Slashdot Mirror


Bank Heists - Another Profession That Technology Is Killing Off

HughPickens.com writes: In 1992 there were 847 bank robberies in the UK; by 2011 that had dropped to just 66. Now Lawrence Dobbs writes in the Telegraph about how technology is killing off this age old profession. "The development of more sophisticated alarm systems and CCTV, as well as supporting forensic developments such as DNA analysis and facial recognition software, all serve to assist police," says Jim Dickie, a former detective who spent more than 30 years with the Metropolitan Police. Those who do try are either feckless opportunists or "serial offenders" who have already served time and are easily found on police databases. "Hands-on heists are a dying art, because those who have a background in it are literally dying off."

In 2015 a gang of aging jewel thieves pulled off one last spectacular job. Using a diamond-tipped drill and a 10-ton hydraulic ram, they broke into the Hatton Garden Safe Deposit Ltd vault and made off with at least £14million in precious stones, gems, bullion and jewelry in the largest burglary in English history. But the Hatton Garden burglars were caught because they used one of their own cars within view of a security camera. According to David Kelly, it's CCTV which has changed things most. "It's now virtually impossible to travel through any public space in a major metropolitan area without being captured. They're everywhere, the image quality is better, and the ability to store images for longer has increased." Then there are your physical alarm devices: motion sensors, window monitors which detect glass shattering, or devices which trigger when a door is opened. "These devices can now be deployed wirelessly – in an older building, where you might not have wires in place," says Kelly. "There are also tools at the disposal of the private sector, in cooperation with the public sector, which are perhaps not matters of common knowledge, and there's a tactical advantage to our clients in them remaining that way." Add to this the various technologies used to protect or track the loot itself – dye packs hiding inside stacks of banknotes, which explode when they leave a certain range; GPS tracking on security vans and inside cash containers – and you can see why even a hardened criminal might prefer to stay in bed.

131 comments

  1. Modernization by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Classic, physical bank heists may be dying out, but people are still robbing banks - they're just doing it online now instead. Why go physically, when you can steal millions from the other side of the world, where as long as you keep current to the bribes to your local crooked cops in the Former East Nowhere SSR, you don't even have to worry about getting caught. At least, not until you take a trip somewhere...

    1. Re:Modernization by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What you mean is, bank robbery has been outsourced.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:Modernization by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bank heists are for amateurs.
      OWNING a bank is how you steal the big bucks.

    3. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a world where physical bank heists are rare, a PHB will cut back funding for the strong vault, motion sensors, glass break sensors, etc. They can save their chain with thousands of branches millions of dollars in this way. Why pay for all those security measures from non-existent threats?

      Of course, once those security measures are compromised we will see an uptick in physical bank robberies again.

    4. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is just a change of how criminals work. It used to be in the 1900s that there was a direct war with safe makers and safe crackers. Burglar alarms pretty much put a stop to that. Now, with cameras and GPS sensors being so small and cheap, it doesn't take much to have protection good enough to make it not worth a physical heist for almost anything.

      Of course, crime hasn't stopped. It has moved to malvertising and ransomware, and what we are seeing now is barely scratching the surface of what the bad guys can do, especially with IoT makers giving the middle finger to virtually any reasonable security precuations, and the demand for backdoors. So, the physical analogy would be a safe that has a vulnerability somewhere on it by law, and all the bad guys have to do is buy a similar model, take it apart, then use the knowledge gleaned to go after those in other places.

      Take ransomware. We are just seeing it hit infancy, with actual public key security (where it generates a keypair, sends the private key to a C&C center, deletes the local copy of the private key, then uses the public key part to encrypt all files.) This barely scratches the surface of what this software can do:

      1: Most Windows admins run 24/7 with domain admin rights. It would be trivial for malware to spread to every machine on an AD forest/tree/domain with the domain (or enterprise) admin contexts. Now, the software can change passwords, push out GPOs, and all kinds of stuff. Most companies, if they lost access to their AD forest, and the data on them, would be toast. Since AD is a "use it on your job, or you don't have a job" type of utility, coupled with the fact that it is extremely easy to use malvertising, it is only a matter of time before a big company gets nailed through an AD admin getting an exploit ad thrown at them.

      2: Malware can be modular. It wouldn't be difficult to use nmap and scout out a company's network topology, report it back to a C&C node, then download modules to attach each node... be it flashing compromised firmware to a router with an insecure default PW, logging onto a SAN's management host and encrypting LUNs, changing the password for tapes on a silo, changing encryption for cloud services, and being able to open outgoing tunnels so the attacker has free access inside.

      3: Malware hasn't been destructive. In fact, nobody even thinks about this aspect anymore, as it was lost after people actually started caring about viruses, back when MS-DOS viruses would zero BIOS, fry monitors, and other nasty stuff. It is trivial to have malware be destructive, and it doesn't take much to bring down an entire company... especially with the fact that most companies don't use offline media anymore. A simple dd or "rm -rf" can put a company out of business. Replciation? Most SANs will just replicate the transaction to zero the data and snapshots out. With how trivial it is to flash firmware, it is quite easy to brick many hardware devices, even CPUs.

      4: Malware used to be written by professionals. With the cross-pollination between groups that have the technology, but are not interested in "watching the world burn" versus groups that want to destroy anything they can, but don't have the access to 0-days, we are going to see groups like Daesh or Daesh supporters writing malware left and right, perhaps paying for 0 days. With the prevelance of malvertising coupled with the lack of interest by ad agencies about security, this is going to be a very nasty attack vector.

