NSA chief: Hackers causing ‘the greatest transfer of wealth in history’

So this is interesting.

Sou rce

Alt ernate Source--Raw Story

omputer hackers are on the bleeding edge of the class war, and they’re finally cutting deep enough that the leader of the National Security Agency (NSA) is making an active push for some major congressional action.

That’s why NSA chief, Gen. Keith Alexander, told the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute on Monday that the costs associated with responding to computer hacking represents “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”

“Symantec placed the costs of [intellectual property] theft to United States companies at $250 billion a year, global cyber crime at $114 billion annually — $388 billion when you factor in downtime — and McAfee estimates that $1 trillion was spent globally on remediation,” he said. “That’s our future disappearing in front of us.”

To anybody with any sense of logic in our community, this is more fuel for the PTB to control the internet via things like CISPA and ACTA.

The foundations of our corrupt system are starting to come undone it seems and the big shots are beginning to panick. I can bet that they will ramp up their efforts to control and monetize the internet in the next few months as protests continue to spread and people demand fair treatment from their governments.

Thoughts ATS?

~Tenth

I feel like im going on a new post spree tonight but so much to say!!

Hackers aren't causing the greatest wealth transfer in history, if they are, why are the 99% still the 99%? (no the occupy movement had its good and bad points)

I'll purchase a movie/game or application if i deem it worth my money, i'll gladly download any of them first and watch it or try it.

If i consider it to be not worth my time and effort even getting it, there's no way i'll purchase it. I won't buy a car without test driving it, or purchase a house without looking the property around and getting it checked. So why should i take a random chance with anything else?

LOL...Hackers?

Every lie is 80% truth.

A hacker is defined as a "computer enthusiast" or "a microcomputer user who attempts to gain unauthorized access to proprietary computer systems."

Considering the 10+ trillion stolen by wall street, the bankers (FED) and our government officials / agencies (since 2004) were all electronic transfers of funds they were not legally entitled too...then this is true.

The sad part is that not many people will realize the "hackers" were paid for by the elite to do this to us.

I agree it's not a transfer. They are not draining the coffers of the wealthy. It may cause some additional work to deal with the situation, on that probably shouldn't exist anyway. To many holes in software that have just been left or overlooked in the race to make money.

It's a way to get people on board with total government control of the internet.

I'd like to add that this is in response to the "Gate Keeper" model of intellectual property being long dead and the industry attempting to keep it's hands in the cookie jar for as long as possible.

They'll turn around and blame ANYBODY, but especially a large percentage of the internet using community in order to make sure they can target everybody with oppressive legislation.

~Tenth

The kind of "hacking it takes to do the size of the recent bank thefts is more in the line of a well funded national agency, or organized crime.
The people who are responsible are already an integral part of the system.....
The banks themselves are definatel capable of such shenanigans, ust to cover losses on their derivateves binge.
The securit companies themselves are in the virus business.....they create them, then sell the fix for em....

If I could afford to buy things I would, but the simple truth is I cant.

Notice they said ,

costs associated with responding to computer hacking represents “the greatest transfer of wealth in history

Even more than the banksters and LIBOR and so many other financial crimes that have happened recently ????

I doubt it ...

but it makes great fodder to the masses that will automatically think that this about the amount of money stolen versus the costs associated with doing business online.

I am making a thread referencing CISPA that will interest you.

Most viruses are made by anti-virus companies like Symnatec. New viruses, worms and trojans equals more software demand.

Classic case of problem, reaction, solution and a very profitable bussines concept.
You think they would'nt make up a few figures to make another buck or two? Exactly!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Symantec and McAfee, as if this does not play right into their chance to make more money.

‘the greatest transfer of wealth in history’, what a provocative phrase. Poking about I didn't see any direct references heaping blame upon the unfettered access to the web by the working classes. Perhaps he just meant the criminal classes, you know, LIBOR types.

From OP's source

“Symantec placed the costs of [intellectual property] theft to United States companies at $250 billion a year, global cyber crime at $114 billion annually — $388 billion when you factor in downtime — and McAfee estimates that $1 trillion was spent globally on remediation,” he said. “That’s our future disappearing in front of us.”

Ignoring criminal activities such as LIBOR fraud, take a quick peek at the banking industry and Credit crisis cost the nation £7trn, says Bank of England That's just the UK, worldwide:

Andrew Haldane, the Bank's executive director for financial stability, said that taking into account the permanent damage done to the productive potential of nations across the world, as well as the immediate costs of supporting the banks and the recession, there is an output loss equivalent to between $60trn and $200trn for the world economy

Between 60 and 200 trillion and remember at this point how, for example, whispers suggested Spain needed $30b to sort it's banks out. Then later it increased, then again, then what was it? $125b

Let's just outline that again:

Quite possibly with an interest to overstate the problem:

McAfee estimates that $1 trillion was spent globally on remediation

Quite possibly with an interest to understate the problem:

immediate costs of supporting the banks and the recession, there is an output loss equivalent to between $60trn and $200trn

And we're fed such loaded toss as this to imply that the working class are responsible for “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” and need internet freedoms fencing in. Yea, seems legit

reply to post by Mark Harris


My response to most intellectual property guys is the following:

How much did the Avengers make at the box office? And you are trying to say that the internet is dipping into your profits?

Yeah, die in a fire.

~Tenth

Woke up this morning with the phrase ‘the greatest transfer of wealth in history’ and it's oblivion its implication still irritating me. Never mind though I'll just check the news, here's what the Reuters feed offered:

UPDATE 4-California city goes bust amid claim of false accounting

At a late afternoon news conference, City Attorney James Penman, who the day before had told the city council that financial documents had been falsified for years,

PFGBest mystery deepens with Vegas marriage as Iowa brokers pack

Two days after the attempted suicide of founder and chairman Russell Wasendorf Sr, regulators are piecing together the alleged fraud that caused more than $200 million of the broker's client funds to vanish -- and the cover-up that hid the fact the money was missing for more than two years. Peregrine Financial Group, the firm's regulated unit, filed for bankruptcy late on Tuesday.

HSBC chief admits bank failed to control money laundering

British bank HSBC is to apologise to politicians in the United States for its failure to properly implement money-laundering controls meant to prevent terrorists and other criminals from using its services.

The disclosure was made in an internal memo sent out by HSBC's chief executive Stuart Gulliver and comes in advance of what is expected to be a substantial fine for the bank.

"Between 2004 and 2010, our anti-money-laundering controls should have been stronger and more effective, and we failed to spot and deal with unacceptable behaviour," Gulliver told staff.

(Another financial screwup fixed by an apology - If the bank ever writes you, just tell ;'em 'Sorry, this stuff just happens. You know how it is, fair's fair eh? No-one is to blame.' See how far it gets you.)

The idea that amongst all this criminal financial behaviour someone offers ‘the greatest transfer of wealth in history’ with all its implications is an obscene insult. Tell me again how dangerous and costly it is to allow the public uncensored 'net access, Kieth, and I'll show you either A) a corrupt man trying to bend the public over in order to serve his paymasters or B) a dangerous sycophant playing gallery and willing to sell the souls of the general public in the process.

I think concern over stories like the above breaking every day and so many sources so easily accessible is closer to the mark for any call for censorship. Perhaps, considering all the criminal exposures about at the moment the fear of the general public having easy access to such information is considered a valid concern (for some), that's far from making it morally legitimate though.

Tosser.