Slashdot Mirror

In short, while the details may indicate that the charge is bogus, it's important to understand we have a group of people here in NH who -actively try- to get charged with bogus crap by the police just to make a stink out of it.

Its called a sting operation......designed to catch criminals. Not only should there be a stink when a crime is committed, such false arrest and fabrication of evidence, but shouldn't the human beings breaking the law be punished? The FBI thinks so...

Comparing the US crime stats to CL; CL is definitely safer.

The 1 year FBI crime stats (for 2009) show 429.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people and 3,036.1 property crimes per 100,000 people. That yields about 0.34655 (3,465.5 crimes/100,000)
Source: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/

CL serves 50,000,000 people in the US, and the total crimes (330 crimes, 12 murders and 105 robberies or assaults) for one year (according to the study) is 447. That yields about 0.00000894 (447 crimes/50,000,000)
Sources: http://www.craigslist.org/about/factsheet
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/115849/20110224/craigslist-anonymous-classifieds-facebook-crime-society-social-network.htm#ixzz1EuesJdzH

...so I feel safer on CL than on the street.

If you read the actual Fox News article it is not the opinion of the article it is the opinion of an expert in the field that claims it is a problem, an opposing view is also expressed so the article takes no sides.

So if Fox ran a segment with some kind of self-proclaimed expert calling you an idiot then cutting to 5 seconds of your mom saying "well, he's not all that bad", would you not be the least bit offended?

If you are the least bit offended, then you might understand how gamers feel when Fox runs a segment with some kind of self-proclaimed expert calling gamers responsible for "the increase in rapes". Especially when there has not been an "increase in rapes" since at least 2006, with preliminary 2010 data indicating more than 10% decrease since 2009.

Indeed. Consider this. The economic losses to banks alone from the Financial crisis are estimated at 4 trillion. Total property crime in 2009 adds up to 15 billion

It would take over 200,000 people working 24/7 from birth till their 90th birthday at $25/hr to replace that $4T figure.

They've essentially stolen the lives (assuming time==money) of hundreds of thousands of people. Can we just try them for mass murder and execute the people responsible? :P

Indeed. Consider this. The economic losses to banks alone from the Financial crisis are estimated at 4 trillion. Total property crime in 2009 adds up to 15 billion

That's less than half a percent! When you look at it this way, it's not disproportionate to suggest that the entire law enforcement budget of the United States be spent on bringing these criminals to justice. Yet, in most cases the people responsible for crashing the entire economy get million dollar bonuses for it.

Honestly, the only way I can interpret this is that it's intentional. Our system is not intended to provide justice at all. It exists only to protect the wealthy. We have no justice system in the US, we have an exploitation system.

Some interesting stats from the FBI:

As of December 31, 2007, there were 105,229 active missing person records in NCIC. Juveniles under the age of 18 accounted for 54,648 (51.93%) of the records, and 12,362 (11.75%) were for juveniles between the ages of 18 and 20.

During 2007, 814,967 missing person records were entered into NCIC, a decrease of 2.53% from the 836,131 records entered in 2006. Missing person records cleared or canceled during the same period totaled 820,212. Reasons for these removals include: the subject was located by a law enforcement agency; the individual returned home; or the record had to be removed by the entering agency due to a determination that the record was invalid.

In 2007, there were 518 records entered as Abducted by a Stranger; 299,787 entered as Runaway; and 2,919 entered as Abducted by Non-Custodial Parent. This only accounts for 303,224 entries of the 418,967 entered, or 72.4%, which is an increase from 297,632 entries of the 836,131 entered, or 35.6%, in 2006.

How so? The last police statement mentioned no prosecution of any kind. Last I heard no charges were even laid.

Here's the latest update on the trial I could find:

"Elston McCowan and Perry Molens face misdemeanor charges for allegedly assaulting a political button-seller last year; the defendants have pulled out the big guns by retaining St. Louis criminal defense attorney Paul D'Agrosa."