      5: IoT. A connected fridge is a computer. A 4G fleshlight is a computer. A NEST thermostat is a computer. All can be made to function for DDoS attacks, or as staging points for future attacks. Since IoT makers seem to be disinterested in any security, these devices will be a bastion and a gold mine for ransomware writers.

      tl;dr, physical safes may be not cracked often... but there is a wide open field for malware, and there is zero interest to do anything about it.

    5. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two stories down: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/01/22/048228/cyber-scammers-steal-50-million-from-austrian-airplane-manufacturer

      Dillinger wouldn't waste time with banks, cause that's not where the money is these days.

    6. Re:Modernization by Some+nick+or+other · · Score: 2

      Robbing a bank is so 2015. If you want to truly be the envy of high tech thieves, rob an exchange instead!

    7. Re:Modernization by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      They took our jobs! Dey turk err jurbs! Durker durr!

    8. Re:Modernization by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Of course, once those security measures are compromised we will see an uptick in physical bank robberies again.

      Thus ensuring the natural cycle of... wait, there's nothing natural about any of this.

    9. Re:Modernization by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a world where physical bank heists are rare, a PHB will cut back funding for the strong vault, motion sensors, glass break sensors, etc. They can save their chain with thousands of branches millions of dollars in this way. Why pay for all those security measures from non-existent threats?

      Of course, once those security measures are compromised we will see an uptick in physical bank robberies again.

      You're forgetting the one thing that would probably still stop them, which is the insurance company. They won't be inurable if they don't have that stuff, or the cost of the insurance that would cover them without those things will far-outstrip the savings for not having them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    10. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus ensuring the natural cycle of... wait, there's nothing natural about any of this.

      Taking what you want (or need) from someone who has some, instead of getting more yourself, is not only as old as humanity but can also be easily observed in the entire Natural Kingdom.
      So yes, it's completely natural.

    11. Re:Modernization by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Money isn't natural.

    12. Re:Modernization by MooseTick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Law enforcement will still try to justify their existence by "catching" people for a crime they didn't commit.I remember back in 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for just such an offense. Those men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.

    13. Re:Modernization by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is another reason why bank heists are down. The dollar value you get is pitiful. If you are extremely lucky you can get 20-30 thousand in cash from an American bank. Cash over 10,0000 grand is routinely(daily) transferred to more secure premises.

      Banks like people aren't carring cash on hand as a result of debit and credit cards. I used at most $200 in cash last year. Usually at fairs and festivals. Everything else goes on my Amex card that has fraud protection

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re:Modernization by ImprovOmega · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank.
      Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.

      -Unknown

    15. Re:Modernization by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why pay for all those security measures from non-existent threats?

      Because your insurance requires it.

      No bank really gives a shit about being robbed. They're fully insured for any damage done. The insurances, on the other hand, have a HUGE interest in the avoidance of bank heists.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Modernization by kramer2718 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These days bank heists are perpetrated by executives when they negotiate bonus packages.

    17. Re:Modernization by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I love it when a plan comes together.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    18. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      14 million pounds worth of loot?

      That's pretty heavy. How did they carry it all?

    19. Re:Modernization by slew · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement will still try to justify their existence by "catching" people for a crime they didn't commit.I remember back in 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for just such an offense. Those men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.

      You can only survive so long that way. After 5 years, they were eventually caught and court-marshaled for their crimes...
      They eventually pled guilty and were executed for those crimes...

      Or so we were led to believe... ;^)

      Apparently they managed to escape execution and have plastic surgery and personality implants and resurfaced in Mexico in 2010. Overkill is underrated...

      Yet rumor has it that one of more of them has had a sex reassignment operation.

      After a while you wonder if siome crime against humanity was actually committed. And by who? ;^)

    20. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great song by Willy Porter says the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG1d_gKvtpk

    21. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a matter of time before people send robots to steal physical assets.

    22. Re:Modernization by TWX · · Score: 2

      I've always found the nonviolent, walk-in, walk-up robberies interesting to read about. They don't try to clear-out the whole bank, they just clear-out the one teller and leave, no actual stated/printed threats, no scene. Depending on the circumstances they get a couple thousand dollars.

      That said, it's ultimately impractical. Some of the people that have discussed this after they were caught and served their time commented on how they had to be careful for everything from parking the car to confirming that there was no security guard there that day to mess it up. They had to visit other cities, but where their visits didn't leave any discernible pattern to tip-off where they actually were from. They had to use the element of surprise, and if they wanted to commit multiple robberies to put together real money they often had to rob several in one day before a suitable response could be made on the part of the police, and had to hope that they didn't slip-up anywhere. In the end they made at-most middle-income money, nothing to retire-on.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    23. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Cash over 10,0000 grand

      We from the east bank of Atlantic need a translation of that number.

    24. Re:Modernization by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No but greed and exchanges of a valuable asset are natural. Hell, check the penguins and their pebble stashes, they'll straight up rob each other for a pebble. So, maybe the name money isn't natural but greed sure as fuck is.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    25. Re:Modernization by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I often have large amounts of cash for a variety of reasons. I have to contact (well, they ask that I do) my credit union 72 hour (or so) in advance if I want to take out more than $20,000 in cash. They're used to it now, they even give me a suitcase like thing (no handcuff on it) and I bring it back when I'm done. I am stopped but I'm still sort of on wanderlust right now and I recently had a few folks from Slashdot over so I won't say how much or where I have it but I have a goodly stash of cash on me right this minute. It's okay though, I'm in Florida and I'm armed. ;-)

      No, seriously, I'm armed. I'd just give a robber the money, fuck shooting someone. But, I prefer to carry large sums of cash for a variety of reasons. So, that's the only real reason I know that the credit union, specifically, asks that I call ahead and let them know when I will be taking a lump sum out. They're okay with it but I guess they don't keep that much in the safe normally. I took a significant amount with me this time as I plan on picking up a couple of vehicles and having them shipped back to Maine. Cars get a whole lot cheaper when you can walk to your trunk and open it, open a safe, and pull cash out. You can usually expect to drop 10% just by doing that.

