The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy 128
sarahnaomi writes: It could have been any other morning. Felipe del Jesús Peréz García got dressed, said goodbye to his wife and kids, and drove off to work. It would be a two hour commute from their home in Monterrey, in Northeastern Mexico's Nuevo León state, to Reynosa, in neighboring Tamaulipas state, where Felipe, an architect, would scout possible installation sites for cell phone towers for a telecommunications company before returning that evening. That was the last time anyone saw him.
What happened to Felipe García? One theory suggests he was abducted by a sophisticated organized crime syndicate, and then forced into a hacker brigade that builds and services the cartel's hidden, backcountry communications infrastructure. They're the Geek Squads to some of the biggest mafia-style organizations in the world.
What happened to Felipe García? One theory suggests he was abducted by a sophisticated organized crime syndicate, and then forced into a hacker brigade that builds and services the cartel's hidden, backcountry communications infrastructure. They're the Geek Squads to some of the biggest mafia-style organizations in the world.
Or maybe it was aliens (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy, maybe, just guessing really
FTFY.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, c'mon. If the story draws a crowd, mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
Draws a crowd? Part of the message only. Stories like these generally cover much more than a singular issue like popularity. I see also the article demonizing certain cartels as part of the message. I'm not claiming the drug cartels are good guys by that statement. I'm claiming that the cartel pushing for prohibition of certain narcotics creates the black markets. Meanwhile the guys making some drugs illegal approves and sells their own drugs, which more often than not get used for the same purpose as
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess he was captured by a bigfoot to work on their hidden communication infrastructure that helps them avoid groups of credible humans.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not know if he was even captured at all. Let alone speculating about big foot, drug cartels, the NSA, or Chinese military. Its just wishful thinking and hoping that he is still alive and alright at this point. For all we know, he could have ran off with some chick that wasn't his wife or interrupted something illegal and is face down in a shallow grave somewhere.
Gotta remember this excuse (Score:1)
It would be a good excuse if you want to leave it all behind and start up somewhere new - "the drug cartel made me do it!"
Re: (Score:1)
It's not unusual for techy people to maintain themselves off the grid. Just because you can't find him by Google doesn't mean he doesn't exist -- that's apparently Fox News' level of investigation (i.e., "Internet background searches [foxnews.com]"), and I know I am very difficult to find through Google. Not everyone is on Facebook or even LinkedIn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RD: 'But you've 20+ years experience with computers...' Me: 'Yes' RD: 'Why you no Linkedin?, Why you no Facebook?, why ? just why?' Me: 'Because.'
...Because you have 20+ years experience with computers...
Re: (Score:2)
...and know how very terrible those companies are...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Same guy? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications
It could be, but from what I heard Sarah Palin recommended that guy to Hillary.
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever Hillary did/does is SOP throughout the entire system, which really is a series of cartels. If you want to flog the dead horse, knock yourself out. It will make no difference at election time.
What was the name of that movie where the doctor is kidnapped to deal with gunshot wounds?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever Hillary did/does is SOP throughout the entire system, which really is a series of cartels. If you want to flog the dead horse, knock yourself out. It will make no difference at election time.
...might make a difference in this case, considering that it was set up on the down-low (as opposed to a Hotmail/Yahoo freemail account). Also, you misspelled "primaries" up there, where it would make a pretty sizable difference. In elections, its impact would be in the timing of a big event surrounding it's disclosure or prosecution. ;)
What was the name of that movie where the doctor is kidnapped to deal with gunshot wounds?
Dr. Zhivago had that in the latter part of its storyline.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever Hillary did/does is SOP throughout the entire system, which really is a series of cartels. If you want to flog the dead horse, knock yourself out. It will make no difference at election time.
What was the name of that movie where the doctor is kidnapped to deal with gunshot wounds?
Doc Hollywood, right?
Re: (Score:1)
No, it wasn't that good. More like some cheap TV movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications, in lieu of an official mailbox, throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State. It has to be odd to be an IT consultant with a high profile customer like that and be unable to mention the gig on your CV. We've all worked under NDAs, but I guess working for a well-funded person or group that insists you actually use a fake name with the registrars and take cash (if you're lucky!) for the job would certainly take on a different flavor.
Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
Not at all. I think it's humorous (or would be, if it didn't contribute to a large body of evidence about the Clinton way of doing things) to think that one of Obama's would-be (at the time) cabinet secretaries, the moment she was named for the job, ran out and paid cash to have a personal mail server set up under a false registrant's name, specifically so that nobody could ever know which or her emails was, or wasn't part of her official legacy in that job - despite the law requiring her to make all such
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
Not at all. I think it's humorous (or would be, if it didn't contribute to a large body of evidence about the Clinton way of doing things)
It could be humorous if you didn't turn it into a political rant. People rarely laugh when you make endorsing your political views a prerequisite.
to think that one of Obama's would-be (at the time) cabinet secretaries, the moment she was named for the job, ran out and paid cash to have a personal mail server set up under a false registrant's name, specifically so that nobody could ever know which or her emails was, or wasn't part of her official legacy in that job - despite the law requiring her to make all such communication part of her ongoing records at State. That she did this under the table, and never even set up an official mailbox at State, and was magically able, for years, to avoid FOIA requests for her official communications, is just fantastically corrupt.
Sure it's corrupt, and sadly business as usual since Bush II.
The parallels with some IT guy in Mexico being asked to set up a shadow communications platform for a corrupt cartel there aren't imaginary, they're actually interesting.
Very, very tenuous parallels.
It's topical because new of Clinton's furtive behavior along these lines is breaking right now, and it's a related topic. The main point of interest for this audience is the notion of being asked (or forced, in the example of TFA) to set up systems under dubious conditions (legality-wise), and keeping mum to avoid the sort of heat that can come down on them from the people who want the work done.
Yes, it was completely top-secret, known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
This wasn't some quiet conspiracy, this was a dodgy practice that is sadly typical in government. And it didn't just come out now because some insider leaked, it came out b
Re: (Score:2)
known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.
Re: (Score:2)
known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.
They likely didn't know the storage circumstances but that's just carelessness, that's not the legal issue.
The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.
Re: (Score:2)
The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.
But what couldn't be obvious to everyone else was that despite perhaps being in an e-mail swap with her and assuming whatever they might about that, she didn't even have (and thus use, even for forwarding/mirroring) an official government mailbox to use as the legally required dumping ground. A reasonable person might assume that she was keeping up with the 2009 regulation to store her correspondence on a government system by more indirect means - but she was carefully avoiding compliance with that reg.
Re: (Score:2)
Only someone so naive as to not have heard about multiple instances of government officials using personal email addresses to evade record keeping requirements.
A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.
Re: (Score:2)
A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.
Just not her boss, the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history?" He's what ... just too obtuse? Or perhaps just too disingenuous? No doubt a lot of people DID infer that her obvious motive for running her shadow State Department comms system was her interest in doing things like peddling her influence in exchange for huge donations to her family business from foreign governments, and were quite pleased to have those sorts of interactions off the record.
But that doesn't mean that
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be realistic... Most high level government officials don't use email at all
That's just factually incorrect. Take for example Obama's special hot-rodded Blackberry, which he apparently uses for all sorts of direct personal e-communication. And of course there's the issue at hand (Hillary's email) which numbered in the tens of thousands ... but those are just the ones that her staff, after the fact, had laundered and decided under her direction were OK to pass along to the systems at State so there'd be copies. Thousands and thousands of emails is the opposite of "don't use email a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, broken backup system/email system crash is now equivalent to intentionally breaking records management laws?
Re: (Score:2)
At a quick read, the difference I saw was that Clinton handed over relevant emails (we have no way of knowing whether they're all the relevant ones, but this problem was solved by a law passed the year after she left the office), while the White House staffers apparently didn't. The Presidential Records Act requires that certain communications be delivered to the archives, and apparently that wasn't done in the Bush case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A law the speaks directly to the matter of forwa
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yeah, um, no.
The federal records management laws have been in place for much longer than Obama has been in office. Just because he updated them somewhat, just a bit, doesn't mean they didn't exist before then.
http://www.archives.gov/about/... [archives.gov]
But you are welcome to try to ignore all the laws on the books about how very illegal what Hillary did is.
For the inevitable, "but Palin did it!", Palin has not held federal office, therefore she did not fall under the federal records management laws. As I am unfamili
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bring them up on federal charges, bring them all up on charges.
Why does this have to be a partisan issue? They broke federal laws, and should go to federal prison. Ever single one of them should go to prison to stop this carelessness of the law that has started in politicians. Politicians should hold themselves up to more scrutiny than the average person, not less and less.
Re: (Score:2)
Before we get out the firing squads, I'd like to know which federal laws they broke. So far, nobody has pointed out any to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you look up the line of this very thread, you will find me linking to the federal records retention laws.
http://www.archives.gov/about/... [archives.gov]
The federal archives are the ones who store these records, even classified ones. They are also the ones who release records when the classification is no longer valid, for instance the records of the Roswell crash that were recently released.
