Slashdot Mirror
Why 'Cyber Crime' Should Just Be Called 'Crime'
netzar writes "CAUSE executive director Neil Schwartzman, in a post on CircleID, urges governments and law enforcement to treat cyber crime as what it really is: 'crime': 'When someone is mugged, harassed, kidnapped or raped on a sidewalk, we don't call it "sidewalk crime" and call for new laws to regulate sidewalks. It is crime, and those who commit crimes are subject to the full force of the law. For too long, people have referred to spam in dismissive terms: just hit delete, some say, or let the filters take care of it. Others — most of us, in fact — refer to phishing, which is the first step in theft of real money from real people and institutions, as "cyber crime." It's time for that to stop... This isn't just email. This isn't a war. This isn't "cyber." This is crime.'"
Great idea. It will happen about the same time that "white collar crimes" are treated the same as mugging or burglary.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
"sidewalk crime" has too much gray area. thats why we just call it crime. cyber crime though... well its specific too isnt it?
saying IT.
I hear people actually say "I'm in IT." It's like saying "I work in roads" Are you a street cleaner? civil engineer? road painter? sell rock?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because we're all fed up with the cyber-whatever headlines.
The point is to identify a crime committed in a particular way as new kind of crime. Having a different category allows one to expand governmental powers, particularly in the form of regulatory agencies, beyond the bounds of what the public would normally accept for the unqualified crime.
We call it cyber-crime because of the special skills and knowledge required to appropriately investigate and prosecute it. I really don't want a beat cop who makes arrests for street muggings responsible for investigating high-tech crime. Specially trained members of law enforcement will probably be required to enforce especially complex types of crime.
What are our elected representatives going to do to convince us they deserve to keep being paid by our tax dollars if they can't make themselves look busy by making things illegaler?!?!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Yeah, we don't call them sidewalk crime or whatever. But we do call them things like "violent" crime, "sex" crime, "white collar" crime, "hobo" crime, "punctuation" crime, etc. So what's wrong with "cyber" crime?
cybercrime relates to things that can only take place as information. 1s and 0s dcan only do so much.
Local cops generally don't care about contractual fraud unless you deliver a complete evidence package all tied up with a nice blue ribbon. They'll call it "civil" and blow you off.
Only big cases get any attention.
There is enough violence to keep the cops busy.
So, it's like saying that we shouldn't call people being shot from a car a "drive-by shooting" or someone being run over by a car a "hit-and-run"?
Ack, this isn't working. BadAnalogyGuy, help me out here.
Cyber sex is sex! You can really get pregnant, not just cyber pregnant.
Be sure to use a condom!
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Many modern criminal investigations require specialists. Rape, murder, arson, and so forth -- commonly investigated by specialists. Why should a crime that involves computers suddenly have a special category, when other forms of crime do not?
Palm trees and 8
But 'cyber crime' pays off in the form of increased profits, boosted ratings, legislation...
Boogiemen are big business, as /. knows too well...
Should we also stop calling crime that affects property "property crime", and crime that involves violent acts "violent crime", and crime that involves criminal organizations "organized crime".
Because, you know, all that is crime, too. In fact, as with "cyber-crime", the fact that it is crime is why it has "crime" in its name. Adding a more specific adjective to a noun doesn't negate the basic meaning of a noun.
Billboards talk sternly about special penalties for "gun crime," and in the UK the phrase "knife crime" is common, too. (I've heard that one a few times in the U.S., but not often. But over there, there's http://www.knifecrimes.org/uk-knife-crime-victims.html)
A distinction to be drawn, I think: there are pure category crime descriptions that people *don't* object to (I'm thinking of "white collar crime" / "violent crime"), but these seem different than "gun crime" or "knife crime" (no one talks about "car crime," despite the huge number of vehicular homicides, etc.), because these describe a crime according to its impact / immediate level of fear or risk, rather than on the instrumentalities used to perpetrate it. And I've never seen "gun crime" to mean "theft of lawfully owned guns," only "crimes committed with guns as instrumentality."
("White collar crime" is a nice sweeping term that includes embezzlement, some acts of bribery, strategic data destruction, etc - no one needs to call it "adding machine crime," or "degausser crime"; "violent crime" takes in rape, murder, etc, so no need for screwdriver crime, genitals crime, etc.)
