>little blond granddaughter

what does an imaginary young woman's hair color have to do with cybersecurity?

Simple. American society tends to value blond white girls more.

Notice you didn't question what the gender of the grandchild.

Maybe that occurred since the post specified “granddaughter“?

The post also specified the hair color

They questioned the hair color ("why blonde") but not the gender ("why a woman").

Seems to be clearly questioning the entire premise to me.

People are more sensitive to the pain of others when the victim is perceived as cute. See cute animals vs not so cute animals. We're instinctively wired to think that cute means innocent, helpless and deserving of help and protection. Obviously what is considered cute is subjective and culturally influenced to some extent.

> When Congress Critter's little blond granddaughter gets pwned (someone takes her identity), maybe Congress will get real serious

LOL. Congressman Danny Davis' grandson was murdered by someone who wanted his shoes and Congress didn't even care enough to yawn.

Murder is already illegal.

And they were caught and received 30 year prison sentences.

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/2-sentenced-to-prison-for-...

So is identity theft.

Identity "theft" is corporate responsibility laundering. It is not "theft" it is "lack of safeguards on PII" plus "lack of meaningful, protected PII" combined with "A complete lack of proper vetting of loan / credit applicants"

Someone put the right 10 digits into a webform? What could we do! They stole your identity!

No, you just didn't want to force someone to walk into a bank to apply in person because that would cost more and reduce your new applicant rate.

Yes, but but the fraud is still illegal.

While that's true, there are two sides to crime. Prevention and Punishment. One happens before, and the other happens after. People are generally fine with punishment. The prevention part is where we disagree. This then poses the question: how many of your children are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of anti-prevention?

So while a punishment might exist for something, that doesn't preclude trying to prevent the crime form occurring in the first place. This isn't easy work, and of course, it won't work 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean we stop trying to reduce the number.

This kind of racism is ok here?

Since it was written with sarcastic tone I think it is less racism than a testimony of systemic racism.

how is this racism

Someone mentioned a skin color, must be racist!

Man, the internet sucks these days.

This has been a right wing walking point for a long time (or more charitably and recently an anti-SJW talking point): Mentioning race is itself racist.

I can appreciate the superficial aspect of it - if we're going to overcome racism, we should stop focusing on race. This of course is ignorant to the reality that if we stop talking about race and racism, racism will just go unchecked. Which is of course what (some/many/most?) of those people want.

It is actually even worse, I can't read. Skin color wasn't actually mentioned, just hair color.

Unfortunately, I don't think we will overcome racism until everyone wants to overcome racism. More unfortunately, I don't think everyone wants to overcome racism, this seems obvious.

The bigger tragedy is, trying to force-feed "don't be racist" to society just makes some people dig their heels in more, making things worse instead of better. Finally, the biggest tragedy of all is how predictable this outcome is, using force and anger as a tool to change the thoughts and actions of a person/group is generally quite ineffective.

They're against $specific_group, they can't be racist.

This isn't racism

How about we punish the bad actors and their state-sponsors?

How? Sanctions? War? What do you suggest?

Doesnt the US have like 17 clandestine agencies, I am sure many of which could engage in covert overseas activities that send a message to future actors about what could happen to them.

This is how you end up bombing wedding parties. It's a bad idea.

And not just in a "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" kind of way.

Sounds like you're being overly-dramatic.

We can, and should absolutely threaten bad actors, state or otherwise.

The alternative is to keep letting US citizens get scammed.

A government's mandate is the protection of its citizens.

The scam call volume alone from India steals 10 BILLION annually from US Citizens.

Who said anything about war?

Yes, economic sanctions. Withhold money and make markets unavailable until local law enforcement addresses it.

Cause it worked so well in Iraq?