      So, yeah, I can confirm that my experience is that they ask me to call ahead. I also have to fill out a form which is pretty stupid. I don't think they ever do anything with the forms. I've written some pretty strange reasons on 'em and they've never said a word.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    26. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quoted in the series Mr. Robot.

    27. Re:Modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking bank robbers could just rob with remote control robberbots.

    28. Re:Modernization by mjwx · · Score: 1

      There is another reason why bank heists are down. The dollar value you get is pitiful. If you are extremely lucky you can get 20-30 thousand in cash from an American bank. Cash over 10,0000 grand is routinely(daily) transferred to more secure premises.

      Banks like people aren't carring cash on hand as a result of debit and credit cards. I used at most $200 in cash last year. Usually at fairs and festivals. Everything else goes on my Amex card that has fraud protection

      Ironically, your credit card is now more likely to result in stolen money than cash. Now a thief doesn't even need to stick a knife in your face to steal from you, they dont even need to handle your card these days as they can skim your card wirelessly.

      I know your response will be "but I have fraud protection"... I have to point out two things:
      1) Who is paying for it? Banks are profitable businesses, where is that money coming from?
      2) "The bank has my back" is one of the silliest and most naive statements I've ever heard.

      Ultimately it is you who is paying for it, via higher prices caused by merchant fees and a bank will only do what they are legally forced to do for you. If the government didn't force them to guarantee your security, they'd leave you high and dry with either money missing or worse, money owing.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Cars, how retro! by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 2

    But the Hatton Garden burglars were caught because they used one of their own cars within view of a security camera.

    At least they're keeping it old school. These days people steal things using hoverboards.

    1. Re:Cars, how retro! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the Hatton Garden burglars were caught because they used one of their own cars within view of a security camera.

      At least they're keeping it old school. These days people steal things using hoverboards.

      I want to smack whoever started calling those stupid things "hoverboards".

    2. Re:Cars, how retro! by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      I want to smack whoever decided we should put "smart" in front of everything because it has some software on it...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:Cars, how retro! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As idiotic as the trend may be, "Smart" is still a valuable indicator of which products not to buy.

    4. Re:Cars, how retro! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yes. Most software barely qualifies as "stupid".

    5. Re:Cars, how retro! by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      speaking of retro, back in 1970s listening to Santa Cruz police on a Bearcat III scanner (uses crystals) about robbers fled in a car with no plates but were easily found shortly after as police spot a car with no plates (I think they were pulled over before the 211 call went out). Couple hours later on I drove into Santa Cruz, police with the suspect vehicle was still there. Driving by I noticed one of the officers lifting a violin case out of the trunk (did they hide their gun in the case?)

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    6. Re:Cars, how retro! by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      on the other hand cars can be useful for stealing gold, not cash, by using three souped up Mini-Coopers. Hold the authorities at bay by screwing up traffic signals with a computer virus written by a nerdy computer person.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    7. Re:Cars, how retro! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the bandits had a sensitive, creative side you insensitive clod!

  3. Technology is killing jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am yearning for the older days where there's practically a job guaranteed for anyone, without these new fangled computers replacing an honest man. /j

    1. Re: Technology is killing jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I yearn for the day that technology finally replaces the oldest profession.

    2. Re: Technology is killing jobs by JazzLad · · Score: 2

      Technology will never replace fine woodworking.

      /Ducks!

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    3. Re: Technology is killing jobs by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

      The oldest profession does involve working a lot of wood...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re: Technology is killing jobs by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      touché :)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    5. Re:Technology is killing jobs by magarity · · Score: 1

      without these new fangled computers replacing an honest man. /j

      Except the article is about how computers are replacing dishonest men.

    6. Re: Technology is killing jobs by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If you ever make it up to Maine, I'll let you play in my wood shop. It's a hobby. I do cabinets and furniture for friends and family. I do a lot of it with hand tools and am probably a little to proud of my joinery. If you give me a coping saw, a sharp chisel, and a pencil or scribe I can make a dove tail joint faster than you can set up your router jig and do it that way. Butcher's Bowling Alley Wax is a beautiful finish and if you want a beautiful stain, make a paste with instant coffee and warm water and apply it with a cotton cloth. Sand, then wax, and then wax again. Then wax once a year for a few years and it will last a lifetime. ;-)

      One of the good things about getting lucky in life - I get to buy the best of toys. I don't have a lathe - I don't really know how to use one well enough to bother with it. I've a friend who turns just fine but I do think I'd like to make a willow lathe and try that out sometime.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re: Technology is killing jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop! The innuendo is burning my eyes!

  4. Only because theft via electronic means is easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it can be done from anywhere in the world.

  5. No money left to steal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks to so-called "free trade" with substandard nations and "trickle-down economics", over the past 25 years the wealth and savings of most Americans have been drained away. A lot of Americans never even had a chance to accumulate any wealth in the first place. They have no need for making bank deposits or withdrawals. They can't deposit any real cash; they don't have any! They're often unemployed, so there's no money coming in to begin with. They can't withdraw any real cash; they don't have any! They just put any purchases on their credit cards, which are likely never to be paid off.