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/01/paul_dagrosa_steps_into_seiu_tea_party_legal_fracas_kenneth_gladney.php

So now an anti-social hermit with a diagnosed mental disorder who lives a survivalist life-style in a cabin in the woods is a 'leftist'?

Domestic terrorists have typically been mentally ill anti-social loners who have difficulty holding relationships and tend to act as individuals. What's your point?

Wikipedia on the Unabomber's manifesto:

Industrial Society and Its Future begins with Kaczynski's assertion that "the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."[43] The first sections of the text are devoted to psychological analysis of various groups—primarily leftists and scientists—and of the psychological consequences for individual life within the "industrial-technological system",[43] which has robbed contemporary humans of their autonomy, diminished their rapport with nature, and forced them "to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior." The later sections speculate about the future evolution of this system, argue that it will inevitably lead to the end of human freedom, call for a "revolution against technology", and attempt to indicate how that might be accomplished.

His manifest echoes the sentiments of leftist luminaries Herbert Marcuse and Jacques Ellul. His manifesto echoes left wing, environmental, anti-industrialist, and to a lesser extent Malthusian sentiments. You can't get much more left wing than that.

Look, eco-terrorists come from all sorts of backgrounds and quite a lot of them are libertarians, anarchists and the like.

Terrorists come from all sorts of backgrounds, that is precisely my point. There is generally an anarchist streak in almost all terrorists (which "frees" them to disregard human life and civil constructs). For instance, the Discovery Channel bomber, ecoterrorist James J. Lee was a human trafficker and was likely a sociopath but he was also undeniably a left wing malthusian. The two are not mutually exclusive in sick minds (Loughner admired The Communist Manifest and Mein Kampf which are fundamentally incompatible). Finally, there are major left wing groups which advocate terrorism that have been quite active perpetrating violence (PETA, ELF, BLA, etc.).

And finally, I refer you to the FBI's Most Wanted list regarding domestic terrorism. The list is *dominated* by left wing terrorists associated with organizations advocating terrorism.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt

Wait, I thought the right wing was preeminent in domestic terrorism? I should be seeing militia members and right wing, gun-toting rednecks? The most wanted list completely destroys the picture you have carefully been painting of right wing terror groups that dominate the terrorist scene (with a few left wing individualists).

I wonder if you will now relent and admit that both sides have their violent fringes and there are indeed many active left wing groups who incite terrorism? Indeed if we are to go by the most wanted list, it would seem that the left is far more active in organized terrorism than right wing organizations. I wonder if you will agree that I have more than satisfied your earlier request?

Number one murder weapon - knife.

What the fucking fuck? Check your facts before you say stupid shit.

Ever hear of someone being charged with a hate crime for hitting a white person?

Yes, actually. May I suggest that next time you have a question about crime statistics, you head over to the FBI's website and scope out the Uniform Crime Reports? There, you could learn that for 2009, there were 668 victims of racially motivated hate crimes against whites, including 3 murders, 2 rapes, 113 aggravated assaults, and 191 simple assaults. I don't know how many of these were solved, charged, or convicted, but appearance in the UCR means the cops labeled it a hate crime.

Or you could use a little Google-fu before you spout off about how "I've never heard about XYZ happening!" You would have quickly found out, for example, about Ronald Taylor, a black man who in 2000 was charged with hate crimes after a murder spree targeting white people. He was convicted and sentenced to death; one of the prosecution's arguments against the insanity defense was that he was "competent" enough to only target whites.

All this hate crime bullshit is nothing but racism, pure and simple. You hit or kill someone, you go to jail. It shouldn't matter what color or sex they are.

The problem is that that wasn't happening. People have been known to get away with beating and killing gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., because of indifference in broader society. There's also the fact that such crimes are often intended not just as assaults against individuals but as threats against other members of that group: "This'll teach those (gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc.) what happens if they try to (move here, vote, get a job, fall in love with the wrong type of person, etc.)!"