On this basis, "cyber crime" actually has *some* justification, even though it's an annoying term; it seems a fair distinction based the context it which it takes place.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Why call it 'Air Rage'? It's simply rage like any other!
Why call it 'Bank robbery'? We don't call it "Flower shop robbery"!
In other words: Little to see here.
There is enough violence to keep the cops busy.
Don't forget all those damn kids and their "wacky baccy"!!!
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about me turning to the person next to me and asking them for their banking credentials. The only difference is that if I do it in real life, they will laugh at me. If I do it on the internet, I am more likely to succeed.
On another tangent here, the author misses the point. The real crime is that the banks make it too easy for someone other than the account holder to access the account. They make it too easy to get credit based on stolen credentials. The banks should demand token based authentication for online transactions. There are solutions that will send a one time PIN to a smart phone so a separate dongle isn't even necessary. The mechanisms for nearly bullet proof online commerce are available. The system is simply setup in a way that it is more affordable to write off fraud than it is to actively combat it.
Cyber sex is sex! You can really get pregnant, not just cyber pregnant.
Be sure to use a condom!
Of course, this woman got pregnant watching a porn film. No, really!!
Easy to say, hard to do. The Cuckoo's Egg, by Cliff Stoll, does a great job of showing why this is hard--while the technology may have changed, the jurisdictional problems certainly haven't.
The author of the article practically ignores these difficulties, glibly saying "So what? Crimes have crossed borders before." That's the functional equivalent of saying "I solved world hunger! We just have to grow and distribute food more efficiently!" While the suggestion is true, it's also essentially useless, since you can't do anything with it. Turns out it's pretty hard to coordinate investigations across national borders, which is why spammers intentionally cross borders.
Saying we need to treat cyber crime like any other crime doesn't deal with the problems that are not like other crime. Before email and electronic banking, if I wanted to rob a bank, I had to be physically near the bank. Now I can do it from the safety of outer mongolia, and have my money in a Caymen Islands account before the bank even realizes it has been robbed.
"Cyber crime" isn't the most attractive name, but you need a word to distinguish that from street crime, if only because a completely different skill set is required of the investigators and law enforcement.
some laws have a poor fit in the cyber world and need to be reworked for them to work in the cyber world as the cyber world is not the same as the Street.
Click here to find out
I think the implication here is that "cyber crime" is a euphemism. For me, the descriptor doesn't negate anything about the crime. I would be more sympathetic to the argument if the term didn't contain 'crime', as in "cyber abuse" or something of the sort. Or if 'cyber' implied 'virtual', like some type of simulated crime.
I think the word "cyber" loosely translates to "mind" which would make cyber-crime = mindcrime. Geoff Tate's lyrics have a whole new meaning to me now!
If you can't point to a physical object (like cash) that was physically taken, then nobody has any right complaining. There is no "crime" because crime exists only in a physical space.
Right?
I keep hearing that justification. Someone is foolish and loses control of their bank account password. Someone else comes along and makes use of this information. The bank, having no idea who is defrauding whom, assumes their customer must be trying to pull a fast one and just tells them that it is too bad, they lost.
Because of course the alternative is that I will just run down to my bank and tell them someone broke into my account and stole that $10,000 that seems to be missing. Who knows? Maybe they will replace it. Unlikely, from where I am sitting but who knows?
Anyway, the idea that you can lose something important in a non-physical space really hasn't sunk in to everyone yet. Or even most people on the planet. So why is it a crime to steal money from someone on the street but not when you steal money from them online? Part of the problem is that the victim has to be complicit in the act of losing their money online in most cases. That immediately wipes out most law enforcement respect. It is like a naked woman being raped in a bar. If she is still naked when the cops arrive the chances of anyone being charged with rape is about zero.
As far as non-money crimes actually being crimes isn't this the site where unauthorized copyright infringement is routinely treated as a non-problem? Why do you think anyone else is going to respect your problems online? This is again a basic disconnect that a lot of people (the majority today) have with things that happen online vs. physical space.
It usually is civil. Contracts are rules that the parties to the contract have made up and agreed to be bound by. That means it's up to those parties to take them to court. The police generally have no duty nor authority to act in civil matters.
