4 ms·
It doesn't make assumptions at all. You assume I haven't been around criminals in my lifetime. You also assume criminals aren't intelligent, and that my opinion
by ozfive 3y ago
It doesn't make assumptions at all. You assume I haven't been around criminals in my lifetime. You also assume criminals aren't intelligent, and that my opinion is an assumption. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but criminals are opportunists and they are intelligent and if they are given an opportunity to assess security they certainly will. My opinion isn't an assumption it's from experience.
- hotnfresh 3y agoOk, let me step back and add some nuance, because you’re right: some subset of criminals might care. The kind who commit crimes for which the cops bother to use any of this stuff to investigate crimes and catch criminals. At that point the dubious efficacy of most of this comes into play, but sure, certain tech or programs might actually matter. The other 95+% of criminals needn’t trouble themselves, because the cops won’t investigate their crimes. They’ll only get picked up if they’re caught in the act. It’s not that they don’t care because they’re dumb, but because the cops are lazy as fuck and aren’t investigating most crimes, no matter how many solid leads they’ve got. Unless it’s a murder or (especially) smells like they might be able to confiscate six figures or more of something to sell at auction and/or brag about, they’re not gonna bother. They routinely ignore e.g. extensive video evidence of four and five-figure theft and property crime—not like they’re suddenly gonna get more diligent because the source of their good leads & evidence is slightly different. But you are correct that there exists a set of criminals to whom this stuff might matter. I was too general in my dismissal.