Sign into an existing account

**Ideological Hackers vs. Cybercriminals**

In the digital underworld, a stark divide separates ideological hackers from ruthless cybercriminals. Ideological hackers target governments, banks, and corporations to expose corruption or challenge power, driven by political or social motives. Cybercriminals, however, prey on individuals and small entities for profit or chaos, causing widespread harm. This article examines their motivations, methods, and impacts, focusing on the cybercriminals who exploit the vulnerable.

**Ideological Hackers: Striking the Powerful**

Ideological hackers pursue systemic change, attacking high-profile entities to disrupt or expose. Their targets include government agencies, financial institutions, and multinational corporations. Using sophisticated techniques like phishing, SQL injections, or zero-day exploits, they breach fortified systems to leak sensitive data or halt operations. For example, in 2020, a hacker collective leaked documents alleging police misconduct during global protests. Others have targeted media outlets to counter perceived biases. Their actions aim to spark reform or accountability, sparing ordinary individuals from harm.

**Cybercriminals: Exploiting the Vulnerable**

Cybercriminals prioritize easy targets, exploiting weak cybersecurity for financial gain, thrill, or malice. Their tactics devastate individuals, small businesses, and public services. Below are their main categories and methods:

1. Ransomware Gangs

Operations: Organized syndicates like REvil or LockBit deploy ransomware to lock devices or encrypt data, demanding cryptocurrency ransoms. They target hospitals, schools, and individuals, exploiting outdated software or weak passwords.

Impact: A 2024 report estimated global ransomware damages at $20 billion, with victims losing savings or businesses collapsing.

2. Phishing Scammers

Operations: Using fake emails, texts, or social media, scammers impersonate trusted entities to steal credentials or funds. Retirees are frequent victims of investment or tech support scams.

Impact: In 2023, phishing scams cost U.S. consumers $3.7 billion, per the FBI, often draining retirement accounts.

3. Data Breachers

Operations: Hackers infiltrate systems to steal personal data, selling it on dark web markets. A 2022 Equifax breach exposed 147 million people’s details, fueling identity theft.

Impact: Victims face fraudulent charges or ruined credit, spending years recovering.

4. Trolls

Operations: Thrill-seekers deface websites, dox individuals, or hijack accounts like Steam profiles for resale or harassment.

Impact: Victims endure emotional distress or loss of digital assets.

**Why Cybercriminals Target the Vulnerable**

Cybercriminals exploit individuals’ weak defenses—reused passwords, unpatched systems—using accessible tools like phishing kits or ransomware-as-a-service. Cryptocurrency ensures anonymous profits, while low enforcement in some regions shields them. A 2024 cybersecurity analysis noted, “Gangs don’t discriminate; if you’re vulnerable, you’re a target.” Unlike ideological hackers, their motive is profit or disruption, not principle.

**The Scale of Harm**

Cybercriminals cause immense damage. A 2024 IBM report pegged average data breach costs at $4.45 million, with individuals facing identity theft or fraud. The FBI’s 2023 Internet Crime Report recorded $12.5 billion in losses from 800,000+ complaints, mostly from ordinary people. Ideological hackers, by contrast, rarely harm individuals directly.

**Countering Cybercriminals**

Combating cybercriminals demands action:

Individuals: Use unique passwords, enable two-factor authentication, and verify suspicious messages.

Governments: Enforce stricter cybercrime laws and global cooperation, like the 2023 Genesis Market takedown.

Tech Firms: Enhance default security and user education.

Ideological Hackers: Expose vulnerabilities through bug bounty programs.

**Conclusion**

Ideological hackers challenge the powerful with a cause, while cybercriminals exploit the vulnerable for gain or chaos. Their scams, ransomware, and breaches shatter lives, underscoring the need for robust defenses to protect society from digital predation.

**A Plausible Cause of Dinosaur Extinction**

Multiple ancient viruses likely drove the extinction of all dinosaurs (avian and non-avian), pterosaurs, and marine reptiles ~66 million years ago, leaving elephants and whales as Earth’s largest survivors.