The police primarily exist to enforce criminal laws. If you like you can consider criminal laws to be rules that you and all of society are bound by. If you're in breach, society takes you to court - they just have a special department to handle it, called the police. The police have special powers but on the other hand there is (supposedly at least) an inherent assumption that you are innocent and must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, unlike in civil cases where there is no assumption and verdict is on the balance.
Fraud can be complex in that it can be one or both of civil and criminal. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that fraud which is fundamentally theft is criminal while fraud that is more like cheating on a contract is civil. Additionally there may be duties for the police that is related to a civil matter, but this will be some incidental activity where there is actual or potential crime, and the police will only be interested in that incidental activity.
In the 1970s a court case in California during an evidence hearing had an interesting discussion. The evidence of an intellectual property case was bounced as the evidence was all digital in nature. How can you have a theft when you still possess the original? Several avenues were considered and the result were the first computer laws detailing crimes that happened on computers versus normal property thefts. Much abridged version, but this is basically a United States issue that isn't necessarily found in other countries as their property rights are considered differently. Though, the United States has managed to export many of the concerns along with the Internet. Much of this is detailed by Thomas Whiteside in a book called "Computer Capers" circa 1978,
--- Location Unknown
These arguments against separating internet crimes are rife with logical fallacies, so many that I don't have the energy to get into it all.
Let me remind everybody that the whole idea of persecuting someone for crimes using computer data as evidence is a relatively new development.
New, mostly because computers haven't been around forever, even if they've been around *your* whole lifetime.
New, as well, because people forget that laws shouldn't be molded because it'd be aW3s0m3 to have them read or act a certain way, they should be molded to make the most common sense and protect the most rights while not sacrificing any other rights in the process.
Let me give you an example, which I love to bring up again, and again, and again, because it's SO perfect, of just what happens when people get carried away thinking their nerdish, little virual realities should bear more weight in big, real, grown-ups world. In the much-hated Martha Stewart's famous trial that every middle-to-lower income person in the country was bloodthirsty for, computer evidence was used to find her guilty. Computer evidence, mind you, that didn't exist, though there was a handy excuse: the testimony of one of Stewart's computer workers explained that there was at one time incriminating evidence on the computer (some memos or something) that Martha ordered him to delete, and that she then ordered him to delete the logs of his evil, dishonest, nerdly work so nobody would know he'd done what he'd done. Then, presumably, he deleted the logs of those deletions, as well, and so on. Point is, the testimony stood. The nonexistent logs and memos and everything actually were admitted as evidence to the jury. So was the testimony of the investigator who filed the original charges, even though he later was found guilty of perjury for said testimony.
The point is, nobody in America should be tried on any digital evidence, whatsoever. Everybody who knows enough about technology knows this. Despite what you and your friends might tell each other, every day fewer and fewer people know jack shit about technology and what it's capable of. Usually at this point everybody is thinking: "child porn". Whether that's because you laugh every day at Pedo Bear and other joke sites that put the subject lightly, or because you're really concerned about it, only the internet knows. But just recently it was shown that all you have to do is claim that somebody else put your porn on your computer and get them in trouble, instead. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/08/06/150216
The point is that it's a very, very, very, very slippery slope, indeed (and this isn't your classic slippery slope argument) when you start mucking around with using computer data as evidence. The last thing you want to do is give it MORE presumable tangibility in court. It's perfectly FINE that computer crimes are in a separate class, that way you can ensure that the evidence is treated as categorically weaker than the typical evidence, supporting lesser verdicts.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I feel the same way about Cyber Bullying. It's just bullying, nothing cyber about it (except for the fact of the person being bullied can just turn off the computer).
Normally I only read the posts, but this one so compelling I had to. Not only stop calling it 'Cyber' crime, but how about all these companies racking in the billions like the evil empire I left after WAY to many years of nearly getting fired for telling them how I thought they were either wrong of missing the target (yep Microsoft) - I take a 24 month moratorium on feature development for all applications and place their focus strictly on security and making the operating systems and applications, browsers and especially network stacks less prone to attacks or at least a damn sight harder to attack.
Either way, kudos on all your posts, I have never posted as I have nowhere near the talent or knowledge most of you (most I say) have...but hell every virgin has to lose their cherry someday...
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows
The internet is global and omnipresent, penal laws are not. We're still in the wild west.
