Time To Stop Being So Fascinated With The Cyber- Part Of Cybercrime
from the it's-just-crime dept
In the past, we've noted that when technology is somehow involved in a crime, suddenly people (and especially the press) seem to forget about the actual crime that's happening and focus just on the technology. It appears others are noticing this as well. Slashdot points us to a nice rant by Neil Schwartzman pointing out that it's silly to single out "cybercrimes" as being "cyber" at all: they're just crimes. The fact that you're using a computer or the internet as part of it doesn't change facts when a crime is being committed, and at times people seem to get so focused on the cyber- part that they miss the seriousness of the crime itself: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...He similarly attacks the concept of "cyberwar" and the fact that various governments are hyping that up these days:
Some of these crimes involve technology. So what? Criminals have used technology before.
Some of these crimes cross borders. So what? Crimes have crossed borders before.
While we are at it, we should mention 'cyber-warfare', something often conflated with cyber-crime. Cyber-crime is not "cyber-warfare." There may be state or terrorist agencies copying the tactics and methods of these criminals, but that does not mean that the criminals must be left alone until new cyber-warfare agencies have been created and funded.But, of course, by naming it "cyberwar," it creates something that seems "new," and with something "new," money can flow. The reason for these new "cyber-war agencies," is money. The suppliers want to sell to the government, so they hype it up. The folks who want more power get to set up an entirely new group -- and in an area that's considered "hot." The use of "cyber" is generally there to mislead people, and often for the sake of money.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crime, cybercrime
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nailed it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
say it ain't so!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Standard techdirt conclusory, faith-based claim.
Surely you can do better than this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: say it ain't so!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: say it ain't so!
In the US? No, copyright infringement for personal use is usually just a civil matter.
The RIAA/MPAA/BSA would like everyone to believe it's always a crime on par with theft, though.
Not that this article had a word to say about copyright infringement (it was about real crime, you know, the kind that actually destroys innocent lives, rather than the kind that makes a studio exec have second thoughts about buying a second Porsche).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: say it ain't so!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I guess it's possible you are unaware but in the last 15 years the world has implemented an almost ubiquitous something called the "internet" which facilitates many crimes which were not feasible 20 years ago. Many of our laws were not written with the internet in mind and are now struggling to cope.
Maybe there are others like your self who don't understand what the cyber in "cybercrime" refers to, but perhaps you could research that as if you were a real journalist ?.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Provide an example where the cyber part is an important distinction from normal crime, and relevant to the subject of this article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Recently for example there was an article here about how the US government wants to mandate putting a "backdoor" into all systems for the NSA to monitor. This to "protect our critical systems against cyber attacks".
Many many people including, I think without dissent, every technical opinion pointed out how ludicrous that is and how impossible to actually acheive and therefore concluded that it was motivated by something else.
That would seem to be 1 example of the term "cyber attack" or "cyber war" being used to mislead people. Would you like to respond with an example of something recent containing "cyber" in the political arena (i.e. not medical, literary, or RPG reference) that is a valid concern?
Then we can debate the relative merits of the 2 perhaps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: say it ain't so!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple Definitions
Computers and related technology are only TOOLS. Just like any physical tool. So, it should be obvious that the people using the tools are the criminals... but no.
Also, it's well documented that the The RIAA/MPAA/BSA are funding this cyber-scam for their own purposes. Unfortunately, our plutocracy in the US goes on with most people's approval.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: say it ain't so!
>>Depends if you are downloading copyrighted music or not.
And that depends on who is talking about the downloading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: say it ain't so!
http://www.cauce.org/2010/11/kidnapping-theft-and-rape-are-not-cyber-crimes.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Depends on how you use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple Definitions
"Tea Pooper"??
Assuming your besmirching the tea party movement, what in THE HELL do they have to do with this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Depends on how you use it.
Why does it have to be limited? Limited in what way?
"That doesn't however mean that the term shouldn't exist."
I completely disagree. Crime is crime in a blind justice world, categorizing it gives politicians and others with any kind of agenda the ability either downplay or up the severity of the crime to fit their needs. Completely against the moires of a blind justice system. There's no legitimate reason to second-guess or distort what the people, the real writers of statutes and penal codes, are trying to convey. If you want a society based on laws that bend and fold with the times and the "feelings" of the masses I highly recommend you buy one of these islands in the pacific and start your own society because I want none of it here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Depends on how you use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, but you implied it by mentioning a measuring stick at all. See, already my point is illustrated. Best to remove all doubt and not allow such a measure, since its not in the laws anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Depends on how you use it.
Both would fall under the artificial bucket "street crime" though, and how is it important to seperate a mugging on the street from a mugging where, for example, the victim is attacked in their own home to the same result?
Such descriptors seem mostly to be used by politicians and new media to elicit a specific emotive response to an event - to manipulate if you will the audiences reaction.
