US Failing To Prosecute Online Criminals

Ashlynne9423 writes "A report by the Center for American Progress and the Center for Democracy and Technology has found there is too little action being taken against online criminals, despite rising consumer concern about online safety. The report found that state officials were spending only 40 per cent of case time investigating online fraudsters, preferring instead to concentrate on higher profile solicitation and pornography cases."

Comments

Slashdot is just as bad ...

[Alain Williams]

What actions are taken about those who ''first post'' ? :-)

Re:Slashdot is just as bad ...

[HungryHobo]

They get eaten by grues.
Can anyone comment on "The Center for American Progress" and "The Center for Democracy and Technology" I've never heard of them before and they sound like the sort of names church groups give themselves when they want to sound credible.

Re:Slashdot is just as bad ...

[Stooshie]

I think they are sub departments of the Ministries of War and Truth respectively.

Re:Slashdot is just as bad ...

[TubeSteak]

Can anyone comment on "The Center for American Progress" and "The Center for Democracy and Technology" I've never heard of them before and they sound like the sort of names church groups give themselves when they want to sound credible.

There's a lot of think tanks and policy advocate groups with high minded names.
Some of them are more descriptive than others.

http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus (2003)

"Founded in 2003, CAP is headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and professor at the Georgetown University Center of Law. CAP is designed to provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement. Our ability to develop thoughtful policy proposals and engage in the war of ideas with conservatives is unique and effective."

http://www.cdt.org/about/ (1994)

"The Center for Democracy and Technology works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age. With expertise in law, technology, and policy, CDT seeks practical solutions to enhance free expression and privacy in global communications technologies. CDT is dedicated to building consensus among all parties interested in the future of the Internet and other new communications media."

It doesn't look like either of these think tanks are church groups trying to sound credible.

Well duh

[daveatneowindotnet]

It's easier to drop the hammer on college kids for downloading media online then it is to hunt down people exploiting masses of small phish. Besides IAAs have deeper pockets and are much more influencial than a amorphous blob of (unknown) online victims.

Re:Well duh

[Mistshadow2k4]

Read the warning on the next DVD you watch; it explicitly says that copyright infringement cases are investigated by the FBI. So, yes, our law enforcement is apparently more concerned about downloading media than prosecuting actual criminals working online.

Well duh!

[IBBoard]

So that would be summarised as "Prosecutors go for cases that make them look good" and "Prosecutors avoid cases where the crime isn't as well understood"* then?

* because the general populace understand "he killed her" or "he was doing things he shouldn't to children" but tech-crime gets a glazed look from all the buzzwords.

Re:Well duh!

[falcon5768]

Doesn't even have to be tech crime. When it comes to money in general unless the person who was stole from is

1) High Profile

2) a large corporation

Then you have little hope of ever getting anything back. Prosecutors just dont care about anything that wont get them a DA job or better and even if thousands or hundreds of thousands are stolen, a kiddie porn or murder case trumps all even if the money stolen ruins the person just the same.

Re:Well duh!

[TheRaven64]

Sounds like the problem is the politicising of the judiciary. If you elect your public prosecutors (who decide who to prosecute) and judges (who decide which cases to hear) then obviously they will favour cases which are likely to get them the press they need to be re-elected.

Re:Well duh!

[Mr. Underbridge]

* because the general populace understand "he killed her" or "he was doing things he shouldn't to children" but tech-crime gets a glazed look from all the buzzwords.

Yeah, but they still understand "he stole $10 million" just fine. Additionally, there's the whole 'fear of the unknown' thing. Remember Mitnick getting solitary because they were afraid he could whistle 9600 baud into a payphone, hack the computers controlling nukes, and start WWIII?

Also, people are paranoid of identity theft. Don't use tech jargon, the prosecutor only has to explain to the public that some dirtbag stole the identities of 200,000 people or whatever. Identity theft is enough of a perceived threat that Visa and other card companies use it in commercials.

I think if it's broken down simply enough, the public will certainly understand.

Hmmmm....

[d3ac0n]

Second look at becoming an Online Criminal!

