According to an article published by the BBC, Technology behind ‘all serious crime’, per analysis of a report by Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency. It ought to come as no surprise that a rise in technology us–in general–should correspond to a rise in tech-savvy criminals. However, what categories of crime were covered by the report itself, and is the headline of the piece warranted or sensationalized?
What did the report include as serious crime; murder, rape, human trafficking? Only the third category was mentioned in the report at length but didn’t make the BBC’s summary. The BBC focused on increased technology use to facilitate burglaries, black market drug trade, and ransomware.
For instance, said the report, drones were now being used to transport drugs and many burglars now track social media posts to work out when people are away from their home.
It’s long-established libertarian doctrine that the violence related to the drug trade accompanies resistance to the enforcement of laws prohibiting drugs. Mark Thornton’s analysis of alcohol Prohibition (a fair proxy for comparison) in the United States published by the Cato Institute, described it as a “miserable failure on all counts.” His analysis includes a graph of homicide rates depicting a steady rise during the Prohibition era and the precipitous drop in murders after Prohibition’s repeal in 1933.
Given libertarians’ stringent belief in self-ownership and the fact that drug use itself is a victimless crime, drug addiction cannot be rightly called a “serious” crime. Exchange of contraband items, provided that no people are exploited or otherwise harmed in the exchange, is similarly not of a serious nature.
It stands to reason that with the rise in the use of drones, or quadcopters as many aficionados prefer to call them, for drug delivery, one might expect an accompanying decrease in drug-related violence. Fewer contacts between human beings–drug traffickers and law enforcement as well traffickers with one another–may correspond to fewer homicides to protect drug profits kept artificially high by prohibition.
An increase in home burglaries corresponding to use of social media to determine times when the victims are unlikely to be home is concerning, and invasion of homes are of a more serious nature than petty thefts and shoplifting. However, it also seems reasonable that a decrease in violence due to burglars encountering residents unexpectedly may occur. Property crimes are, of course, of a less serious nature than homicides and other forms of physical violence. An investigation is required. An overall rise in burglaries may also negate any reduction in burglary-related homicides, should the rise in technology use prove causative for the increased rate of burglaries.
Much of the Europol report focuses on organized crime activities that facilitate drug trafficking and further organized crime (e.g. document fraud, money laundering, etc.), which strains credibility to characterize as “serious” in their own right. The intersection between technology use and human trafficking may have been omitted from the BBC’s summary for a reason. Europol’s 2016 situation report, Trafficking in human beings in the EU, did show a rise in reports of human trafficking, but it doesn’t necessarily demonstrate an increase in human trafficking itself. In that report, Europol says:
No distinctive trend in this variation of data was recognised as linked to any particular fact. A possible reason could be that Europol is increasingly being addressed by MS law enforcement for the provision of operational support during cross-border THB investigations.
Thus, the rise may simply be an increase in reporting to Europol itself rather than a bona fide increase in human trafficking.
The brevity of the BBC summary of the Europol report may be subtle justification for expanded law enforcement intrusion into citizens’ privacy under the pretense of reducing crime. The UK government has an interest in softening widespread hostility to the recently-implemented Investigatory Powers Act of 2016, or “Snoopers’ Charter” as opponents have popularly characterized it. The report itself doesn’t warrant that conclusion, as it is unclear whether technology use in crime is causative of the increase of crimes like burglaries or tracking a trend that accompanies higher immigration, drops in economic prosperity, and other factors known to influence crime levels. Too many issues are simply not addressed by the BBC article or Europol in its report to form any conclusions about whether technology use itself has increased serious crime regardless of the definition of “serious crime” they’re using.
I think derisive comments about the Queen, and her developmentally challenged son, on social media are serious crimes.
Attacking Prince Phillip is fair game, though. He just looks like an ass
This is the kind of thing we wouldn’t get back in the Auld Country. Thank you for finding something interesting, and writing about it.
That the “rise in human trafficking” is more talk than truth is pretty well documented. ENB has done a pretty good job of it over at the other site. Like many things, in order to get the result they want, entities, the government and otherwise, have simply expanded the definition of what constitutes “human trafficking” so they can document a rise in “human trafficking” and thus get the extra powers and laws they want to combat this rise in human trafficking.
Obviously, this isn’t just limited to human trafficking. The opportunity is there for government to exaggerate increases in crime. It’s pretty easy, and in general, the media will go along with it. The people won’t question it, and are usually fairly willing to go along with government requests for increases in power (like the snooper’s charter) in order to combat these increases in crime. This isn’t a new thing. It’s been going on for a long time. And I don’t see really anything that will prevent it from going on for a long time from now.
