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

[node 3]

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.

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

[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.

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.

Re:Tech does not "breed" crime.

[hnile_jablko]

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.

Are you a communist? Regulating business is bad you communist leftist vagina. : P

Take that back!

[Anonymous Coward]

For everything that benefits society, along comes those who seek to use said benefits for personal, illicit gain.

I will not stand for your impugning politicians in that manner!