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.
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
imo hate crime charges should ONLY be pursued when it is clear that the race, sex, etc was the motivating factor and not simply coincidental.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that "killing" is not necessarily synonymous with "murder". Or with manslaughter.
In some places, if you kill someone in self-defense, you'll be charged with murder. And usually not convicted.
In other places, the police will take your statement, cart off the body, and that's the end of it.
Though in both cases above, a DA up for reelection who thinks that getting tough makes him more likely to win his next election can turn self-d
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Is that a crime?
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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.
No it doesn't. What it does do is recognize that persons committing murder for ideological reasons ('cause blacks/hispanics/homosexuals/three-toed purple people eaters are inferior/bad/dangerous) are likely to continue doing so and/or incite others to do the same, and respond to the recognition by keeping them off the streets longer due to the extra risk posed to society.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with your concept is that laws don't stop murders from happening. They only prescribe penalties for committing the murder and that's only if you are caught. If someone is caught after committing a murder, they are already up for life in prison or the death penalty. We can't really make them serve two life sentences or send them through the gas chamber twice.
So lets take this to the next logical level with assault. You say the need is because they do it over and over again. Well, what if someone
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since I happened to stumble on it during a brief foray on google, I thought I'd mention that the FBI reported [fbi.gov] that 16.8% of hate crimes in 2008 were committed against whites, and more hate crimes were committed against Christians than against Muslims (8.7% vs 7.5%). (I lumped Catholics and Protestants together for the anti-Christian percentage; it's possibly higher depending on what exactly "Protestant" means and what groups are included in the "anti-other religion" percentage.)
So far I've found no evidenc
Re: (Score:2)
Killing someone is not by itself a crime.
Killing someone illegally is murder. That's a crime.
Killing someone in self defense is not a crime at all.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Killing someone in self-defense is not a crime.
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:As soon as they ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a fucking brainiac.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
The intent of other crime isn't the chilling effect though. So are you arguing intent doesn't matter and only the consequences of actions matter? Because I can eviscerate you on that topic if you want.
Or are you implying hate crime doesn't intend to create a chilling effect? I find it hard to believe you could be so stupid as to think that and simultaneously be capable of operating a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
You speak as if hate crime is the only violent crime which has a chilling effect.
Gang violence (join us or else), extortion with associated kneecappings (the boss wants his money).
In fact any violent crime committed with the intent of *sending a messege* or making an example of someone has that exact effect.
"hate" crime is nothing special whatsoever in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
But that isn't the only kind, organized crime will often try to dissuade competition and create warnings to rivals and send messages with violence. I'm not really sure what I think of that part of it, but I do know that crimes where the action actively intends to send a message should be punished more than crimes with action and no intended message. We as a society have the ability to make laws to try to form a future so
Re:As soon as they ... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If it were applied to other forms of violent crime committed with the intent to *send a messege* then that would be fine.
But it's only applied in a subset of such cases where race is an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally I believe it is rivals, not communities of law abiding citizens.
Does that really not make a difference to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Messages are also aimed at the local community. (to make sure people respect them or more accurately, fear them.)
Local businessmen to make sure they pay protection.
Local families to make sure they get recruits and nobody even thinks about joining any rival gangs.
I'd also ask why you can't seem to talk in a civil manner in this topic?
You have a somewhat reasonable position but it's overshadowed by your awful discussion style and abusive language.
Re:As soon as they ... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was not only were they not throwing the book at them- they were letting them off because the juries thought it was ok to kill blacks. The federal law allowed it to be tried in a different set of courts in areas where there were fewer bigots on the juries. No amount of upping the penalty would have helped when the juries are crooked. And you can't throw a jury in jail for their verdict even if it's obvious that its blatantly biased. Start down that road and you're in deep shit.
You're right,
It should be called what it is:Domestic Terrorism. (Score:2)
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
sex crime (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
and while we're at it can we get rid of the "hate" category of crime too?
Hate crimes are there to help separate the people who are doing harm for some rational reason (I really want his iPod) from the people who are doing harm for an irrational reason (he's a nigger).
The potential for rehabilitating someone who starts off thinking rationally is much better, hence the value in making the distinction. Though I'm going to guess from your stereotypical right-wing "ratchet the levels of punishment UP to the
Re: (Score:2)
I say he should get the chair, as long as it reclines and has a cup holder... It doesn't matter if he fries, he's already baked.
Tip your hemp delivery person! I'll be here all week.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate crimes are misnamed. The issue is not how the person committing the crime *feels* about the victim, it is what he *depriving the victim of*. What we call a "hate crime" is a deprivation of liberty, not only to the direct victim of the crime, but to countless people like him. In fact, it is tantamount to terrorism.
