Slashdot Mirror
Cybercrime More Lucrative Than Drugs
prostoalex writes "Yahoo is reporting that global cybercrime overtook global drug trafficking in terms of revenue this past year. In related news, only 4% of Internet users can flag 100% of phishing e-mails as fraudulent, and Americans filed 207,000 reports on cybercrime to FBI."
Yeah sure, they'd better party like it is twenty-zero-five, sooner or later they'll run out of idiots like dotcoms ran out of VCs.
Cybercrime requires constant training, otherwise your hacking skills can be out of date in just a few months. On the contrary, a crowbar-trained criminal can still make a living in today's high-tech security world.
I foresee in 5-10 years' time, traditional crimes will go mainstream again as many cyber-criminals will be out of jobs^H^H^H^Hcrimes by then.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Yet, I bet both of them combined aren't as lucrative when it comes to funding terrorism as hitting your local gas station for a fill-up.
Cybercrime pisses off U.S. black market businesses because it outsources a huge income potential to other countries.
All kidding aside, I don't personally believe in cybercrime. Some cybercrime victims are merely stupid users, and no law can fix them. Other cybercrimes that do disturb one's property should be covered by laws already in place.
My fear is that defending the cybercrime idea will only help make more wealthy lawyers and give politicians more abusive power.
I agree completely. I've noticed a similar problem on Slashdot which your solution seems to solve nicely. I recommend we limit posting access to all users who have a greater than 3 digit ID. Maybe raising the barrier of entry will prevent me from having to read half cocked ideas like limiting access to compilers.
The more you know, the less you understand.
And technically, what makes a drug a drug? What about perscription, cigarettes, alcohol? Those are all mind altering and bad for you.
:)
This is my field of study, so I feel obliged to throw in my 2 bits here.
When someone refers to a "drug" in the sense of crime, they mean more accurately a "Schedule I Material" (and rarely, Schedule II or III, but usually just I). What does this nonsense mean? Well, in theory anyway, Schedule I is reserved for materials deemed to have no redeeming medical value, with a high possibility of chemical addiction or overdose. Now, given your statement about cigarettes and booze -- you and I both realize that that isn't entirely the case.
While at the core, the doctors who worked with the FDA and the DEA to create the original controlled substances lists were doing so in good faith to protect the population at large from "Snake Oil" and soft drinks with addictive spikes (Ahem, Coca-Cola); there are unfortunately, larger powers at work than even the medical industry today. "Big Tobacco" has been in power in this country for hundreds of years before this country was even a country. So even though nicotine in all scientific methods would be a Schedule I material -- it isn't. This is also the reason THC is Schedule I despite having qualities that should qualify it for Schedule III (your usual prescription medications). Alcohol, for similar social reasons, is not Schedule I either.
Your usual prescription medications are Schedule III; which roughly defined is materials that have useful medical value and low possibility for addiction, but have other qualities such as allergens or drug interactions that merit having a doctor or two check you out before giving you them.
Hope that I have helped
~Rebecca
Hey man I'm a tech junkie, got any stuff? Stuff that matters?