There certainly have been plenty of stories of incredibly dumb criminals bragging about their crimes on social networking sites -- only to realize too late that the police use such sites too. The latest is a bank robber who bragged about the robbery on Myspace, saying "On tha run for robbin a bank Love all of yall." Of course, the police didn't happen to notice this until they were tipped off by someone who recognized the guy in a television report that flashed a photo of the suspect. However, it makes it a bit harder to defend when the guy effectively confessed on MySpace.

An anonymous reader sent in the following story about how some large software companies are suddenly increasing the number of "software audits" they're doing of enterprise buyers. Most enterprise software contracts include license terms that allow the software provider to "audit" the buyer, to make sure they're not abusing the license. As the article notes, however, such audits usually only come at one of two times: (1) when a company threatens to switch to another vendor or (2) when the company has received info from a reliable source that the license was being abused.

However, it looks like with the economy in freefall -- and IT spending being cut back, some enterprise software companies might be thinking that another way to squeeze some money out of customers is to audit them and force a larger bill on them. Of course, this seems like a plan that could backfire in a big, big way. As noted in the article, being audited is not a pleasant experience at all. It's basically a vendor claiming that it thinks you're breaking your agreement. It's not the best way to build up a strong relationship of trust. Because of that, a sudden increase in totally unexpected and uncalled for audits may seriously damage a company's reputation and drive them to proactively look for alternatives from companies who trust them. Treating your customers like criminals is never a good idea...

While some still want to blame YouTube and other sites for the fact that criminals often post evidence of their crimes on the site, others have at least recognized that all YouTube really does is make it that much easier for police to track down and catch criminals. In the latest example, a guy is now facing 10 years in prison after posting a video on YouTube of him holding a gun (and pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm). Not only was the gun unregistered, but it was manufactured outside the state, making it a federal offense. It's like YouTube is a giant filter for dumb criminals.

There have been so many stories of people blaming YouTube or social networks like MySpace and Facebook when stupid criminals post evidence of their crimes online that some politicians actually have been pushing to pass laws that ban posting evidence of your criminal activities to any of these sites. It's as if politicians want to make the job of police officers that much more difficult by telling criminals to stop incriminating themselves. Sometimes, even the police seem to make this mistake, blaming websites for crimes, even when they're actually great resources for helping to catch criminals.

Luckily, not all police officers think this way. Mark writes in to tell us of a case where police not only used both Facebook and YouTube to track down people setting fires in celebration following the Superbowl, but that the department looks upon those tools as being a useful way to catch criminals:

"We are using this (Facebook) as a crime-fighting tool. It's becoming pretty common."

Sure, this seems like perfectly normal common sense -- but given how we've seen some others react to crimes displayed online in this manner, it's nice to be reminded that some people really do have common sense (though, that clearly does not include the criminals posting such incriminating evidence).

The entertainment industry has a long and sorry history of treating customers like criminals, despite plenty of evidence that suggests that treating customers like criminals makes them more likely to act like criminals, rather than less. SteveD writes in with an example out of the UK, where the proprietor of a small shop decided that his store should be open the day after Christmas, but he didn't want his employees to have to work -- and he didn't want to work either. So, he opened up the shop, put up a note and a box for people to put money in and left the shop entirely unstaffed. It actually worked out well. He made a fair bit of money and didn't find any damage or products stolen.

This reminds me, quite a bit, of the Freakonomics story about the "Bagel Man" who delivered bagels to a variety of office buildings around Washington DC and left out boxes for people to pay. On average, he ended up with around 90% of the money requested, and some interesting lessons in which types of people and companies were more likely to be honest. There's also a scene in the Kevin Smith movie Clerks where the lead character Dante does the same thing -- though his explanation for why it works is: "Theoretically, people see money on the counter, and no one around, they think they're being watched." And, as his girlfriend notes, this is "honesty through paranoia." I'm not sure which it is, but it seems that there's ample evidence that honest people don't need to be "kept honest" and treating your customers like criminals isn't necessarily a very good idea.

Looks like cops aren't the only ones looking online for evidence of crime. Just in the past week, we've seen two stories of small businesses using the web to do some detective work of their own. Canadian retailers in Cape Breton are hiring loss preventional specialists who are making use of social networking tools to track down shoplifters, finding dumb criminals bragging about items they've stolen on YouTube and then using Facebook to help identify the thieves. When a shoplifter has been identified, that information is shared with other members in the retail association who may choose to block that person from their stores. One of the mall owners interviewed also notes in the comments that Facebook is especially useful in checking for potential accomplices (friends who were there at the time of the theft). Despite the effectiveness of using the internet as a crime fighting tool, politicians elsewhere have been trying to get evidence of crime removed from YouTube even though it helps police -- and now retailers -- to catch dumb criminals.

The second story involves an Australian restaurant owner who tracked down bill dodgers using Facebook. The group of five diners stepped outside for a smoke and never returned after racking up a bill of $340 USD. Restaurant staff recalled that one of the diners had inquired about a former waitress when the group arrived. They contacted the waitress, searched a few names on Facebook and came across a profile belonging to one of the diners, who was pictured with his girlfriend (also in the group). Facebook showed that they worked at a restaurant down the street. They contacted the manager and, within hours, the diner returned to pay the bill (along with a generous tip and an apology). Later, the restaurant was notified that the man and his girlfriend had both been fired. No criminal charges were filed.

