How the president feels about carders

[Jollier]

The attitude of a president (or head of state) toward carders (individuals involved in illegally obtaining, selling, or exploiting stolen credit/debit card information) is universally oppositional in all legitimate governments. Carding is a form of cybercrime, and no modern nation-state legally condones or supports such activities. However, the specifics of enforcement, rhetoric, and international cooperation vary by country. Below is a breakdown of how presidents and governments typically address this issue:

1. United States​

• Legal Framework:
  • Carding violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Wire Fraud Statute, and the Credit Card Fraud Act.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and FBI actively investigate and prosecute carding networks.
• Presidential Stance:
  • U.S. presidents have consistently emphasized cybersecurity as a national priority. For example:
    • President Biden signed Executive Order 14028 (2021) to strengthen federal cybersecurity and combat ransomware/carding.
    • Former President Trump declared cyberattacks a "national emergency" in 2019.
  • The U.S. government collaborates with international partners to dismantle carding operations (e.g., Operation Open Market in 2018).

2. European Union​

• Legal Framework:
  • Carding falls under the EU Cybercrime Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which penalizes unauthorized access to financial data.
  • The European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) coordinates anti-carding efforts.
• Presidential/Leadership Stance:
  • EU leaders (e.g., European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen) have pushed for stricter Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulations to combat online fraud.
  • The EU frequently collaborates with Interpol and Europol on cross-border carding crackdowns (e.g., Operation Ladybird).

3. Russia​

• Legal Framework:
  • Carding is illegal under Article 159.3 of the Russian Criminal Code (fraud involving payment cards) and Article 272 (unauthorized computer access).
  • However, enforcement is inconsistent, and some carders avoid prosecution if they target foreign entities.
• Presidential Stance:
  • President Vladimir Putin has publicly emphasized the need to combat cybercrime but has been accused of tolerating carders who avoid attacking Russian citizens or infrastructure.
  • Russia has refused to extradite carders to the U.S. in some cases, citing lack of bilateral treaties.

4. China​

• Legal Framework:
  • Carding violates China’s Cybersecurity Law and Criminal Law Article 266 (fraud).
  • The Chinese government aggressively prosecutes cybercrime, including carding, under President Xi Jinping’s "Cyber Sovereignty" doctrine.
• Presidential Stance:
  • Xi Jinping has framed cybersecurity as critical to national security, leading to harsh penalties for domestic carders.
  • China participates in international anti-carding operations but often denies allegations of state-sponsored hacking.

5. Global Perspective​

• International Cooperation:
  • Presidents and leaders worldwide participate in forums like the G7, G20, and INTERPOL to combat carding and cybercrime.
  • Treaties like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (ratified by 60+ countries) establish frameworks for extradition and evidence sharing.
• Public Messaging:
  • Leaders often condemn carding in speeches about digital ethics, economic security, and consumer protection.
  • For example, during the 2021 U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, both sides pledged to tackle ransomware and carding networks.

Why Presidents Oppose Carding​

1. Economic Harm: Carding costs global economies billions annually in fraud losses and damages trust in digital commerce.
2. National Security: Carding networks often overlap with organized crime, terrorism financing, and state-sponsored hacking groups.
3. Diplomatic Pressure: Countries face sanctions or trade restrictions if they fail to address cybercrime (e.g., U.S. sanctions on Russian hackers).
4. Consumer Protection: Governments aim to safeguard citizens’ financial data and privacy.

Important Notes​

• No Legitimate Support: No government openly supports carding. Even in countries with lax enforcement, carders operate at their own legal risk.
• Ethical and Legal Risks: Individuals caught engaging in carding face severe penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and international arrest warrants.
• Victim Impact: Carding harms innocent people through identity theft, financial loss, and emotional distress.

If you’re interested in learning how to protect yourself from carding or build a legitimate career in cybersecurity, I’d be happy to guide you! But remember: participating in carding or related activities is always illegal and unethical.