<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;criminals&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: ATMs Are Ripe For Picking...</title>
<dc:creator>Joyce Hung</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01362413439/dailydirt-atms-are-ripe-picking.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01362413439/dailydirt-atms-are-ripe-picking.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Thieves are getting more clever about stealing money from ATMs. It used to be that people mostly just had to worry about getting robbed while getting cash at an ATM. In 1998, Joseph Zingher, a Chicago businessman, even patented a "reverse PIN system" called <a href="http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/pinalert.asp">SafetyPIN</a> that would alert police when a cardholder at an ATM entered their PIN in reverse. The idea was that if someone was being forced to withdraw money at an ATM, they could silently alert the police with this "panic code." Unfortunately for Zingher, he was never able to convince the banking industry to adopt his SafetyPIN system. Now, people have to worry about ATM card skimming and other high-tech theft methods. Here are a few examples of some recent ATM theft methods.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-45-million-global-cyber-bank-thefts.html?pagewanted=1&#038;_r=1&#038;ref=todayspaper&#038;&pagewanted=all" href="http://nyti.ms/10Kn7MX">Like something out of the movie <i>Ocean's Eleven</i>, cybercriminals working with "cashing crews" in more than two dozen countries managed to steal $45 million from thousands of ATMs in just a few hours.</a> First, the hackers raised the withdrawal limits on several prepaid debit card accounts, then the account information was distributed and encoded onto magnetic-stripe cards. In NYC alone, a team of 8 people withdrew $2.4 million from a few thousand ATMs. [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-45-million-global-cyber-bank-thefts.html?pagewanted=1&#038;_r=1&#038;ref=todayspaper&#038;&pagewanted=all">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/04/atm_scam_in_spokane_involves_t.html" href="http://bit.ly/109z0iY">Thieves glued the cancel button on several ATMs in Spokane, WA.</a> Their hope was that a customer would make a mistake or try to cancel a transaction, and then realize they can't because the cancel button is stuck. If the customer left in frustration, the thieves could unglue the button and then steal the bank card or continue the transaction. [<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/04/atm_scam_in_spokane_involves_t.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/hacker-serving-5-year-sentence-invents-atm-add-on-to-prevent-theft/" href="http://ars.to/18QysS7">A hacker serving a five-year sentence in Romania has invented a device that prevents ATM skimming thefts.</a> The add-on device rotates ATM cards so that skimming devices (as they're currently designed) can't read them.  [<a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/hacker-serving-5-year-sentence-invents-atm-add-on-to-prevent-theft/">url</a>]</li>


</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a> via StumbleUpon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01362413439/dailydirt-atms-are-ripe-picking.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01362413439/dailydirt-atms-are-ripe-picking.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01362413439/dailydirt-atms-are-ripe-picking.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110311/01362413439</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 20:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Criminal Nabbed By His Own Food Porn</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've covered the trespasses of stupid criminals here before. Bank robbers who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml">brag</a> about their actions on YouTube, for instance. Or thieves on the lam <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/05543221698/stupid-criminals-posting-vacation-shopping-pictures-yourself-facebook-while-fugitive.shtml">uploading</a> pictures containing their whereabouts to social media sites. It seems at times that these guys and gals are just <i>trying</i> to get caught. But that's certainly not always the case. Take the following story, which I have to believe is the internet-y-ist dumb criminal story yet.
<br /><br />
It begins with Troy Maye, who is accused of <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/instagram-food-porn-evidence-798451">grabbing identifying info on people and then attempting to sell the identities</a> off to bidders. The IRS was tracking Maye and his girlfriend, but they didn't have either of their real names, since they were at least smart enough to give aliases. So the IRS <a href="http://gawker.com/hipster-thieves-caught-because-they-just-had-to-instagr-503526567">engaged a confidential informant</a>, who sat down to eat with them at a restaurant in Florida.
<blockquote>
<i>They came up on the IRS radar after the couple met an informant at &mdash; no joke &mdash; YOLO Restaurant in Fort Lauderdale. Maye told the informant his name was Troy and that he had stolen 700,000 identities, but the IRS could not yet crack the thief of identities' identity.</i>
</blockquote>
I have no idea what kind of food is served at YOLO Restaurant, but you kind of have to assume everything on the menu has a 50/50 shot of killing you, right? Maybe it's nothing but puffer fish and uncooked chicken with a side of ebola? Regardless, the IRS still wasn't able to get names on the two, so the informant was sent to have another meal with the two criminals, this time upping the classiness of the operation by going to a Morton's Steakhouse. While there, Maye provided the informant with a thumb drive that contained a bunch of identities, which were promptly turned over to the IRS. Investigators were then able to pull Maye's name from metadata on the drive. From there, the IRS did what any federal agency would do:
<blockquote>
<i>IRS Agent Louis Babino then headed to Google and located Maye&rsquo;s Instagram page, which contained a profile photo of Maye. When shown the profile photo, the CW confirmed that Maye (seen at right) was the man with whom he dined at Morton&rsquo;s.</i>
</blockquote>
Well, sure, Agent Babino, but how can you be <i>really</i> sure this was your guy?