Whether it's dumb criminals who can't resist bragging or sloppy criminals giving away clues to their identity, the web makes it a lot easier for law enforcement and victims to track them down.

You may recall the story that got a lot of press earlier this month about the bank robber who, rather creatively used Craigslist to enlist a bunch of unwitting conspirators. He put up a day labor job ad, telling anyone interested to show up at a particular corner (in front of a bank) dressed in a very specific manner (blue shirt, safety goggles, dayglo work vest) where they would find out what work they were expected to do. Instead, the guy robbed the bank dressed in the same manner, and left police confused as they saw a bunch of folks who met the description of the bank robber.

However, it appears that the guy has now been caught, as police used some good old fashioned detective work to figure out his identity -- relying on witness clues and DNA evidence. While the method of his getaway seems intriguing, what may be even more worthy of note is that the guy posted the original Craigslist ad using an open WiFi, believing that would help him avoid getting caught. Over the past few years, we've heard time and time again law enforcement officials complain and fret about open WiFi being a criminals' best friend, because it meant a criminal could do whatever they want and never get caught. Yet, as we've seen time and time and time again, such criminals can often be tracked down via other means.

Yes, it's true that an open WiFi network makes it more difficult to track down the criminal, but we don't live in a world where criminals are expected to leave a calling card everywhere they go either. Instead, we expect police to do a variety of detective work. A guy who walks into a bank with a ski mask isn't identifiable by his face, but the police look at other clues. In the same way, a criminal who uses open WiFi isn't identifiable via his IP address, but police look at other clues. And that's just what they did in this and many other cases that involve criminal behavior using open WiFi.

Plenty of countries have different types of "blank media" levies, which act as something of a "you must be a criminal!" tax. Basically, industries have convinced governments to force consumers to pay a lot more, on the assumption that they're all criminals, and rather than pushing the industries to innovate new business models, they just get to collect that "tax." In the US, the RIAA has suggested such a tax should be added to broadband connections, though there seems little chance of that happening any time soon.

However, Sean alerts us to an effort under way in Italy to do exactly that. Apparently the Society of Authors and Editors has asked the government to impose a tax on all DSL connections (the article's in Italian, but Google has a decent translation). Hopefully this is one of those outlandish proposals that goes nowhere, but it's worth paying attention when these sorts of proposals are being pushed, as they have the inevitable tendency to spread.

People sure do love xkcd. I saw the latest comic last night, thinking it was amusing, but I've never been this deluged with submissions from people saying that we absolutely need to post it here. Either way, it does make the universal point about why you shouldn't buy anything that includes DRM. Since any change to the DRM (such as shutting down DRM servers) means you'll probably need to break the law to actually keep using the content you thought you "bought," at some point, people realize they're going to be considered a criminal either way and just vote to pirate stuff in the first place:

You may have recently heard that story of a bank robber who, rather ingeniously, used Craigslist to create a diversion so he could get away with his crime. He put up a message, asking a bunch of people to show up for construction work, and told them what to wear, very specifically. He had them gather near the bank he was planning to rob -- and then wore the same outfit. After robbing the bank, police and security then saw a mob of folks all matching the same basic description as the bank robber. So far, the guy seems to have gotten away with the crime.

However, it's only a matter of time until others start thinking about ways to make use of social media for crime. This isn't to blame social media at all (though, expect the press -- and possibly politicians -- to falsely focus on the tech), as it's just a tool. But it is worth thinking about how criminals might use these technologies, if we want to think about ways to prevent the worst abuses. Jeremy Wagstaff has an interesting post where he wonders if Twitter will become a source of info for scammers and criminals, who gather the info people reveal about themselves to use in a crime. He's riffing off of a David Weinberger blog post, which jokes about how the opposite of the Do Not Disturb sign in many hotels says something along the lines of "Make Up My Room Now." As Weingberg astutely notes, some could interpret this as actually saying: "I'm Out, So This Would Be a Good to Rob Me, Especially If You Are Squeamish about Violence."

Wagstaff wonders if the same is true about status updates on Twitter, Facebook and other social sites -- and someone announcing that they're away from home opens up an opportunity to a burglar to break in. To some extent, I would imagine that could be true -- and I'm almost positive we'll eventually read some story somewhere about a criminal using data on Twitter to do something -- but it's difficult to see how most Twitter messages are really that revealing. It's not that difficult for a potential burglar to just canvas a house and see that the inhabitants go to work every day, and they get the same benefit, totally unrelated to the status message. Also, I'd argue that what a status message leaves out may turn out to be more important than what is put in. For example, my Twitter status might note that I'm traveling and in Chicago right now... but might not mention the fact that a friend, who spent a few years in the army, is housesitting for me and watching my pets. Anyone who relies solely on the Twitter message to decide where to rob, might be in for a bit of a surprise.

In some ways, this whole thing is similar to the "fear" when answering machines first showed up. There were reports that warned people not to say "we're not in right now" as people were told that criminals might use this to figure out who to rob. Instead, they were told to say "we can't get to the phone right now," as a transparent sort of hedge. Of course, the whole thing was silly. It was hardly an efficient way for criminals to find out who to rob, and the actual risk was quite low. The same thing is likely true of any "threat" of criminals using Twitter.