
It's Getting Harder to Be a Criminal - randomwalker
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/its_getting_harder_to_be_a_criminal/
======
dschobel
_My guess is that most white collar crimes are already being detected, and the
perpetrators are generally getting caught, albeit not as quickly as society
would like._

I don't think this is any where near the truth in the finance world.

It's well known that wall street has long drawn the brightest graduates from
the best universities in the world. If you read up on how many times the SEC
came close to busting Madoff over the years but couldn't quite connect the
dots it's pretty shocking and also very clear that the smartest guys go to
make the money, not play cop for the SEC.

From the NYT article about it:

 _In the interview, Mr. Madoff said that the young investigators who pestered
him over incidentals like e-mail messages should have just checked basics like
his account with Wall Street’s central clearinghouse and his dealings with the
firms that were supposedly handling his trades.

“In the interview, Mr. Madoff said that the young investigators who pestered
him over incidentals like e-mail messages should have just checked basics like
his account with Wall Street’s central clearinghouse and his dealings with the
firms that were supposedly handling his trades.

“If you’re looking at a Ponzi scheme, it’s the first thing you do,” he said._

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/business/31sec.html>

------
abstractbill
_In the interest of privacy, these ubiquitous videos will be encrypted so
securely that playback will be effectively impossible unless the court orders
it._

While I agree there will be more and more live video available, I think the
encryption and privacy stuff is mostly wrong.

For starters, nobody bothers to encrypt email, despite the technology existing
for many years. Also look at social networking sites. People happily post all
kinds of personal data, with increasing frequency and decreasing concern for
their own privacy. I think that trend will continue.

People might _say_ they care a lot about the ongoing loss of privacy in the
modern world, but they don't really.

~~~
wvenable
Email is a poor example for encryption -- too many factors involved. On the
other hand, how many people encrypt their online purchases? It's easy to have
silent automatic encryption if you build it from the beginning.

~~~
abstractbill
My belief is that money is actually the _only_ thing people really care about
encrypting (or at least it will be, in the long term).

~~~
wvenable
But if you encrypt everything by default, nobody is going to turn that off
either.

------
forensic
Am I correct in thinking his ideas on sniffing machines are totally ludicrous?

Are we not basically talking about a chemical-based air tester that would have
to sort through ridiculously complex masses of data trying to pick out which
subtle combination of particles applies to a perp?

The sense of smell of a dog is extraordinarily complex and makes full use of a
brain. I don't see this being duplicated by computers anytime soon. We'll have
full-on walking and talking robots before then... and those robots won't have
a sense of smell for a long time.

Or maybe I'm just ignant.

Seems to me it would be cheaper to build a kill-bot that defends all your
possessions from intruders than to make a device that can monitor the subtle
smells in a room.

~~~
jsz0
No, I don't think so. Airports are already using a similar technology to
detect explosive residue. Basically it's a small telephone booth sized box
that blasts you with air and sucks it back up to examine. I'm not sure exactly
how it works but it seems possible it could scale to detect other types of
particles. At a crime scene you could possibly detect unique body fingerprints
based on of everything from perspiration on hair, skin particles, clothing
particles, cologne, shampoo type, deodorant type, etc) So if the police can
get this scan quickly they could go out and round up possible suspects and
compare. Unfortunately I think this points towards more brute force policing
where innocent people are subjected to "body scans" simply because they
vaguely match a description or were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

~~~
ars
The machines are airports detect one "kind" of thing, bomb, etc.

He's talking about detecting a unique person out of many - that's much much
harder.

------
ryanwaggoner
Hmm...well, I think it's actually getting _easier_ to be a criminal, albeit
completely unintentionally.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847620>

But in terms of what he's saying, I think I disagree. I find it telling that
he mentions watching CSI for examples of how law enforcement uses technology
faster than the bad guys can keep up. We all know how accurate CSI is.

From what I've seen, the opposite of what he's predicting is the truth:
criminals adapt and use technology faster than law enforcement. Additionally,
many of the theoretical technologies he points out have enormous adoption
hurdles, including technical, legal, and social. Hopefully some of them will
_never_ be used. And each new technology creates new vectors for criminal
malice.

I'm just not convinced.