Since the primary purpose of the internet is porn or seeking hookups via facebook, it would be logical to consider all cyber crime as sex crime.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The 'C' stands for commercial in coalition against unsolicited commercial email. But thanks for the link love. Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org/ http://twitter.com/cauce
Why, sir, I've doppled many floobs in my day. Just what is your post meant to imply???
Dyspeptically yours,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
It is less easy to see a difference between murdering someone say to steal their money and murdering someone because they are homosexual.
Is there? Both cases the person is dead...Does someone who just killed a person for $5 in pocket change deserve to get less punishment, just because his motivations were different?
In any event, the whole manslaughter/murder 1st/2nd/3rd provides more than enough granularity for sentencing purposes.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
In Canada, fraud is fraud. It just depends on what type. However, considering electronic fraud is the most common these days and all of the police services across the country. Even the RCMP won't touch a case unless it involves at least $100,000. However some provincial police services will like the but provincial police aren't uniform. And getting politicians to give police more money to hire more officers, to do the job is hard. Most governments are simply freezing police.
It's worse in the US where you guys are actually laying off police. Sorry but a officer to person ratio of 700-2500:1 isn't good.
Om, nomnomnom...
Yes, in the sense that a serial killer is more dangerous than a one time killer. The motivation does not make that person more dangerous to society as a whole. In fact, such a killer is theoretically no more dangerous than a serial killer since serial killers usually target only 1 type of victim repeatedly.
Until someone invents a punishment worse than life imprisonment or execution, there is no better motivation than just throwing the book at them.
Hate crime laws were chickenshit from the git go on that one. Just throw the damn book at the bigot and give him a hanging instead of a lethal injection.
Are you suggesting that what we call things doesn't change how we feel about them? The article is suggesting that including the term "cyber" makes it sound less serious to people, and that in order to properly address it we need to simply refer to it as crime.
Also, your examples are not very good, IMO, as they're descriptions of specific crimes, not a description of an entire class of crime (which is increasingly becoming blurred in with regular crime as more and more of our lives are online). The distinction they make is important to describe what happened. It isn't as important that you make the distinction between extortion or theft made over the internet/on computers vs. not.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Kill for reason of skin color or religion and it's random-- anyone in that group is a possible next target. Due to this, the killer is more dangerous to the general population than a normal killer.
This is why I believe it should be referred to as "domestic terrorism". This would have several positive effects. First it would be more accurate, and second, people would understand how it differs from a standard crime. If 3000 people were killed in NYC on 9/11 for 3000 independent individual reasons, that is not nearly as big a crime which aims to terrorize the entire nation. This would also help people to understand the purpose of the distinction. If the people who killed Mathew Shephard killed him because they hate gays, and Mathew made a pass at them, or made fun of them. That is a crime against Mathew. If they selected him at random from a population of gays to send a message to all gays that being gay openly will get you killed, that is terrorism, and should be treated accordingly. In both cases they hate Mathew because he is gay. Only in the later case to they commit a crime against an entire group in addition to the individual crime.
I think the real issue is, differentiating what is a REAL crime that needs piority over PETTY crimes.
It always annoys me when the news or people carry on about some person posting some insult on someones facebook or even sends some nasty text to someone and it gets all this blown out as 'cyber bullying' crap. Well, this is just because kids (young people) having access to an unsupervised world at which they yet can handle, even in the real world, they need to be told who/where they can/can't hang out with, where/when by parents.
A real crime is someone physically getting murdered/bashed/robbed/raped. Then other fraud crimes are next, so my biggest worry is when they use the word 'cyber crime' they love to pretend that non commercial copyright crap is somehow at the same level as fraud and things... I mean, if a person copys an old MP3 to a friend, its not a proper crime, it does not even justify the word crime. So this is where the big problem exists. While all these record/movie companies like to carry on with their fancy lawyers, its still a trivial crime, just like photocopying sheet music.
But anyway, that's why people don't care at all when they hear about a 'cyber crime' because no one is properly hurt as a human! (cyber bullying is a copout, just f**ing log out or unfriend someone and btw are you under 18 yes I bet) With internet fraud, banks always refund stolen money and even now if you have any decent amount of money in your account, that is not accessible online or there are limits etc.
So lets keep it separate, but only use the word "cyber crime" for true "online crimes".