Now, I don't think laws that just increase penalties for crimes against gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., are the right solution. Assaulting people is a crime; threatening people is a crime; the law ought to be crafted such that assaulting people in a manner that is intended as a threat to a group is prosecuted as both an assault and a threat.

But we have to acknowledge that there is a problem that these laws are trying to solve. And not all hate crime laws are about stiffer penalties based on "protected classes"; some are about enforcement. A law that makes cops arrest assaulters, even if the assaultee was gay, black, Jewish, Mexican, a women, etc., is a good hate crime law. A law that gather statistics on hate crimes is a good hate crime law. A law that calls for different types of rehabilitation efforts for a hate crime perpetrator versus someone needing anger management therapy might, depending on details, be a good hate crime law. (That's pretending, of course, that our prison-industrial complex gave a damn about rehabilitation.)

Ever hear of someone being charged with a hate crime for hitting a white person?

Yes, actually. May I suggest that next time you have a question about crime statistics, you head over to the FBI's website and scope out the Uniform Crime Reports? There, you could learn that for 2009, there were 668 victims of racially motivated hate crimes against whites, including 3 murders, 2 rapes, 113 aggravated assaults, and 191 simple assaults. I don't know how many of these were solved, charged, or convicted, but appearance in the UCR means the cops labeled it a hate crime.

Or you could use a little Google-fu before you spout off about how "I've never heard about XYZ happening!" You would have quickly found out, for example, about Ronald Taylor, a black man who in 2000 was charged with hate crimes after a murder spree targeting white people. He was convicted and sentenced to death; one of the prosecution's arguments against the insanity defense was that he was "competent" enough to only target whites.

All this hate crime bullshit is nothing but racism, pure and simple. You hit or kill someone, you go to jail. It shouldn't matter what color or sex they are.

The problem is that that wasn't happening. People have been known to get away with beating and killing gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., because of indifference in broader society. There's also the fact that such crimes are often intended not just as assaults against individuals but as threats against other members of that group: "This'll teach those (gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc.) what happens if they try to (move here, vote, get a job, fall in love with the wrong type of person, etc.)!"

Now, I don't think laws that just increase penalties for crimes against gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., are the right solution. Assaulting people is a crime; threatening people is a crime; the law ought to be crafted such that assaulting people in a manner that is intended as a threat to a group is prosecuted as both an assault and a threat.

But we have to acknowledge that there is a problem that these laws are trying to solve. And not all hate crime laws are about stiffer penalties based on "protected classes"; some are about enforcement. A law that makes cops arrest assaulters, even if the assaultee was gay, black, Jewish, Mexican, a women, etc., is a good hate crime law. A law that gather statistics on hate crimes is a good hate crime law. A law that calls for different types of rehabilitation efforts for a hate crime perpetrator versus someone needing anger management therapy might, depending on details, be a good hate crime law. (That's pretending, of course, that our prison-industrial complex gave a damn about rehabilitation.)

I think the reason the website stopped being updated was due to him fleeing the country and subsequently being arrested.

http://dallas.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel10/dl011510.htm

It was neat to read the beginning, find the middle and end. However, it's a bit sad to see the date highlighted so quickly.

if classified, it would be CIA. FBI has nether mandate, nether authority to declare anything 'classified'.

Citation needed. In addition to being a law-enforcement agency, the FBI is the USA's domestic intelligence agency (actually a slightly weird state of affairs, if you're used to countries that like to keep military and civilian stuff separate). That means that, in theory, it does the same sort of stuff the CIA does, if said stuff happens within the USA - the American equivalent of MI5 and MI6, respectively (in practise, the CIA has been caught operating inside America quite a few times). For example, the FBI were responsible for investigating the recently broken Russian spy ring, and for arresting various spies throughout WWII and the Cold War.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/law-enforcement/clearance/ might help too.

http://philadelphia.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/ph112309a.htm

"The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden." http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden [fbi.gov]

Well, no damned wonder they can't find him -- they spelled his first name wrong. :-)

We are offering a bounty of $100 million dollars plus US citizen status for information leading to arrest. That is enough money to literally buy Muslim paradise for the rest of your life.

