Slashdot Mirror
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.
What exactly is the difference?
Ignoring the pedantic difference of "breeds" vs "feeds" (both of which are metaphors anyway), it's essentially "technology facilitates crime" vs "criminals utilize technology", which both describe the exact same thing. You can't have one without the other.
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.
A very good example is credit card receipts. Presently, receipts are not allowed to contain a certain amount of data. This all but eliminates one avenue of identity theft/credit card fraud.
Language attempts to convey limited information about reality. That information is not just conveyed through the explicit meanings of individual words, but also through more complex means such as context, emphasis and innuendo.
"Technology Breeds Crime" places the emphasis on technology whereas "Crime Feeds On Technology" places the emphasis on crime. I would say this is a story more about crime than about technology, so the second is more appropriate.
And a tool is neither good or evil. It only empowers the one able to wield it to use it for good or evil. Take whatever invention ever created and you will see that it can be used for both.
Weapons are of course an easy example, but everything human ever invented works. It is something that gives the one able to use it a power edge over someone not equipped with it. Knowledge works a similar way, but to a lesser degree.
And having more power than someone else can be used to exploit him. Ever been that way, ever will be. Technology is power. Superior technology allowed the exploitation of Africa and Asia as colonies. Superior technology (or rather, superior knowledge of technology) allows a trojan writer to exploit the "clueless" user with his infected machine.
But that doesn't make technology a device for more crime. It makes technology a device of power. Not more, not less.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not just "ethical and moral" issues, it really changes the battlefield. It's not that morality has changed, only that people have gotten the ability. For example, notice how many people are very rude in imperonal conversation, the way they'd never speak to you on the phone or face to face. Why? Because the way we communicate has changed. Same with the respect for copyright law - I don't think the morality or ethics was that different in the days of mix tapes. They've just gotten new opportunities to carry them out. Sometimes technology enables behavior we don't want, but there's just no turning back time.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Actually, there is nothing new on the table. The basic concepts of "DRM" and easy copying of Copyrighted material go back to the days of player pianos and rolls of punched paper that played copyrighted songs.
The internet and digital music are NOT new concepts. The ONLY difference is the speed and ease by which these things may be done. The legal concepts, the morals, and the ethics are all the same as they were 150 years ago!!!
The only difference today is the degree to which the public has accepted the arguments of corporations regarding what those corporations' "rights" should be, in regard to copyrighted material. They have tried to extend it far beyond the rights that were ever allowed to individual copyright holders. And that is sad. Partly because the corporations, in general, have been full of shit. And partly because actually, corporations do not have "rights" at all. They have certain legal privileges, but rights belong to individuals, not companies. And partly because, ultimately, it is individuals working for or with those corporations who actually created the content that those corporations "bought". The reality is: the corporations have been all for them, and none for you. So the idea of supporting them at all in this endeavor is foreign to any reasonable concept of justice. They should be fought at every turn, with every angle available. Because indirectly but inevitably, their goal has been to make your life more expensive and difficult.
Technology breeds criminals implies that technology needs to be slowed or stopped.
No it doesn't. If that's what you infer, you're jumping to conclusions.
Actually, you're the one who is wrong. To breed means to create. Saying that technology breeds criminals means that it creates them where they wouldn't otherwise be, and that implies that technology is to blame. Therefore, if it is the cause of creating criminals, it must somehow be held in check.
It's a pretty clear implication.
By contrast, saying that criminals use technology means simply that. It acknowledges that criminals will be there whether or not they have new gadgets to use, but will use the technology that they have available.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
This is not a rationale, this is an opinion.
Nor does it make it unacceptable. This is not a rationale either. Every behavior is contextually sensitive; every action; every reaction.
No, doesn't even remotely hold up. Stopping Hitler was an act of violence. Killing germs is an act of violence (and one very close to aborting crimes of violence against one's self by preemptive strikes against an offender who has made thier violent intent known to you.) Killing cockroaches and flies is an act of violence. All of which are well justified.
There is no "stain" for legitimate self-defense. As for your presumption that acts of violence outweigh any perceived benefit, I expect you to stop washing your hands, taking antibiotics, walking on grass, eating meat or any product that was harvested by machine without carefully picking off the insect life first, then washing with clean water, gently, to preserve the maximum amount of microbial and viral lifeforms. You may no longer spit, as doing so exposes millions of life forms to a violent death by environmental catastrophe, you may no longer bathe, clean your bedclothes, your home, drive any vehicle... you get the point. You do violence all the time. Terminal violence. You do it so as to enable your ability, and your family's ability, to get on with what you consider to be a normal life.
My position on home invasion is that by so doing, the invader has demonstrated that normal social conventions do not apply; I can presume that just as they violated the bounds of my home and property, they may very well intend to violate the bounds of my family's health and safety. Just as you would wash your hands, knowing that a germ on your hands may take the next step and colonize - and kill - you. Those germs have made their intent known by doing this many times previously. This is your justification for putting them down before they (may) put you down. Action signifies intent. Now, you may not understand this, but I assure you, it is so.
Thank you; you've precisely made my point for me, as I knew you would. It is a very bad thing to even contemplate someone coming to your home with violent intent. This is what underlies my reaction to the actual act.
Further, no threat of mine was implied. All I have advocated here is defending one's home. My point in asking you to post your address is that your security depends upon people not crossing your home's boundaries. By exposing your address on the Internet, you would enlarge the number of people who might cross that boundary enormously, especially here on Slashdot, where social norms are routinely violated with impunity. Once someone comes to your home - regardless of who it is, or why - and violates your boundaries, you are at risk. Your thesis requires you to let them murder you and your family and your pets and burn your home to the ground after taking everything you and yours have worked for to enrich themselves. I find that unacceptable. If you want to visit, simply knock and behave like a gentleman; you'd be at no risk, I assume you. Come stealthily, and you've just earned yourself all the consideration I would give a staphylococcus colony. I'd put you down just because you're a member of the class of beings that often causes trouble, and you're (metaphorically speaking) trying to establish yourself on my hand.
The home invader is the soil here. Putting them down is simply the act of washing.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Right, but what is your burden of evidence? Unless your bank is willing to take your word that you didn't make the transaction, this is worth the paper it's not printed on.
Sean
I live in a giant bucket.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Tech creates new opportunities for everyone, including criminals. The best way to get rid of crime is to give everyone a fair go. In this world, where a child's wealth and education are fated to be little better than their parents', crime is only going to get worse.
Software patents delenda est.