To err is human. To really screw up, you need a computer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment_by_computer
All I could think when reading that is that she watched it in a porn movie theater and someone had been in the seat before her and messily took care of their daily business and didn't clean up after themselves... eww eww eww eww eww eww eww eww. I think I gave myself the willies, no pun intended.
The article is right. As a reporter a few years ago, I did a story about local school districts and how they were adapting to text messaging, camera phones, etc.
In a nutshell, the old rule was "Don't cheat."
The new rule: "Also, don't cheat using technology."
While it's true that some of the real-world laws don't fit well, what is more important is that far too many people's minds just shut down when they think of stuff done in the "virtual world".
Part of the problem has been the hype about the virtual world.
But part of it is simply not being able to find someone able (and willing) to explain what is going on in the "cyber" realm, so that the existing laws can be properly applied.
We need more people willing to show how the "cyber" world and the "real" world are connected, for instance, how electronic or digital documents compare with paper documents, how wireless fraud on the internet compares to wireless fraud prior to the internet, etc. And we need more of that more than we need more laws.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Different words for different things is quite important. I will always draw lines between certain things -- and various types of crimes form big huge thick lines.
For example, yes stealing money is a crime. It's a very different crime than killing someone. I have no problem saying that monetary theft is no where near as bad as murder. And I have no problem saying that rape isn't as bad as murder but is way worse than monetary theft. The difference is quite clear -- bodily harm.
Similarly, cyber crimes go the same route. Ruining someone's web-site, or breaking into e-mail, or boat-loads of spam are all bad. But they aren't anything compared to their follow-up crimes of slander, identity theft, and bank fraud. I'd never suggest treating the first step like the second -- no way. Doing so is how we get stupid three-strikes and no-tolerance carp.
Driving under the influence is a prime example. It used to be 0.08%, now it's 0.05%. It used to be with a drivers' licence, now it's with a licence and an age restriction. This is all carp. Driving drunk is not bad. Driving dangerously is. A almost always causes B. But B is the bad crime, A didn't hurt anyone.
The funny thing is that we already had laws for bod driving -- reckless driving, public endangerment, and a thousand other things that let a police officer pull you over, and stop you from driving.
So why will I get stopped for 0.06% when I'm driving well? At 200lbs, male, intelligent, small sports car (well-tuned), convertible (visibility), yellow (other visibility), on a dry, clear, country-road, low-traffic day, with 0.06%, compared to a blizzard, minivan, old minivan, bald tires, 105lbs, female, with 5 screaming children in the back, at night, in traffic, city highway, tired, stressed, sober.
It's still a stupid decision to drive drunk. But it's a risk like any other -- just a dumb one to take. But taking that risk doesn't harm anyone but my sense of dignity. . .until I hit someone. Then, by all means, blame me for making the wrong decision to drive drunk. But who blames tho soccer-mom for taking the huge risk that she takes, without the alcohol? Only me.
Please remember that distinctions are the entire purpose of words. Saying that driving drunk and not hurting anyone is just as bad as driving drunk and hitting someone is just plain ignorant. It's ignoring the very fabric of cause-and-effect by presuming that every cause produces a specific effect every time. That'd be idiotic -- although science would love that, particularly psychology.
From TFS: "call for new laws to regulate sidewalks."
Well, there are regulations govening behavior on sidewalks. And the history is to attempt to regulate crime. Its called Loitering
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
They'll often blow off violent crimes also, if the victim isn't pressing charges because they're dead. They may rule it an accident or suicide without doing even a superficially adequate investigation, and even if there are known pieces that don't fit. It's less trouble that way.
gangs/drugs... all cause more harm than any hate crime, but do those scum get extra jail time? Nope
Crime?
No.
This is SPARTA!
Although I loath spam and the frauds that take place on the net I think I would prefer them to law enforcement getting involved.
Of all things I have been the subject of three serious investigations in the last ten years. Two of them were for major crimes. Ultimately I was never arrested for anything as I was cleared of all suspicions rather quickly. I simply live in a place where one can easily attract attention simply by not marching in step with everyone in the area. Although I don't want crime or criminals around me law enforcement really can be a hazard to normal people. I guess how much law enforcement one might desire is related to where one lives.
Gun Crime is a term employed by those engaged in Liberty Crime.