When somebody burns a cross on your lawn, it isn't simple trespass. The burning cross says in no uncertain terms,"None of you can live here. Try and you'll die." That's an attempt to alter t
Re: (Score:2)
Because, clearly, people murder other people while loving them.
If you want to call it something, call it "Racism Motivated Crime" or "Sexism Motivated Crime" or "Anti-Establishment Motivated Crime" or something like that.
Otherwise, it sounds like "hate" is something that happens when you're racist or sexist. Sure, hate happens then, but hate happens without racism, sexism, anti-academiaism, anti-establishmentism, etc. Hate can happen because you got in my way on the freeway.
(I'm not saying I hate people b
Re: (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
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: (Score:2)
> 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. /tongue in cheek ... ;-)
Everyone knows it’s those fucking LARPers wrecking it for the Ren Faire folks, of course nothing beats a good 'ol fight going then "Star Wars vs. Star Trek"
http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchartbig.gif [brunching.com]
Anyways, Religion is kindergarten Spir
Re: (Score:2)
I see a distinction between hate and apathy, yes. And if that were the legal distinction, I might be able to along with you...
But:
Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
Also, some of what you describe (e.g., burglary) - isn't that differentiated with "pre-meditated?" And, lastly - how do you have "revenge" without hate? I don't think you can combine a desire for revenge with "apathy" terribly successfully.
Nor, IMO, can "gang wars" be completely apathetic. You don't tend to go to war unless you have some sort of ... uh, negative passion (hat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why 'Cyber Crime' Should Just Be Called 'Crime' (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we're all fed up with the cyber-whatever headlines.
Naive (Score:5, Insightful)
Also Naive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Giving it a label helps to identify it and differentiate it, which is probably beneficial.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because cyber-crime doesn't refer to a mere specialized type of crime, but an entirely different paradigm. This new paradigm of crime not only requires completely new types of training and skill-building, it will require well-written and clear laws that don't yet exist if we're ever going to get out of the "wild west" in which we currently reside.
New laws? Ahhh - I see. You're part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
New laws? Ahhh - I see. You're part of the problem.
Huh?! Crime will always seek new avenues of least resistance. New technology creates new opportunities, and not just for consumers but for those with base motives. Once we figure out what we don't want to happen, we have to create laws against it.
If you don't have a law against it, it's not a crime. Spam didn't used to be a crime. At one time, hacking into a system connected to a public carrier (eg internet or modem) was not a crime since you didn't physically enter the premises; thus no B&E and no
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?! Crime will always seek new avenues of least resistance. New technology creates new opportunities, and not just for consumers but for those with base motives. Once we figure out what we don't want to happen, we have to create laws against it.
The methods and avenues of attack may be new, but the crimes themselves tend to be very old. Fraud, harassment, trespassing, etc. We often don't need new laws but rather simply a better understanding of existing law applies to new technology. And an increased awareness of criminal use of that technology.
You might want to go back over your history a bit. There were criminal cases against intruders well before computer trespass laws hit the books (and the laws that exist are not universal). The B&E b
Re: (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 d
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Lord knows we don't want them adding new categories of crimes.
Next thing you know, we'll have "sex crimes" and "violent crimes" and "victimless crimes" and such nonsense....
Re: (Score:2)
but you just listed a bunch of special categories of crimes.
Sense: you post makes none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, your argument takes as a premise that we don't already have "property crimes", "drug crimes", "organized crime", "violent crime", "sex crimes", "financial crime", "war crimes", "crimes against humanity", and all kinds of other specialized subdivisions of crime besides "cyber crime"?
Would you perhaps like to reconsider that?
Re: (Score:2)
but a security researcher had his daughter kidnapped for a number of years for looking into the wrong "cyber" criminals. She was only recently returned to him, after a number of years, having been through much badness.
I believe that the story you are referring to is this one [boingboing.net] which was mentioned in the book Fatal System Error [fserror.com] by Joseph Menn.
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: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"!!!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Car analogy (Score:4, 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.
Cyber (Score:5, Funny)
Cyber sex is sex! You can really get pregnant, not just cyber pregnant.
Be sure to use a condom!
Re:Cybersex (Score:2)
Cyber sex is sex! You can really get pregnant, not just cyber pregnant.
Be sure to use a condom!
Of course, this woman [failblog.org] got pregnant watching a porn film. No, really!!
Re: (Score:2)
Would a cyber condom work ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And cyber condom!! :D
Re: (Score:2)
Crime doesn't pay (Score:3, Interesting)
But 'cyber crime' pays off in the form of increased profits, boosted ratings, legislation...
Boogiemen are big business, as /. knows too well...
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.
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: (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: (Score:2)
That's a good point. The banks haven't secured the communications channel. Geeks know that email isn't secure, but John Q Public still needs to learn the lesson. Whenever my bank sends me an email, it is little more than a notice that there is a message waiting for me. I have to access my online account to read the message. That creates a problem though, because it conditions the response to expect email communications from the bank.