You know that the US offered bounties on a lot of the jihandis, right? Bin Laden has a $25 million bounty on his head, and he's still not caught:

"The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden." http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

Damn. The guy in the cave next door is Osama Bin Laden. Missed it by one letter.

We are offering a bounty of $100 million dollars plus US citizen status for information leading to arrest. That is enough money to literally buy Muslim paradise for the rest of your life.

You know that the US offered bounties on a lot of the jihandis, right? Bin Laden has a $25 million bounty on his head, and he's still not caught:
"The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden." http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

FBI - Most Wanted Terrorists
Does any of these pictures look like the child you're referring to? I didn't think so.
If this FBI page shows the people we are looking for, then why are we checking 3-year-old blond girls and 65-year-old gray-haired ladies for hidden bombs?
For crying out loud, have some common sense and investigative skills.

From the FBI's website

The FBI investigates matters relating to fraud, theft, or embezzlement occurring within or against the national and international financial community. These crimes are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust and are not dependent upon the application or threat of physical force or violence. Such acts are committed by individuals and organizations to obtain personal or business advantage. The FBI focuses its financial crimes investigations on such criminal activities as corporate fraud, securities and commodities fraud, health care fraud, financial institution fraud, mortgage fraud, insurance fraud, mass marketing fraud, and money laundering. These are the identified priority crime problem areas of the Financial Crimes Section (FCS) of the FBI.

Yep - because the TSA is clueless who to look for.
FBI - Most Wanted Terrorists
For crying out loud, have some common sense and investigative skills.

FBI - Most Wanted Terrorists

Does any of these pictures look like your daughter? I didn't think so.

If this FBI page shows the people we are looking for, then why are we checking 3-year-old blond girls and 65-year-old gray-haired ladies for hidden bombs?

For crying out loud, have some common sense and investigative skills.

You mislinked, the El paso numbers are here:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_08_tx.html

Homicide rate in El Paso in 2009 is 1.9 per 100,000 versus a range of 0 to 6.5 for the various canadian provinces (in 2006).

Furthermore, both violent crime and property crime rates have been steadily falling in all of the southern border states. And not just by a small amount, mostly double-digits with some states seeing more than a 50% reduction in certain types of violent crimes over the past decade. Sorry, I have no links handy to a formal analysis but anyone can take the UCR numbers from the FBI site above and do the math themselves to verify. (Something I did by hand a couple of months back in another web forum).

Since I happened to stumble on it during a brief foray on google, I thought I'd mention that the FBI reported that 16.8% of hate crimes in 2008 were committed against whites, and more hate crimes were committed against Christians than against Muslims (8.7% vs 7.5%). (I lumped Catholics and Protestants together for the anti-Christian percentage; it's possibly higher depending on what exactly "Protestant" means and what groups are included in the "anti-other religion" percentage.)

So far I've found no evidence of a law stating hate crimes are not possible against a particular group of people, while I've found references to several laws that explicitly do not mention any particular group of people.

If you meant to say that a prosecutor would find it difficult if not impossible to convince a jury that "he hates whites" or "he hates christians" was the motive for a murder, that's a separate issue entirely, and it's possibly true, but you said "according to the law", so...

They ARE heroes. They know that they could die in the line of duty, and they do what has to be done anyway.

Then I would have to say the REAL heroes are construction workers. According to this site, the US had 673,146 officers in 2005. The number of line-of-duty deaths? 165. That's a rate of 0.245 deaths per 1000 officers.

Compare that to this news that the rate of US construction worker workplace deaths is between 6 and 7 per 1000 workers, around 25 times the workplace death rate of police officers, and the construction workers don't necessarily get paid well for the risk.