    The purpose of bank branches today is not to store anything of value. There's nothing to store! Nobody makes any cash deposits, and nobody makes any cash withdrawals. The bank branches are merely there as an office for the paperwork of debt to be signed. It's where people enter into yet another credit card or mortgage agreement. Those are the main transactions performed on any given day at American bank branches.

    1. Re: No money left to steal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame low interest rates.

    2. Re: No money left to steal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame technology and Bush Govt policy. But even before Bush the legal adjustments were gradually being made to allow for this. Adjustments to policy which were originally added post 1929 and implemented back then to prevent another great depression from ever occurring again. These policies have been slowly and causally removed as the technology for doing business grew. So therefore so did the justification.

    3. Re:No money left to steal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that they're all conspiring to ELIMINATE CASH ENTIRELY.
      No cash means they can track each and every single thing you do.
      Toss in ID required for everything, surveillance cameras, etc.
      It's a perfect storm of population control and thievery from and enslavement of the population forever after.

      If you do not REVOLT against this now, you and your future offspring and humanity will suffer beneath their boot.
      In that regard, you have absolutely nothing to lose by throwing them out and literally shredding the lawbooks and starting over..... NOW.

    4. Re:No money left to steal. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that the powers that be want to eliminate cash but not only for the reasons you give. The government might want to eliminate cash to track your movements but that is not the end of it, why do they want to track you? Some businesses and most banks want to see cash go away, but again why? Tracking your movement is part of this, that way they can know more about your wants, needs, and habits so that they can sell you want you want before someone else does. The ultimate reason anyone would want to do away with cash is so that they can have a piece of it.

      Every time someone uses a credit card, debit card, EBT, Apple Pay, or whatever there is a middleman to move money from your pocket to the business you are buying products from. The business pays a fee for the privilege of having the ability to move that money electronically. Sometimes this is advantageous to the business, people may be more likely to buy if they don't see paper money leave their wallet for example. A business might like this because it lowers the risk of theft and/or the time it takes to balance their books. It may also be a cost that cuts into their profit margin.

      I believe we will never have a truly cashless society. Too many entities rely on small items of nontrivial value to survive. Charities love penny and dime drives, it gets large numbers of people to hand over small amounts of money that can add up quickly. There is also grey market and black market transactions. If cash goes away then something else will take it's place for these. I recall reading on how laundry detergent was used as a means to launder drug money. The drug dealers wouldn't take cash but they'd take laundry detergent. Gold and silver coins have been used for payment even before biblical times, and continues today.

      I like cash. It is rare to see anyone turn down cash as payment for anything. Ever since I started paying for things like fuel and groceries in cash I noticed the amount of junk mail I get reduced considerably. I refuse to get "club cards" at stores since I found out that they are used to just sell my name to all kinds of advertisers. I'm seeing more stores go towards a cash only policy. Credit card companies are becoming their own worst enemy with the fees they charge and the targeted advertising they do.

      While I agree with you generally on the perils of removing cash from society I do not share the level of concern you seem to have on the ability of anyone actually being successful in doing so.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  6. In post-financial-crisis world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banks rob you!

  7. They stay in bed and by houghi · · Score: 1

    They stay in bed and do these things instead.
    The fact that they do not rob banks anymore does not mean there is no theft anymore. Just that it is done differently now.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. What's A Criminal To Do? by JimSadler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Crime is no longer a lifestyle that one can choose to follow all through life. Now one had best be highly educated and born with a high IQ or take up honest work as you will be caught. But soon, detection of white collar crimes will become far more common as well as easy. Computers and software will make all the difference. It is becoming possible to look at bank accounts, charge cards, debit cards and money transfers, quickly and easily. A deep look at many people will show that they are spending more than they claim that they earn. Insurance fraud, tax fraud and other white collar crime will suddenly be revealed. A simple example is taking out insurance and claiming that you do not smoke or drink. Thanks to modern technology we might be able to discover exactly how much tobacco and alcohol you purchase in a years time. Gotcha!

    1. Re:What's A Criminal To Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to modern technology we might be able to discover exactly how much tobacco and alcohol you purchase in a years time.

      Then why bother asking? For a small price the insurance company could buy this data from an aggregator. In the US, privacy protections applicable to private entities (corporations) are very weak, and all you need is an EULA attached to you payment card to authroize this.

    2. Re:What's A Criminal To Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to modern technology we might be able to discover exactly how much tobacco and alcohol you purchase in a years time. Gotcha!

      Thank goodness I use person-person barter, trade and cash huh. The underground economy is alive and well.

    3. Re:What's A Criminal To Do? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      There is also the possibility that people can produce their own alcohol, tobacco, or whatever else they choose to consume medicinally or recreationally.

      The materials to produce a wine, beer, or liquor are nearly impossible to distinguish from common home baking items. Even if someone was to buy a home brew kit from a grocery store, using their credit card and discount club card, there is no means by which someone can track the amount produced. This is especially true if someone uses things like apples from their own tree, honey from their own bees, or whatever to produce their alcohol.

      I've noticed that there tends to be a large overlap on the people that view alcohol consumption as an evil we must do away with, and the people that believe we should invest in "green" energy. Here's something that I'd like this group of people to consider, alcohol prohibition set back bio fuel research by a century in my estimation. I also believe that until we get some sane policies on the taxation and subsidies of ethanol for fuel and recreation that we will never see bio fuels become common. Farmers were brewing their own ethanol for powering their tractors before Prohibition. Until people are free to do so again without fear of the "revenuers" putting them in prison we will continue to burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuels aren't cheap just because it's so plentiful, it's cheap because we have taxed all the competition into niche markets.