Seriously though, as a basically honest person and an IT geek I find it incredibly frustrating to hear stuff like this. It's bad enough that non-specialist IT folk (general net admins and support people) get paid fuck-all despite that they are the backbone of the IT world. But to find that with a minimal amount of study and a willingness to break multiple laws you can essentially double, triple or quadruple your income and NOBODY BOTHERS TO HUNT YOU DOWN FOR IT is incredibly depressing. More and more it seems, honesty is rewarded with a kick in the crotch, and being a societal leech is rewarded with cash payouts and bling.

Why am I an honest person again?

Re:Hmmmm....

[Zedrick]

Seconded. After 3 years handling, among other things, the abuse-department of a very large webhost, I'm convinced that online crime is almost 100% risk-free.

And it's not just "minor" stuff like phishing or spamming, or scamming people with "nigerian" mails that's riskfree, I've had a few cases were we or our customers reported people who used stolen creditcards, people who were traceable since they were stupid enough to use their own home connection (in other words, I had their real IP-address and logs with timestamps)... and the police (in Sweden) basically said "sorry, we don't have the time, manpower or competence to do anything".

Look on the bright side!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If it were possible to smoke pot on the internet(thc/ip?) we would be wasting most of our time prosecuting that.

Go get them...

[gx5000]

I'd like to see a headline like "Malware Creators of XP AntiVirus 2008 Charged Today"...
When it's as straight forward as this, and they trick people to actualy get their useless software, (which doesn't protect you at all, it just infects other PC's), it's just plain evident that there's no one interested in going after criminals even in plain sight. **sigh**

Just makes Symantec Ghost and Acronis more important to use...

which would you prefer to do?

[petes_PoV]

preferring instead to concentrate on higher profile solicitation and pornography

Spend your day looking at smut or crawling through log files for dodgy transactions?

Re:which would you prefer to do?

[NotBornYesterday]

While I'm in favor of stamping out CP, I also realize that when LE crawls through smut in search of pedos, it pleases the "won't someone think of the children" crowd, which helps support the police by putting politicians in place who increase police spending. Chasing phishers is less appealing to the public, and doesn't gather the same level of votes for tax-n-spend politicians at the polls. I imagine that it is also much harder for police to do from their local jurisdiction, since those type cases can often involve actions in different towns, counties, states, and countries.

Re:which would you prefer to do?

[Iamthecheese]

God forbid that a government bureaucrat should do whats best for society, or that a politician should tell his voters, "This is the best priority for these things, and this is why". God forbid the press should actually investigate and make a decision based on something other than sensationalism. God forbid the public should be given information instead of manipulated through fear. They would be ice skating in hell through the year 3000.

Re:which would you prefer to do?

[TheCarp]

Thats because we really need to change name of our country so we can use the more appropriate three letter abbreviation: CYA.

Think TSA security. Why do we have a DHS? Its not because we know we need all this security. Very rational and well informed analysis has been done thats shown that we probably need NO increase in security at airports since 9/11.

What it comes down to is this: If you are a politician who has to be elected every 2-4 years or so, you know that if you oppose funding even the fakest of security measures (like creation of the DHS), and there is an attack, then you are going to have to "answer for" being the guy who opposed protection.

If you vote for it, you can fall back on "we did all we could". If you don't, then you are screwed because you "did nothing". Now... is a person who is in that situation of literally risking their jobs for not "looking tough" is the person who SHOULD be in charge of budget decisions?

Look at judges. In many places they are elected. So, if they let some guy off, and he goes out and rapes a child, guess who isn't getting re-elected?

Now... do you think that if you are standing in court, do you want to have your fate decided by a guy whose very job could be lost if he goes too easy on you? Of course, "man wrongly jailed" gets some ire up, but it seldom gets anyone, much less judges, tossed out in elections.

Never mind an innocent man, how about a guy who is guilty of making a stupid mistake that looks worst than it was (like someone who was caught taking a piss in an alleyway by a mother and her kid, and is then charged with exposing himself to a child)... seriously... do you expect a judge to risk his job going easy on you?

Its sad that we have made justice such a game. I know they say lovers of sausage and law should watch the creation of neither, but, man.... how can people know whats going on and still have ANY respect left for this system?

-Steve

Not just online...

[Firethorn]

If you look at law enforcement in general, and it's not just a US problem, petty crime has a pretty bad interest by police period.

If a citizen isn't essentially holding the criminal for police to arrive(like in the case of shoplifting), or the crime happens in front of the officer, if it's not violent they really don't do much.

