Cyber Attacks on Banks: Not a Haircut, But Decapitation!

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Ever since the Cyprus debacle started, many people the world over have been worried about how safe their money is while sitting in the bank. I believe that there is legitimate cause for concern....because, after all, our money is only digital until we take delivery of the fiat currency it represents.

In the past 6 months or so, there have been what could be considered "beta test" attacks on bank networks.


For some time I have emphatically stated that there will be a bank hack or cyber attack as the global economy is pushed to the brink of collapse. From top level sources I can confirm to you what you are seeing is an emerging pattern of various beta-tests using Stuxnet like algorithms to affect the banking networks the world over. I can tell you though that the primary target is the US.

How can so many bank and ATM networks like NYCE, PULSE, PLUS, INTERAC, CIRRUS, BACNET, NOVUS all be affected? This is truly something of a very sophisticated nature. Something that is very large in scope and very ominous in action. Folks it is without a shadow of a doubt that these are all beta-tests. I have said it before this will be a financial false flag. The frequency of banking network failures has gotten to be very acute to the point that I am convinced that we are edging closer to the one major event that will set everything in motion.
The take down of the economy is close at hand and the major cyber attack will be on it’s way.


What past "beta tests" have there been?


Ten months ago a massive powerful bank hack hit over 206 banks worldwide simultaneously siphoning billions from customer accounts. It went under-reported and unnoticed by main stream media. Six months ago NatWest/RBS online banking and ATM went offline. Millions had trouble accessing their funds. A few months later online banking and ATMs from some of the biggest names in banking in the US started to receive DNS error messages and were knocked offline completely or were limping along,causing millions a hassle and head ache to get their funds. Two weeks ago Chase had an “issue” with their online banking computers as well as their mainframe servers were hit by some “problems” that caused thousands of their customers bank accounts to read $0.00 as their balance. Millions of others had issues accessing funds and ATM’S from the house of Morgan. Last week the entire banking network of South Korea went down for hours, millions of customers were not able to access their funds, use ATMs or even check their balance. This week the entire Internet teetered on the brink of collapse as SpamHaus was hit by over 300 billion bits of information per second. That is what we are led to believe and that this attack was led by a rival company Cyber-bunker. Whether this story is true or not, it does highlight the sensitivity of the internet. The overpowering pattern and factor here is that wherever you look in the world there are issues with the internet, networks and servers and it all centers around banking.

silverdoctors.com...

Notable beta test last June:

Wednesday we alerted readers to a cyber bank raid affecting at least 60 institutions across Europe and North America that had already siphoned $2.5 billion out of thousands of accounts.

silverdoctors.com...

I find that the government will often tip their hand by issuing "warnings" about things that they themselves are probably involved in. From January 2013:


Officials have pointed to recent hacking attacks on U.S. banks as a sign that the cyber threat is real and growing.

"The clarion call is here and we need to be dealing with this very urgently," said Napolitano. "Attacks are coming all the time. They are coming from different sources, they take different forms. But they are increasing in seriousness and sophistication."

www.nbcnews.com...

news.yahoo.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.zdnet.com...

Etc., etc.

The author of the first article suggest that a banking sector collapse is coming, and it will be blamed on a massive false flag cyber attack which will wipe clean the financial slate....and, it appears, a great deal of our money along with it.


I can tell you though that the primary target is the US. Look you can not have a bank hack a few months ago that siphoned over $2 billion and hitting over 200 banks by some mere hacking group. In order pull something off like this I stated in a prior alert that this is something that can only be done by an Intelligence Agency working in close collusion with a Central Bank. After all you need to understand that various money and wire networks through which currency flows. Who but a Central Bank can give you the access and the backdoor for this to occur?


Bottom line: If you have your money in a bank (as nearly all of us do), you're going to have to realize that, with a few keystrokes, your account could go to zero.

Naturally, one could assume that the goverrnment would "fix" the disaster, as it should be able to be proven how much money you had in the bank. But.....what if they claim that a massive cyber attack simply "stole" all of the money, and the Federal Depositor's Insurance cannot put it all back in because they just don't have that kind of money, so you'd have to settle for maybe half or less of what you had before.

Don't think it could happen? If MF Global can tell prosecutors that the money from segregated, protected accounts is just "gone", and they have no idea where it went, and nobody could follow a cyber trail (supposedly), then it is entirely possible that all the banks could be hit and all they would do is shrug their shoulders and say, "Don't know where it went, SORRY."

I believe the author is correct when he states that something at this level of sophistication has to be an inside job. If you think about it, it's the perfect crime, covered up by the government, blamed on rogue criminal elements online hiding in a basement, and we have no recourse but to accept pennies on the dollar, while we assume that it was done by shadowy terrorists who cannot ever be caught.