Yes, the police do an important job, and no, it's probably not easy. However, I think this hero worship we lay upon them is ridiculous. (FWIW, the climber is definitely no hero either).

FYI
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc/tsc_faqs

Well in 99.9% of the cases nobody is killed.

Homicide rate in the US is RELATIVELY high but it is still very rare occurrence overall.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

Homicide rate in US is roughly 5 per 100K persons.

While that number may be higher than UK it is still extremely rare. In a pool of 100,000 Americans 99,995 won't be murdered.

The probability of being involved in a violent crime (in either UK or US) is a couple magnitudes higher.

That number isn't even evenly distributed. A significant portion of that is criminal on criminal violence. So if you are in a gang or involved in the drug trade then your potential homicide risk may be double or even triple the national average. The same applies to those living in an abusive home. However that law of average would indicate that those not involved in criminal behavior or living with an abusive spouse would enjoy a lower homicide rate.

As far as homicides related to a robbery (and your fear that criminals in the US will just kill you) that is just utterly unfounded.

Per the FBI there were 408,287 robberies last year and 849 homicides related to a robbery. So 99.8% of robbery victims were not killed.

The probability of being robbed and killed in the United States last year was roughly 1 in 360,000

In comparison the probability of an American dying in a car crash last year was about 1 in 7,000.

30 years in prison; fine of $1,000,000 or twice the gross gain or loss; and restitution

20 years in prison; fine of $500,000 or twice the amount laundered; and restitution

15 years in prison; fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss; and restitution

10 years in prison; fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss; and restitution

The charges are bank fraud, wire fraud, false use of passports and false use of identification.

Plus, check out the FBI Cyber branch logo, obviously inspired by "The Matrix": http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/images/nyfo093010_5.jpg

Except that the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the U.S.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf
According to these links, the violent crime rate in 2003 was 475.8 per 100,000 in the U.S. and 6,650 per 100,000 in England and Wales The source I got the links from said that the overall violence rate for the UK was 4,100 per 100,000, but I was unable to find where in the Home Office report they got that).

As someone who took a semester of Sociology 101 years ago, I am here to snobbishly inform you that race is a social construction and that you can divvy it up however you wish.

Actually, I was going for +1 pedantic hyperbole, using a pedantic example of the GGP's post to disprove the GGP's post and point out how futile it is to place "not a race" constructs around these issues, as you have pointed out.

But seeing as we are talking about sciences.... Going back to high school level biology where there are only three distinct races, Caucasian, Mongoloid (Asian) or Negroid (African) which can be easily determined by physical evidence. For example hair samples can be used to determine race. Of course with the amount of interbreeding between these races today, it's getting harder to determine.

I know, I know, silence physicists.

The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today. Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added. But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Here's the current wanted page for OBL. I guess we still don't have any evidence for 9/11:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Here's a note to anyone unfamiliar with how the law works: in order to prosecute a criminal and have them extradited from a foreign country, you have to present evidence to the ruling government. If you can't produce evidence, they are under no legal obligation to allow you to extradite anyone.

I guess the next time Cuba or Venezuela tries to extradite terrorists who've blown up Cuban airliners who are living in Miami, you won't mind if they drop some ordinance around Palm Beach until we capitulate.

If there's a war in Mexico, then we should be giving shelter and asylum to refugees trying to escape it.

I don't think you did a good job of self-censoring. Furthermore, I don't really know how you'd "close the border" without harming a lot of people who aren't a threat to your home, self or country. Mexico -- or at least parts of it -- looks like a hell hole to me at the moment, so it seems pretty reasonable and rational to flee to the United States. I think only the most unreasonable of people would object to a individual or nation acting in genuine self-defense, but to the ethical risking the lives of non-threatening people is still reckless endangerment and killing them is, minimally, manslaughter

Could you back up your murder and kidnapping statement? Just looking at the FBI murder figures for 2009 for cities over 100,000 population, Phoenix has a murder rate of about 8 murders per 100,000 capita per year. DC's murder rate is 3 times that.