So things like car theft, burglary of unoccupied homes, etc... All low priority. Heck, I've heard of burlary rings that don't even care of a house is alarmed - police response time is so slow that they have time to steal everything they want and leave before the police arrive. One was even spoofing the alarm people, delaying things even more.

This, of coures, irks the heck out of me because I hate to see crime pay, and effective law enforcement is a good way to ensure that it doesn't. Every crime that 'pays off' encourages them in the future.

Re:Not just online...

[rabbit994]

So things like car theft, burglary of unoccupied homes, etc... All low priority. Heck, I've heard of burlary rings that don't even care of a house is alarmed - police response time is so slow that they have time to steal everything they want and leave before the police arrive. One was even spoofing the alarm people, delaying things even more.

I have a cop friend who works day and he says the same thing about Alarm systems. They are pretty much worthless except for letting people at home know when their perimeter has been breached. Reason cops don't care about alarms is 4 out of 5 times, it's a false alarm. Kid forgets to shut it off. Dog jumped up at something and set off motion detectors, high wind jiggled loose a door that wasn't properly closed. So unlike the ads ADT shows, cops don't run lights and sirens, they just drive over and check it out at their leisure.

Re:Not just online...

[Kjella]

If a citizen isn't essentially holding the criminal for police to arrive(like in the case of shoplifting), or the crime happens in front of the officer, if it's not violent they really don't do much.

So things like car theft, burglary of unoccupied homes, etc... All low priority.

Most of the time it would imply that noone saw the person(s) in question, often they don't know exactly when it was committed and even if you could put a suspect near the crime scene it's tough to prove it's your man. I'm sure we'd love to see CSI put on their ass but they're nowhere nearly as effective as on TV and extremely expensive. With alarms there's at least a chance there'll be a free police patrol nearby, adding some risk into it. Better locks might take them longer to get through, as would solid doors and windows, safes and so on. GPS trackers or similar for laptops, cars and so on helps some at least. Yes, I agree that sometimes the police doesn't follow up well enough where they do have leads but asking them to chase ghosts that are long gone won't really accomplish anything. Police have to deal with those that are easy to catch or important to catch, and there's just too many petty criminals to ever make them important.

Re:Not just online...

[Firethorn]

You're right, often there just isn't enough evidence. But when the person has the serial numbers of the stolen stuff, and it shows up in a local pawnshop, who HAS the ID of the seller, what's preventing them from following up at that point?

When the dude with the stolen laptop manages to track it down, going so far as to hand the police an ADDRESS.

Sure, there's lots of petty criminals. I figure that if we were more effective at catching them for a while, there'd quickly be a lot less of them.

Re:Not just online...

[sumdumass]

Your point on a local pawn shop is something that struck a nerve with me. I had a laptop and a gun among other things stolen from a van. There are 5 pawn shops in the county and the cops only checked the ones within the city limits. In my state, there is a pawn card submitted to the police detailing the pawned item and the identity of whoever sold/pawned it. But there is no central database or anything making sure that any serial numbers would be accurate or anything.

I actually found my gun, a Dan Wesson .357 magnum sitting in a pawn show just outside the city limits and called the sheriff which should have also had a copy of the theft report. Evidently, the pawn shop entered the serial number wrong on accident but I have my suspicions on that. When I was phoning the sheriff the clerk attempted to take the gun into the back room to make it disappear as if he knew it was stolen. I practically got into a fight with him to keep it out in the open until the law could show up. They ran the numbers and I got it back after they did ballistics tests on it for some reason. The cop wasn't interested in the fact that they didn't report the correct serial number or that the clerk was attempting to remove the gun.

I later found some 2 way FRS radios in a pawnshop inside the city limits that looked like mine. I purchased them as a replacement only to find that they were mine when I was recording the serial numbers. They claimed they did a merchandise swap with the other pawn shop to keep fresh martial in stock. Again, the cop wasn't interested in any details. I went to the state AGs office which lit some fires under the right asses someone from the state was investigating the claims. About 4 months later, My laptop was returned in a broken and unrepairable state- the pawn shop listed the serial number on the battery to get around any obvious number. Evidently, the clerk was buying known stolen merchandise and fudging around with the numbers in order to prevent being discovered. They busted around 10 other people who were stealing the things.