What is the angle of the banks? They want to get away from having to
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can rent a storefront and set up a branch of your bank too. The difference is, when it's online it's a lot cheaper/easier, and there's a much lower risk. You aren't going to get shut down in a few days, and you can operate well outside the jurisdiction of the people you're ripping off. But hey, look at how many criminals have success with ATM skimmers, or stealing credit card info at restaurants, or anything like that. Those aren't secured either.
Nothing makes a store front, or an ATM, or any other p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you claim that you are from his bank, I think it is.
some laws have a poor fit in the cyber world and (Score:2)
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.
Seriously... (Score:2)
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 los
How we got here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely depends on where you work. I have worn all the hats, and I have been in situation where my job is pretty specific. They don't want developers touching the database structure, or running cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I work in roads" Are you a street cleaner? civil engineer? road painter? sell rock?
Actually, they're one of those little reflective bumps in the middle of the road.
Hey, that could explain why some stretches of road I have to drive on every night with no streetlights and no painted lines have most of their reflective bumps missing: they all went on strike!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that.
I learnt a long time ago specifically not to mention that "I work with computers" because it inevitably leads to the "Oh really? I'm having a problem with my..."
When pressed, I just say "systems analyst", most people nod sagely and the conversation continues unimpeded, however I sometimes get the impression that I could say that I'm a "floob doppler" and have that carry equal meaning...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find that to be true at all. It's very rare someone asks me to fix their computer.
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, are lucky.
Almost every time I go to a party primarily populated by non-techies it comes up, sometimes vicariously which is even worse ("oh this guy can help you out, he's a programmer"). In reality I don't mind talking about what I do, but I mind very much if I'm being tapped as a resource at a sociable gathering. So it has paid to just keep my big yap shut on that particular subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I have no problem doing a little PC work for friends, a friend who's a carpenter did our door, a friend who's an insurance assessor helped us sort out an insurance claim so I'm happy to build up a few favours with friends.
Strangers can pay if they want to get me to work for them.(exception if they're hot, coding a trivial java app a few years ago helped get me my girlfiend)
Job descriptions (Score:2)
Why, sir, I've doppled many floobs in my day. Just what is your post meant to imply???
Dyspeptically yours,
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more like saying "I'm in Transportation".
Which is fine to start the discussion, especially since most people don't care whether you are a DB admin or if you are a network engineer. It's all just technology to them.
Look at people in the aerospace industry, they don't start out by saying "I'm a materials specialist studying the radar reflective characteristics on components with concave non-metallic surfaces under pressure" (or whatever the equivalent job description is), they say "I'm in aerospace"
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Most so called "cyber crime" are already crime and the appropriate categorization should be used. Why should "cyber" fraud be considered any different than regular fraud? There is no need.
Why should "Hacking" not simply fall under existing categories like invasion of privacy, tortuous interference, damage to property, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should there be a limit in the amount of losses to occur before something is investigated?
http://listcrime.com/reportcybercrime.html [listcrime.com]
Although you should report cybercrime to Federal law enforcement, unfortunately they usually don't work on small monetary losses. What commonly happens is that U.S. Attorney's office for these federal agencies will decline prosecution because your monetary loss is just not enough for them to seek prosecution at the federal level.
Re: (Score:2)
In England, if you steal money from a bank using a computer, there may well be a computer misuse act offence on the charge sheet, but the main charge will be theft or fraud, much the same as if you had stolen the money from the bank using forged paper documents. If you raid the bank and take the money by force, then there will be additional firearms and robbery related offences on the charge sheet.
From the police's point of view, it will be the cybercrime unit that deals with the investigation and passing
Re: (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: (Score:2)
What do they call it if someone throttles you with your iPod USB cable? iMurder?
Re: (Score:2)
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 [knifecrimes.org])
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.
It seems to me that the distinction is then political in nature. These labels are used to push agendas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All distinctions involving crime, including (perhaps most especially!) the distinction between "crime" and "not-crime", are political in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and thats part of the problem. "Gun crime" is a term coined by those who have an agenda against the inanimate objects known as "guns". Notice how the term "knife crime" didn't exist until the british busybodies had succeeded in banning guns and needed a new target...
Re: (Score:2)
(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."
Umm...actually, since you mention it....in the UK the phrase "car crime" [google.co.uk] is used often. And more often than not, it's used in reference to theft of cars or theft from cars rather than speeding, death by dangerous driving or "joyriding" (though it is also used for those...sometimes).
Anyway, "cyber crime" should be reserved for such time as cyborgs start committing crime, or we will find ourselves with a crime-description gap. (Robo-crime sounds too jokey, will never take off). And what if the cyborg commi
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
Especially when people begin believing that they are computer literate simply because they can access their Facebook account (I'm not kidding, someone told me this before).