      I believe it is impossible to have both cheap ethanol fuel and somehow keep people from drinking it. Ethanol sold for fuel must be "denatured" with an additive to prevent people from drinking it. What is it denatured with? Gasoline. Remove that stupid law and we'd have green energy without the fossil fuels.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:What's A Criminal To Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a high IQ doesn't really make your life easier. Sure it's better than having a low IQ, but engineers and scientists aren't the people making the big bucks. You need good people skills and an affinity for subterfuge if you really want to be successful. There are plenty of brilliant unemployed mathematicians out there, meanwhile there are people in banking and government raking in millions while being completely incapable of understanding or creating any of the true sources of value in the country.

    5. Re:What's A Criminal To Do? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I have a PhD in Applied Mathematics, retired 8 years ago, and am well within the 1% because I was fortunate enough to ride the crest of the wave that became traffic modeling. I do have reasonably good soft-skills but I find the assumption that I've an affinity for subterfuge to be borderline retarded. I do have some skewed morals but they're definitely skewed in the direction of not harming others as I consider that deplorable. I dare say, by your metrics or anyone's metrics, I'm quite successful. I'm well within the 1% - even by American standards. Hell, I'm probably closer to .5% honestly. All because I was fortunate and at the right place at the right time and able to take a few risks. I even have a clean conscience.

      I don't know why people paint with such large brushes, they really do miss the finer details. Given your presence here, you're filthy rich compared to the vast majority of people on the planet. Depending on where you live and how you get to work, I may have saved you a half hour of travel - each and every day, maybe more. You're welcome. I'm not a monster.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  9. If it hadn't been for those meddling kids... by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Rather if it hadn't been for one of the robbers being particularly stupid and driven his own car in front of a camera its pretty likely they'd have got away with the Hatton Garden heist. They're plan was actually quite sophisticated and a lot of time and planning went into it. And it wasn't a 2 minute "hands up and give us the money" job - it took an entire weekend to drill through the wall!

    So I think its fair to say their technical skills were good but their HR skills were poor and they hired an idiot that brought the whole thing down.

    1. Re:If it hadn't been for those meddling kids... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they could have used these guys.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    2. Re:If it hadn't been for those meddling kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that when everything, everywhere is covered by cameras, you can simply follow them as they leave the heist, and then go pick them up wherever they happen to be now.

    3. Re: If it hadn't been for those meddling kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, you just gotta pull a Lupin and silently float away in a hot air balloon, well outside of the camera's FOV.

  10. Some criminals still prosper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are also tools at the disposal of the private sector, in cooperation with the public sector, which are perhaps not matters of common knowledge, and there's a tactical advantage to our clients in them remaining that way."

    It's good to see that some forms of crime are alive and well in contexts where they can't be picked up by CCTV.

  11. Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's now virtually impossible to travel through any public space in a major metropolitan area without being captured. They're everywhere, the image quality is better, and the ability to store images for longer has increased.

    I'm supposed to think this is a good thing?? I would rather double my insurance costs. People still think automated image recognition is a conspiracy theory. People freely give up every detail of their lives for the privilege of staying connected to their friends on social media. People pay hundreds of dollars for phones that track their location at every moment. What the actual fuck is wrong with 80% of society? I can't believe this massive divergence in values. Am I literally the only person left who cares about his privacy?

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I literally the only person left who cares about his privacy?
      No, you are just in a shrinking 20% of society

    2. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sane people never expected privacy in public. You cracked up, so now you think there's something wrong most other people, rather than admitting that you're the problem.

    3. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one; slashdot is disproportionately high in this regard in comparison to the rest of society, so you're in relatively good company. Having said that, tracking is much easier for people to agree to if they get something out of it, something that wasn't possible in the past. I've found that attitudes toward malware and attitudes toward tracking are strangely similar - users don't call until their computer is ridiculously slow, but if the malware spent only 25% of the CPU time mining bitcoins, the users would never call. So too it is with tracking - it's much more difficult to get people to care when there's no perceived imposition on what they're looking to do, and let's face it - there's something to be said about being able to exchange "being tracked" for "avoiding massive amounts of traffic" or "finding a restaurant that's actually open at 11:00PM when I'm in a completely different part of the country where everything closes at 8".

      Ultimately, the single biggest problem is the fact that, with everyone feeling constantly busy, starting a crusade based solely on principle is one that is a tough sell. My glimmer of hope is that there is a point at which people will, in fact, fight back. Near me, the school zone cameras were set to give tickets at 21mph, any time, day or night. While there *might* have been better acceptance of those cameras if they were kept to egregious levels (e.g. >30mph in a 15) rather than requiring NASA-grade spedometer calibration, and/or were disabled on evenings, weekends, and holidays, then there might have been less pushback. Instead, those cameras lasted about a year, and then the county threw in the towel. Once it unreasonably affects them, people will fight.

    4. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear! I really don't get these people who confuse public and private.
      It's like Monty Python's "How Not to be Seen".

    5. Re: Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Stop responding to yourself; you're not smart enough to do it without being obvious about it so your best bet would clearly be not to even bother.

    6. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You and me, we're probably rich enough to be able to give a shit about our privacy. Many people don't have that luxury and pretty much have to give it up in exchange for what they actually need to continue their existence.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I literally the only person left who cares about his privacy?