Anyways, all this was possible because the local cops didn't go beyond "local" and didn't do anything more then what was absolutely necessary to get their salary. Oh.. and the person who stole the gun and laptop, they got busted for "possession of stolen property" instead of theft or anything like that. One served 6 months, the other had time served waiting for trial and they both got 5 years probation.

Your right, there should be ways to catch these people. But at least in my experience, they assign those to the least productive member of the force. For all I know, that cop could have been in on the burglary ring and fencing operation but I'm just throwing that out with no proof or anything. I'm Just talking from a gut feeling on how this could happen.

Re:Not just online...

[dontPanik]

During driver's ed, the policeman attending told us that they are actually discouraged from turning on their lights when responding to a burglary.
Unless someone's life is explicitly in danger, they aren't coming out in full force.

Start with some known criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me when Sony have been prosecuted for the crime of contravening the Computer Misuse Act in my country... and maybe then I'll care.

Here's part of it

[MikeRT]

Anything involving child porn gets people whipped up into a lynch mob mentality. A lot of people even get like that when you have material that involves teens; I've seen people argue with a straight face that a 17 year old is a child, even though that "child" can sign up for the armed forces with parental consent (guess this means we have an army that employs child-soldiers a la Africa...).

Financial crimes... not so much. We're squeamish about sending white collar criminals who really hurt their victims to prison for very, very long periods of time in prisons which are scary. I think part of it is the bias; they don't always look like scary malcontents who should be permanently removed from society even though they are predators.

It's a fact that prosecutors, in general, get points in their career for how many harsh sentences they score; few offices reward prosecutors for showing a sense of mercy and having a real thirst for justice. A buddy of mine was actually prosecuted for assault for pushing away a drunk girl who was trying to beat up him. Thank God the judge ripped up the charges and dismissed them as baseless bullshit. Didn't matter to the prosecutor, who knew on the evidence before him that it was a classic case of self-defense.

The real corruption is in the prosecutorial profession, now the cops these days. The cops get their cues from the prosecutors; if the prosecutors don't want white collar criminals, the cops will focus more on sex offenses.

Re:Here's part of it

[DavidTC]

They're pretty much limited to small time scammers who go around and personally scam people.

I'm less worried about those. While it is a cliche, it is true that it's much harder to con an honest man, and thus most of the face-to-face scammers come up with scams that would be illegal to participate in if they were legit. Or at least most 'long cons' are.

They do this because people are a lot more likely to be secretive, and a lot less likely to report the crime afterwards, if they believe their actions are illegal or at least somewhat gray.

The only online scam of this nature is the Nigerian advanced-fee fraud, and that's actually a face-to-face fraud that's happened to make its way online. And while it operates via spam, it actually operates rather different...they send out the spam in low enough volume that it's not noticeable as spam, so they can keep their return email open, and basically it's entirely personal past that point.

Most online scams, OTOH, are fake or forged storefronts that take your money or login for something that would be entirely legal, and just run with it. People who are victimized by them are honest people.

No great mystery why

[plopez]

they are "preferring ... to concentrate on higher profile solicitation and pornography cases."

Would you rather sort through a bunch of bogus domain names, email addresses, offshored servers etc. to catch some pimple faced phisher, or look at porn all day and chat with online babes? For most people it is a 'no brainer.'

Just like in the old days working for the vice squad had certain 'benefits', working porno and solicitation has certain 'benefits.'

Damn I'm cynical.

It isn't about "high profile"

[Zelet]

It has nothing to do with what's "higher profile." It has everything to do with jurisdiction and resources. A state-level law enforcement agency doesn't have the resources to travel over seas to go after the Russian/Chinese hackers and fraudsters. Even if you consider the much smaller percentage of "home grown" fraud - in most cases the victim is in a different state than the fraudster. Most of the criminals will directly target victims as far away from them as geographically possible because they know local law enforcement is cash and time strapped. Lastly, the police prioritize crimes based on how it affects the victim. Physical/emotional harm will ALWAYS trump financial loss. No agency I know of goes after IP violations. The FBI only goes after large organized crime groups that use warez as their money machine.

Re:It isn't about "high profile"

[Rival]

There are a few other considerations to make:

First, most of our laws were written well before the advent of the internet, and determining how to apply them wisely in contexts that they were never designed for is difficult for even the best judicial minds.

Second, of those laws written with the internet in mind, nearly all were heavily influenced by politics and corporate interest, and are either ineffectual or biased.

