Famous Criminal Opines that Technology Breeds Crime

jcatcw writes "In an interview with Computerworld's editor in chief, Don Tennant, Frank Abagnale spoke about his life of crime and crime prevention. Abagnale is a notorious criminal, whose exploits were portrayed in the movie 'Catch Me If You Can.' Abagnale claims: 'It would be 4,000 times easier to do today, what I did 40 years ago, and I probably wouldn't go to prison for it. Technology breeds crime — it always has, it always will ... I really think the more technology there is in the world, the more you have to instill character and ethics. You can build all the security systems in the world; you can build the most sophisticated technology, and all it takes is one weak link — someone who operates that technology — to bring it all down." This would seem to echo commentary in a New York Times article about the rise of Russian hackers in recent years.

Comments

Nature of Things

[snl2587]

For everything that benefits society, along comes those who seek to use said benefits for personal, illicit gain. I don't think it's so much that "Technology Breeds Crime" as "Crime Feeds On Technology".

Re:Nature of Things

[loganrapp]

To Abignale's credit, his solution isn't to restrict technology but to invest more in the character of people.

Re:Nature of Things

[hedwards]

I realize you are reacting against the fear that people will hear this and fight against technology instead of fighting against crime, but that's them being irrational. The best way to fight irrationality is not more irrationality, and the claim that technology does not help criminals is irrational. Teach them to oppose the crime, not the technology. But also accept that sometimes the best way to oppose the crime is to limit the technology. I think what a lot of people miss is that technology really only changes affects the types of crimes that are being committed. Sure forgery and ID theft are probably far easier now than they were 40 years ago, but 40 years ago it was far harder than it had been 150 years ago. These things come in waves, and it'll take some time before law enforcement and the legal system really catch up with them.

The other thing is that these are nonviolent crimes that technology is presently abetting, even though they are still serious crimes, they can at least be largely cleaned up and resolved.

I don't think that anybody would really should argue that technology is the problem, as there were far more violent crimes prior to the modern police force and all the improved investigative techniques that have been found since. Its just that people who are victimized get far more attention now than they did 100 years ago, so it seems like crimes are higher than they were.

Re:Nature of Things

[badasscat]

What exactly is the difference?

Come on, don't be a simpleton. You don't see the difference in the reversal of cause and effect?

If "technology breeds crime", then every sufficiently advanced country in the world would be a hotbed of criminal activity. How much crime is there in, say, Japan? In fact, their crime rate is dropping as technology advances - and that includes white collar crime. If the adage that "technology breeds crime" were assumed to be true, then even one exception would prove it false. And there's your exception.

In countries where there is already a large criminal element, technology may enable them to more easily commit crimes, or to commit crimes that were never possible before. But technology is not "breeding" that crime; that crime already existed. Russia has been basically a lawless society in a lot of ways since the fall of the Soviet Union (and probably even before; we just didn't know it) - it didn't take the internet to put it in that state. There are all sorts of forces that create criminality; technology, though, is not one of them.

Tech does not "breed" crime.

[khasim]

It only makes SOME crimes easier.

When you had to walk into a bank to empty someone's bank account, you were limited by how far you could travel.

Now, when you can do it across the 'Web, you are not limited in the same way.

The problem is that the security model has not kept pace with the concept of "web services" offered by the banks. But if the banks were 100% liable for any loss, you'd see them focusing on the security.

Wrong way to look at it.

[fyngyrz]

It isn't that technology breeds crime; it is that technology is a form of human enhancement, and some humans are criminals. However, technology also enhances law enforcement, brings new ethical and moral issues to the table for society (or the ruling political junta) to rule on, and empowers people further and further down the economic scale as technology itself becomes inexpensive.

I don't think we ought to be "criminalizing" technology as a whole. We simply need to keep considering, and re-considering, the ethical and moral issues of the day in the light of what our current society can tolerate without infringing on the liberties of individuals and the security of the group.

If we have a fault, it is an inability to change quickly when we see social regulation - like the drug war, or the current pogrom against sexuality - isn't working. That's a political problem, and one we (speaking as a US citizen) have been roundly unable to address.

Criminals make bad sociologists.

[yusing]

"The person operating the technology" ... A stick, a rock, a screwdriver, all tools. Can I kill somebody with a screwdriver? A Glock, on the other hand, is designed for a reason.

The better a tool is a doing crime, the more we need to ask: who designed it and why?

