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...
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.
He similarly attacks the concept of "cyberwar" and the fact that various governments are hyping that up these days:
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.