Comment by richardknop | Hacker News Reader

Comment by richardknop | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have all my life savings in a checking account. So in my case if I got hacked and my money from that account stolen I would be in big trouble and have suicidal thoughts very likely.

>>I'm not saying that investigating the $250k is not important; but just not more urgent than the $2k theft.

Absolutely not. Ignore the case when this 250k was your entire life savings (30-40 years of saving remainder of your salary every month and slowly building savings for retirement).

It could be mortgage money which you are about to buy a house with or it could be company money for payroll. Suddenly employees of a small business don't get paid. Those employees of course have to pay mortgage/rent/medical bills and suddenly paycheck they counted on doesn't come. This could affect many people in very negative ways.

I think $250k stolen should definitely get a priority to be investigated by agents over $2k stolen as it is more likely it will mess up lives of many people in a bad way.

Interesting. When two crimes both take similar effort to commit, and similar effort to investigate, I'm not sure if the higher dollar amount should be defacto prioritized.

I am going away from SMS based 2FA where I can. For services where it is used, anyone have opinions on using 2FA via a SMS to VOIP number with a provider who has better account security/authentication tools than most telcos (e.g. google, etc)?

The argument for giving more priority to higher amounts is that since criminals are stealing the money, they can commit more crime with more money(in simple terms - you can buy more drugs/guns with 250k than with 2k)

I was using google voice for this for a while but if you are worried that someone may have access to your computer / email, then they may effectively access to your google voice as well. voice.google.com

"I'm not sure if the higher dollar amount should be defacto prioritized."

Why not? Higher net worth equates to higher taxes paid - the 250k victim has been paying the investigators a more substantial sum, and should receive a more substantial response from them. "Size matters" sums it up to me.

That's not how modern Western societies work. Plutocracy has been tried, and found to be devastating for society, human dignity, and the human condition in general, not to talk about the rampant corruption it invites.

> "That's not how modern Western societies work."

Are you sure? Maybe you believe they shouldn't work that way, but do you believe they truly are blind to the net worth of the offended party?

No, they are not. But ideally the advantage the 'richer' party has in influencing the effort of the investigators/judiciary to put forth more effort on their behalf is not written policy, it is corruption/cronyism. Should we create policy that prioritizes investigating an auto theft of a $100,000 automobile with more resources and severity that the theft of a $20,000 one, simply because the value is larger, or weight the effort based on the tax contribution of the victim? I would say absolutely not.

I guess the theft of a more expensive car should be investigated with higher priority because selling it gives criminals more money to work with and leads to more severe crime. A group that can steal and sell a Lamborghini likely runs a much larger and more organized operation than a group which steals and sells old cheap cars.

This is all guessing though, I'd love to see more data on it.

This assumes a linear margin on units of stolen cars to value. Smaller ticket items are easier to fence specifically because they are common. It's hard to sell the Mona Lisa. It's easy to sell a mass-produced TV. Cops would spot a stolen Lamborghini as soon as the APB comes in. Not so much for a Toyota Camry.

I remember reading somewhere the top car make/model stolen was the Honda Civic.

No doubt. High resale + common item = higher portion of thefts, I would expect.

Yeah, and that's why I said that a group that can actually steal and sell a Lamborghini successfully should be investigated with more resources, since you are more likely to find a well organised criminal organisation behind it, if they can shift Lamborghinis the can probably shift drugs and guns too.

We disagree then, I think they absolutely should prioritize that because of the tax contribution of the victim. If I pay someone $1000 for a job, and you pay the same person $100 for an opposing job - you should lose. That's only my capitalist opinion, but I don't think it's an unpopular one.

Probably disagree on some aspects, and I may not have choosen the best example, or clarified my position enough. In a situation where two parties are voluntarily engaging in competition(for a job applicant), the party who offers more value usually does win, and I think that's appropriate. And I support allocating resources to fight crime based upon the effect of the crime's proceeds in supporting or leading to further crime. In mandatory participation systems like public civil services I am for at least a baseline allocation of resourses not directly correlated to financial input of the particular recipient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com