Seriously, I don't care if you assaulted someone with your fingernail clippings, fists, a knife, a gun, or a spork. What I care about is, did you start it, or were you defending? If you started it, was it intentional or accidental? Was it, perhaps, consensual (for instance, pulling the plug on old uncle Ed, who formally asked you to do it?) And finally, how much harm was done? Not what it was done with. Were people injured consequent to consensual agreement (boxing within the rules, etc.)? Was property harmed or transferred without consensual agreement? If so, what is the value here?
If Joe nicks you with a bullet from a .30 cal machine gun, that's a lot less serious (basically, it isn't serious) than if he rips your eye out with his fingers. If Joe opens a half-inch gash in the top two layers of your skin with a centuries-old Katana (arguably one of the deadliest hand weapons ever made), that's a lot less serious than if he breaks your jaw with an open-handed slap. It's just common sense: And that, of course, is why the law doesn't look at it that way, because the people who make, enforce, and adjudicate the law are fucking idiots. All this "OMFG, gun!" "OMFG, knife!", "OMFG, martial artist" nonsense is just the purest kind of demonstration of an inability to reason much better than a three year old.
Where's the harm? What is its degree? I want to know if it was consensual. I want to know if the party or parties were informed. I want to know if they could be informed (because as anyone capable of critical thinking knows, the line in the sand about age is one stupid, broken-ass way to determine competence -- it is absolutely guaranteed to do huge damage to people on either side of it, because its relation to actual competence is vague and highly uncorrelated to specific cases. Some 15-year olds are perfectly competent; some 30-year olds are not. The only way to know if they are competent is to test them for it, just as you would for a driver's license. An "I am competent" license would go a long way towards ameliorating a lot of the stupid moral cul-de-sacs our society has driven itself into WRT age, dating, trust funds, soldiering, voting, drinking, drugging, sentencing, etc.)
The only thing I can think of that is more broken than most criminals is the court system: legislators, laws, lawyers, and judges. A complete fail, from end to end.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Cyber-Crime IS called crime. It's right there in the name: "cyber-CRIME"! "Cyber" is used as a modifier, like "Street-Crime" or "White Collar Crime".
Yeah, but she'd have had to be doing the exact same thing for it to work, so, yeah.
Gross.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
If I use robots in a burglary, I'm good then? The crime polarity cancels?
Would you feel deprived of property when you boss won't pay you at the end of the month? Is is theft? I don't know. but it certainly would be a crime.
This is actually quite timely for me as I am currently studying Cyber Ethics at uni. While I admit, I have only just begun to read into this area and haven't read TFA, the textbook that I am reading starts by asking the question 'Why Cyber Ethics and not just Ethics'. I believe the answer to this would also apply in the case of this post.
“A typical problem in Computer Ethics arises because there is a policy vacuum about how computer technology should be used. Computers provide us with new capabilities and these in turn give us new choices for action. Often, either no policies for conduct in these situations exist or existing policies seem inadequate.” (MOOR, James, 1985)
Moor suggests that “Computers are logically malleable in that they can be shaped and molded to do any activity that can be characterized in terms of inputs, outputs and connecting logical operations. Because logic applies everywhere, the potential applications of computer technology appear limitless. The computer is the nearest thing we have to a universal tool. Indeed, the limits of computers are largely the limits of our own creativity.”
MOOR, James. 1985. What is Computer Ethics?, p.266.
I have accounts both in the US and outside. Outside the US, security tokens are pretty normal. Security at US banks is far, far worse. I especially like the banks that make you feel secure by asking you a security question. From a list they define and you cannot. For example: your wedding anniversary, or the year your mother was born. Oh, I feel so much more secure, I mean, nobody else could ever figure out that information.
Another example: in the US it seems to be pretty normal to call up a company and authorize them to deduct money from your bank account. How do they know who is on the phone? The first time a company offered to do this, I almost fell of my chair: "you want to do what? You can *do* that?!?!" Unbelievable... I asked at the bank, and there is not even any way to prohibit this!
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
That wouldn't help the fascists censor the Internet...so it won't happen.
Of course not. "Property", "violent", "organized", &c are not prefixes. With "cyber-", you get
cyber-property crime, property cyber-crime, cyber-violent crime, cyber-violent cyber-crime, cyber-organized cyber-crime, and cyber-gun crime. If I steal your identity by tapping your landline, does it become phone-crime, or is it still theft, slander, or whatever crime I cyber-commit with your identity?