Third, there is a difficult time applying the US Federal Rules of Evidence as regards expert testimony, because of the rapid pace of technology and the difficulty of finding consensus among experts in the pertinent fields. Worse, the definition of original data does not address the veracity of the source -- especially troubling given the ease by which electronic records can be modified or fabricated. (For a case in point, see the screenshots of file sharing programs provided by the RIAA.)

Given the current conditions of our laws as regard technology-based crimes, is it any wonder that state and federal prosecutors do not pursue more cases?

Probably because...

[rgviza]

...most incidences of online theft are under the magical felony number which makes an individual counts of fraud usually not worth pursuing.

I've had my ID stolen and used to exploit Household Bank's lax policies no fewer than 3 times by the same person, from the same address, in Chicago.

Each time the scumbag ran up just about $4900 then stopped using the account. At $5k it's a felony. They don't even bother sending the police to the guys shipping address because it's not enough for them to get a good case. I expect the next collection call any day now (looks at watch)... You'd think they'd flag my social security number and not give accounts to "me" any more. No they just hand out their money like it ain't no thang.

The people running that bank and working there are scumbags too. The last time around, Household's collector told my wife that I'm having an affair with someone in Chicago. Funny, since I've never been there and I'm home every night, in Maryland, where I live. My wife thought it was hilarious.

Oh well, it's their money I guess. It's kind of a pain in the ass when it happens, but I just tell them "Look you been robbed, again, by the same guy. You might want to flag my social security number and not give accounts to people using my information". Then I call the credit bureau, report the fraud and they take it off my report.

It's the banks causing the problem, not the police. The bank people are stupid. The retail people don't even bother asking for ID. I still can't believe the government is bailing banks out and preventing natural selection from doing it's thing.

This country's laws are written to promote theft and fraud, and our government supports and endorses stupidity. Fraud and socialism is what this country is all about.

-Viz

Re:Probably because...

[rgviza]

I've done it. The guy just calls the credit bureau and removes it. He has the necessary info to do so. The last time, it was re-unfrozen in less than 3 months.

My identity is a tug of war with this guy. I get the feeling from the people at the bureaus that they have no way to know whether or not *I'm* the ID thief.

I appreciate the effort of you trying to help me though.

Calls to Chicago PD are usually met with "What is it you want us to do again?". Nobody gives a shit. Even if they did, I'd have to go to Chicago, be a witness, then he'd probably get probation and do it again. Long term, as long as it doesn't go on my record and I'm not charged, I really could care less.

Yea banks have a lot to deal with, but they really create their own problems by allowing people to do their banking and finance work "online" without ever seeing a photo id or getting a signature. Not that it matters since you can easily just get a fake ID.

Without any enforcement, ID theft is a reality and criminals are brazen. Nobody cares. The authorities act like they care, pass some "tough legislation" during election years, but the bottom line is, nobody is doing squat about it unless it involves over $100k. The FBI high fives each other when they get a big one, smoke a cigar, have a happy hour and sleep well that night as millions of people steal from banks.

The employees at banks don't give a shit because they are getting paid peanuts to do thankless jobs steeped in red tape.

The funniest thing is if this guy walked into a bank and held it up for $4900, the police would be all over him.

It really makes me wonder why I bother to bust my ass to make money when I could just steal it and get away with it as long as I was smart about it. Oh that's right, I'm crippled by morals and values so I'm destined to be used and abused like the loser that I am. To be a winner you need to play the system to win and it doesn't involve working for a salary.

I own a house, have my car etc. If I need to make a big purchase I know it will take a couple of weeks. I just clean up my CR ahead of time and usually have no trouble.

-Viz

Cops do what we reward them for

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow the cops get better publicity for arresting someone for child porn than they do for busting the SOB that stole your grandmother's life savings.

Some years ago, before all porn moved to the internet, someone dumped some porn videos in the river. That led the cops to arrest someone and seize all his tapes. The police chief made a big deal of it. He said we needed a pornography task force. He said he needed more officers. He said he needed a much bigger budget. The trouble was that the vast majority of the tapes weren't porn. The vast porn ring the police chief warned about didn't exist. What we had was a sleeze bag police chief trying to feather his own nest. Maybe they teach that kind of behavior in police chief school.

