os.development | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 15:09 +0100
  Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-30 00:03 +0700
    Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 19:39 +0200
    Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:54 +0100
      Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-31 06:16 +0700
  Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 20:01 +0200
    Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:59 +0100
      Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-31 17:47 +0200
        Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:11 +0100
          Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-01 18:25 +0200
            Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 23:10 +0100
              Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-02 14:18 +0200
      Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-04-01 09:58 +0200
        Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 10:06 +0100
  Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-29 17:39 -0400
    Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:13 +0100
      Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-30 23:18 -0400
        Re: The morality of operating system security "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:31 -0700
          Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-31 16:57 -0400
        Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 09:22 +0100
          Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 20:24 -0400
            Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 18:25 +0100
              Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-09 18:57 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 09:07 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:01 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 00:05 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:55 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:00 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 17:02 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-05 17:55 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-05-09 14:58 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-12 17:46 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:11 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:44 +0100

csiph-web