<blockquote>
<i>A further review of Maye&rsquo;s Instagram page, Babino noted, revealed &ldquo;a photo of a steak and macaroni and cheese meal containing the caption &lsquo;Morton&rsquo;s.&rsquo;&rdquo; The image--uploaded on January 7 at 11:24 PM--&ldquo;appears to coincide&rdquo; with the CW&rsquo;s meeting at Morton&rsquo;s, added Babino.</i>
</blockquote>
Yup, this guy food-porned his way into being arrested. The Instagram photo is reportedly being entered into evidence in the case, so one hopes the juicy steak and the creamy mac and cheese was really, <i>really</i> worth all the trouble Maye is now in. Once again, if you're a criminal, online narcicism is probably something you'd do best to avoid.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/10360323060/criminal-nabbed-his-own-food-porn.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>steak-in-the-game</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130513/10360323060</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:46:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Police Search For Mugger For 3 Weeks, Internet Finds Him In An Hour</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/09581422597/police-search-mugger-3-weeks-internet-finds-him-hour.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/09581422597/police-search-mugger-3-weeks-internet-finds-him-hour.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
We've discussed before the ways law enforcement groups use social media. Frankly, the general theme tends to be that they aren't very good at internetting. Whether it's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130402/17140522550/police-officers-association-director-thinks-being-sexually-assaulted-state-trooper-is-hilarious.shtml">mocking</a> invasive vaginal searches or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130329/12165822513/boston-police-are-catfishing-locals-to-bust-punk-rock-shows.shtml">catfishing</a> music fans with well-tread tropes, it seems the wider internet plays the web game better than the LEOs. All the while, you occasionally will hear someone in law enforcement decrying how awful the internet is and even sometimes attempting to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/164111692.shtml">shut down</a> certain sites. Yet, despite being so under-appreciated, the wider internet sure does love to show how good they are at catching suspected criminals.
<br /><br />
That capability was on full display in the case of a mugging in New York City, where police had been searching for a suspect for three weeks <a href="http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/alyssa-figueroa/nypd-couldnt-find-mugger-3-weeks-internet-commenters-catch-him-1-hour">before "deputizing" the internet, which identified him in <i>an hour</i></a>. Within an hour of Gawker posting the video of the crime on the site, a helpful commenter linked to a Facebook page that appeared to show the suspect wearing the same clothes in photos taken mere hours prior to the crime.
<blockquote>
<i>The link led to the Facebook page of 21-year-old Aidan Folan, who had photos of him taken hours before the robbery. According to Gawker, the photos revealed the same sweatshirt the mugger wore in the video &mdash; with large fraternity letters on front. Commenters on the New York's Daily Intelligencer site, which also posted the video, also linked back to Folan.</i>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Folan has since been arrested and charged with robbery and assault.</i>
</blockquote>
Internet 1, stupid frat boy crimes 0. But the larger point is that, far from the crime-inducing cesspool claimed by some LEOs, the internet is a tool they should be using. Many LEOs recognize that, utilizing social media to put together suspect timelines, but the aggregate of the public internet is also a tool to catch violent criminals.
<blockquote>
<i>Social media acts as a timeline of people's lives &mdash; accounts of their activities. And now they are playing significant roles in helping to solve crimes &mdash; most notably exposing the Steubenville rape case back in January.</i>
</blockquote>
It's worth noting that there's a difference between having the public help law enforcement find suspects and LEOs keeping watch over social media. The lesson here is that the it's not all or nothing with law enforcement and the internet. You can get the help you need without invading the public's lives.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/09581422597/police-search-mugger-3-weeks-internet-finds-him-hour.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/09581422597/police-search-mugger-3-weeks-internet-finds-him-hour.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/09581422597/police-search-mugger-3-weeks-internet-finds-him-hour.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thank-you,-internetz</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130405/09581422597</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:18:46 PST</pubDate>
<title>Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/17202922246/just-cause-2-developer-why-it-wont-utilize-drm-it-treats-our-fans-like-criminals.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/17202922246/just-cause-2-developer-why-it-wont-utilize-drm-it-treats-our-fans-like-criminals.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Well, we've certainly heard plenty about DRM and shoehorned-in multiplayer recently, what with EA's recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130305/14551022206/launch-day-punishment-simcitys-online-only-drm-locking-purchasers-out-servers-purchases.shtml" target="_blank">Hindenburgish SimCity "launch."</a> As was detailed all over the web, the only people hurt by these "features" were paying customers, many of whom spent $50-60 for a server Roulette wheel that limited users to one spin every half hour.