When I lived in a different city, I studied with a guy who was convicted of child pornography. The judge deeply regretted, in his sentencing remarks, that he couldn't send the guy to jail for longer. OK, the guy was a bit pathetic but he sure wasn't a hardened criminal. If he'd just kept his mouth shut, he would never have been convicted. He was a easy mark and the cops got lots of lovely publicity for busting him. (I'm not saying I would be happy to have this guy within a mile of my kids but he didn't deserve the punishment he got. What he needed was some elementary dental work and some social skills so he could pick up adult women. Paying a dentist and a social worker would have been way cheaper than throwing him in the clink for a bunch of years.)

Chasing real criminals who pose a real danger to society is difficult and doesn't produce much positive reinforcement for the police. If I were a police chief, I'm not sure I would think it was worth the effort.

Re:On line executions

[TheCarp]

Actually probably not.

Studies of how people actually determine whether or not to commit a crime show pretty definitively that it is NOT the severity of punishment but the likelyhood of being caught that factors into peoples decisions.

Thats not to say that increased penalties don't decrease crime, just that the effects are utterly dwarfed by increasing the chance of being caught.

One great example is car theft. An independant study found that a mere 1% increase in lojack sales corresponds to as much as a 20% decrease in car theft. As I quoted yesterday: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=644159&cid=24582245

-Steve

I've been waiting for a story like this...

[barnyjr]

I'm a cyber/white collar crimes detective for a medium-sized agency. There are so many problems with online crimes right now that I don't even know where to start. But one of the most important things is that people realize some of the problems we face...

1) I know it's popular (especially on slashdot) to bitch about how "Big Brother" is always trying to violate your civil rights for fun. But I will tell you that the red tape is one of the biggest factors in why a lot of online crimes don't get solved. For nearly every online crime, the first step is sending out subpoenas to every company involved. In a fraud case, this means: banks and the company where the order took place. Then once you get those returns, you have to subpoena the ISP to find out what the physical address is. All of these companies take anywhere from a week to 3 months to get you the information back.

2) Once you get all your basic background work on the case done, now you have to physically drive to the address where the activity took place. You want to know what happens to 90% of my cases at the point? Dead end. The idiot has an unsecured wireless router, which means that anyone could have perpetrated the crime. And of course, anyone that is dumb enough to leave their wireless network wide open isn't smart enough to have turned on logging in their router (which is off by default in almost all routers).

3) OK so now what. No we try to look at where the item was shipped, assuming it was an online purchase. Guess what? Nobody ships it to their home address. They ship it to a neighbors, or an abandoned house down the street, or one of the thousands of "work from home repackaging" businesses. OK, so do I go to a judge and try to get a search warrant to search a house where a package was delivered just on the off chance that they were stupid enough to use their real address? NO I can't! Judges want more hard evidence than that.

4) In non-purchase fraud cases (i.e. a person is transferring money around), we follow the money trail just like we do with any other financial crime. Guess where I dead-end here? Stored Value Cards. Get one from overseas, and now they don't have to comply with my subpoena. Dead in the water again.

OK so those are some of the issues in investigating online crimes, specifically fraud cases. Wanna know what the biggest issue is after all of that? I just spent about 30 man-hours investigating that $500 fraud case. I contact the victim to let them know what's going on. They've already been reimbursed by the bank simply by making their initial police report. The bank doesn't give a shit because $500 is nothing to them and they get to turn it in to insurance as a loss.

These are some of the reasons that online crimes aren't getting solved. For every one that I make an arrest on, I have 10 that I've dead-ended on. Unless the credit card companies and banks decide to take a stand and make their financial methods more secured, they're going to continue losing money. So the original story says that only 40% of time is being spend on fraud cases. Yeah that's probably about right. Kiddy porn and child solicitation cases may not seem as serious to some people, but they're so much more cut and dry. That's like saying that more robberies are solved than burglaries... they're 2 entirely different crimes with different sets of parameters.

Re:Stole a gun!!!

[XcepticZP]

Online wise - I know there's some huge jurisdictional problems, because many of the scammers are overseas. I just think we could still do SOMETHING.

That is why we humans, in a fit of brilliance, decided to create something known as the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). To pass on the evidence, and let other countries deal with it.

But the problem with this is that every country says: "Fuck it, it's someone else's problem, let them deal with it. Why should I investigate it just so they get to arrest the perpetrator?". And these criminals get away free as birds.