I have no idea however what the penalty is for breaking 44 U.S.C. Chapter 31. My opinion would be a ban from elected service, b
Re: (Score:1)
Because everyone designated Secretary of State should be able to misplace $6 billion or so.
from the citation:
Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.
So you're saying it's proper for the third ranking member of the U.S. Government to conduct their office via private e-mail servers?
more:
The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.
So, not only can you not read, you allow the "Clinton advisers" to now be the arbiters of Federal law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, she didn't break the law.
Actually, she did. The law requires all official communication to be archived by the government. She deliberate set up mechanism to avoid that. That legal requirement was in place long before it was further enhanced by a later bill that spoke directly to the issue of personal email accounts and the timeliness of forwarding personal mail to offical mailboxes. She HAD NO OFFICIAL MAILBOX, because she didn't want that record keeping to even happen in the first place. She set up a personal platform so that she
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think what she did was wrong. But it's not like there isn't precedent for it at this point. Between the Bush Admin doing the exact same thing including major staffers (I remember it being 3 key staff) using private email completely to "losing" the entire email server and all backups right before he left office including the total loss of all communication in the run up to the Iraq war. And it runs on down the chain to governors and others that violate these rules all over the country. It's actually quite
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually quite common behavior.
But Obama campaigned on changing every aspect of such things, and said that he would guarantee the most transparent administration in history. And here we have a person that he trusts enough to put in the line of succession to his office (Secretary of State) that - on being nominated - didn't just flub her way through a crappy email backup system (a la the career IT people in the WH during Bush, which were not appointees - these are permanent staffers, which you do understand, right?), but rather she immed
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose all these other foreign ministers that she was talking to, should have made a documentary donation to US congress too or else get bombed into stone age as it should be, or?
What ARE you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Which laws did she break? Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails, if a little late, and I don't know what the law says on that.
If she was acting so nefariously, why have previous Secretaries of State done the exact same things? Have they all been nefarious? Including Colin Powell?
I would think that one way the law matters here is whether she actually broke it. The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.
If you want me to believe that Clinton was
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails
No, she eventually turned over only those emails that she and her personal advisors decided to hand over. Because she chose to conduct her official government business off a badly secured server in her own house and without any IT governance from her agency, we actually have no idea whatsoever what she's decided to leave out. If she'd been actually using the system that her own underlings told her she should use in order to secure and archive her communications, FOIA requests could tell us the story. But i
Re: (Score:1)
Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over. Your assumption of illegality seems to be based on your belief that Clinton was a criminal, which is similar to what judges refer to as novel legal reasoning.
You're also invited to say what Clinton did differently from her predecessors. We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over.
No. The fact that she set up a home-brew system to avoid the State Department's record keeping in the first place, and the fact she's been stonewalling requests for official mail for years, and is her own gatekeeper on the message she decides State should be allowed to see - combine that with her long history of obfuscation, ethics problems, and working with her husband's supporters to engage in seriously sleazy tactics - the burden is very much on you to explain why you think her private stash has been de
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't been following this in detail myself, so what is that 2009 regulation you refer to? I know of the Presidential Records Act and its 2014 amendments, and that she did not violate those laws.
I also know that you're prejudiced against her, since your arguments are largely based on her personality and your suspicions.
Re: (Score:2)
so what is that 2009 regulation you refer to
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)'s 2009 requirements include Section 1236.22: "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
Clinton did not do this. Congressional investigations (run by Democrats) into affairs like the Benghazi mess concluded - after interviews with her office, a
Re: (Score:2)
why not send her to the prison so that she can enjoy some big hungry guys doing terrible things to her? Would this qualify as wellness or just punishment?
How about her party finally just acknowledge that she's not to be trusted, and stop presuming she's the next POTUS.
Supplemental reading (Score:3, Informative)
If you find the topic interesting, there was a very thorough and interesting feature in Popular Science last year, Radio Tecnico: How the Zetas Cartel Took Over Mexico with Walkie-Talkies [popsci.com].
Sounds like a difficult choice... (Score:1)
... for the mafioso:
* Kill your prospective IT guy before you let him touch your computers, or
* Kill him after you discovered he used his skills to undermine your operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I was their IT guy, I would make absolutely sure that if anything happened to me their whole system was encrypted.
Oh yeah ... you have thought this through.