      Nope. Don't worry you're not alone.
      Lots of us give a fuck. We're not screaming it out in public but we're out here.

    8. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I literally the only person left who cares about his privacy?

      Yet you don't post as an AC.

      (Yeah, I know online-persona & all that ... but if that connection is ever made then everything you've posted on /. can be tied to you. Reduce attack surface & post as AC is what I say - even if it only helps a little.)

    9. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's likely an infinitesimal probability that in getting your image captured/stored, even automatically identified, that anyone cares. You've always and still have more privacy strolling in a large city than in 1960s Mayberry R.F.D.

    10. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Here's a little tidbit that I can share with you. You know how they claim we are now, in the US, at a point where the majority live in urban areas? The Census folks changed the definition quietly. Urban used to be a matter of density per mile (I know, I worked in traffic modeling and you take that into account). Now, they call any town with more then 1500 people an urban area. Or a town with 2500 people - if that town has a residential institution like a jail, nursing home, assisted living center, or the likes - that's urban. So any town, pretty much, is now considered urban. I dug out the citation for it not too long ago - you can find it on the census info pages.

      It changed in the 2010 Census. Suddenly, magically, more than half of us live in urban areas. Well, not me, my home in Maine is in an unincorporated township but yeah, that's a funny tweak and I'm not quite sure why they made that change. I'm sure there's a reason for it it - I just don't know why. It used to be something like 50 people per square mile or something - I forget now. But it's not like that now. The town can be huge and have just 1500 people and it's urban - no matter how large the town's physical size is.

      I don't know what the end game is but it strikes me as odd.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      While you've never really had the expectation of privacy, the difference is now everyone is tracked, automatically, the information is stored for years, and you really have no idea who all has access to it. This simply wasn't possible years ago.

    12. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's now virtually impossible to travel through any public space in a major metropolitan area without being captured. They're everywhere, the image quality is better, and the ability to store images for longer has increased.

      I'm supposed to think this is a good thing?? I would rather double my insurance costs. People still think automated image recognition is a conspiracy theory. People freely give up every detail of their lives for the privilege of staying connected to their friends on social media. People pay hundreds of dollars for phones that track their location at every moment. What the actual fuck is wrong with 80% of society? I can't believe this massive divergence in values. Am I literally the only person left who cares about his privacy?

      The thing is, almost all the security cameras are private. Image recognition has been available to private businesses for some time and gets used in the pub/club industries. Walk into a casino in Vegas, you're getting taped from 3 different angles and having your face compared against a private database shared between casino owners.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Don't keep me safe. Keep me free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's a huge difference between
      - no privacy in public space ... in the sense that those also present in that same public space can see what you're doing, and
      - no privacy in public space ... because there is centralized logging of everything everyone does

      one is decentralized knowledge, one is centralized knowledge
      one is imperfect knowlegde, one is (increasingly) perfect knowlegde
      ONE MAKES ABUSE OF POWER SCALE, the other does not

      we've basically automating the stazi's informer network, this is definately not a good thing

  12. Banks are still being robbed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are robbed digitally, and from the inside, but bank robbery is on the increase, if anything.

    From what I've heard, anecdotal as it is, ATMs are being hacked and ripped off left and right all around the world. PIN cards and account numbers are being ripped off at retail outlets on and offline.

    Technology hasn't stopped anything, it's made it easier to both steal and cover your tracks afterwards.

  13. Re:The surveillance state by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    No, it's double-plus good it is!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  14. times have changed by Bog+Standard · · Score: 1

    It's no longer about sawn-offs and balaclavas, its about constant probing, ddos, threat testing, malware, social engineering etc. The cat and mouse game continues but its now done with faceless teams from far away countries.

  15. Re:The surveillance state by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 0

    Yes, the crooks were caught because everyone is seen as a crook and therefore monitored. The fact that bank robberies have diminished is the smallest difference with the past. In the past, the police was meant to protect civilians, not to stalk them. They did not visit your house if you used your freedom of expression. And the banks were at least not openly robbing the taxpayer. A lot has changed.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  16. Stainless Steel Rats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are breeding them.

  17. "...this age old profession" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's not the oldest profession...

  18. Nothings really changing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people are not "staying in bed," they're moving on to modern financial crimes like stealing credit card numbers and online banking passwords.

  19. bank robbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you want to "rob a bank" big time?
    Simplest and most profitable way is to be a bank owner. Rob the people by giving them "cheap loans" and they will throw you the "protection money" sorry i mean the percentages and annual fees on the "loaned money".
    And if you want more money, pribe politicians to get a "good bank legislation". Make it so, that nobody can do business to business transactions without a bank transfer (no paper money). Make it so, that the companies and businesses must put the employee salaries to bank account and make it criminal (or really hard) to give it in cash.
    Afterwards you can fake a "world monetary collapse", rob all the saving in the bank, tell people "becouse of the monetary collapse and economic disaster the bank is going to collapse", and let the pribed politicians give you more and more public money to "help banks". Pocket that money and live like a true king of the earth ...

    1. Re:bank robbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let the pribed politicians give you more and more public money to "help banks".

      I just got a really serious case of deja vu.

  20. More on modernization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And right below this story is one about "cyber-scammers" stealing €50M from a bank account. Show me the last time an in-person bank robbery netted that much. Why rob banks of a few tens or hundreds of thousands when you can make off with €50,000,000 without getting up from your computer desk?

  21. Heists still happen, using different tools. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The article is presenting an one sided view. Bank heists still happen, with increasing frequency and magnitude. But the tools have changed. At best you can argue blue collar bank heists have gone down.

