6 ms·

That's the story of society in general. You can easily walk into many (most) people's houses between 10a-3pm weekdays and just take their shit. I'm sure one c

That's the story of society in general. You can easily walk into many (most) people's houses between 10a-3pm weekdays and just take their shit. I'm sure one could make 6 figures doing that. Of course most of us don't because we don't want to harm others, and because of the consequences. You really just have to make it enough of a hassle for thieves that they pick the next easier thing to do. Not create Ft. Knox.

Retric 4y ago
I suspect it’s hard to actually consistently make 500$/day breaking into peoples homes. Most used things aren’t worth much and would be difficult to sell in bulk at anything close to what they cost. That’s why people steal catalytic converters etc.
- ragona 4y ago
  I bet it's easy to make $500/day briefly, and hard to sustain it. Catalytic converters have the benefit of not requiring you to break into someone's house where risk of being caught or harmed is way higher.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The key is to make nothing for months and then make $90k in one go.
- to11mtm 4y ago
  > I suspect it’s hard to actually consistently make 500$/day breaking into peoples homes IMO the cheapening of technology has made a difference with this. When my (then not yet) ex-wife was burglarized, Just her laptop and a camera gave the criminal 900$ at a pawn shop [0]. [0] - which BTW, fun thing about this, if your insurance covers 'replacement cost' you are better off not finding your items at a pawn shop. Most state laws are written such that as long as the pawn shop collects fingerprints/ID, the person who was stolen from can get their items back, but must pay the pawn shop back what they paid the thief for it. Insurance will happily pay that instead but still take your deductible out. (It worked out OK for me, the wedding ring was among the stolen items, never got pawned and that covered the deductible and then some... eventually helped pay for the lawyer lol)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- bluGill 4y ago
  You need to develop a market for things of course. There are plenty of things worth $500/day in everyone's house. Figure out where things sell and for how much. 50 keys toys for $10 each are easy to sell in most cities. The days of taking a 19 inch color TV are long gone (most of your are not old enough to remember when a 19 inch color TV was a big deal, but back then there was a market for them used), but there is plenty of other opportunities. This needs to be a full time job to make the $500/day though. Some houses are as you say now worth the bother, but others have things that can be sold. The key is you need to know what you can sell and for how much before you take it. As the other poster said, the hard part is not getting caught. The easy places to sell these things (pawn shops, scrap yards) tend to ask for id - and the ones that accept a fake id will only take so much before they have to recognize you.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Sure, I suspect you could clear 3k from picking the right house and taking a week to sell stuff. But what about the 50th hours? Without someone to take the risk and a sizable cut your best bet might be a few fake ID’s and a multi city spree of pawn shops. Though if you have access to high quality fake ID’s banks are probably a much better option.
- 93po 4y ago
  Go find the right neighborhoods and you'll make $100k easy in stuff you can fit in a single backpack.
dahfizz 4y ago
I think it's strange HN sees cyber crime in the opposite way as real crime. It's not my fault if my house gets broken in. I have no obligation to meticulously lock all my doors and windows when I leave. But if I get hacked, it's my fault. The onus is on the individual / company to maintain law and order themselves when online. That feels wrong to me.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  Prima facie it is wrong because it's victim blaming. But using weak and/or compromised passwords is a bad idea in exactly the same way that it's a bad idea to leave your front door unlocked. Legally, we do assign fault for negligence. If absentmindedly leave your kitchen tap open with the drain stopped and then go on vacation, your flood insurance is probably not going to pay for repairs, even if you didn't deserve to have your house destroyed. From a policy perspective, I think the most appropriate thing would be a middle ground. It is good for everyone's peace of mind to be sure that your entire bank balance won't vanish without recourse, but if you leave your banking "front door" unlocked, the bank covers 90% of the actual unrecoverable loss, but you're on the hook for the other 10%. That eliminates perverse incentives to use weak passwords without being cruel to victims.
  - to11mtm 4y ago
    > But using weak and/or compromised passwords is a bad idea in exactly the same way that it's a bad idea to leave your front door unlocked. I'd argue it's not quite the same... using weak passwords is more like using a lock that can be 'raked'; your security is just lax. Re-using passwords is like using the same key for your front door, back door, garage, car... If someone finds it and makes a copy of it, they have full access. Compromised passwords, it's when you know a key is lost or stolen and you don't re-key. > From a policy perspective, I think the most appropriate thing would be a middle ground. It is good for everyone's peace of mind to be sure that your entire bank balance won't vanish without recourse, but if you leave your banking "front door" unlocked, the bank covers 90% of the actual unrecoverable loss, but you're on the hook for the other 10%. That eliminates perverse incentives to use weak passwords without being cruel to victims. Both of my main financial institutions have 'pretty dang good' security measures on one level or another. One, has forced password changes at 6 month intervals (not as good as 90 days, but better than many!) The other does not have forced password changes but I know their internal security is... pretty crazy. Losing your badge 3 times is enough to get you fired, and any contractors who do work must be under a very specific specification of video surveillance while working with their clients.
robocat 4y ago
Jurisdiction. If everyone could wormhole between countries, first world houses would be ransacked pretty damn quickly.

