Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why 'Cyber Crime' Should Just Be Called 'Crime'

Posted by Soulskill on from the prefixes-that-have-worn-out-their-welcome dept.

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.'"

19 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. As soon as they ... by Intron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:As soon as they ... by RapmasterT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and while we're at it can we get rid of the "hate" category of crime too? Personally I'm not much interested in someone's motivations for committing a crime, only the results and their actual actions. I'll even compromise and agree to ratchet the levels of punishment UP to the "hate crime" level for everything.

    2. Re:As soon as they ... by selven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Personally I'm not much interested in someone's motivations for committing a crime

      So you don't care if someone's motivation for killing is self-defense?

      I don't support hate crimes either, but intent is, and should be, very important in determining the punishment for an action.

    3. Re:As soon as they ... by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Liberal as I am, Hate Crime still makes me uneasy too. So does convicting someone of conspiring to commit a crime that never actually took place.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    4. Re:As soon as they ... by spleen_blender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're also ignoring the fact that hate crime has the intent of causing a chilling effect throughout a community IN ADDITION TO the direct harm caused to their target. It objectively causes more harm than normal non "hate" crime.

      You're a fucking brainiac.

    5. Re:As soon as they ... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. i'm a little uneasy charging someone for what amounts to a thought crime, but if you smash a synagogue's window in, vandalize the place, and spray paint swastikas all over the place or you kill a transvestite and carve "FAG" into their chest, it's *very* clear, then let's call it what it is, terrorism.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:As soon as they ... by formfeed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      can we get rid of the "hate" category of crime too?

      If a crime is not directed at only the actual victim but against a larger group of people, that intention -be it hate or the intention to intimidate- should be taken into account.

      I might not agree with how the label "hate crime" is used all the time, but it acts as a form of terrorism against minorities and should be treated as such.

    7. Re:As soon as they ... by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The idea behind hate crime is that its twofold.

      1)Kill your wife/parents/lover and there's a personal reason for killing that specific person. 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.

      2)There was a time when white men who killed black men in the south were almost always let off, due to the prejudice of the juries. This allowed the whites to be held accountable in federal court for federal crimes, and circumvented a corrupt localized system of justice. Obviously not a good long term solution for this, but it was a necessary short term one.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    8. Re:As soon as they ... by stevie.f · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem is, here (England) a hate crime is only when the race, religion, sexual orientation or disibility of the victim is a motivating factor.

      This makes me uncomfortable, because it makes attacking someone outside of a mosque because you have a problem with their religion somehow worse than attacking someone outside a sci-fi convention because you have a problem with geeks.

      In my mind this legitimises some kinds of hate. I'd be much happier if the whole hate crime thing was done away with, at least until someone figures out how to word it so that it's fairer and doesn't elevate only certain groups to having special 'victim' status'.

  2. Why 'Cyber Crime' Should Just Be Called 'Crime' by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because we're all fed up with the cyber-whatever headlines.

  3. Naive by loteck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Call it what you want. It won't matter. by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Car analogy by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  6. Cyber by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cyber sex is sex! You can really get pregnant, not just cyber pregnant.

    Be sure to use a condom!

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  7. Also Naive by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  8. In English, "x is foo crime" => "x is crime" by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    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.

  9. Re:Call it what you want. It won't matter. by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Phishing / spam is a terrible example by dave562 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Don't add complexity by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!