Think hard about keeping your money digital. Personally, my mattress is looking a heck of a lot safer these days.




posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
If I had any money.. it certainly would not be in the bank. Not anymore.

I hope everyone (that is lucky enough to have enough money to leave in the bank) will take steps to get their money out as soon as they can.

Turn that money into food, water, supplies, precious metals, land, etc.. while you are still able. Get prepared. I like to think of it as an insurance policy.

When this thing comes crashing down, it will not be pretty.

Do you want to see the faces of your hungry children and have to explain to them that you had plenty of time to prepare, but chose not to? I know I certainly don't, and I am glad I won't have to.

Stay safe, everyone.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


I agree, it will not be pretty, and it will probably precipitate social unrest never before seen in the United States. But DHS is certainly prepared for that, aren't they?

We do have money in an investment account because we daytrade. If we remove that money, we remove our ability to trade and therefore to make money, since my husband and I are both retired. So this is a particularly unpleasant subject for me to write about, but I'm disturbed enough by it that I think people need to know that it not only can happen, but it probably will happen.

Cyprus was a beta test to see what people would do. Just taking the money out apparently was dreadfully unpopular. A cyber attack blamed on some group someplace else would allow the banks to look like innocent victims.

But, obviously the banks would have to be complicit in it, because the money has to go somewhere.

I don't want to "fear monger", but I do want people to think carefully about things that they take for granted, like a bank keeping your money safe for you, and FDIC insurance being there "just in case".

Try to keep as much cash on hand as possible.....and purchasing food and water, silver and gold, probably is a smart thing to do.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Well, what alternative do we have? All digitized money can be hacked, but then again said money doesn't really exist.

Are we to withdraw all of our money from the bank and keep it at home? Pay for everything in cash? It doesn't seem plausible, especially considering digital currency is the way in which the world is headed. Even then, if a hacker or the haircuts can't get your money, whose to say a robber will not?

Even buying precious metal won't save you from economic hardship; people can't eat gold and silver, and when they are hungry they'll take a potato over all of your golden ingots. Perhaps, then, self-reliance / returning to a farming/production economy is our best bet for economic revolution, personal survival, and lasting change.

I'm just saying, we've had fiat currencies for less than a century and look where it has gotten us, whereas farming/trade skills served us for thousands of years. Grow your own food, pay your necessities in chickens and services, like the old days.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The value of silver and gold is only 'real' as long as civilisation exists to put value on them. If a crash of this magnitude occurs, the silver and gold in peoples pockets is going to be without value.

The only things that will have value will be food, drinking water, and security to stop others stealing your food and water.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Maybe this cyber attack is from within to cover their imbalanced books. Then they can blame an unknown entity. Who would know save a select few.

I'm not sure where the safe haven is for wealth at this point. I have a decent real estate portfolio, but I can't eat it.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 

The civil unrest that will follow scares me more than anything. People are so completely dependent on the system, and when that system is no longer there for them, they are going to react.

Right now, instead of trying to make more money, we are doing what we can to need less. Growing food, raising livestock, looking for herbal and natural remedies for what ails us, and just making plans in general to reduce our dependency. I figure if we can kind of sever that tie as much as possible, we are better off, even if there is no 'collapse' or what have you.

I wonder what the American reaction would be in this scenario? Part of me wants to believe that they will rise up and take back the power. Another part of me fears that they will lay down and take it and lash out at each other.

I feel lately like I am watching a train wreck.. I can't do anything to stop it, but, I also cannot look away.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


I agree with you, people need to grow their own food and try to be as self-reliant as possible. This is what the "prepper" movement is all about. I purchased a great deal of heirloom seeds to grow vegetables, herbs and medicinal plants over a year ago. We have the land to grow it. Until the garden blooms, I have cabinets full of canned veggies, fruits, meats and prepared foods, along with a lot of rice and beans, etc. We live in a farming community, and people here tend to pull together, so I'm not too freaked out about us having food to eat.

I am, however, very worried about people in cities (including my own children), and the insanity that would ensue.

I suggest precious metals because eventually things will equalize, and precious metals might be the only currency that people can use. I think an all-around prepping effort, thinking about the short term as well as the near term, is the most well-rounded way of thinking about survival.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Painterz
 


True, in the short term, gold and silver will not be edible, or able to be used as barter......which is why storing food and water is important as well. However, things will not be destroyed forever, and as history tells us, gold and silver are usually the default currency of choice.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 




Are we to withdraw all of our money from the bank and keep it at home? Pay for everything in cash? It doesn't seem plausible, especially considering digital currency is the way in which the world is headed. Even then, if a hacker or the haircuts can't get your money, whose to say a robber will not?