First off, the cartel needs to know about the dead man's switch for it to be of any use to you. As someone already pointed out, it will be a simple matter to torture you and threaten your family until you give up control. They will be pretty confident you removed all of it when they tell you what they will do to your wife and children if it ever comes up again, and then they kill you after getting a replacement.
Sounds like a great idea you got there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you don't tell them and they are up shit creek when they do kill you. It's called revenge from the grave.
plot (Score:4, Insightful)
Story seems to be the setup for an episode of either Mission Impossible (original series), or maybe The A-Team (if you can find them).
Re: (Score:1)
Been following this topic for a little over 7 years.
There are several stories of confirmed kidnapings of ommunications engineers from top carriers like ATT, Alestra, Axtel, telmex, maxcom, etc... for building regional comms networks. Some cartels like Sinaloa`s drop top money for high quality tech and other lesser cartels mostly building DIY towers.
The news here is that this poor guy got to tell his story, others were not so lucky and never came back to their homes.
2008 - https://elblogdelnarco.wordpress.co
Re: (Score:2)
Story seems to be the setup for an episode of either Mission Impossible (original series), or maybe The A-Team (if you can find them).
Or the ideal excuse for a sick day.
"Uh, yeah, Boss, so I wont be coming into work today because I've been kidnapped and forced to work for a Mexican drug cartel as a sysadmin. Might be in on Tuesday if the hangov... Erm they decide to release me. Peace out."
Keep telling yourself that, Mrs. García. (Score:3, Interesting)
Once upon a time one of the tester guys at my workplace found out his wife was cheating so took off to Las Vegas for a couple of weeks, blew the joint savings, and never returned. I lol'd. Some people knew what happened - but to a few others, I imagine he'd "just disappeared".
Never underestimate the ability of the media to give you one unlikely and incomplete angle to every story.
That makes little sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why abduct a guy and force him to do IT work. It's not like there is a lack of skilled people, that can't be bothered with moral/legal questions about who their employer is or what they are doing. If there was banks, mpaa/riaa, phone/cable companies, etc... would all having to abduct IT staff too.
Re:That makes little sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it really that easy?
I imagine initial contact is risky for all involved. If the IT guy volunteers, he could be a mole for the Federales. If the Cartel finds a likely candidate on its own head-hunt, what's to keep the guy from narcing them out?
This way, the bad guys control all aspects of the recruitment and there's absolutely no risk other than they guy turning on them while "in service"... and you have his family for leverage against that.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Cartel finds a likely candidate on its own head-hunt, what's to keep the guy from narcing them out?
Oh, I don't know, maybe something about how THEY TAKE CHAINSAWS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE.
But think of all the possible benefits, like all the coke and heroin you can handle.
Re:That makes little sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why abduct a guy and force him to do IT work.
Who says he was really abducted? If I was going to go work for a drug cartel, staging an abduction could give me some plausible deniability if the cartel gets busted or I need to go back to normal life for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Why abduct a guy and force him to do IT work. It's not like there is a lack of skilled people, that can't be bothered with moral/legal questions about who their employer is or what they are doing. If there was banks, mpaa/riaa, phone/cable companies, etc... would all having to abduct IT staff too.
There is a lack of skilled people that will work for free, require no benefits, who you can make sure will not carry your secrets to their next employer. It was suggested that they could have actually sent gang members through school to learn the same thing, and while that would take a pitiful amount of money for a loyal employee, it would also take years. If the cartels started sending people through school when they had started setting up their own networks, those people might just be graduating by now, w
Re: (Score:2)
Cartels have no shortage of money and no hesitation about using it. They buy officials all over the place. I'm sure they pay well over the market rate for IT professionals.
What its like..... (Score:5, Funny)
Cartel leader: "My phone is broken, fix it!"
IT Guy: "Ok what is wrong with it?"
Cartel Leader: "IT IS BROKEN ESE! YOU GET ME BACK MY FLAPPY BIRDS OR YOU DIE!"
IT Guy: " I cant, they removed it from the App market"
Cartel Leader, pulls gun and points it at the IT guy..
Cartel Leader: " GET ME BACK FLAPPY BIRD OR WE PLAY ANGRY BIRD WITH YOUR HEAD!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Better than the bruised fruit and instant coffee my cheapskate boss puts out.
I'm jealous (Score:1)
Here we have people setting up independent, robust, secure channels of communication. Why aren't we doing the same for our internet so we can bypass the ISP and government censors?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, capitalism is a wonderful thing. We can do the same, finance the operation with the sale of contraband, any contraband. Jobs are created. It is good for the economy. Competition (from the cartels and their government puppets) can be a bit rough, but business is business.