Wikipedia has a page for the 2008 data. New Orleans tops the list (as it does in the 2009 data at 52 -- there seems to have been a significant drop in murder rate in 2009). Phoenix looks to about 28th on that list with a about 11 murders per 100,000 in 2008 -- less than a sixth of New Orleans's rate and about a third DC's.

Kidnapping seems like it's a lot harder to quantify because cases of missing persons are not necessarily kidnapping. This is the best discussion on kidnapping I could find in about 15 minutes of searching. It gives further support to the idea that Mexico is a hell hole at the moment, as well

.--sabre86

Carrying guns is far more offensive than lumping two disgusting organisations in with each other.

Why? If I carry a gun correctly you won't even know it is there. Why is that offensive?

Do you also find it offensive when people have fire extinguishers in their homes?

Do you also find it offensive when people have baseball bats, tire irons, golf clubs, and similar lethal bludgeons? How about petrol: that has been used to burn down buildings with people inside. Is it offensive to possess petrol?

Guns have been used to murder people. Guns have also been used to stop a violent crime. My claim is that law-abiding people with guns are not the source of violence in society.

This is the trouble with the NRA, they tell lies like those.

Actually, I was thinking of a book called The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy which has lengthy discussion about England. And I am mystified that you think it is a lie to call England a largely non-violent place.

My claim is that England could get rid of its ban on handguns, and it would not become more violent as a result. Violence is a result of people, not of instruments, and the people of England are largely non-violent.

violence has actually halved.

I took a look at those statistics. According to those, only 19% of violent incidents involved a weapon of any kind. Yet all violence went down, not just firearm-related violence. Are you seriously claiming that a ban on handguns led to an immediate reduction in all forms of violence? If so, why hasn't it ever worked that way in the USA?

that's exactly what happened. An incredible decrease in violence.

References, please. As far as I know, there has been a steady decrease in violence in the past ten or fifteen years, while at the same time, gun control laws have been relaxing. The Brady law has sunset, and the majority of states now make it easy for law-abiding citizens to legally carry a handgun. According to your theories, shouldn't violent crime be increasing in the United States?

And perhaps you can explain to me why there are more per-capita violent crimes in Washington D.C., where handguns are banned, than there are in Olympia, WA, where handguns are not banned? If I'm doing my maths correctly, there are over four times as many violent crimes per person in Washington D.C. than in Olympia. Since you don't seem to be a fan of the NRA, I got my numbers from the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_06.html

And note that when you go to the FBI Uniform Crime Report web site, there is a caution against directly comparing cities to rank them in terms of violence. The caution lists many variables to consider. I submit to you that if you consider all those variables you are likely to get a better prediction on the amount of violence than if you just consider availability of firearms.

It's this kind of blatent lying about life or death matters that makes it OK to lump the NRA in with the Ku Klux Klan.

Is the FBI in on this blatant lying also?

I suspect that I will not be able to persuade you of anything, so I will leave you with just two thoughts:

0) Be suspicious of any overly-simplistic rule, such as "guns inevitably drive people to acts of violence". Society is more complicated than that.

1) Remember that people who disagree with you might not be lying bastards worthy of your hate. It sounds like your views on firearms are rather different than my own, but I don't hate you, and I hope you don't hate me.

steveha

For quite a while, they have had significant interest in high dollar crimes, versus no dollar crimes. A missing person is a missing person. Unless they are a high profile person (celebrity, politician, or wanted fugitive in the media), there is little to no interest.

I do recall a few instances (personal knowledge, not from the media) where there was a crime committed. They did involve a financial loss. About 15 years ago, the amount had to be greater than $3,000. About 4 or 5 years ago, the amount had to be greater than $6,500.