"Street crime" for example has the emotive content of gangs and "ooo the youth of today, it's not safe to go out at night"
"Cyber crime" on the other hand, is generally used to conjure the image of the "hacker" as portrayed in many action drama series - hidden, anonymous, with god-like powers to enter any system and take or do what he wants with some nefarious master plan to 'Destroy A-merica!", and only ever stopped by the few plucky heroes of law-enforcement with a flash of intuition just in time for the end credits. It has connotations of "big brother", and since the technology is not well understood the fear of the unknown rears it's head too, with a dollop of mysticism thrown in too.
Cynical? Maybe so... but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends on how you use it.
"Both would fall under the artificial bucket "street crime" though, and how is it important to seperate a mugging on the street from a mugging where, for example, the victim is attacked in their own home to the same result?" In this scenario one would probably have home invasion as the charge rather than mugging, unless, it was over the internet that the "mugging" happened. Then it wouldn't be street crime, it wouldn't be a home invasion, it would be a cyber-mugging, in which case your both describing the severity of the crime, as well as the method. While it was wrong, you could argue convincingly i would think that it was less wrong then breaking into someones home and stealing from them, as the personal violation would probably feel considerably less.
As to your other points I have no doubt that there is a certain emotive content to the word, but like I said before we need to educate that away, not stop using it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends on how you use it.
I'll grant that police may use such phrases in certain situations for classification that may have validity "in the trade" as it were, but I'd contend that classification is very definitely not the primary intent in most cases when it is used in a news article or political speech. Education isn't going to sort that out for you.
News is entertainment and emotions get better ratings than dry fact and politics is a popularity contest and emotions are a very good way of tugging the electorate around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've heard this before
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It always seems to relate to marketing!
As a techno-geek in the digital world I often find myself laughing. I remember getting my first CD Player and the salesman trying to sell me "digital ready" speakers and headphones. I see the same thing happening with DTV in this millenium. As PT Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute", however I'm very glad it wasn't me!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ofcourse, Mike there is no cyber threat, or crime.. in cyberspace.. its a Utopia !!
Thats right, we dont call it 'sidewalk crime', we call it 'street crime'.
Like we call 'drug crimes', crimes of passion, domestic crime.
Ofcourse, they define specif types of crime, and not lump it all under 'CRIME'. That would be stupid would it not.
Mayby if you think all crime is the same than you could say that, but not all crime is the same.
Some crime is done entirely by computer and on the internet, by that definition cybercrime is the perfect name for it.
WE all know you like to try to down play what is considered and IS a real problem. Just because you cannot see that there is a problem does not mean that no problems exist.
Its clear, that even though you do not understand the importance of the issue, the people who actually matter do.. for that we can be thankfull.
If you actually believe cyber crime does not exist why dont you post all your financial details on this site, and see what happens ?
(then again, you probably dont make alot selling crystall balls.. Mike's version of a paywall LOL)..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
In that case, it could only be a 'cyber' crime, in the sense that the availability of data and ability to cross-reference it is only possible with a computer, ('cyber' in the sense that you would have to recognize the computer aspect of it as important).
Just as an example that's tangentially related, as a phone company, I'm entitled to keep records of and look at the activity of a phoneline. Phone numbers are of course, public. But if I know which set of activity is tied to which phoneline, without getting permission from the user, it's a privacy violation.
The main problem with that example is that no computer is necessary.
The other main problem is that if we imagine this extended to a level where a computer is necessary, it would probably be a matter of scale rather than the tool that makes it different, so it still wouldn't be cyber.
TL;DR: I don't want to outright claim that ALL cyber-crime is really just crime, but I do agree that everything mentioned or hinted at in the article is some form of fraud, theft, or 'normal' crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends on how you use it.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
"but I'd contend that classification is very definitely not the primary intent in most cases when it is used in a news article or political speech. Education isn't going to sort that out for you.
News is entertainment and emotions get better ratings than dry fact and politics is a popularity contest and emotions are a very good way of tugging the electorate around."
That part I'm not debating other than to say I think that is what we need to change, will it be easy, no, but I do think it is necessary to make the fight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ofcourse, Mike there is no cyber threat, or crime.. in cyberspace.. its a Utopia !!
Because it happens in one place does not make it worse then if it happened in another. You get your identity stolen, if it's online or you got your wallet stolen, it's fraud. You get harassed on Facebook or in the playground, it's harassment.
Don't be a moron darryl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But this ISN'T new!
In reality what's happening, if it's happening to the extent those who are whipping up a panic about it, is a direct descendant of intercepting a nation's or a company's "signals", if you like, then overcoming the coding used to hide the actual meaning and reading the stuff.
The most famous of these would be the ability of the British to crack the code used by the Germans during World War II which enabled them to read virtually every communication the German armed forces sent out or received.
In reality this is the same thing with more powerful tools, by several orders of magnitude, used to crack a cypher or inject one.