<br /><br />
Many developers are concerned with piracy and have made the mistake of crippling their software with DRM that punishes paying users disproportionately while affecting pirates hardly at all. At best, these efforts result in a Pyrrhic tie, damaging the developers' relationships with their customers while having a negligible effect on infringement.
<br /><br />
Fortunately, some developers would rather not sacrifice their customers' happiness in order to briefly irritate a few pirates. Avalanche Studios, the developer behind Just Cause 2, is one of these forward-thinking developers. In an interview with Gaming Bolt, <a href="http://gamingbolt.com/avalanche-studios-on-drm-it-treats-our-fans-like-criminals-which-they-are-not" target="_blank">founder Cristofer Sundberg had this to say about DRM</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>"DRM solutions which limit the game experience should not exist. That's my honest opinion...</i>
<br /><br />
<i>They make us look greedy, which we are not. It treats our fans like criminals, which they are not. With that said, I think that we deserve getting paid for years of hard work and I think piracy is hurting our ability to make great games."</i></blockquote>
However you may feel about his statement on piracy, there's no arguing with the fact that he's unwilling to put anti-piracy efforts ahead of providing Avalanche's customers with a great experience. He also parts ways with EA (among others) on another aspect of piracy prevention, one that's almost always presented as a "feature," rather than just another limitation on the end user.
<blockquote>
<i>He is also against adding multiplayer component to a game to prevent the game from being traded.</i></blockquote>
He uses his own game as an example. Just Cause 2 is rarely sighted in used game stores simply because the players who purchased it years ago are still playing it. There's no (native) multiplayer in Just Cause 2 (excluding an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCaS5EMBNM4" target="_blank">awesome PC-only mod</a>), but that has done nothing to diminish its popularity). As Sundberg sees it, throwing multiplayer options in for their own sake (or as a form of DRM/resale prevention) weakens the original product.
<blockquote>
<i>"Nobody wins in the end; the developer can't make the great experience that they want to, the publisher doesn't get its money back and the consumer is disappointed. I am convinced that this mentality contributes to the downfall of the industry."</i></blockquote>
So, either Sundberg is crazy or he's actually paying attention to the gaming community. At times, it almost seems as though certain companies think their customers are the <i>last</i> people they should listen to -- a very strange position for entities in the business of selling things. Hopefully, more will realize the damage they're doing far outweighs the nominal gains and DRM will become an exception rather than the rule for AAA developers.
<br /><br />
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/17202922246/just-cause-2-developer-why-it-wont-utilize-drm-it-treats-our-fans-like-criminals.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/17202922246/just-cause-2-developer-why-it-wont-utilize-drm-it-treats-our-fans-like-criminals.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/17202922246/just-cause-2-developer-why-it-wont-utilize-drm-it-treats-our-fans-like-criminals.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-refreshing-blast-of-honesty-and-common-sense</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130307/17202922246</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Stupid Criminals: Posting Vacation &#038; Shopping Pictures Of Yourself On Facebook While A Fugitive</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/05543221698/stupid-criminals-posting-vacation-shopping-pictures-yourself-facebook-while-fugitive.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/05543221698/stupid-criminals-posting-vacation-shopping-pictures-yourself-facebook-while-fugitive.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There must be some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/09433321595/unintended-consequences-lead-crime.shtml">heavy metals</a> in the water wherever criminals grow up, because they do some really&nbsp;<i>stupid</i> things. Recall the young mastermind who allegedly committed a drunken <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130105/05461321587/protip-after-committing-drunken-hit-rundont-brag-about-it-facebook.shtml">hit and run</a> and then posted about it on Facebook. Or the bank-robbing vixen who somehow thought making a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml">YouTube video</a> bragging about her crimes was a great idea. It&#39;s a strange kind of dichotomy for law enforcement agencies that at once catch these dummies using internet services and websites while also decrying Craigslist as some kind of enabler, rather than a holding pen for future convicts. The point is that criminals, by and large, are <i>stupid</i>, and if you give them just enough bandwidth-cord, they&#39;ll inevitably hang themselves with it.