These viruses exploited a suite of vulnerabilities, shared archosaur biology, immunological deficiencies, gigantism, ecological behaviors, and interactions with immune proto-mammal carriers, while proto-mammals survived due to distinct traits.

Modern parallels, including elephants’ cancer resistance, food toxicities, and pets as ignored disease vectors, support the plausibility of this viral catastrophe.

**Shared Archosaur Biology as Viral Targets**

Dinosaurs (e.g., Velociraptor, Archaeopteryx), pterosaurs (Pteranodon), and marine reptiles (Mosasaurus) shared archosaur traits, uricotelic metabolism, sauropsid red blood cells, and calcified eggshells. Viruses could have targeted these, akin to avian influenza disrupting chicken respiratory systems but sparing mammals.

One virus might have caused eggshell thinning, another blood toxicity via uric acid overload, affecting all archosaurs. Proto-mammals, with hemoglobin-based blood and viviparity, were immune, like pigs resisting equine viruses, explaining why only mammalian giants (elephants, whales) remain.

**Immunological Weakness and Cancer Parallel**

Elephants resist cancer due to ~20 TP53 gene copies, enhancing DNA repair, while humans, with one copy, are vulnerable. Dinosaurs may have lacked robust antiviral defenses, such as interferon-alpha pathways, making them susceptible to viruses causing inflammation or cell death, similar to herpesviruses in immunocompromised reptiles.

Proto-mammals, with diverse immune receptors, resisted, like rodents dodging hantaviruses. This immunological gap contributed to dinosaurs’ demise, while mammals evolved into elephants and whales.

**Gigantism’s Physiological Vulnerability**

Dinosaurs’ massive sizes, Apatosaurus (30 tons) and Quetzalcoatlus (250 kg), imposed high metabolic demands and slow immune responses. Large animals face heightened disease risks; osteosarcoma is common in large dogs but rare in small ones.

Viruses could have targeted oversized organs (e.g., hearts), causing failure, as speculated in sauropod respiratory infections. Small proto-mammals (~100 g), with efficient metabolisms, were unaffected, like mice resisting elephant-specific herpesviruses, allowing their descendants to become elephants and whales.

**Species-Specific Toxicities and Food Analogy**

Food toxicities reveal selective vulnerabilities. Onions are safe for humans but cause anemia in cats due to N-propyl disulfide. Raw cassava is toxic to humans (cyanide) but detoxified by some ungulates’ enzymes.

Dinosaurs could have faced viruses inducing a “toxic” metabolic effect, such as phosphate depletion weakening bones, fatal to their physiology. Proto-mammals, with distinct enzymes, neutralized these viruses, like ungulates eating cassava, ensuring their survival and evolution into large mammals.

**Ignorant Disease Vectors: Cats and Dogs Parallel**

Cats and dogs spread zoonoses, yet humans ignorantly embrace pets. Cats transmit toxoplasmosis, asymptomatic in felines but harmful to humans; dogs spread rabies, often pre-symptomatically.

Studies show 43.75% of NYC pet cats were SARS-CoV-2 positive in 2020, highlighting silent transmission. Proto-mammals (e.g., multituberculates) could have been immune carriers, spreading viruses via contact or scavenging, unnoticed by dinosaurs.

This mirrors human pet complacency, amplifying viral spread to archosaurs.

**Ecological and Behavioral Amplifiers**

Dinosaurs’ behaviors, migratory hadrosaur herds, pterosaur nesting colonies, mosasaur foraging groups, facilitated viral transmission, like rinderpest in antelope. Marine reptiles in dense oceans faced risks akin to morbillivirus in seals.

Amphibious creatures, such as early crocodilians or semi-aquatic dinosaurs like Spinosaurus, likely acted as vectors, spreading viruses between terrestrial and marine environments. These species, moving between land and water, could have transmitted pathogens via shared water sources or predation, similar to how amphibians spread chytrid fungus across aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

Proto-mammals, nocturnal or solitary, had low contact rates, like badgers avoiding tuberculosis. Fossil evidence of dinosaur bone lesions suggests disease susceptibility, supporting viral spread.