Retric 4y ago

I suspect it’s hard to actually consistently make 500$/day breaking into peoples homes. Most used things aren’t worth much and would be difficult to sell in bulk at anything close to what they cost. That’s why people steal catalytic converters etc.

ragona 4y ago
I bet it's easy to make $500/day briefly, and hard to sustain it. Catalytic converters have the benefit of not requiring you to break into someone's house where risk of being caught or harmed is way higher.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The key is to make nothing for months and then make $90k in one go.
to11mtm 4y ago
> I suspect it’s hard to actually consistently make 500$/day breaking into peoples homes IMO the cheapening of technology has made a difference with this. When my (then not yet) ex-wife was burglarized, Just her laptop and a camera gave the criminal 900$ at a pawn shop [0]. [0] - which BTW, fun thing about this, if your insurance covers 'replacement cost' you are better off not finding your items at a pawn shop. Most state laws are written such that as long as the pawn shop collects fingerprints/ID, the person who was stolen from can get their items back, but must pay the pawn shop back what they paid the thief for it. Insurance will happily pay that instead but still take your deductible out. (It worked out OK for me, the wedding ring was among the stolen items, never got pawned and that covered the deductible and then some... eventually helped pay for the lawyer lol)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bluGill 4y ago
You need to develop a market for things of course. There are plenty of things worth $500/day in everyone's house. Figure out where things sell and for how much. 50 keys toys for $10 each are easy to sell in most cities. The days of taking a 19 inch color TV are long gone (most of your are not old enough to remember when a 19 inch color TV was a big deal, but back then there was a market for them used), but there is plenty of other opportunities. This needs to be a full time job to make the $500/day though. Some houses are as you say now worth the bother, but others have things that can be sold. The key is you need to know what you can sell and for how much before you take it. As the other poster said, the hard part is not getting caught. The easy places to sell these things (pawn shops, scrap yards) tend to ask for id - and the ones that accept a fake id will only take so much before they have to recognize you.
- Retric 4y ago
  Sure, I suspect you could clear 3k from picking the right house and taking a week to sell stuff. But what about the 50th hours? Without someone to take the risk and a sizable cut your best bet might be a few fake ID’s and a multi city spree of pawn shops. Though if you have access to high quality fake ID’s banks are probably a much better option.
93po 4y ago
Go find the right neighborhoods and you'll make $100k easy in stuff you can fit in a single backpack.

dahfizz 4y ago

I think it's strange HN sees cyber crime in the opposite way as real crime. It's not my fault if my house gets broken in. I have no obligation to meticulously lock all my doors and windows when I leave. But if I get hacked, it's my fault. The onus is on the individual / company to maintain law and order themselves when online. That feels wrong to me.

nwiswell 4y ago
Prima facie it is wrong because it's victim blaming. But using weak and/or compromised passwords is a bad idea in exactly the same way that it's a bad idea to leave your front door unlocked. Legally, we do assign fault for negligence. If absentmindedly leave your kitchen tap open with the drain stopped and then go on vacation, your flood insurance is probably not going to pay for repairs, even if you didn't deserve to have your house destroyed. From a policy perspective, I think the most appropriate thing would be a middle ground. It is good for everyone's peace of mind to be sure that your entire bank balance won't vanish without recourse, but if you leave your banking "front door" unlocked, the bank covers 90% of the actual unrecoverable loss, but you're on the hook for the other 10%. That eliminates perverse incentives to use weak passwords without being cruel to victims.
- to11mtm 4y ago
  > But using weak and/or compromised passwords is a bad idea in exactly the same way that it's a bad idea to leave your front door unlocked. I'd argue it's not quite the same... using weak passwords is more like using a lock that can be 'raked'; your security is just lax. Re-using passwords is like using the same key for your front door, back door, garage, car... If someone finds it and makes a copy of it, they have full access. Compromised passwords, it's when you know a key is lost or stolen and you don't re-key. > From a policy perspective, I think the most appropriate thing would be a middle ground. It is good for everyone's peace of mind to be sure that your entire bank balance won't vanish without recourse, but if you leave your banking "front door" unlocked, the bank covers 90% of the actual unrecoverable loss, but you're on the hook for the other 10%. That eliminates perverse incentives to use weak passwords without being cruel to victims. Both of my main financial institutions have 'pretty dang good' security measures on one level or another. One, has forced password changes at 6 month intervals (not as good as 90 days, but better than many!) The other does not have forced password changes but I know their internal security is... pretty crazy. Losing your badge 3 times is enough to get you fired, and any contractors who do work must be under a very specific specification of video surveillance while working with their clients.

robocat 4y ago

Jurisdiction. If everyone could wormhole between countries, first world houses would be ransacked pretty damn quickly.