Instead of the messages being sent across the airwaves or signal flags from the masts of men-o-war sailing ships or whatever now the transmission and reception is occurring over the Internet.
Yes, it's easier to assume someones identity today but its never been impossible. Far from it. Yes, it appears easier to intercept or disrupt messaging (signals) though that's gone on for, well, millennia. Yes, it appears to be easier to crack a cypher code used by governments and industry but that's gone on virtually forever too.
Using the term "cyber" merely hides the fact that this is just an extension of government and private espionage which has also gone on for, well, forever.
It does make a nice way to stir up alarm though. It makes an even better way for different departments of government to go to bureaucratic war with one another over who will get all the money they hope will come in and then take little or no responsibility for getting it all wrong or just missing it in the millions and billions of communications (signals) send across the Internet daily.
Personally, being of a cynical bent and having studied governments throughout history, I rather suspect this has more to do with eroding civil rights of citizens while hoarding power that it does much else.
In the end, sadly, it won't make anyone "safer" in the sense of stopping another terror attack on North America. The reality is that almost all of them have been home grown from the FLQ here in Canada to the Oklahoma City bombing in the United States. The notable exception is 9/11. But this would have missed that one, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm trying to think of a crime that's online exclusive, but I can't. Even hacking has been around for years before computers (as odd as that sounds). I'm sure at least one has been created, but just because it's online should not be an excuse to burn someone at the stake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyber-hyphenation
Of course, the use of CYBER-hyphenation on its lato sensu meaning can be considered awful, but technically, yes there is a CYBER-category of crime.
The (mis)use of CYBER preffix has already been attacked by Stephen Pfohl, a long time ago. So what you're saying in this article is no big news. At all.
Here is the link: http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=86
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
and
"...I have never lived in a time of peace."
Join the club, and the united states doesn't have a copyright on war. Do you know how many days of peace the world has experienced since the birth of Christ? None. ZERO. The US has only been around for a little over 3% of that time.
"We always act so surprised when we are attacked. Yet we always have an enemy. If you have enemies you get attacked. Duh!"
Right or wrong we have had a dominant place in the world for the last 60 years, and the top dog is always seen as the "problem". I'm curious to know how the world would be vastly improved by a change in that status, which is coming. The rise of China shall surely change the balance of power. This is a government that killed over 2000 of its young people over opposition to its internal policies a little over 20 years ago. Would the world be vastly improved with a dominant China?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also, the apparent "lack" of cyberwarfare isn't because it doesn't exist, but most likely because everything is classified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The use of the Prefix "cyber" in conjunction with Criminal and/or Civil Tort based usage is now very much a way for Governments to spend big on things they should be spending monies on anyway. The problem being that as soon as you place the cyber prefix on the words those monies get jacked up by the companies supplying equipment and/or expertise by at least 300% or more .
How do I personally know this? Easy, I am myself a Digital Forensic Investigator in both Criminal and Civil areas. Just last month some beauracrat suggested to me that instead of saying Digital I (and my company) should say "CyberForensics" instead WTF!
Also for years when people asked what I did for a living their normal response was "Oh you catch hackers?" [can you hear my sigh]. Now it is more "Oh you deal in cybercrime"
My normal response now is "no I investigate evidence of alleged crimes, cybercrime though sounds interesting since that would mean a computer is the entity commiting a criminal offence. Cool!"
People, the media, and governments use the word cyber for their own purposes. Criminal and other unlawful (Civil) actions are the same no matter if done face to face or via using the latest greatest technology. The evidence is presented in the same way and the convictions and/or payouts are hopefully (though that is a matter for another contentious post) handed out in the same manner no matter what.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Like what perhaps
Negligence? Fraud? Stalking (just another form of trespass of person)? Defamation? Invasion of privacy? Abuse of process? Forfeiture of Contract? Passing off? Damage of property? Conversion? Vicarious Liability? Malpractice? Interference? Conspiracy? Treason? Sedition?
All these laws have been around for centuries in one form or another. There is really nothing new under the sun in regards to criminal behaviour nor Tortuous behaviour with regards to the internet (nor in fact to any new technology).
Just because they occur via the internet does not mean anything different, though it's good to know that the fear and prejudice of "something new" is still going strong in 2010.
How these torts/laws are applied jurisdictionally is another matter entirely though
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyber vs. On-line
Is it just the sinister/sexy sound of the sibilant first syllable that recommends that usage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyber vs. On-line
Is it just the sinister/sexy sound of the sibilant first syllable that recommends that usage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually it also reminded me that "fear of cyber" isn't new. When Steve Jackson games was working on the RPG CyberPunk many manh years ago, I recall the FBI raided their offices and carted off all the source material because of the "Hacking" and "Cyber Espionage" type stuff it referred to.
Whatever "legitimate" classification exists in the word to describe "where" an event happened, it's certainly not the usage intended by politicians referring to "cyber-crime" or "cyber-warfare".
[ link to this | view in thread ]