The Untold Story of the World's Biggest Diamond Heist
wired.com
wired.com
Spoilers below if you haven't read the article:
1. The key shouldn't be kept in the closet outside the safe
2. Opening the door should force the magnetic sensor to be triped, the door must be in the way of the sensor. Additionally, why was the sensor on the outside of the door?
3. The combination lock should have a viewing angle that requires the user to block any cameras.
4. You need human patrols.
5. Sensors should be independent; the heat/motion sensor shouldn't both need to be tripped.
6. They needed sensors that could not be easily seen or detected by someone in the safe (hidden cameras, sensors embedded in another object).
7. The needed multiple sensors instead of one each.
8. The sensors should adjust the current flowing through them so that the wires can't be bridged, and the wires shouldn't be exposed.
9. There needs to be a random factor inserted such as random patrols, a sensor that moves in a random way, the combination is changed randomly.
10. They should have a time control on the safe that only allows it to be opened during certain times. There could be an override, but it'd be it should be difficult and rarely used (hard to copy).
Just a few off the top of my head, more cameras would also be good -- what else did they do wrong?
thiis the #1 thing that would prevent a lot of crime. people dont do it because it makes logistics harder. people like routines.
If nothing else, it would help detect a failing component.
You seem to be arguing for overengineering without considering the costs. Should the failsafes also have failsafes, should the backups have their own backups? And what if the additional security measures add additional risks? Take #4, "human patrols". Unless implemented very carefully, greater access for security personnel could well add more risk than benefit.
I'm not even sure that one should argue that the vault failed from the point of view of the owners. It was designed well enough for them to do their daily business and such that they were able to obtain insurance on the contents. A vault doesn't have to be impregnable, only visibly difficult to steal from.
> A vault doesn't have to be impregnable, only visibly difficult to steal from.
I'm pretty sure a vault in this situation has to be really impenetrable and definitely not just visibly difficult to steal from.
What you're proposing is the exact situation they had. The result didn't look good.
To obtain better security, the motivation of the participants needs to be analyzed. Perhaps this is a problem best solved through obscurity, with two competing security teams installing two totally separate alarms systems, each standing to lose if their alarm is defeated. Or perhaps skip the alarms, and rely on threats of deadly force.
But although any new insurer will properly demand the technological improvements illustrated here, it would be foolish to believe that technology alone will keep out a dedicated team of insiders with full access to the system. Real world security is not equivalent to public key encryption where security can be established by 'proof'.
1 - The magnetic plate sensors should NOT be accessible while the vault is closed. There is no reason why this should have been mounted outside the vault instead of inside.
2 - All sensors in the vault were tied to a single circuit . Shorting just two wires was enough to take every single sensor in the room offline. That's ridiculous.
3 - You shouldn't have a simple "break circuit if alarm tripped" design at all. You have a full-blown sensor package mounted on a wall in a secure vault, is it too much to ask that the sensor respond to pings? This is a fairly minimal cost (+$100 per sensor, maybe?) that would also make it impossible to short the sensor circuit or otherwise take a sensor offline without somebody realizing.
How do you lock up the 'impossible to duplicate key' - by definition you would need a lower-level security key to secure it?
(Or maybe I'm just goofy...when I can't put my finger on what's causing me to hesitate about a person or situation, off-the-wall questions/scenarios usually help me figure out what's really bothering me.)
1. Why did they have anything with their names on it. The invoice, and business card should have been destroyed long before they broke in.
2. He should have emptied his apartment before the robbery.
3. Of course the other trash should have been destroyed.
4. Why didn't he have a back up plan for his friend, he knew his friend might get panicky, so he should've planned to drop him off at the earliest possible moment.
5. They should've done random checks to make sure the cases they were moving contained the diamonds (if you believe this segment of the story).
In a way, everyone wins here - except the insurance companies, I suppose. The criminals some money, the prosecutors make a career.
To me it smells so fishy that I could imagine that they're not only pretty good thieves but also really good at writing bad ficticious criminal stories. Well, hence the six years of silence, perhaps?
One thing probably happened and a whole another thing was now told; it's just that they practically borrowed anything like that you might see in a Hollywood movie in the criminal genre. Just nicely laid around the undeniable facts. And like a good movie this story also ends with a lot of presented implications but nothing you would know for sure.
According to my limited and somewhat indirect knowledge of criminals there are two kinds that get caught. There are those who are utterly spontaneous, idiotic, just otherwise crack-headed or all three and they get caught because of the simplest things. Then there are those who are actually professional and get caught because of being betrayed or because of unbelievably back luck.
These guys are neither; despite imprisoned for a few years because of the things laid out in the story, maybe they were actually never caught for what they actually did?
It's an ancient strategy to admit something and getting away with that, while actually having done a lot more than just that something.
I'm betting that a lot of people who make good thieves are also the kind who would make good entrepreneurs.
The vast majority of thievery is simply bashing car windows or taking advantage of naivete.
You might as well ask who's dumb enough to steal gold.
And yes, I know that the value of diamonds is largely artificial. However, the current situation is, and is likely to remain for some time, that people think diamonds are valuable, and will trade them for actual money at a reasonably consistent exchange rate, anywhere in the world, no questions asked.
There's quite an interesting story in this whole system, actually. Diamonds have become a kind of underground currency in some circles. Unlike gold, they're not metallic, so can be transported safely by air. Unlike paintings (another other major money laundering commodity), they're small and not delicate. One could write an interesting analysis of the dynamics of such a self-supporting, consensual-illusion-becomes-reality of the diamond trade. It really is proof that if something is needed, people will make it.
Yes, it's carbon that has been compressed a bit. So what? The romans used salt as a currency! The point is, as of today, diamonds are an excellent currency to be paid in, especially if you have something to hide.
Consider this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/198202/diamond
I believe the problem the article describes, the lack of a secondary market in diamonds, still exists. However, the article was published in 1982, and the prediction of collapse in the diamond bubble didn't happen.
Consumers without the necessary knowledge and connections are probably taken for a ride. Dealers would exploit their lack of knowledge and options, just like 2nd hand car dealers offer terrible prices for cars - they know that if you're there at all, you're desperate. In this market, everything is sold at auction. Going to a dealer by yourself is holding a fire sale auction with 1 bidder. Of course you lose.
Between dealers, or high end customers with a dealer acting as their agent, selling for-real quantities, the market is much more stable, consistent, and liquid. Unless you want to be utterly ripped off, you must buy at a proper auction and sell at a proper auction too. You can say the same about pretty much any other store of value in the world, by the way.
But all this is obvious; if diamonds really did lose half their value every time they changed hands, no-one would bother - and yet they obviously do.
By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with that article - which I read years ago. I think I read it in the actual magazine! Anyway, yes, the value of diamonds is almost completely illusory - it's wholly artificial and if if the real supply were ever released to market, value would plummet. However, that hasn't happened, the consensual hallucination that compressed carbon is worth a lot of money stands, and you can buy and sell diamonds for a lot of money. I don't see this market changing anytime soon. It is in no-one's interest to break the spell.
And if you got rid of diamonds, people would just find something else with an agreed value. A lot of people need this kind of currency. Until crypt.kk comes online, of course.
:)
I swear, to me, he looks a lot like pg!