Top 10 Internet Crimes of '06 102
An anonymous reader notes that "The Bad Guys blog at USNews.com offers a look at the top ten Internet crimes of 2006. The federal study cited draws on over 200,000 complaints to US law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Top crime: auction fraud, followed by other online rip-offs. "
Skewed results (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "Internet Crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
Just take a look at the Top 10 list:
Internet is only the communication channel used by the crooks, all the crimes depicted there are good old fashioned real life crimes. Being perpetrated via Internet is only a detail that should be irrelevant when categorizing crimes. What I would really like to see is the ratio of these same crimes perpetrated in real life vs. via internet. That would really be insightful and newsworthy.
Re:I notice (Score:4, Insightful)
Piracy is NOT on the list (Score:2, Insightful)
Piracy is not even in the top ten.
Expected specific cases (Score:3, Insightful)
Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Spam? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is not the same as these criminal activities. It's a violation of the copyright, not a criminal act that can be prosecuted.
In Other News (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, how many top ten, bottom ten, best of, and worst of lists have we had in recent memory? Seems like I see a new one or two every day, getting a little ridiculous. Sure, the occasional top ten list is funny, but they are rarely newsworthy.
Re:a serious crime but not violent (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I 100% agree with this. For the simple reason that it fails to differentiate between images of consentual sex involving a minor who has reached the age of consent and child porn.
Find me a jurisdiction in which a 17 year old can consent to sex, even if the other party is above the age of majority (they exist), and I'll show you one in which a legal act can lead to an illegal photograph, and that no violence need be involved at all.
It may be illegal to take/distribute images of that 17 year old engaged in such activity, but there is no inherent violence involved in the act if the sex is consensual. Because, in most jurisdictions, they're too young to have such images taken/distributed involving them, it is illegal.
This is a murky grey area -- it leads to 17 year olds shooting themselves on their picture phones being charged with the creation of child porn. Giving it to someone else means you've now distributed child porn.
In Canada, as long as I'm not in a position of authority, or I didn't engage in 'luring' behaviour, it's entirely legal that a 17 year old could consent with an old fart like me -- it's unlikely, and I'm not a big fan of teenagers in general, but, it is in fact, perfectly legal for it to happen with no implied violence. If I snap a photo of myself doing something which is legal, that photo becomes illegal. OK, I can live with that -- it's intended to prevent exploitation of teens, that is reasonable.
In the event of actual child porn, I believe there is no way a 5 year old can consent to such activity, and I agree with yout assertion of violence in this case. I don't believe that a 15 year old is ready to consent either, especially not to someone markedly older.
It is NOT, however, true that any images involving someone under the age of majority inherently was a violent act. It's illegal, and effectively treated as the same class of offense, but, it *really* isn't 'child' porn. It also stands a very good chance of not actually involving any violence at all.
I'm not advocating the position of middle aged men going out and finding 17 year old girls to have sex with -- or, photographing the results as it were. But, I think there needs to be some better differentiation between distibuting images of underage people and 'child' porn -- especially when you make the assertion that the act itsself is inherently violent. Cause, it doesn't have to be.
Of course, such points of distinction don't sound nearly as cool or categorical, so people downplay them. But, consensual sex which did not involve violence or coersion (and, presumably, all parties were old enough/competent enough to make those decisions) is NOT violent by default. Claiming it is is disingenuous at best.
Few things in life fall into such neat binary piles as you seem to be doing.
Cheers
Re:Surprised that the article didn't mention pirac (Score:3, Insightful)