Do computers make some crimes easier? Yeah. But they also make detecting and preventing crimes easier. They're general-purpose tools.

Nothing has changed in 2000 years about how much character it takes to avoid criminality. So if there's more crime, there's less instilling or more unbridled greed.

I'd blame the latter. Leadership sets the example.

Technology may make crime easier...

[Dogtanian]

...but it also makes it far more traceable (along- sadly- with more legitimate activities). The potential intrusiveness of technology into our lives and the trail of electronic fingerprints we leave is far greater than most people are aware of, and it's going to get worse before- if- it gets better.

For one simple example, what about the trail that your mobile phone leaves with the network when you leave it switched on and are travelling somewhere?

This isn't even counting the fact that with future improvements in technology, it's quite feasible that activities that you can "get away" with today could leave a trail that is inciminating with tomorrow's forensics and analysis technology. I'll bet that people who committed murders 30 or 40 years ago didn't even consider the possibility of their getting nabbed by DNA tests in the future.

And in all honesty, even if the data we have available to us today isn't able to tell us much, this might change with improved data mining/analysis tools. Something that someone does today might not be enough to get them prosecuted immediately, but what happens when improved tools come along in the future and spot things that had been missed previously?

Re:Yeah...

[thefirelane]

... because before the Internet, folks just sat around thinking "I wish I could go steal some money, but I just can't figure out how."

But he does have a point: today's technology separates people. I see the point of your joke: people used to rob banks. But now, if you can simply click and hack your way to a robbery, more people would do this rather than hold someone at gun point.

It is the criminal equivalent of how online discourse is so much more harsh than in real life: people do things they wouldn't think about doing in person.

Oh, FFS

[Colin Smith]

All the intelligent criminals are already at the top. They simply made what they do legal.

logic flaw

[phantomfive]

He seems to have a logic flaw in his way of viewing the world. On the one hand, he considers that the world has no ethics:

we live in an extremely unethical society....so today you have a lot of young people who have no character, no ethics and they find no problem in defrauding somebody or stealing from somebody or cheating somebody. but then he goes on to say that people are basically honest:

The problem is that most people are basically honest, so they don't sit back and think about how someone would do this. So what is his point of view here? Does he think people have ethics but don't manage to pass them on to the younger generation? Does he think the only way to pass on ethics is in classes? I'm not really sure. But he seems to have gotten himself into some sort of problematic way of seeing things.

Re:logic flaw

[Sycraft-fu]

That's because he's not a good person to ask for insight in to the human psyche. Basically, all that I read about him points to him being a sociopath. That's more or less a person who's incapable of empathizing with others. They cannot "put them in someone else's shoes" so to speak, they can't consider how their actions might make you feel. As such, they generally see it as perfectly acceptable to commit crimes, lie, cheat, steal, whatever so long as it enriches them since in their world, they are the only ones that matter.

Well, since people are quite good at taking their own situation and projecting it to the world, you can see how he'd figure that others have no ethics and that it has to be taught. After all he has no ethics. To the extent he's gotten any it is because he believes that obeying these rules is better for him.

While I think he's got a bit of truth overall, in that the Internet in particular is making it easier for certain kinds of sociopaths to commit crimes without fear of being caught, I wouldn't give his analysis of humans any weight.

Re:It's scarry

[MrHanky]

What a funny way to make perfectly ordinary statements seem moonbat extremist.

Abagnale has some good points.

[Animats]

Abagnale has some good points. Forgery is much easier than it used to be. Printing and paper quality are no guarantee of anything.

A point Abagnale didn't make to the interviewer is that social engineering is easier, too, because people are more used to remote requests for information. Many of Abagnale's scams required him to physically go someplace and deceive someone. Most people can't act well enough to pull off a con like that. Now, much more can be done remotely. "Identity theft" barely existed before the Internet; a few times a year somebody might pull something off, but it wasn't widespread.

Re:Oh fuck. Here comes the correlation != causatio

[Eivind]

It helps, sure. It's not really possible though.

Because even if you create identical access to all parts of the school-system and job-market, having rich parents will still be a great help. It'll allow you to study full-time and not need part-time jobs on the side. More importantly, having *educated* parents means you have the kind of parents who think that education matters. Which transfers to the kids in a million little ways.

The school-system in my part of the world already works pretty close to identical-access. There's still a large (not as large as in USA, but still large) difference between how kids of well-off parents do and how kids of poor parents do.