If, for example, someone broke into a large network, which incurred a large dollar amount of damages (securing equipment, changes of company security protocol, recovery of lost data from backups, loss of income due to media coverage), that's a big deal. High dollar companies always donate well to political parties. While it makes the news that Company X donated to a particular politician, you'll likely find that they did the same to all politicians. Businesses don't usually gamble on anything as unpredictable as elections. They'll play all sides to ensure they are covered. Donations to the wrong people are just considered part of playing the game.

Compare that to say a serial killer who has killed 3 people in the last 5 years, and those victims were not well politically tied to anyone. The interest level goes down to almost nil.

There was a bit of activity regarding a known serial killer activity. It likely involved 500 female victims. Wow, 500 women killed by serial killers, they'll surely put everyone they can on it. The last update was in 2009, and in 5 years there were 10 suspects in custody, suspected to be involved in 30 murders. Have you heard any updates on this? "Suspects" in custody does not mean the killers are in custody. They're just people who they believe may be the killers. Meanwhile, the murders continue.

It isn't due to mismanagement of resources exactly. Companies lean on their political "friends". The politicians then lean on the FBI, and the work gets done. While this should be considered mismanagement, the FBI is a government organization, and political pressures do come into play. Sure, if my company just lost $100 million dollars, I'd prefer the FBI take that over another case, but it shouldn't work that way. I, a multibillion dollar firm (I wish), may need to remind a few Congressmen that they are in office because of my huge donations, and my case will get priority.

Political pressures aren't the only ones they are under. High profile media cases get handled differently. A friend of mine was a victim of a Nigerian scam. It was a high dollar case. First I laughed at them for being stupid. There was an exception to the normal case though. The scammer was still in communications with them, and they hadn't told the scammer that they figured out what happened. They called the local FBI field office, and their statement was taken. A couple weeks went by, and nothing had happened with the case.

I pulled a couple strings, and I asked a media outlet to make a friendly request that it be looked at further. The media outlet was very friendly about it. They simply sent an email over saying "Please have a look at this. We understand the difficulties in prosecuting such a case. If you do manage to make an arrest, we would love to publish the story. If not, we won't run anything about it." They mentioned a bit more about the information on the case, and that the scammer was still in contact asking for more. My friend got a call at 9am from a FBI investigator, and they were at my friends house later that day (agreed upon by my friend). Emails between the parties were gathered (with consent, not warrants). My fir. A voluntary tap

The FBI exists to protect profits. In fact the government exists to protect commerce, the very basis of our society

In the American federal system, tracking down missing persons is traditionally a local and state responsibility, prosecuting economic and property crimes that have a national and constitutiobal dimension a federal responsibility.

The FBI has 60 active Kidnapping and Missing Persons Investigations

This may give a clearer idea of how small the FBI role in such cases really is.

At the FBI, we take customer service seriously.

Missing persons who wish to file a customer service complaint can contact us via telephone, email or postal address:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm

We value your feedback. Have a nice day.

And here’s a pretty fair image of the seal: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/evidenceresponseteamvehicle.jpg, which is offered under the following terms:

These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.

Wikipedia is not the only place to get the seal. I went to the FBI's web site and found this:
        http://www.fbi.gov/images/seal.gif

Not as good as the one on Wikiped which was extracted from a goverment PDF report. It is not hard to grab the seal from various government web sites and documents.

Wikipedia hosting the image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Seal

Or the FBI doing it themselves:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/financial/fcs_report052005/fcs_report052005.htm

both will have the same effect... remove one, you have to remove both.

But then again, if all images are removed, how are anyone to know how the 'real' seal looks?

So just hotlink to their site and tell them to go f***^Warrest themselves.

Or, better yet, photoshop to these - and caption them as you wish. It expressly states

High Resolution Photographs

These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.

Or just hotlink to them, along with your choice framed captions :-)

Where's the picture of Hoover wearing a dress?

So just hotlink to their site and tell them to go f***^Warrest themselves.