<br /><br />
Such is the case with the latest entrant into the "Hey, Come Arrest Me" sweepstakes, a purported gang member who robbed a man of thousands in jewelry on camera in the UK, jumped a flight to South America to return to his native Columbia (no extradition treaty with the UK), following a brief vacation in Brazil, and then <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/thief-busted-posting-photos-online-140924024--abc-news-topstories.html">returned to the UK to upload pictures of himself</a> Christmas shopping.
<blockquote>
<i>Charles Rodriguez, 31, is a Colombian man who police believe is a member of the crime gang the Latin Kings. In October 2011, along with another man, he allegedly beat a jeweler who had been returning from a sales trip.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>"Rodriguez&#39;s arrogance was astonishing. After committing an appalling attack on a jewellery trader, he fled the country to his native Colombia where he knew he could not be extradited," Detective Sergeant Roger Smethurst said in a statement. "However, his lack of remorse was evident by the fact he brazenly posted sightseeing pictures from Brazil - at a time when he was on the run - on his Facebook page."</i>
</blockquote>
Manchester police were following along the entire way, ostensibly "ooh-ing" and "aah-ing" at what I&#39;m sure were the beautiful sights of Brazil. Perhaps they even placed wagers on what Rodriguez would buy his grandchildren. I don&#39;t know. What I&nbsp;<i>do</i> know is that they continued following him on his digital sight-seeing picture-show in the hopes that eventually Rodriguez would do something monumentally stupid.
<br /><br />
Rodriguez, it would appear, is not the kind of man who disappoints.
<blockquote>
<i>In 2012 he reentered the U.K. with a false passport. He even posted photos of himself Christmas shopping and sightseeing around London. Rodriguez was stopped by London police for driving suspiciously. Though he faked his name, fingerprinting revealed his identity.<br />
"Rodriguez must have thought he was above the law and untouchable because even when he finally returned to the UK, knowing he was still wanted, he still posted pictures of himself Christmas shopping in London on his Facebook page," Smethurst said.</i>
</blockquote>
He has since pled guilty to robbery and has been ordered to serve more than five years in prison. So raise your glasses of Newcastle Brown to Mr. Rodriguez. If the police have any sense of humor at all, they&#39;ll allow him to Facebook check-in to prison.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/05543221698/stupid-criminals-posting-vacation-shopping-pictures-yourself-facebook-while-fugitive.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/05543221698/stupid-criminals-posting-vacation-shopping-pictures-yourself-facebook-while-fugitive.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/05543221698/stupid-criminals-posting-vacation-shopping-pictures-yourself-facebook-while-fugitive.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>stupid-is-as-stupid-does</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130116/05543221698</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:34:51 PST</pubDate>
<title>Protip: After Successfully Stealing A Car And Robbing A Bank... Don't Brag About It On YouTube</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ No one ever said that criminals were particularly smart. Over the years, we've pointed to a number of incredibly stupid criminals who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0109434017.shtml">post evidence</a> or confessions of their crimes in YouTube videos.  What's amazed us, though, are politicians who argue that there should be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080512/1802591092.shtml">additional criminal penalties</a> for those who broadcast their crimes via YouTube, even as it presents evidence that makes it easier to convict them.  In fact, we had a story of a City Council explicitly ordering a serial criminal to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml">stop posting</a> evidence of his crimes to YouTube.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, such calls for adding penalties for dumb criminals publicly exposing evidence about their crimes seems to have died down.  So, now we can see videos <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAZoo5KRMZ4&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">like the following</a> in which Hannah Sabata, a 19-year-old from Nebraska, <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/woman-accused-of-robbing-bank-and-bragging-about-it-on-youtube/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto" target="_blank">confesses to robbing a bank and a car and brags about it</a> (and let's not even get into whether or not the Green Day tune with the video is infringing... though it looks like that's been "claimed" and "monetized" by ContentID):
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lAZoo5KRMZ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
The video was posted last week... and apparently a <i>lot</i> of people called the local sheriff.  Apparently Ms. Sabata also texted her ex-husband (an ex-husband at 19?) bragging about the crime as well, and he alerted the police also.  Adding to the evidence: the outfit she wears in the video... is the same outfit she wore during the bank robbery. 
<blockquote><i>
"I've been sheriff for 19 years, and in law enforcement for 42 years, and I've never seen anything like this," Sheriff Radcliff said.