That does not make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me they could simply find and hire the right IT guy.
Hell, for the right amount of money I would do what ever they wanted. Drop me a couple of million and Ill give them a network and services that are close to untraceable and allow for the management of their business with little worry of the DEA figuring it out. I'd even include classes to teach there guys how to maintain security.
Re: (Score:2)
Ill add that my skills go to the highest bidder. Wonder what the government would pay for me not to help them. lol
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I'd want to work for them no matter how much they offer. Sure, they give you a million dollars and you set up their network. Then, when your work for them is done, you become a liability. After all, you know how their systems work so you can undermine them or turn them in to the police. So you are forced to give them back their money and then you "disappear."
Re: (Score:2)
Their severance package, as I understand it, involves chainsaws. I prefer payments for back PTO and maybe some weeks based on years of service.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd want to work for them no matter how much they offer. Sure, they give you a million dollars and you set up their network. Then, when your work for them is done, you become a liability.
Ha! Like IT work is ever "done".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That does not make sense (Score:4, Funny)
Seems to me they could simply find and hire the right IT guy.
Hell, for the right amount of money I would do what ever they wanted. Drop me a couple of million and Ill give them a network and services that are close to untraceable and allow for the management of their business with little worry of the DEA figuring it out. I'd even include classes to teach there guys how to maintain security.
Will you throw in grammar classes as a package deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Raul? (Score:2)
Raul Tejada? [wikia.com]
Is that you?
Stupid reasoning... (Score:3)
The jobs market is so bad in Mexico that thousands cross the border daily to get into the USA. The cartels would be better off setting up a dummy company and hiring IT guys to simply do the work, no questions asked.
Why go through all the extra trouble of kidnapping people and making them work? In the end, if they are smart, they'll figure a way to get out a message or screw you some other way. Much simpler and more secure to simply hire them.
Heck, they are IT guys. Get them a couple of hot women who don't mind getting naked and blow them, and those IT guys will do whatever you want. Much easier.
Keep your friends close and your IT closer... (Score:2)
I get it - when someone knows some of your secrets and many of your weaknesses, you "keep" that someone indefinitely.
But Geek Squad? That's the most ridiculous comparison ever - no organization would keep around a bumbling wanna-be IT person who could just barely install Windows and would be lucky to finish a new installation without also installing a Trojan. No, if this guy were like the Geek Squad for a cartel, they'd have killed him pretty quickly when they realized he was completely useless.
Did you turn it off and on again? (Score:1)
UHf gear? (Score:1)
The antennas look like UHF gear, not cell phone gear. Same with the handi talkies.
Horrible butchering of the guy's name (Score:2)
The poor guy's full name is Felipe de Jesús Pérez García, which is usually shortened to Felipe Pérez. TFS butchered both by calling him Felipe del Jesús Peréz García and Felipe García.
There are three errors in TFS's version. First: Felipe de Jesús means Philip of Jesus. The incorrect version, Felipe del Jesús means Philip of the Jesus and sounds even more absurd in Spanish than it does in English.
Second: It's not Peréz, it's Pérez. That means that
Re:Nah (Score:4, Insightful)
like, the headline reads like they know. but they don't.
more likely killed for snooping around. that was his job anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking that's the most likely outcome from my POV as well.
After all, if you're pressed into service as a "hacker", it wouldn't take much to discreetly slip information to the authorities, considering that most cartel types don't strike me as being technically uber-literate. Sure it would be a massive risk, but totally doable depending on the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thinking that's the most likely outcome from my POV as well.
After all, if you're pressed into service as a "hacker", it wouldn't take much to discreetly slip information to the authorities, considering that most cartel types don't strike me as being technically uber-literate. Sure it would be a massive risk, but totally doable depending on the environment.
There are enough other hackers under duress willing to snitch on you for trying to send a mayday, plus they are probably operating under the stance of "do what we say and we will kill you, don't do what we say and we will kill your family". On top of that your mayday is likely to end up in the hands of police or military on the narcos payroll.
Part of the Radio Narco objective is to monitor communications of crime fighting orgs. If you did get a mayday sent to the right people, you and the rest of the capti
Re: (Score:2)
more likely scenarios include, stumbling across any cartel operation and getting killed, or being told, hey we're going to make you this offer, you'll get paid a ton, but you have to disappear, say no, and yer dead. or as a poster below says.. aliens