Although I agree this is necessary, I don't think it is sufficient.
Hackers and blackmailers on the internet can be anywhere from trivial to impossible to identify.
Even harder to prosecute when they're in a different jurisdiction, as not everywhere has extradition treaties to everywhere else. I wouldn't be overly surprised if e.g. the North Korean government runs some schemes like this (though not necessarily actually this) to bring in money.
But yes, definitely do the easy things first, like trying to stop e.g. grok from doing it and also going after users of e.g. grok who try to get around such efforts. A lot more crime happens than can be prosecuted, so raising the minimum competence threshold to commit crimes in the first place is very necessary.
Sure, but the reality is that if it happens abroad there is no legal recourse. Laws are not global, but the internet is. The only real option there is to close the internet.
Or to elect me as god-emperor and unify the world under my rule.
I'd already realised by about 2010 that the internet was making a mockery of national sovereignty; I absolutely expect nations to demand some way to effectively close the borders of the internet without breaking everything as it presently would.
Hackers and blackmailers on the internet can be anywhere from trivial to impossible to identify.
Even harder to prosecute when they're in a different jurisdiction, as not everywhere has extradition treaties to everywhere else. I wouldn't be overly surprised if e.g. the North Korean government runs some schemes like this (though not necessarily actually this) to bring in money.
But yes, definitely do the easy things first, like trying to stop e.g. grok from doing it and also going after users of e.g. grok who try to get around such efforts. A lot more crime happens than can be prosecuted, so raising the minimum competence threshold to commit crimes in the first place is very necessary.