    But now the bank heists have become inside jobs, white collar and legal. Banks "lend" money to questionable borrowers and sell the loan to some unsuspecting investors, pocket the commission. The bank robbers pay themselves huge bonuses. When the loans go bad, it is the re-insurance companies, investors and eventually the tax payers who pay for it. They risk a billion dollars in loans to get measly bonus of 1 million dollars.

    The real owners of these banks, the shareholders are so widespread and their power to control the bank has become so diffuse, it is basically inmates running the asylum situation in banks and other financial institutions.

    We need laws to stop banks from becoming too big to fail. US Banks claim they need to get big to compete with foreign banks. Foreign banks claim they need to get big to compete with US banks. The solution is an unilateral move by USA. All banks with assets more than 1% of GDP should pay a tax to insure against systemic risks. And they should keep larger reserves. We can use free market tools and gradually deflate the big banks. Or they will be deflated suddenly by peasants with pitchforks.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks "lend" money to questionable borrowers and sell the loan to some unsuspecting investors, pocket the commission.

      This relatively easy to fix, but the fix is worse than the decease, at least from the libertarian US perspective. You don't have a national biometric and chipped ID card, renewed in five year intervals, and needed for every single bank and personal information transaction, for example.

    2. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      The graduated tax on big banks depending on size *IS* is the libertarian fix. Big government fix is making rules about reserve requirement, and additional auditing and disclosure requirements.

      As a libertarian I recognize your right to store as much gasoline as you want in your garage for any reason you want with any level of safety you feel comfortable. But you may not have the ability to pay for the damages to your neighbors should an accident happen. It is perfectly reasonable, proper and constitutional to demand you have liability insurance for activities that could cause damage beyond your property. Gasoline in your garage, deposits in banks.. all the same thing.

      The big government solution is to mandate necessary safety equipment for all gasoline storage in all garages and regular inspections and filing of inspection reports with proper authorities.... Ditch that. Do anything you want without hurting others. Show that you can compensate if you hurt someone accidentally.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then what is your solution (to follow your analogy) when your gas dump burns up the entire neighborhood and you CAN'T compensate the loss?

      "Tough shit"?
      "I'm sorry?"
      "Oops?"

    4. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. Some libertarians might be okay with requiring insurance for storing gasoline because the hazards of storing gasoline can affect bystanders. The hazards of bad security at a bank only affect the bank's customers. The gasoline has externalities.

      You seem to think that the two situations are similar because the people who are affected don't own the gasoline or the bank. But "affects someone aside from the owners" isn't what an externality means. You have to voluntarily choose to use the bank in order for robbing the bank to affect you directly. Exploding gasoline in someone's garage affects people who have not chosen to trade with the owner. (And we're not covering indirect effects, such as the effect of bank robberies on the economy, unless you want the gasoline owner to have to buy insurance so he can pay for the loss of reputation to the gasoline company when his garage full of gasoline explodes.)

    5. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point was that most US banking customers probably wouldn't tolerate the draconian way some European banks interpret the EU banking regulations, even if those measures would improve banking security, regulation compliance or provide a measure of identity theft protection.

    6. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... deflated suddenly by peasants with pitchforks.

      That didn't happen during the GFC: The US banks were able to buy their insurance, AKA corporate welfare, from congress after they totally screwed their customers.

      ... insure against systemic risks.

      The banks already have an insurance policy; see preceding paragraph. Best of all, they don't have to buy insurance before the proverbial hits the fan. The GFC happened because politicians, sooner or later, dilute financial restrictions protecting customers in the name of liquidity, profit and lassez-faire capitalism.

      ... stop banks from becoming too big to fail.

      More laws controlling what banks can't do: Between American-style bribes, sorry, free speech and the mindset of politicians it won't happen or it won't last. Besides big fish eat little fish; the same greed applies to corporations. They all work to become bigger corporations, so it will take a lot of rules defining the maximum permitted size of a bank, to avoid the 'too big to fail' situation.

    7. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Glad you agree a neighbor storing gasoline endangers the neighbors. Even if I don't use the big bank, people I deal with use big banks, my customers losing their will hurt my business. In the last housing crisis, I did not get a liar loan or fail to make a mortgage payment. But when the market crashed the value of my home dropped too. Lucky I did not need to sell it immediately nor did the value fall below the mortgage. But many millions of people who stayed away from the real estate frenzy were affected when the market crashed.

      It is perfectly reasonable to add a graduated tax on big banks, based on the assets under their control and to build an insurance fund.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    8. Re:Heists still happen, using different tools. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Those are indirect effects. We require automobile owners to buy insurance against hitting third parties, but we don't require automobile owners to buy insurance against the possibility that their car fails, and they can't get to work, and their employer has to pay the expense of hiring and training another person, and the employer needs to be reimbursed by the insurance for this.

  22. If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there was some way to stop the banks from robbing the people.

  23. Re:The surveillance state by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    How does the bank "openly" rob the "taxpayer"?

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  24. Re:The surveillance state by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That number is wildly inaccurate. It was based on an approximate count of the number of cameras on a busy London shopping street, extrapolated to assume the number was consistent for all businesses, and guessing the number for government organisations.

  25. The Hatton Gardens Heist by Oxygen99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can I suggest anyone not familiar with the Hatton Gardens heist please go and read up on it. You won't be disappointed. It's the court case that keeps on giving.

    It'll introduce you to the phrase "wombat thick old cunt" if nothing else.

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    1. Re:The Hatton Gardens Heist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "wombat thick old cunt" mean?