</i></blockquote>
Yup.  And it seems like a <i>good</i> thing that we have stupid criminals incriminating themselves so publicly, rather than making that an additional crime.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/16501621225/protip-after-successfully-stealing-car-robbing-bank-dont-brag-about-it-youtube.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-saying...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121204/16501621225</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/01010220014/seizing-domains-is-only-training-criminals-to-improve.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/01010220014/seizing-domains-is-only-training-criminals-to-improve.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ "Cybercrime" investigator Rob Holmes has an interesting post arguing that <a href="http://ipcybercrime.com/why-seizing-domains-is-reaping-failure/" target="_blank">seizing domains is a recipe for making the problems of illegal activity online even worse</a>.  He takes credit for being one of the first to suggest that domains could be viewed as "tools" of a criminal, thus making them ripe for seizure.  However, he's not impressed by those in law enforcement who are eagerly seizing domains by the dozens -- in part because he thinks it helps actual criminals more than it hurts them:
<blockquote><i>
The reason we are fighting the good fight is to stop people from doing bad things and hold them accountable for their actions.  Whether you are enforcing trademark rights or car thefts, this has to be done one person at a time.  In 2010 a client asked me what we could take away from the offenders to make them stop.  My simple answer was &#8220;Their freedom.&#8221;  Entrepreneurs will always find a way to do business.  Bad guys need to be put away to reflect on their actions.  Nothing else will stop them.  <b>When you take away only the tool, you are training the criminal to improve.</b>  I am not in the business of training crooks.  Are you?
</i></blockquote>
This, of course, is a different perspective.  Most of us have been concerned about the free speech and collateral damage issues raised by domain seizures.  But Holmes is making the argument that, even when we're talking about confirmed criminal activity, domain seizures are counterproductive because they're going after a tool rather than those actually responsible.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/01010220014/seizing-domains-is-only-training-criminals-to-improve.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/01010220014/seizing-domains-is-only-training-criminals-to-improve.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/01010220014/seizing-domains-is-only-training-criminals-to-improve.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wrong-approach</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120814/01010220014</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:28:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've heard various stories of how anyone who attends an early movie screening (i.e., before the movie has actually been widely released), should <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051104/1927247.shtml">expect to be treated like a total criminal</a>.  The usual stories involve being searched carefully and being required to hand over all mobile phones, which will be held until the end of the film.  Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=minerat">minerat</a> writes in to tell us of his story, which involved going to a 7:30pm showing of <i>Moneyball</i> last week -- just a few hours before the movie was actually being released.  Even so... same process.  "Security made everyone give up their cell phones and checked all bags."  And, it appears that security had their priorities straight from the MPAA:
<blockquote><i>
The better part is after we gave up our phones, another security guard waves a metal detecting wand over us and we had to empty our pockets on any hits.  My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun.  Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater.  Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months.  </i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>priorities,-people!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110923/12352816074</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:36:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>Good Luck Trying To Delete Stuff Off The Internet</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/0908017180.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/0908017180.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=ethorad">ethorad</a> writes <i>"In the UK, in an attempt to promote the work the police do, some forces name and shame criminals that they catch and prosecute.  All good so far as it helps the community see that crimes are being tackled (assuming they are ...)<br />
<br />
However the Ministry of Justice has now said that police forces who do that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8392012.stm" target="_blank">must remove the details from their website after one month</a>.  Yeah, good luck with that.  Place your bets now on how many third party websites (especially local community ones) will start scraping the details from police websites for long term storage?"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/0908017180.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/0908017180.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/0908017180.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-that'll-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091203/0908017180</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:02:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yes, Bad People Use Facebook Too</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091116/1341346954.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091116/1341346954.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader Tina alerts us to an article about how some students in Venezuela have been <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/print/4593538" target="_blank">arrested for using Facebook to monitor other students' activities</a>, and then rob them while they were out.  Of course, it appears the plan wasn't that foolproof, considering they were <i>caught</i>.  The rest of the article discusses Facebook and Twitter usage in Venezuela, and how the police and the government are trying to use those tools to crack down not just on crime, but also on dissent... at the same time that government protesters are using the tools to make themselves more widely heard (and organized).  There isn't that much surprising -- and it seems that the role of social networks is merely to amplify what is going on already in the country, which is about what you'd expect.  Still, it is interesting to see this sense of wonder that some people have over the fact that not everyone who uses Facebook uses it for "good" reasons.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091116/1341346954.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091116/1341346954.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091116/1341346954.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>in-case-you-didn't-know</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091116/1341346954</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yes, Your Parole Officer Can Use Facebook Too</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/2109215143.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/2109215143.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It seems there's never a shortage of folks trying to get listed in the new feature about stupid criminals giving themselves away.  We just had the bank robber who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2326425075.shtml">bragged</a> about his escapades on MySpace, and now we have a story about a girl (under the legal drinking age) awaiting trial for vehicular homicide for driving drunk and killing a motorcyclist.  Apparently, as a part of her bail while waiting for trial, she was not to drink alcohol or spend time with people drinking alcohol.  