^ worth repeating.
Most things are impossible to do with cash.
Paycheques are sent straight to the bank, and the paystub emailed to the payee.
Mortgages cannot be paid in cash. Neither can utility bills, credit cards, or loans. Cheque or debit, or credit card.

You can still purchase goods, gas, and groceries with cash, but that's about it.

Hopefully we don't have to start printing a screen shot of our online bank view, daily.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Of course these banks all have crooked books. What better way to cover themselves? There has been an exodus of money leaving US banks which was picked up by Bloomberg news last January:


More than $114 billion exited the biggest U.S. banks this month, and nobody’s quite sure why.

The Federal Reserve releases data on the assets and liabilities of commercial banks every Friday. The most current figures, covering the first full week of 2013, show the largest one-week withdrawals since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Even when seasonally adjusted, the level drops to $52.8 billion—still the third-highest amount on record, and one for which bank experts and analysts were reluctant to give a definitive explanation.
.

www.businessweek.com...

This happened the same week that Janet Napolitano went on all the major media outlets warning of a "cyber 9/11".

I think the insiders know what's going to happen, so like all good rats, they're bailing off the sinking ship.

Real estate is good, as long as Agenda 21 doesn't get implemented, or whatever country you're in decides that no one person should own too much land.

I would keep money available in case we all wake up one day and find that something dreadful has happened, and nobody can use their debit cards, credit cards or checks.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   


I feel lately like I am watching a train wreck.. I can't do anything to stop it, but, I also cannot look away.
reply to post by daryllyn
 


My thoughts exactly! We have worked on doing with less, and I think it is a big trend for the future. How much do we really need when it comes down to brass tacks? Shelter, warmth, food, clothing, clean water, a little land to grow a garden......Those who are prepared, if it this happens, will not suffer nearly as badly as those in apartments and crammed into suburban neighborhoods where they aren't prepared for anything.

We are living in such crazy times that it is imperative to think about these things. Off the grid is the best way to be. I pray that people will work together and help each other, rather than attack, and steal....but our population is spoiled, unprepared, and quick to anger and panic.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Oh, I agree. The banks and the internet have become the only way to pay a lot of things. I think just keeping enough in one's account to pay monthly expenses, and pulling the rest out, is the only way to go. That's what we're doing. Squirreling away the excess and only keeping enough to keep going for the month.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 




Completely OT for which I apologize, but;

Could you please elaborate why its wrong to put a limit on the amount of land one person can possess?

The way things are going, it will end in a few people owning every piece of land...

I'm in my twenties (living in Europe) and there is already no way I can buy land without borrowing most of the money.
There are 7 billion people on this planet and im not advocating communism when I state that in my opinion everyone has the right to at least a share.Might as wel go back to the middle ages where a few lords had all the land and dear e the peasant had to repay my lord for the great right of being allowed to live there...

Buying only to rent to others is something that disgusts me, im sorry, people who CAN continually make it harder for people who CANT, prices go up, the rich get richer,... We rent, meanwhile prices keep going up, and people who already own property, already got their children a house of their own, still need to buy more only to rent it, just because you can? That makes you a selfish individualistic moron who doesnt deserve the success that allowed them to play real life monopoly in the first place. (obviously not directed at you or anyone else!) Im not an envious person as some might deduce from this, I just think that on the spectrum of solidarity to species-destroying selfishness, this would be up there along with being a banker criminal or a corrupt politician except for that it seems socially accepted.

OT: Expecting this as well and there is nothing we can do imo, what little reserves I have, they're staying on the bank, with enough cash to go around. There are so many possibilities though that I have no idea which card will be played, but heres a deuce, its all I have so go ahead, show me your full house, dont care, I just want to start the next hanf, and perhaps this time get an equal amount of cards.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   


Could you please elaborate why its wrong to put a limit on the amount of land one person can possess?
reply to post by Strawberry88
 


Well, I guess because I was born and raised American, and believe me, there is a heck of a lot of land out here. If you look at a population map of the US, the majority of it is uninhabited. Europe has had a sizeable population for a long long time, whereas America has only recently had a lot of people....but even so, there's a lot of open land to be had.

I suppose it is against the "American Way" to tell people that they can only have so much land.

I can see your point, but I don't have an issue with people owning something that others rent. There will always be people who only want to rent, because in the end, it is cheaper. Taxes, repairs, general maintenance, is the landlord's problem, not the renters.

We chose to buy our property on 5 1/2 acres, and if we could afford it, we would buy more. In a true free market capitalistic society, far be it for anybody to tell me how much land I can have.

