Do intellectuals commit different crimes?

[noname223]

I noticed many people in this forum are fan of Ted Kacznski. Personally I cannot relate to that at all. I listened to some of his ideas sadly there are not that many good youtube videos I read the wikipedia article. But I am not at all a fan of anarchy. I don't understand that allure at all. Moreover I would vehemently disagree with returrning to a pre-modern era. Personally I think technology has helped us in our progress and we increased the life quality of many people on this planet. At the same time I think we are too many people on that planet don't misunderstand me. Furthermore he achieved basically nothing with his actions. He ruined his own life by his actions and his chance to succeed was less than 0,001%. So I don't understand being a fanboy of him. But feel free to disagree with me.

I asked myself to make a post about the perfect crime. And I read some time ago from criminalists that there are actually murders where the likelihood to get caught is very very low if it is done right. I don't want to give people a guidance. Moreover I barely know anything the artilce was behind a paywall and you should have detailed knowledge when making such a thread. My personal answer would be. Well do a crime that is actually legal. Like some tax evasion schemes in the US. Becoming a banker at Wall Street. Becoming a politican with no conscience. Becoming a talk host/ media mogul spreading hatred and fake news to profit of it.
You can screw a lot of people by that. And it is even legal. Maybe using grey areas.

So the answer would be intellectuals might do crimes for which they don't get caught for. Either because what they are doing is legal or very difficult to trace. However I could imagine Ted Kaczyski was aware that one day he might be caught. What surprised me is the following. The criminalists noticed when investing the crimes than an intellectual must have planned the murders which was the main idea for this thread.

I am not sure how much technology has changed the race between criminals and investigators. Personally I have the theory if intelligence services especially the US services really want to get a criminal they usually get him eventually. However the problem is there are so much low criminal stuff online that they don't have the resources to trace all of them. For example there are so fucking many copy right infringements online that probably not even 10 % are traced. That is at least my gut feeling. I don't know whether criminals or the investigators have the upper hand now. It is a rat race and always changes as the technology does I suppose. I read the details how to be anonymous on the internet and it gets pretty quickly pretty complicated. I am a complete layman on IT. I also read that crminals in Europe used encrypted phone. The investigators were able to trace them but had to win a legal battle whether the way they got their data was legal. So I think this is an interesting detail. I am not sure which side profited the most of new technologies. I mean with DNA analysis, fingerprints direct muder might be more difficult (?). But scamming people is probably way easier nowadays. Due to the interconnectivity of the internet. Terrorism? I already feel like the bots are screenshotting and analyzing this thread solely because of that word. I am not sure I think it got more difficult for terrorists I guess. But this is only my gut feeling. I think things like 3D printers can be quite dangerous. I read that AI can be used to create chemical weapons. But I think the NSA is quite effective in what they are doing so that another 9/11 could be prevented so far.

These are complete laymans thoughts. What do you think about it?

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it depends on what is driving them and how psychopathic they are. If it's simply a case that they want to get rich- then yeah- white collar crime. Or- if they want to take risks without breaking the law- commit very dubious actions working for some shady company that will likely try to cover it up or hire top class lawyers to get them off.

If they're psychopathic though and have homicidal or rapist desires- then, I guess they'll try and sate those needs for as long as they can before being caught. It all depends on what gets them off I guess. Some serial killers have even taunted the police with cryptic messages. Part of the thrill for them is probably the game of cat and mouse. Just depends on what they want and how clever, resourceful and lucky they are as to how long they evade capture.

 

[brokeandbroken]

I noticed many people in this forum are fan of Ted Kacznski. Personally I cannot relate to that at all. I listened to some of his ideas sadly there are not that many good youtube videos I read the wikipedia article. But I am not at all a fan of anarchy. I don't understand that allure at all. Moreover I would vehemently disagree with returrning to a pre-modern era. Personally I think technology has helped us in our progress and we increased the life quality of many people on this planet. At the same time I think we are too many people on that planet don't misunderstand me. Furthermore he achieved basically nothing with his actions. He ruined his own life by his actions and his chance to succeed was less than 0,001%. So I don't understand being a fanboy of him. But feel free to disagree with me.

I asked myself to make a post about the perfect crime. And I read some time ago from criminalists that there are actually murders where the likelihood to get caught is very very low if it is done right. I don't want to give people a guidance. Moreover I barely know anything the artilce was behind a paywall and you should have detailed knowledge when making such a thread. My personal answer would be. Well do a crime that is actually legal. Like some tax evasion schemes in the US. Becoming a banker at Wall Street. Becoming a politican with no conscience. Becoming a talk host/ media mogul spreading hatred and fake news to profit of it.
You can screw a lot of people by that. And it is even legal. Maybe using grey areas.

So the answer would be intellectuals might do crimes for which they don't get caught for. Either because what they are doing is legal or very difficult to trace. However I could imagine Ted Kaczyski was aware that one day he might be caught. What surprised me is the following. The criminalists noticed when investing the crimes than an intellectual must have planned the murders which was the main idea for this thread.

I am not sure how much technology has changed the race between criminals and investigators. Personally I have the theory if intelligence services especially the US services really want to get a criminal they usually get him eventually. However the problem is there are so much low criminal stuff online that they don't have the resources to trace all of them. For example there are so fucking many copy right infringements online that probably not even 10 % are traced. That is at least my gut feeling. I don't know whether criminals or the investigators have the upper hand now. It is a rat race and always changes as the technology does I suppose. I read the details how to be anonymous on the internet and it gets pretty quickly pretty complicated. I am a complete layman on IT. I also read that crminals in Europe used encrypted phone. The investigators were able to trace them but had to win a legal battle whether the way they got their data was legal. So I think this is an interesting detail. I am not sure which side profited the most of new technologies. I mean with DNA analysis, fingerprints direct muder might be more difficult (?). But scamming people is probably way easier nowadays. Due to the interconnectivity of the internet. Terrorism? I already feel like the bots are screenshotting and analyzing this thread solely because of that word. I am not sure I think it got more difficult for terrorists I guess. But this is only my gut feeling. I think things like 3D printers can be quite dangerous. I read that AI can be used to create chemical weapons. But I think the NSA is quite effective in what they are doing so that another 9/11 could be prevented so far.

These are complete laymans thoughts. What do you think about it?

The perfect crime does exist. Do it to me no one will bat an eyelash or give a shit source was the victim of crimes no one gave a shit or cared. Though I am broke so not much in it monetarily. Online everything should be considered to be traced if what you are doing is heinous enough. Is the government going to care? Not unless someone rich or famous is affected. The darkweb is designed to be untraceable however. That said having it is going to throw up red flags. As far as different crimes I would guess not. I would just assume they are done differently. As far as tech and crimes it depends. Most of the time crimes aren't going unpunished because of tech they are going unpunished because it affected someone that the powers at be don't care about. That's about the gist of it. If crime x happened towards John Doe vs Oprah better believe the crime against Oprah is getting punished. John Doe it depends. Things like murder are exponentially more difficult to pull off then 500 years ago though and get away with it. So it depends.