Well, they banned burning witches, so what are our saviors supposed to do?
They can also fudge the numbers in the other direction. Like say, not filing reports involving sexual assaults in certain neighborhoods. Basically, government crime reports are about as useful as an elevator in an outhouse.
It would be pretty sweet to poop in the middle of the floor of the elevator, and just leave it as a present for whoever was calling it from the 2nd floor.
Ok, so they’re both good for shitting on.
Kevin McCallister was just fuckin’ around with those wet bandits. A more decisive solution was necessary. Keep the change, ya filthy animals.
“What did the report include as serious crime; murder, rape, human trafficking? ”
Well, there’s no murder in Europe because they don’t have guns, amirite?
Much of the Europol report focuses on organized crime activities that facilitate drug trafficking and further organized crime (e.g. document fraud, money laundering, etc.), which strains credibility to characterize as “serious” in their own right.
Much of this facilitates tax evasion, the most serious crime of all. Stealing from the government is no laughing matter!
I dont think you were supposed to notice that.
You know who else tried to evade taxes…
Bernie Sanders?
Don’t you need to have an actual income to pay income taxes?
Al Capone?
Rats!
Al Capone?
US citizens? Greek citizens?
Wait…I know the answer.
Citizens.
Certain ungrateful American colonists?
me
Any sane individual?
Speaking of taxes, the NYT editorial board is on the case.
What Republicans are actually proposing is to pair temporary tax revenue with permanent tax cuts, overwhelmingly for the wealthy. That is a recipe for big budget deficits, or an excuse to make more spending cuts to programs for people who aren’t rich.
Rough estimates indicate that the rate on a corporate tax with border adjustment would need to be about 30 percent, not 20 percent, to avoid adding to the deficit. It would have to be higher still to prevent wealthy people from avoiding taxes by shifting income to take advantage of corporate rates that would be lower than the top personal rate.
We need to make the tax rate as high as possible, to discourage rich people from shifting or reclassifying income subject to that rate?
Fucking incentives- how do they work?
How else do you explain the general economic prosperity of the 1950’s when the top tax rate was nearly 90%? There cannot possibly be any other answer. It’s crystal clear: higher taxes equal overall economic growth. Also, I learned economics from a cracker jack box.
“Republicans want to reduce taxes across the board, especially for people who actually pay taxes. This is an incentive for investment and economic expansion.
We want to raise corporate and/or personal rates to be equally high to prevent businesses from investing in new production, unemployment from dropping, or for the wealthy to keep their money here in our country.”
It’s not hard to see how these people turn prosperous countries into nightmare shitholes of poverty and desperation. What is the nyt take on Venezuela today?
It’s like that in Illinois too. We have a huge budget deficit and the only idea that has been put forward by the Democrats who rule the state with an iron grip was a giant tax hike. The state did that a couple years ago and it did nothing to help our deficit and in fact made it much worse.
Moving out of a state with a high tax rate is a loophole that needs to be closed!
/derp
Why do you hate the poor so much?
/progderp
I cant remember who it was or what state, it might have been my own, but I vaguely remember talk of exit taxes from some state.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-13/states-crack-down-on-top-earners-who-flee-as-levies-rise-taxes
Oh, look.
I dont understand that. If they have more money they are responsible enough to keep the bills the same. Why wont it help the deficit? It doesnt make any sense. More money is always the answer.
I had an acquaintance who was one of the negotiators for the public sector union, AFSCME. Anyway he started going on and on about how evil Republican Governor Bruce Rauner is and how he hates the working class. After 5 minutes of this, I said that his union endorsed Blago, Madigan (the most politically powerful person in Illinois), and Cullerton (the second most politically powerful person in Illinois) knowing that these guys were and still are crooks. But they they didn’t care because they gave them whatever they wanted. But the problem with hiring thieves to steal from others for you is that they will eventually steal from you.
Those assholes raided their pension funds and created this terrible problem in Illinois, but the guy (Rauner) who has been governor for 2 years is responsible for everything bad in this state? I finally told him that his union needs to accept some responsibility for the state of affairs and be prepared to deal with having to switch over to defined contribution pension plans because the state is broke. His response was that we need to boot Rauner out of office and tax the rich and corporations more. My response was laughing in his face because what he said was incredibly stupid.
He stopped talking to me after that conversation.