**White-Nose Syndrome as a Disease Model**

White-nose syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) kills bats by disrupting hibernation via skin infections, but rodents in the same caves are immune due to different skin proteins.

Viruses could have targeted dinosaur scales or mucosal linings, causing sepsis, while proto-mammals’ furry skin resisted. This model underscores dinosaurs’ unique susceptibility, contributing to their extinction.

**Additional Biological Vulnerabilities**

Neurology: Dinosaur brains, with unique glial cell ratios, may have been prone to viral encephalitis, like West Nile in birds, while mammalian neurons resisted.

Reproduction: Long egg incubation (3–6 months) made dinosaur clutches vulnerable, like ranaviruses in turtle eggs, unlike mammalian live birth.

Thermoregulation: Mesothermic dinosaurs hosted viruses thriving in variable temperatures, unlike endothermic mammals’ stable immunity.

**Survival of Elephants and Whales**

Proto-mammals (e.g., Pakicetus, Moeritherium) had endothermy, adaptive immunity, and viviparity, blocking archosaur-specific viruses, like deer resisting goat pox. A retrovirus in early mammal genomes may have enhanced their antiviral defenses. Post-extinction, they filled niches, evolving into elephants (7 tons) and blue whales (200 tons).

**Extinction of Viruses**

With archosaurs gone, host-specific viruses vanished as their hosts died out, similar to smallpox eradication after human vaccination eliminated susceptible hosts.

However, these ancient viruses, or related pathogens responsible for the extinction, could still be hibernating in permafrost at the South or North Poles, preserved in frozen archosaur remains or environmental reservoirs.

The 2016 anthrax outbreak in Siberia, where thawing permafrost released Bacillus anthracis spores from a 75-year-old reindeer carcass, sickened 72 people and killed one child, demonstrates that pathogens can remain viable in permafrost.

Studies of permafrost also reveal viable ancient microbes, like 30,000-year-old viruses revived from Siberian ice, suggesting that such pathogens could persist in polar regions, posing a latent risk if thawed.

**Plausibility**

This hypothesis is plausible because viruses exploited equally critical vulnerabilities, archosaur biology, weak immunity, gigantism, behaviors, amphibious vectors, and unnoticed carriers, while proto-mammals’ traits ensured survival.

Modern parallels (cancer, food toxicities, pet zoonoses, white-nose syndrome) and fossil evidence of dinosaur diseases support a viral cause. The Siberian anthrax outbreak and revived ancient viruses highlight the ongoing risk of permafrost-bound pathogens.

**References**

Peto, R., et al. (2015). Why elephants don’t get cancer. Cell Reports, 13(3), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.09.050

McMichael, A. J., et al. (2013). Animals in a bacterial world: A new imperative for the life sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(9), 3229–3236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218525110

Shi, M., et al. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 in domestic cats and dogs: Prevalence and transmission. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(12), 3043–3046. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2612.203146

Frick, W. F., et al. (2010). An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science, 329(5992), 679–682. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188594

Rothschild, B. M., et al. (2003). Epidemiologic study of tumors in dinosaurs. Naturwissenschaften, 90(11), 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-003-0473-9

Katzourakis, A., & Gifford, R. J. (2010). Endogenous viral elements in animal genomes. PLoS Genetics, 6(11), e1001191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001191

Wood, J. L. N., et al. (2012). Ecology of zoonoses: Natural and unnatural histories. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12(12), 966–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70237-7

Legendre, M., et al. (2014). Thirty-thousand-year-old distant relative of giant icosahedral DNA viruses with a pandoravirus morphology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11), 4274–4279. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320670111

Revich, B. A., & Podolnaya, M. A. (2011). Thawing of permafrost may disturb historic cattle burial grounds in East Siberia. Global Health Action, 4(1), 8482. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v4i0.8482

Fastovsky, D. E., & Weishampel, D. B. (2021). Dinosaurs: A Concise Natural History. Cambridge University Press.

Ibrahim, N., et al. (2014). Semiaquatic adaptations in a giant predatory dinosaur. Science, 345(6204), 1613–1616. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258750