Why 'Cyber Crime' Should Just Be Called 'Crime' 368
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.'"
As soon as they ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Great idea. It will happen about the same time that "white collar crimes" are treated the same as mugging or burglary.
Why 'Cyber Crime' Should Just Be Called 'Crime' (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we're all fed up with the cyber-whatever headlines.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Gun Crime", "Hate Crime" (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Naive (Score:5, Insightful)
But... but... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?!?!
Call it what you want. It won't matter. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Now if we can get people to stop (Score:3, Insightful)
In English, "x is foo crime" => "x is crime" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, 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.
Re:gray area? (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you guys on about?
Street crime is a loose term for criminal offences taking place in public places. It has commonly been used for the term mugging around here.
There is a great distinction in Cyber Crime - like they mention phishing. If I had gone door to door pretending to be with your bank and requested any of your credit cards, you'd either be considered an idiot and/or I could be charged with some form of fraud. Fraud is it's own kind of Crime - it has it's own laws regarding it, why can't Cyber stuff be the same?
I get what you're trying to say, people don't seem to take "Cyber Crime" as serious as regular crime, but they are very different, in many ways, and segregation already exists in other forms of Law.
Re:Call it what you want. It won't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is enough violence to keep the cops busy.
Don't forget all those damn kids and their "wacky baccy"!!!
Phishing / spam is a terrible example (Score:4, 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.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Normal murder the person killing has apathy for the life of the other person. It is in the way of them obtaining what they want. Burglary, contract killing, gang wars, revenge, etc.
HATE crime is committing the act not because you don't care who they are and they are an obstacle to your goal, but because THEY ARE THE GOAL.
Can you really not see that distinction?
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a fucking brainiac.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, there is obviously a difference between intent to commit a crime and no intent. It is less easy to see a difference between murdering someone say to steal their money and murdering someone because they are homosexual.
Re:Phishing / spam is a terrible example (Score:3, Insightful)
You are more likely to succeed because when doing it online you can easily lie about who you are.
If you set up a fake BofA bank branch, you could get a lot of bank credentials.
Re:Phishing / spam is a terrible example (Score:2, Insightful)
If you claim that you are from his bank, I think it is.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, 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.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:2, Insightful)
ALL crime has a chilling effect in the area it happens.
A store gets robbed or a person gets shot, and you think they people are any less traumatized because it wasn't a "hate crime" ?!
"They just came in and started shooting, but thank god it was a hate crime!"
Now who's the fucking brainiac.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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'.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. So-called "hate-crimes" sound too much like the crime-of-the-day. Who in fact defines what exactly a hate crime is? Is the murder of a black person more heinous that the killing of an Irishman? If so, why? Seems to me that murder is murder, and calling one a "hate-crime" puts more worth on some one's life due to their race or creed, which goes completely against the principal of a blind justice system.
Re:Ah, but there *is* "gun crime." (Score:3, Insightful)
All distinctions involving crime, including (perhaps most especially!) the distinction between "crime" and "not-crime", are political in nature.
Don't add complexity (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:gray area? (Score:3, Insightful)
In other places it may be grand theft auto, plus circumvention of an access control device (DMCA) with keys that have software chips in them.
Re:Also Naive (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you codify this better understanding? Write it into a law? Or do you just let each individual cop, prosecutor, judge, and jury apply their own 'better understanding'?
Isn't that how it works now? Cop makes an arrest based on his interpretation of the law. Prosecutor decides if there is a case and then makes that case. Judge listens to the prosecutor's case and your lawyer's case, ensuring legal requirements are met and giving instructions to the jury. Jury makes a decision based on what they heard in court (and their own biases). A court ruling is given. A precedent is set. The next time this hits a court, that precedent will be referenced.
While I appreciate the desire to improve our legal framework, the reality is that legal framework is rather ponderous and slow to catch up with the pace of technology. Laws take time to write. And they go through enough hands that your intent isn't always what gets codified. Laws are rarely cut-and-dry and often interpreted anyway. So what you end up with is a constantly out-of-date yet increasingly complex system of law full of loopholes and pitfalls that only an expert can hope to keep up with, much less understand.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you don't see a difference between, say, four guys lynching a black man just simply because he's black and ... oh, killing someone in a drunken barfight?
i do, one is premeditated murder, the other is more than likely accidental manslaughter. reasons for a crime / excuses for crimes should only lessen the extent of punishment as required.
hate crime shouldn't be considered the "next level" of crime because they have nothing to excuse their actions for it, its still "murder one" or whatever.
how is me getting into a fight because you support the wrong football team any different to me getting into a fight with you because your black?
also, in regards to self defense, I'm a firm believer in any amount of force is acceptable for any assault under self defense while the third party is still a threat. if you assault me by kicking? how do i know your not going to take it further with a stab wound after I'm on the ground or just stomping my head until I'm dead? i can attempt to defend myself but what if I'm physically smaller / weaker? your choices would be "defend myself to the letter of the law and probably get my Arse handed to me and i could end up dead" or "excessive force, and survive, hell, i didn't start it and i don't know what the person is capable of." those who start wars don't always get to decide how they end, and those who pick fights shouldn't be the ones who chose what scale it can be elevated to.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why don't you just go back to posting on 12chan if you insist on being a retard?