Good. Fuck him. He sees you as a cash cow anyway.
What bothered me about the whole conversation was his sense of entitlement. To him, it didn’t matter if the taxes he wanted to impose to pay his salary and pension hurts the average Joe, as long as he gets his money. Most of us in the private sector at one time or another had to take wage freezes or cuts to benefits (which blows) but yet he and his ilk felt as though, they should be shielded from the effects of a bad economy.
If they’re anything like the Bush tax cuts, the vast majority will go to lower and middle class people.
Liberals conveniently forget that whenever this topic comes up.
I went to Mississippi around the time Donald Trump got sworn into office. So anyway, we were talking politics and my cousin piped up and said, “You know who is my favorite President? George Bush.” Everyone of course asked why and his response was, “No other President ever sent me a tax rebate check. Not even Obama’s black ass.”
lol
that wasn’t actually a ‘rebate’ was it? it was part of his 2008 stimulus plan that sent checks directly to people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008
ok, they do call it a rebate; but the details make it sound more like “free money, y’all!”
I remember that. I think I worked like 2 weeks that year and I still got a check. To this day I still consider that to be a personal apology from him for being such a shitty president.
Same thing with Harper. Harper sent checks out to Canadians; Liberals didn’t.
I distinctly remember getting one the next year too, after Obama was sworn in. I could be wrong.
I fucking saw the New York Times, the Paper of Record, describe the AMT thusly in an article about Trump’s Tax Returns :
Oh, just so. Does it work for that purpose, or is it, say, notorious for fucking over people who aren’t really that rich, because of how notoriously bad its implementation is?
I guess that’s not important, as long as it is ntended to prevent wealthy Americans from paying no income tax at all.
And, of course, in the eyes of our NYT overlords, the only appropriate change to tax rates is to raise them.
Just won a Motion to Dismiss. Note to all the pro se litigants out there, when the judge starts rubbing his eyes/face like your line or reasoning physically hurts him, stop talking.
But what if you are dead certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong? What if the judge didn’t get it because you didn’t explain it well enough? Shouldn’t you double down and explain it again talking real slow?
Yes, Judges in the South love it when you do that. Especially if you are from the Northeast.
Oh, our discrimination days are past us. You would have the same success down here no matter where you are from.
*Watching case after case I have to wonder how judges dont flip out and shoot litigants and then themselves. My favorites are the criminal defendants who appear pro se.
*I asked a lawyer buddy what was the hardest thing about being a lawyer. A: “Forcing myself to say *curls lip* Your Honor”
What do you call a law student who graduated bottom of his class?
“Your honor”.
/heardthatsomewhere
What do you call a law student who flunked out?
“Senator”
I used to think senators are strategically incurious, ‘cuz it doesn’t pay to know what you can’t admit to your voters. But I’m starting to think these people really are the dumbest mouthbreathers imaginable.
Yes, Judges in the South love it when you do that. Especially if you are from the Northeast.
Did your case involve two yutes?
So, does that mean you’re a good lawyer? Or does it mean the other lawyer sucks?
Anyway, congratulations!
I think I’m a competent lawyer, but not because of this case (although if I lost it I would consider myself a shitty lawyer). It just means I understand jurisdictional issues better than some guy with no training. That being said, I really enjoyed this one because this guy was such an asshole. He insulted our receptionist then almost ran me over crossing the street after court.
Good for you. Go drink some sweet tea, and eat a pimiento cheese sandwich. You deserve it.
sometimes less-is-more
+1 “We have wondered very far afield from the point you were rebutting”
lol. I can picture pulling out sock puppets and drawing stick people to further deepen your point.
While you are reading this post I have transferred all the money from your account and am now buying a metric fuckton of bacon with it. Thanks for the donation.
There was not enough money to buy a rasher of bacon in that account.
Jokes on you… my account is negative! Thanks for taking the debt sucker!
That… that’s how it works, right? I learned liberal economics.
My negative and your negative = positive! /derp
While you are reading this post I have transferred all the money from your account and am now buying a metric fuckton of bacon with it
All the money in my account is far short of what it costs for even half a metric fuckton of pretty much anything.
It’s not the size of the fish, but how many you bring in. *starts winch up on fish net*
He insulted our receptionist then almost ran me over crossing the street after court.
I hope you placed a horse shoe in your glove and slapped him with it.
Are we still doing euphemisms?
*Pulls us urbandictionary.com and starts typing furiously*
Didn’t Bugs use a brick instead?