So, now she's in a bit of trouble after authorities <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/06/05/facebook-dui/" target="_new">found photos of her drinking alcohol with college friends on Facebook</a>.  Apparently, she never thought anyone would notice.  The judge, however, is now forcing her to wear a special ankle bracelet that senses alcohol in perspiration.  Either way, once again, it's nice to see that for all the moral panic talk about the "harm" done by social networks, some law enforcement folks are using it to actually catch criminals.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/2109215143.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/2109215143.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/2109215143.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>stupid-criminal-series</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090605/2109215143</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If You Rob A Bank, Perhaps You Shouldn't Brag About It On MySpace</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2326425075.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2326425075.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0409463718.shtml">the police use such sites too</a>.  The latest is a bank robber who <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10251862-93.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">bragged about the robbery on Myspace</a>, 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2326425075.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2326425075.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2326425075.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-a-suggestion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090531/2326425075</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Mar 2009 07:52:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>When You Treat Your Customers Like Criminals, Don't Be Surprised When They Go To Different Suppliers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0112244000.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0112244000.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ An anonymous reader sent in the following story about how some large software companies are suddenly <a href="http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1511-EMC-presages-broader-rise-in-software-audits" target="_new">increasing the number of "software audits" they're doing of enterprise buyers</a>.  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 <i>usually</i> 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.
<br /><br />
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...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0112244000.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0112244000.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0112244000.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-simple-warning</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090305/0112244000</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:39:12 PST</pubDate>
<title>More Dumb Criminals On YouTube: Man Faces 10 Years In Jail For Self-Incrimination By YouTube</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0109434017.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0109434017.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While some still want to <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070103/235109.shtml">blame YouTube</a> 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 <a href="http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=82337" target="_new">facing 10 years in prison</a> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0109434017.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0109434017.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0109434017.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>darwinism-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090306/0109434017</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:53:41 PST</pubDate>
<title>Police Actually Realizing That YouTube And Facebook Are Useful Tools To Catch Criminals</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0409463718.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0409463718.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been so many stories of people <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070103/235109.shtml">blaming</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070126/005750.shtml">pass laws</a> 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 <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080512/1802591092.shtml">that much more difficult</a> by telling criminals to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml">stop</a> incriminating themselves.  Sometimes, even the police seem to make this <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070822/192753.shtml">mistake</a>, blaming websites for crimes, even when they're actually great resources for helping to <i>catch</i> criminals.
<br /><br />
Luckily, not all police officers think this way.  Mark writes in to tell us of a case where police not only <a href="http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/sports/18656797/detail.html" target="_new">used both Facebook and YouTube</a> 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:
<blockquote><i>
"We are using this (Facebook) as a crime-fighting tool. It's becoming pretty common."
</i></blockquote>
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).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0409463718.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0409463718.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090210/0409463718.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>about-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090210/0409463718</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:56:25 PST</pubDate>
<title>Trust Your Customers... And They Do Amazing Things...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090104/2159403281.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090104/2159403281.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The entertainment industry has a long and sorry history of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051104/1927247.shtml">treating customers like criminals</a>, despite plenty of evidence that suggests that treating customers like criminals makes them <i>more</i> 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 <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/7809031.stm" target="_new">left the shop entirely unstaffed</a>.  It actually worked out well.  He made a fair bit of money and didn't find any damage or products stolen.  
<br /><br />
This reminds me, quite a bit, of the Freakonomics story about <a href="http://freakonomicsbook.com/articles/bagelman.html" target="_new">the "Bagel Man"</a> 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 <i>Clerks</i> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090104/2159403281.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090104/2159403281.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090104/2159403281.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>treat-them-like-criminals,-however...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090104/2159403281</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:35:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Small Business Owners Track Down Dumb Criminals Online</title>
<dc:creator>Blaise Alleyne</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081127/1206322969.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081127/1206322969.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Looks like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml">cops</a> 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 <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/11/27/ns-facebook-shoplifters.html">making use of social networking tools</a> 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 <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/11/27/ns-facebook-shoplifters.html#socialcomments">comments</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml">elsewhere</a> have been trying to get evidence of crime removed from YouTube even though it helps police -- and now retailers -- to catch dumb criminals.