~~~
chubbard
Well his sentiment isn't off. Substitute any one of the documentary forensic
shows on TV for CSI and you'll see how deep forensic science has become over
the last 20 years. I agree it's really hard to cheat with the level of skill
forensic scientist have achieved. The only issue with this observation is even
in simple cases it can take years to get the evidence and science together to
convict someone. Those shows make it seem like it's a matter of a days work,
but there are years of research and hunting that goes on in order to solve
just one crime.

He used CSI because forensic science has become linked with the CSI TV show in
pop culture's mind for better or worse.

~~~
pyre
But there's also a lot of bunk in forensic science, like that guy in the
Southern USA that was a 'bite mark analysis guy' that was basically making
things up as he went along (destroying evidence after examining it because 'I
had already made my evaluation' so the opposing side doesn't have a chance to
have their experts look at the evidence, etc). It's surprising how long he was
able to get away with this stuff and that juries ate it up and believed him.
(I'm also severely disappointed in the legal system that he didn't get jail
time for destruction of evidence)

~~~
chubbard
Well that's a whole another ball of wax, or the other size of the sword
depending on how you look at it. There are a good number of cases that people
are convicted on faulty forensic science many of them not nearly as egregious
as the one you describe. Most of the time it still comes from detectives gut
feeling, not forensics, that turns a witness into a suspect. The forensics
don't come into they are trying to build a case against you. Sometimes the
forensics comes from the witness cooperating to give DNA, bite marks, etc as
you mentioned. People who cooperate fully only to be wrongfully accused.

The real problem is proving the forensics are wrong. Combating faulty
forensics is a huge task to bear that can take years too. People who have lost
20 years in jail because the forensics were done by unqualified people or
simply incorrect.

Sometimes I hear the science explained by the shows and I wonder how in the
world is it true. Who verified these results? Who defines what is unique and
what isn't? Particularly questionable is techniques that prove uniqueness.

------
samdk
We do have a lot of new tools for solving crimes, yes. But criminals also have
a lot of new tools for committing crimes and evading detection.

Even if we are getting better, we have a long way to go. Murder and Aggravated
Assault are the only crime categories where the clearance rate in the US is
above 50%. Most are much lower. (source:
[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.ht...](http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.html))

I also feel obliged to point out that the last time I happened to glimpse some
sort of CSI-like show on TV, the investigators were zooming in on someone's
eyeball in security tape footage to see what was reflected there. CSI is
possibly not the best source of information when drawing conclusions about the
state of crime-solving technolgies.

------
drcode
Scott is missing a key point in that people in America just don't buy used
items very often anymore.

All those stereos, TVs, bicycles, etc that people used to steal and sell at
pawn shops now have very little value. Most people just don't go shopping at
pawn shops anymore.

That is a major factor that makes theft of personal property less lucrative
going forward.

~~~
blasdel
Craigslist, Craigslist, Craigslist. Get cash in public, no paperwork, no
fence.

------
nym
Did Scott Adams just watch minority report or something?

The technology to automatically give people tickets for speeding already
exists, yet it only is implemented in a few areas. I'm curious what other
HN'ers think about this...

~~~
shib71
It's the standard here in Australia. Many major intersections and highways
have permanent speed cameras, hooked into a vehicle registration db, to
automatically post speed tickets (with photos :) to the offender. A new camera
pays for itself very quickly, in cost and arguably road safety.

~~~
macrael
Several studies have shown that red light cameras do not improve road safety.
Here is one: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html)

I think that this article is a vision of a dangerous future. A free society
must necessarily sacrifice some measure of safety. The more information like
this we give the state, the closer we come to 1984. It is important to
maintain a balance of power between citizens and the police, a balance between
criminals and cops. Power Corrupts.

History has always shown change to come in pendulum swings. At some point,
people are going to react to the loss of privacy strongly and we will get back
some measure of what we have lost. In the end, we will find some balance but I
certainly hope it is not found at this end of the spectrum.

~~~
pyre
> _The more information like this we give the state, the closer we come to
> 1984._

A while back there was a post stating that the world is moving more towards "A
Brave New World" than "1984." I think that it was mostly right.

------
jsz0
It seems the drug business isn't being impacted much. Big increase in arrests
for possession but a flat line on sales/manufacturing. I guess if you want a
life of crime it's a golden era to be in the drug trade:

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm>