The problem I have with internet crimes of the bullying/hate persuasion is that they can be walked away from unlike similar crimes IRL.
Sometimes it pays to be specific... Wouldn't you love it if we all lumped linux/windows/macos under OS, because really they are OS's after all, aren't they? By your logic, that's what we should be calling them.
Do we just call it s-x now?
Nobody likes being a Victim or criminalized by the government. I wouldn't say doing these things are completely moral however, those people who do those things also need to live with the federal reserve system of the government and use those notes of the federal reserve system to have their needs, this system of the federal reserve has people homeless camping by the river and people need to die/be corrected in order for this federal reserve system to work out for the government, huge power card and also for them to criminalize people after they know that people are using the federal reserve notes and dying, camping by the river but that fee they charge you to live (tax) makes it ok(the one that has them campipng by river) to 'charge' you for all kinds of other stuff, if they are indeed getting paid by this fee you have to pay them to have your needs(if using those notes of the federal reserve for your needs) 'you can't do it without them, and u have to die , camp by the river. so what' the people keeping the fed reserve alive from your local police to senate to treasurer dont care, they knew before they became in the positions nobody can do anything about needing the notes , their notes(if labeled right here federal resrve note) sure the people are able to make it but , they dont join a power trip because that power trip allows them and gives them some reason to do things to people, people are just trying to live they didnt ask for a fee to live or to even have to use the notes which we pay the fee with (if use the notes and pay the tax - fulfilling negotiatian we have with the reserve system/gov), we got something for ya people though if you think about god . you do judge others based on yourself so if you already think god - and know what it means , you're putting yourself in gods shoes and there isn't a person like god so you already know soethign with huge respect naturally and bigger than king kong exists. he sends them to hell, has been . tehy come to god when the die/go. you thought 'to be a god i would .' and thats already in your world... you knowing what god is..
Get the media and the media industry to stop referring to copyright infringement as "Pirating" and "Thieves"...
I mean if you want to start being correct about terminology and stop using inflammatory biased language that might be a good start...Oh right, the media. nm.
so what about crimes of passion, like a man killing his wife for cheating on him? SHE IS THE GOAL in that scenario as well, so should it be construed as hate crime?
Hate crime would be if a man killed some other man's wife for cheating on her husband. "Hate" in "hate crime" means hate against a class, not hate against particular instance of it.
for the same reason why have serial killers noted as such in law: if someone is going to kill someone because they're black, until all black people are dead, this person will continue to kill.
Mind you, it's nice to see you take your online persona so literally.
why in recent discovery i find that they all have to be psychopathic is because, they are all aware of the federal reserve system
and that theyre even being paid by the fee or tax we as people owe to the federal reserve system/government for our needs since are using
their federal reserve notes for our needs, being a aware they are aware of what it causes , as far as homeless, physically starving, you could get
robbed, stolen from(keep in mind i say could cause it doesnt matter, the fed reserve system still has to work for the government and ur the cost) they know things like people need to be corrected
by them for not paying this fee to live(tax) (if using fed reserve notes) and something that already has them starving than will 'charge' you with all types of other stuff
(besides the charging just to live and have your needs via federal rserve system) they know all this and will tell you so what basically by joining, they know somebody
would replace, you cant do anything about them or needing their notes, get with the program. this clearly indicates a foreign power role created that they had no
problems becoming a part of , they dont even have to address any of it (why theyre able if paid by this fee/tax) or why they need it to work out so bad that our
people need to die(the federal reserve system) they know it gives the some power people can't do anything about or won't win with and don't have to even go there
it gives them that power. huge closet, or 'secret double life'. nobody likes the stealing crap we knowing that we cant do anything about the notes , we try to atleast not be hurt so bad like things like these(stealing) is why i totally understand
Prevention.
If you drive and we do you for murder, the person who died isn't coming back to life.
If you're stopped and taken out of your car for drunk driving BEFORE you kill someone, then that person doesn't die.
Simple. Hate is not a crime! Nor should it be, you can't stop hate by law anymore than you can drugs, sex, or any other human traits. skin color, or whatever.
The only thing required is to have HATE be a suitable motive for a crime (which is was already.) Codifying everything is part of the problem in the legal system today - let the judges JUDGE the sentences so that self-defense people may get less or different consequences than some hate motivated person. Trying to program the system (and using lawyers to do it) to undermine and eliminate judges towards the a day when its so complex computers are 'interpreting' the law is too rigid and complex and foolish.