<br /><br />
The second story involves an Australian restaurant owner who <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081127.wgtrestaurant1127/BNStory/Technology/?page=rss&#038;id=RTGAM.20081127.wgtrestaurant1127">tracked down bill dodgers using Facebook</a>. 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.
<br /><br />
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 <em>and</em> victims to track them down.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081127/1206322969.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081127/1206322969.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081127/1206322969.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-can-run-but-you-can't-hide</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081127/1206322969</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:53:22 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another WiFi-Borrowing Criminal Caught</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1737202760.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1737202760.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall the story that got a lot of press earlier this month about the bank robber who, rather creatively <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/0905582476.shtml">used Craigslist</a> 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.
<br /><br />
However, it appears that the guy <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/police_catch_craigslist_robber_suspect/" target="_new">has now been caught</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040602/1857248.shtml">never get caught</a>.  Yet, as we've seen <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20040625/2238204.shtml">time</a> and <a href="http://techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20040907/0022235.shtml">time</a> and <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20071211/022848.shtml">time again</a>, such criminals can often be tracked down via other means.
<br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1737202760.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1737202760.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1737202760.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-is-possible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081106/1737202760</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:14:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Italian Authors Want A 'You Must Be A Pirate' Tax On All DSL Connections</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081105/0220262743.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081105/0220262743.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Plenty of countries have different types of "blank media" <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080214/193731260.shtml">levies</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/114351536.shtml">suggested</a> such a tax should be added to broadband connections, though there seems little chance of that happening any time soon.
<br /><br />
However, <a href="http://seansicily.wordpress.com/">Sean</a> alerts us to an effort under way in Italy to do exactly that.  Apparently the Society of Authors and Editors has <a href="http://www.ilbloggatore.com/2008/11/04/siae-senza-vergogna-chiede-una-tassa-sull%E2%80%99adsl/" target="_new">asked the government to impose a tax on all DSL connections</a> (the article's in Italian, but Google has a <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilbloggatore.com%2F2008%2F11%2F04%2Fsiae-senza-vergogna-chiede-una-tassa-sull%25E2%2580%2599adsl%2F&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;sl=it&#038;tl=en">decent translation</a>).  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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081105/0220262743.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081105/0220262743.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081105/0220262743.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you're-a-criminal!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081105/0220262743</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:52:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>xkcd Speaks Truth To DRM: You're A Criminal Either Way</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/1517002532.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/1517002532.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ People sure do love <a href="http://xkcd.com">xkcd</a>.  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 <a href="http://xkcd.com/488/" target="_new">why you shouldn't buy anything that includes DRM</a>.  Since any change to the DRM (such as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080929/0004132388.shtml">shutting down DRM servers</a>) 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:
<center>
<img src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png" title="I spent more time trying to get an audible.com audio book playing than it took to listen to the book.  I have lost every other piece of DRM-locked music I have paid for." alt="Steal This Comic" width=450 />
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/1517002532.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/1517002532.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/1517002532.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-so-it-goes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081013/1517002532</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Oct 2008 03:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Soon Until We Start Hearing Stories Of Twitter Criminals?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/0905582476.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/0905582476.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may have recently heard that story of a bank robber who, rather ingeniously, used Craigslist to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/bank-robber-hires-decoys-on-craigslist-fools-cops/">create a diversion</a> 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.
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://www.loosewireblog.com/2008/10/the-scam-potent.html" target="_new">if Twitter will become a source of info for scammers and criminals</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/10/05/the-opposite-of-do-not-disturb/">astutely notes</a>, 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."
<br /><br />
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 <i>that</i> 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.