America has plenty of room, which may not be the case for other countries. I don't want a "one size fits all" rule applied to this country based on the crowded land woes of a completely different continent.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Last ot post, promise;

But you do see where it will end right? Rich or poor still is largely determined by to who you're born. The poor will continually have a harder time to get property, until it becomes simply impossible for them.

I understand where you're coming from, but the problem already exists here, people spend nearly all of their monthly income, leaving nothing to save...

Either way, our views may differ, and I guess in your situation I wouldn't care as much either, but im in the other position, where I find it harder and harder to get property,which imo is a basic right, but I have to do with paying someone else to be able to live my life, its that or live on the streets, neither is getting me anywhere tbh.


Apologies mods!



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I have noticed that a few of the banks I use have started cutting down on the number of "previous statements" available to me. Used to be 18 months for one bank then recently it dropped to 6 (+ a fee to request older ones) . My health flex-spending debit account jsut recently also informed me that if I don't go online and elect eStatements instead of the paper mailed copy, they were going to institute a $2.50 handling fee for the delivery of the US Mailed copy. That's on top of the $2.50/mo maintenence fee they already use to siphon the account.

I was just wondering if coercing folks to switch to eStatements and such is just a cost reduction (or environmentally better choice), as they present it, or if the banks are getting us all ready for that day when records mysteriously vanish form hackers or a disaster of some sort. That would sure be convenient of them to say well, prove you had $NNN.nn dollars in your account.... Folks should download their e-Statements in PDF form and save them to a reliable backup device or two. I'm not talkign about a "Cloud storage app" either as I'm almost certain the internet may stop working if the SHTF. As a matter of fact, if the internet were to go, what do those folks who are promoting bitcoins do?

edit on 2-4-2013 by evc1shop because: spelling



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


It's probably a good bet the money that left went into Swiss accounts which the rich have access to.

I don't only have Agenda 21 to worry about. At this point in my life the majority of my income is rent. If my tenants lose their jobs or close their businesses, I lose too. No mortgages, but there are expenses for upkeep, taxes, utilities and living. I've been contemplating liquidating it all and move - to where? I don't know. I'm in the NE US. Then what do I do with the funds at that point?

I've always been a true blue American I wanted to believe in the spirit this nation was founded upon, but that's being severely tested right now. I fear we're not being led by like minded people at this point. I also don't see any safe haven for regular folks who are not among the ultra wealthy. I may be considered "well off" by some, but it's paltry compared to those who can protect themselves from the fallout of a global collapse.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strawberry88
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 




Completely OT for which I apologize, but;

Could you please elaborate why its wrong to put a limit on the amount of land one person can possess?

The way things are going, it will end in a few people owning every piece of land...

I'm in my twenties (living in Europe) and there is already no way I can buy land without borrowing most of the money.
There are 7 billion people on this planet and im not advocating communism when I state that in my opinion everyone has the right to at least a share.Might as wel go back to the middle ages where a few lords had all the land and dear e the peasant had to repay my lord for the great right of being allowed to live there...

Buying only to rent to others is something that disgusts me, im sorry, people who CAN continually make it harder for people who CANT, prices go up, the rich get richer,... We rent, meanwhile prices keep going up, and people who already own property, already got their children a house of their own, still need to buy more only to rent it, just because you can? That makes you a selfish individualistic moron who doesnt deserve the success that allowed them to play real life monopoly in the first place. (obviously not directed at you or anyone else!) Im not an envious person as some might deduce from this, I just think that on the spectrum of solidarity to species-destroying selfishness, this would be up there along with being a banker criminal or a corrupt politician except for that it seems socially accepted.

OT: Expecting this as well and there is nothing we can do imo, what little reserves I have, they're staying on the bank, with enough cash to go around. There are so many possibilities though that I have no idea which card will be played, but heres a deuce, its all I have so go ahead, show me your full house, dont care, I just want to start the next hanf, and perhaps this time get an equal amount of cards.


I think you have the wrong attitude concerning those that purchase property in order to earn a living through renting. Not everyone wants to own property and have the associated responsibilities that go with it, even if they can afford to do so. There's a place for it and if there weren't it wouldn't be viable as a source of income.

Yes your post does have shades of envy. How envious would you be if you were called in the middle of a storm because the roof was damaged and now leaking? How envious would you be to get a call the sewer line is blocked and backing up because the tenants didn't treat it right, allowing cooking grease and paper towels to be disposed of through the plumbing? How envious are you when the tenant moves out and left the place a shambles? How envious are you went the rent doesn't arrive for months and you need to take legal action that will take more months and then with little prospect of recovering it?
edit on 2-4-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
My biggest question is what happens to the money that is "siphoned" off of the banks?

If its taken from customer accounts, do the banks reimburse them somehow or are the amounts so minuscule that the banks don't even mention it?





new topics
top topics
 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join