    2. Re:The Hatton Gardens Heist by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      One less than formal news site I read had the quote: "Collins, described as a 'wombat thick old cunt', drove his own distinctive white Mercedes to the scene allowing police to crack the case"

    3. Re:The Hatton Gardens Heist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the case about?

  26. An exportable technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like so many other things, old-style stick-em-up heists with masked hoodlums in crowded banks methodology migrates to the so-called Third World (aka "developing countries" for the politically correct), where all the fancy hi-tech gizmos lag behind.

    And so, the rich get richer and the poor get robbed.

  27. Not related to tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, robbing a bank does not carry the ROI it once did. Most banks don't carry enough in the way of cash and unless its a major heist of greater than $30 million its probably just not worth it once split many ways.

  28. £26.5 m in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bank_robbery

  29. Thieves need to evolve as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are far easier ways to wrongly acquire millions or billions of dollars. Security is only as good as its weakest link.

  30. Crime Moves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can see why even a hardened criminal might prefer to stay in bed.

    Stupidest sentence of the day?

    Hardened criminals simply aren't doing "heists." Maybe they're not stealing from banks anymore (though they probably are, even if not on "heist form"), but they're still around. And some of the crimes might be legal.

    As the inputs change, the optimization function is just going to find a new point.

  31. Nowadays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    banks heist people.

  32. CCTV shill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article reads like a shill piece trying to defend the use of city-wide CCTV cameras.
    It's literally Orwellian surveillance, and people have become so used to it that they praise the camera system for helping prevent thefts that aren't worth committing, anymore.
    Only a handful of thieves steal for the "rush." Most steal because it's easier than working for the money.
    As everyone has said, in-person bank heists are going down because the thieves are primarily crackers, now.

    CCTV is still a dangerous tool that can be exploited by anyone in a position of power with ill intent.
    What if a U.K. version of the Donald Trump gets elected? Crazier men have already been elected mayor in Washington, D.C., U.S. and Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    How will you feel about UK Visas and Immigration watching your every move when some Tory nutter decides that you're no longer legally allowed in the UK?

  33. Bullshit. by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

    There were 3 bank robberies in my area in the last 5 years that remain unsolved.

    1. Re:Bullshit. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      When I looked awhile back one of the best years on record for the FBI was merely identifying 50% of the suspects in bank robberies. Despite the hype it would seem the chances of getting caught aren't all that high if one is semi competent. The big downside though is that it really doesn't pay all that well. It is far and away safer to just get a normal job.

  34. Why rob a bank? by richardkettle4 · · Score: 0

    These days, apart from the ATMs, they pretty much do not have any cash to steal. At least, not in the UK.

  35. Re:The surveillance state by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    People call it a "bail-out".

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  36. Higher risk, less rewards? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

    Apart from the fact you'll be on about 2 dozen cameras going in, I imagine most banks don't carry anywhere near as much cash these days as people don't use it much. I don't think I've had more than a tenner in my pocket in the last 20 years. Cards or wristbands pay for everything from a pint of milk to a new TV.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  37. The brass plaque at Hatton Gardens should say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Welcome to Hatton Gardens.
    Lots of people store very valuable possessions here - we publicize that widely!
    Please rob us, it'll be worth the effort!"

  38. Not dead yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  39. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like governments have cornered the market on it.

  40. Re:The surveillance state by matfud · · Score: 1

    Interesting numbers you are pulling out your arse there as the UK has a population of approx 60 million. so for there to be 11 per person there would have to be over 600 million CCTVs.

  41. Re:The surveillance state by matfud · · Score: 1

    Now 0.11 per person I can quite easily imagine :)

  42. Re:The surveillance state by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    OK. I agree completely with that. But that's a bit different than the general statement put forth by the OP.

    We need to stop "too big to fail" and as far as banks are concerned scale back the FDIC to $10,000.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  43. More money stolen at banks then ever by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    Sure, there may be fewer heists, but boy are they whoppers! Something about derivatives and credit default swaps.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  44. Best way to steal money from a bank is to won the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best bank thieves are internal to the bank. The current technology and lack of enforcement is allowing current white collar criminals to steal millions and walk away. So, while technology may be harming smash and grab operators and blue-collar criminals, it is likely enabling a different kind of criminal entirely.

  45. Surely this is some type of bad joke. by sims+2 · · Score: 2

    There was a bank robbed in Eufaula, Oklahoma just yesterday.
    High Speed chase shootings shootouts hostages and all.
    http://www.newson6.com/story/3...

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Surely this is some type of bad joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you see the assertion that bank heists no longer happen at all?

  46. The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    William K. Black wrote a book with that title.

    This is the introduction from his TEDx talk about bank fraud:

    "So today's class is on how to rob a bank, and it's clear the general public needs guidance because the average the average bank robbery nets only 7,500 dollars. Rank amateurs who know nothing about how to cook the books. The folks who know run our largest banks, and in our last go-round, they cost us over 11 trillion dollars. They cost us over 10 million jobs as well. So our task is to educate ourselves so we can understand why we have these recurrent intensifying financial crises and how we can prevent them in the future. And the answer to that is that we have to stop epidemics of control fraud. Control fraud is what happens when the people who control, typically a CEO, a seemingly legitimate entity, use it as a weapon to defraud."

  47. 10-ton hydraulic ram by wwalker · · Score: 1

    If you think 10-ton hydraulic ram is impressive, it costs less than $100 and weighs about 20 pounds.

    1. Re:10-ton hydraulic ram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 10-ton ram weighing 20 pounds... my that is impressive!