<br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/0905582476.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/0905582476.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/0905582476.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>perhaps,-but...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081007/0905582476</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 06:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>City Council Tells 'Dumbest Criminal' To Stop Posting So Much Evidence To YouTube</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080512/1802591092.shtml">mocking</a> various attempts to get laws passed that would make it illegal for criminals to post evidence of their crimes on YouTube.  This makes absolutely no sense -- as you're basically telling criminals "stop giving us the evidence we need to convict you."  If the criminals are so dumb as to hand over such evidence, shouldn't the police and gov't officials be happy about it?  Now, in a rather extreme example of this, the city council for Leeds, in the UK, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020951/Britains-dumbest-criminal-banned-boasting-offences-internet.html?ITO=1490" target="_new">has banned a man they refer to as one of the city's "dumbest criminals" from posting any more evidence to YouTube</a>.  In fact, the City Council even seems to recognize how helpful the guy has been: "He has handed us the evidence against him on a plate.  In the last three years, we have seen a 32 per cent reduction in crime in Leeds. If more criminals were as obliging, the city would be even safer."  So why would you ban him from uploading such evidence?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>give-the-cops-a-challenge,-man</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080521/1350411194</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:46:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Cops On The YouTube Beat</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the past couple of years, we've seen some politicians trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070103/235109.shtml">blame</a> YouTube for encouraging crimes, under the odd rationale that kids are committing crimes just to show them off on YouTube.  In fact, one politician even proposed a law that would make punishment <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070126/005750.shtml">worse</a> for people who put video of the crime on YouTube.  However, it would appear that the police have a rather different view: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7254599.stm" target="_new">YouTube is a fantastic tool for catching dumb criminals</a> who provide all the evidence needed against them, by posting it to YouTube.  In fact, it sounds like some police departments are putting an increased presence on YouTube and other sites, searching for evidence of wrongdoing.  This comes after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060406/0837211.shtml">quite</a> a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061129/211700.shtml">few</a> stories of people incriminating themselves with YouTube videos.  However, as the article notes, criminals may have much less incentive in England and Wales to post such incriminating evidence, as filming a crime and posting it to the internet will now be considered an "aggravating factor" in the case.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>specializing-in-dumb-criminals</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080221/094928313</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:37:04 PST</pubDate>
<title>One Other Thing The Internet Is Useful For: Highlighting Dumb Criminals</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/16063695.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/16063695.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The internet gets unfairly blamed for all kinds of things, so it's worth pointing out what it's useful for as well, such as highlighting dumb criminals.  Take, for example, the story making the rounds about the <a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihFaU1OL2ABIckiGJTTmca1h8DTQ">woman who tried to hire a hitman on Craigslist</a> to kill her lover's wife.  Then, there's the New York state employee who tried to <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&#038;storyid=2008-01-28T202749Z_01_N28481395_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-HISTORY.xml" target="_new">sell off rare historic state documents on eBay</a>.  In both cases, the effort of effectively advertising their crimes online helped highlight these dumb criminals.  While it's nothing new, it does make you wonder why people still think to use the internet in this manner.  Do they really not recognize how quickly they're likely to be caught?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/16063695.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/16063695.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/16063695.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>making-yourself-known</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080128/16063695</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:40:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>Crowdsourcing Law Enforcement</title>
<dc:creator>Julian Sanchez</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/145343.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/145343.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In a move that seems calculated to evoke the <a href="http://www.apfn.org/APFN/1984-movie-bb.jpg">film adaptation of <em>1984</em></a>,  the FBI has <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/23351">announced a plan</a> to begin using some 150  Clear Channel digital billboards in major American cities to show national security alerts, information about recent crimes, and photographs of fugitive criminals and missing persons, all with real-time updates.   <br /> <p>A pilot billboard in Philadelphia has <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec07/billboards122607.html">already helped</a> to capture several wanted criminals, and a spokesman for the outdoor advertising industry <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/28/tech/main3652539.shtml">suggests</a> that these kinds of publicity tactics can be as useful at demoralizing criminals as they are at generating tips:</p> <blockquote><i>"What law enforcement tells us is it contributes to an environment where the criminal feels they have no where to go. A lot of times they end up just giving up."</i></blockquote>  <p>In a way, the surprising thing is that law enforcement officials hadn&#39;t previously taken such visible steps to make use of the distributed eyes and ears of ordinary citizens.  The problem, of course, is that publicity can also generate lots of time-consuming false leads.  An advertisement currently ubiquitous on New York subways applauds the thousands of New Yorkers who phoned in reports of suspicious packages in the past year.  But since we haven&#39;t heard reports of thousands of bombs recovered on the A train, it seems safe to surmise that the noise-to-signal ratio on such tips is quite high.  As for national security alerts, our experience with <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/02/15/fear/">color-coded national security warnings</a>, and the attendant spectacle of panicked citizens mobbing Home Depot for plastic sheeting and duct tape, suggest that the Bureau might be well advised to exercise a bit of circumspection about those real-time updates.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/145343.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/145343.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/145343.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>first-10-callers-to-identify-this-fugitive...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071228/145343</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>