Or, better yet, photoshop to these - and caption them as you wish. It expressly states

High Resolution Photographs

These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.

Or just hotlink to them, along with your choice framed captions :-)

Where's the picture of Hoover wearing a dress?

Aarrrghhh... you made me a criminal now!

It seems they've given direct permission to use the seal seen at http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/evidenceresponseteamvehicle.jpg , it just needs a little cleaning up.

I'll admit, I couldn't find a high-res image on the FBI seal in the 2 minutes I spent searching there, but the seal isn't overly complex, doesn't have micro text or any other anti-counterfeiting features.

However, this image, http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/fbiseal/images/fbiseal-02-02.gif, is a fairly decent image and can easily be used to produce a better, larger image. (The image is slightly obfuscated by the web page dis-allowing right clicks. Good going, guys. Security by obscurity for the Win. I mean Lose.)

However, more interesting to me is this high-res image: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg

A high resolution image of an FBI badge. Yeah. They're concerned that a web image of their seal can be used illegally, but a badge? That's nothing to worry about. Move along.

I'll admit, I couldn't find a high-res image on the FBI seal in the 2 minutes I spent searching there, but the seal isn't overly complex, doesn't have micro text or any other anti-counterfeiting features.

However, this image, http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/fbiseal/images/fbiseal-02-02.gif, is a fairly decent image and can easily be used to produce a better, larger image. (The image is slightly obfuscated by the web page dis-allowing right clicks. Good going, guys. Security by obscurity for the Win. I mean Lose.)

However, more interesting to me is this high-res image: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg

A high resolution image of an FBI badge. Yeah. They're concerned that a web image of their seal can be used illegally, but a badge? That's nothing to worry about. Move along.

Looks like the FBI is forcing people to violate the law, then, if they're referring to cached images. . .

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/financial/fcs_report052005/fcs_report052005.htm

Sounds like the law is basically there to stop people from posing as federal agents. Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas

That's obviously the original point of that law. Point is it's outdated and it's not much use today. If they really wanted to stop people from knowing what it looks like, why post it on their own site

Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas ... but on the other hand, how would I know what an authentic FBI badge looks like if I've never seen it before, so how would I know if I'm dealing with an imposter or not?

That's not a really a valid reason for the Wikipedia Foundation to inform the public, it would be solely the FBI's responsibility. And the average citizen still wouldn't know if they're dealing with a real agent even if they produce a perfect replica. That's why social engineering works so well and why enforcement of this law is important only against those who actually pose as federal agents or actually conspire to, which obviously isn't the case with Wikipedia.

As far as I know there has never been a show that had the actual FBI symbol.

The members of the MPAA have a license to use the FBI seal in the unskippable intros of their DVDs.

Or, better yet, photoshop to these - and caption them as you wish. It expressly states

High Resolution Photographs
These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.

Or just hotlink to them, along with your choice framed captions :-)

Or, better yet, photoshop to these - and caption them as you wish. It expressly states

High Resolution Photographs
These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images.

Or just hotlink to them, along with your choice framed captions :-)

during last night's marathon session of Starcraft 2: Liberty (the RELOADED release)

You know, you can say you pirate things because it's a civil matter. However if you out what you pirate, like in this case, the copyright holders can sue you. You have already admitted you pirated and seeded the newest Starcraft 2, so I have personally wrote to the copyright holders to let them know that and everyone should do the same.

The addresses to contact are

Blizzard: https://us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml?locale=en_US
Activision: http://www.activision.com/index.html#contact|en_US
BSA: https://reporting.bsa.org/usa/internet/edit.aspx
FBI: https://tips.fbi.gov/

Brian Krebs is the go-to guy for backstory on the mules. Mules have to look "honest" to a banking system so they are really the tech-savy unemployeed being exploited by mafia.

In a more depressing story the cost of Online fraud is charting to be almost 1B USD in a few years

Nobody is reporting that this is not being shown on the balance sheets ... where are the Untouchables when we need them.