Slashdot Mirror
Top 10 Internet Crimes of '06
An anonymous reader notes that "The Bad Guys blog at USNews.com offers a look at the top ten Internet crimes of 2006. The federal study cited draws on over 200,000 complaints to US law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Top crime: auction fraud, followed by other online rip-offs. "
The article mentions that the results are probably skewed by the likes of E-Bay providing direct links to file complaints, and it also doesn't say if the complaints were ever followed up on or not. This is probably a list of all complaints, rather than those that were shown to be legitimate.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Just take a look at the Top 10 list:
Internet is only the communication channel used by the crooks, all the crimes depicted there are good old fashioned real life crimes. Being perpetrated via Internet is only a detail that should be irrelevant when categorizing crimes. What I would really like to see is the ratio of these same crimes perpetrated in real life vs. via internet. That would really be insightful and newsworthy.
Probably neither. It's probably more about jurisdiction to pursue certain types of cases. Then again, anything with children gets top billing in the press, so it's possible the FBI releases dozens of "we caught someone who committed fraud" press releases that get ignored.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Whenever you see the RIAA whining about how Piracy/IP Theft/Copyright Theft etc. is a major crime, remember this list.
Piracy is not even in the top ten.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
I expected a listing of the biggest individual cases, not broad categories that pretty much cover everything on or off the 'net.
Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Why isn't spam on the list? It is a crime in many places to send certain kinds of spam such as forged headers. I would think this would the most common type of cyber crime.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
"I was looking for those in the article before I read your comment, but I didn't see one instance of any form of "pirate" or "infringe" in the article. So is there a reason that copyright infringement, such as through peer-to-peer file sharing networks, is not one of the top 10 Internet crimes of 2006?"
Copyright infringement is not the same as these criminal activities. It's a violation of the copyright, not a criminal act that can be prosecuted.
Tomorrow we will be seeing the top 10 slashdot top ten stories on the front page!
Really, how many top ten, bottom ten, best of, and worst of lists have we had in recent memory? Seems like I see a new one or two every day, getting a little ridiculous. Sure, the occasional top ten list is funny, but they are rarely newsworthy.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
I'm not sure I 100% agree with this. For the simple reason that it fails to differentiate between images of consentual sex involving a minor who has reached the age of consent and child porn.
Find me a jurisdiction in which a 17 year old can consent to sex, even if the other party is above the age of majority (they exist), and I'll show you one in which a legal act can lead to an illegal photograph, and that no violence need be involved at all.
It may be illegal to take/distribute images of that 17 year old engaged in such activity, but there is no inherent violence involved in the act if the sex is consensual. Because, in most jurisdictions, they're too young to have such images taken/distributed involving them, it is illegal.
This is a murky grey area -- it leads to 17 year olds shooting themselves on their picture phones being charged with the creation of child porn. Giving it to someone else means you've now distributed child porn.
In Canada, as long as I'm not in a position of authority, or I didn't engage in 'luring' behaviour, it's entirely legal that a 17 year old could consent with an old fart like me -- it's unlikely, and I'm not a big fan of teenagers in general, but, it is in fact, perfectly legal for it to happen with no implied violence. If I snap a photo of myself doing something which is legal, that photo becomes illegal. OK, I can live with that -- it's intended to prevent exploitation of teens, that is reasonable.
In the event of actual child porn, I believe there is no way a 5 year old can consent to such activity, and I agree with yout assertion of violence in this case. I don't believe that a 15 year old is ready to consent either, especially not to someone markedly older.
It is NOT, however, true that any images involving someone under the age of majority inherently was a violent act. It's illegal, and effectively treated as the same class of offense, but, it *really* isn't 'child' porn. It also stands a very good chance of not actually involving any violence at all.
I'm not advocating the position of middle aged men going out and finding 17 year old girls to have sex with -- or, photographing the results as it were. But, I think there needs to be some better differentiation between distibuting images of underage people and 'child' porn -- especially when you make the assertion that the act itsself is inherently violent. Cause, it doesn't have to be.
Of course, such points of distinction don't sound nearly as cool or categorical, so people downplay them. But, consensual sex which did not involve violence or coersion (and, presumably, all parties were old enough/competent enough to make those decisions) is NOT violent by default. Claiming it is is disingenuous at best.
Few things in life fall into such neat binary piles as you seem to be doing.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Blink has gone away becuase flash is a better way to really annoy people.