Furthermore, by making laws discriminating against hate crimes you are effectively are creating a THOUGHT crime because in addition to the other charges an additional penalty is being applied for THINKING ('thought' in the most generalized way) an unpopular way. It sounds all well and good for politicians to pick on unpopular minorities (like smokers or races) but it is not fair and while you may not care about them your sense of fair play should deter you. Problem is most people fall for it and so repeats of the past will still happen.
The impact of the motive on the crime should be left outside the system for the judge's discretion; as it always has been. Sure, human bias is involved but there is some appeal possible to help balance this and it is better than having a ridged machine-like policy where 1 size fits all.
Another big FLAW in this hate crime reasoning is the idea that punishment deters crime. It does not do anything to deter many kinds of crime; again its not so simple that "1 size fits all" but then oversimplification works well for marketing politicians. You are not likely going to make any dent in "hate crimes" by punishing them - any deterrent is likely already there for the existing crime and the hate motive tends to cut down on the thinking.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It's worse in the US where you guys are actually laying off police. Sorry but a officer to person ratio of 700-2500:1 isn't good.
Are you sure? Perhaps the world isn't as dangerous and scary as we have been told. Cop:person ratio isn't as useful as perhaps a cop:crime and a person:crime ratio.
What do we need with more police anyway? How many are really just revenue collections officers?
I'm not saying that
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I think the cyber- prefix is an artifact our transitional age (no global network -> pervasive global network). Kids born today will probably not distinguish between "cyber" parts of their world and real parts as concretely as we do. If they hear "cyber" in conversation, they will dismiss the speaker as being part of their parents' generation. People born after the mid-70s tend think of the word "groovy" (language not-withstanding) the same way in my experience.
Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
You don't need terrorism laws anymore than cyber crime. A few special case things but otherwise its the same stuff applies with no need for special junk added on to make somebody sound tough on crime... Mayors want most stats down while police and prosecutors want stats up they each twist them and screw up the system to those ends whether they like to or not in order to keep their jobs.
No, we don't need to call it terrorism. It is STILL a crime the fact it scares some people is beside the point. Terrorizing people is done more by the media than the criminals in the USA anyhow; although, they do amplify conventional terrorism many times more powerful than it is -making them the biggest terror makers of all.
Jailing a murderer who people dislike boosts morale - its the ones who get away that also get noticed that are the problem. What needs to be done special with such crimes is EXTRA EFFORT to make sure everybody sees him/them caught. Some platitudes about crime prevention also help unless they turn into laws... (you don't prevent crime most the time with those but the mob likes to hear it...)
Racists were deterred as they were made accountable publicly -- extra punishment didn't do it, it was just getting them punished JUSTLY that made a big difference. But now we have "tough hate crimes" when the bigger problems were many decades ago.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The motive does not matter; you only need to have one and it need not be the actual motive either.
Killing a geek because you hate them is still MURDER 1. Why does not matter; any motive will be fine (in addition to the evidence.) A serial killer is crazy and possibly may not actually hate (or hate in a normal sense) their victims - but they are a BIG threat and we don't seem to do special things for them - but then when they are finally caught they've usually screwed themselves so bad they have a chain of murder convictions.
Now WHY should a hate murderer get punished more than another murderer? If somebody rapes and murders your mother why should they get LESS time simply because of the color of her skin is the same as the killers??
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If I beat you with a baseball bat, the victim is one person: you.
However, if I beat you with a baseball bat because you're a white evangelical from rural Kentucky, then my intended victim is not you, it's all white evangelicals from rural Kentucky. Hate crimes are acts of terrorism designed to "send a message" to all members of the target group. The one who directly receives the violence is merely the message-bearer.
Do this kind of thing enough, and you can cause quite a bit of harm by keeping an entire population near-paralyzed with fear, such as African-Americans during the height of KKK cross-burnings (and other acts of vandalism, and murder, and rape).
Hate crimes are given larger punishments because the scope of the harm caused is so much greater.
One has to wonder, however, why exactly you are so offended at the notion that hate crimes receive heavier punishments. There are a few obvious explanations, and none of them are particularly flattering to you.