4 ms·

I agree that the job isn't easy, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. You speak of tracking down "every single case" as if they get close to that metric,

I agree that the job isn't easy, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. You speak of tracking down "every single case" as if they get close to that metric, but do they? How many do they actually track down? Is it greater than even 1%? I just don't think they're doing the best they could be doing, is all, but that goes back to my suggestion about them being receptive to civilian oversight and control: we can run the numbers and determine objectively whether they're doing as good as we'd like them to be doing.

arp242 3y ago
Even if you can catch half of the 1% that you track down (hugely optimistic!), what's the point? The impact is barely perceptible, these types of changes to get caught does nothing to deter anything. And now criminals will be more careful so it will be even harder to track them down (and/or everything will shift to areas outside the US). Any wins will be temporary at best. All of this would be a colossal waste of time and effort. The best thing that can be done is changing the system so these types of scams/extortions are much harder to pull off in the first place.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Any such system changes can be gamed, it's inevitable, what's the point? Rather than adding more and more layers of technology that will be bypassed anyways, we should step back and ask: what exactly is the problem here? The problem is that we've already made it illegal, but I don't see law enforcement doing as much enforcing as I'd like them to be doing. I didn't give them permission to throw their hands in the air and cross their arms in frustration and give up yet, and I don't think that any marginal effort would be wasted. I don't think they're at their capacity either, so from my perspective, the difference is between 0 benefit and >0 benefit for the same annual expenditure on salary. If they needed more capacity after actually exhausting their existing capacity, they could reduce work in things we don't want them to work on. They could convince folks otherwise, but it would require what I mentioned before: being receptive to non-LEO oversight and control. Then, we would have more accurate information for our judgement of whether they're doing as much as we'd like them to be doing, and what we'd like them to be doing.

arp242 3y ago

Even if you can catch half of the 1% that you track down (hugely optimistic!), what's the point? The impact is barely perceptible, these types of changes to get caught does nothing to deter anything. And now criminals will be more careful so it will be even harder to track them down (and/or everything will shift to areas outside the US). Any wins will be temporary at best. All of this would be a colossal waste of time and effort. The best thing that can be done is changing the system so these types of scams/extortions are much harder to pull off in the first place.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Any such system changes can be gamed, it's inevitable, what's the point? Rather than adding more and more layers of technology that will be bypassed anyways, we should step back and ask: what exactly is the problem here? The problem is that we've already made it illegal, but I don't see law enforcement doing as much enforcing as I'd like them to be doing. I didn't give them permission to throw their hands in the air and cross their arms in frustration and give up yet, and I don't think that any marginal effort would be wasted. I don't think they're at their capacity either, so from my perspective, the difference is between 0 benefit and >0 benefit for the same annual expenditure on salary. If they needed more capacity after actually exhausting their existing capacity, they could reduce work in things we don't want them to work on. They could convince folks otherwise, but it would require what I mentioned before: being receptive to non-LEO oversight and control. Then, we would have more accurate information for our judgement of whether they're doing as much as we'd like them to be doing, and what we'd like them to be doing.