The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) recently released a report with a stunning conclusion: people are losing more money to internet scammers than ever before. In its 14th year of operation, the IC3 released the 2013 Internet Crime Report, which shows a “48.8 percent increase in reported losses since 2012.”

What are these crimes, who are they targeting, and what is causing the sudden surge in reported losses?

What is the IC3?

The IC3 is a partnership between the  Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National White Collar Crime Center (NWC3). It acts as a reporting mechanism for victims of online crime as well as a resource for law enforcement at many levels. Each year it releases a detailed annual report on cybercrime.

In the 2013 report the IC3 stated, “criminals continue to use a variety of scams to defraud Internet users,” making it clear that the online crime picture is a diverse one. It’s important to analyze precisely for this reason. There were 262,813 complaints received, of which roughly half of the victims reported financial loss. These losses totaled almost $800 million.

What are the Cybercrimes?

The 2013 report breaks down the different types and methods of cybercrimes. Vehicle fraud, for example, is one of the most prevalent forms. Trying to buy cars from scammers has cost over 1,400 people an average of $3,640 per incident. Perpetrators who pose as FBI agents have cost victims $6,348,881 in total. Cybercriminals can also defraud victims by pretending to sell real estate, producing ransomware or scareware, and even threatening to carry out jobs as hit men.

Surprisingly, romance scamming has caused the highest average losses for its victims. These scams involve a falsified online romantic relationship and cost the average victim about $12,756. By professing love and enticing victims to send financial assistance, romance scammers generally target “people aged 40 years and older, divorced, widowed, disabled, and often elderly,” the report said.

The targets of cybercrimes are primarily middle-aged. For years now the largest demographic has been the 40-59 year old age group, consistently making up over 40 percent of victims of online crime. The extreme age demographics, those under 20 and over 60, are both affected much less, as they make up just over 3 percent and just over 15 percent of victims, respectively. One possible explanation is that those who have grown up with the internet navigate its criminal spaces more carefully, while many of the elderly are simply not online.

What has been happening with Cybercrime?

Although each demographics’ share of cybercrime victims has remained relatively stable, the reported losses have been far from static. An increase of almost 50 percent from 2012 to 2013 demonstrates a wildly changing environment for online crime. While this spike may suggest that the IC3 has been receiving more complaints, its reports indicate otherwise. Each listed demographic actually reported fewer complaints in the previous year. Financial losses per complaint must be rising.

While there was nearly a 22 percent decrease from the number of complaints in 2009 to 2013, the IC3’s reported losses rose from $559.7 million in 2009 to over $781.8 million in 2013. Among those who reported any financial loss, the average loss increased from about $5,500 to well over $6,000 between 2009 and 2013. It seems as though the increased reported losses do not reflect a greater public knowledge of the IC3 and an increased number of reports. Instead, the decrease in actual complaints coupled with the increase in average reported losses suggests that internet scamming may be more lucrative than it has ever been.

As are all sources of criminal information, the IC3 is limited. It relies on the victim filing a complaint through the IC3, and as with all crimes, many cases will go unreported. Unfortunately, it stands alone in its domain. Other data collection systems like the Uniform Crime Reports aggregate data from law enforcement agencies, not from the victims themselves. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) uses surveys to determine victimization, but does not focus on internet crime. It asks young people about cyber bullying and has compiled a report specifically on identity theft. Aside from these questions, it appears that the NCVS fails to collect information about cybercrime. However if, cybercrime is paying more, then the IC3 and similar programs should be supported as much as possible.

[IC3 Report]

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [EP Technology via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Said (Cyber)crime Doesn’t Pay? appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning loves! How many of you have been staying off the internet this week, thanks to my post on Tuesday? LOL none of you. Just kidding! If anything, you’re all hitting the interwebs harder than usual. This Pacific Standard piece is BLOWING UP. The number of response pieces it’s triggered is seriously impressive.

So! I’d say the theme of cyberspace this week is — women face crazy harassment online and it’s seriously a problem. Like, for serious.

So let’s ride that wave, shall we? Because some awesome, hysterical things are happening. Specifically, this.

A dude Reddit user named OKCThrowaway22221 (apparently Reddit is the place where our middle-school, AIM usernames live on?) decided to conduct a little experiment. He had this hypothesis that women totally have it easier in the world of online dating, so he made a fake profile as a lady, and decided to see what would happen.

This guy lasted TWO HOURS. That is all. That is how traumatizing the results of his little experiment were. SO BAD, that he had to quit after only two hours.

In his words, here’s what happened.

“Before I could even fill out my profile at all, I already had a message in my inbox from a guy. It wasn’t a mean message, but I found it odd that I would get a message already. So I sent him a friendly hello back and kind of joked that I hadn’t even finished my profile, how could he be interested.”

Yes, how COULD he be interested? Probably because he doesn’t give a shit what your profile says, champ. He thinks you’ve got a vagina and he wants to use it.

It gets worse. As OKCThrowaway22221 filled in the profile, the messages were literally coming in faster than he could keep up with them. Again, from guys who knew absolutely NOTHING about the person they were messaging, other than the fact that were was allegedly a vagina involved. It got old pretty quick.

“At first I thought it was fun…but as more and more messages came (either replies or new ones I had about 10 different guys message me within 2 hours) the nature of them continued to get more and more irritating. Guys were full-on spamming my inbox with multiple messages before I could reply to even one asking why I wasn’t responding and what was wrong. Guys would become hostile when I told them I wasn’t interested in NSA sex, or guys that had started normal and nice quickly turned the conversation into something explicitly sexual in nature. Seemingly nice dudes in quite esteemed careers asking to hook up in 24 hours and sending them naked pics of myself despite multiple times telling them that I didn’t want to.”

OKCThrowaway22221 found the whole situation pretty upsetting.

“I would be lying if I said it didn’t get to me. I thought it would be some fun thing… but within a 2 hour span it got me really down and I was feeling really uncomfortable with everything. I ended up deleting my profile at the end of 2 hours and kind of went about the rest of my night with a very bad taste in my mouth.”

OKCThrowaway22221 came away from his experiment with a different conclusion than he’d expected — that women actually have a harder time in the online dating world. Yep, it’s rough shit being harassed by gazillions of guys during all hours of the day. Emotional tolls are taken — and hopefully that’s all.

But our friend over at Reddit isn’t the only person who’s conducting online dating experiments. There’s also Cracked writer Alli Reed, who wanted to test her own hypothesis — that men will literally message any woman with a profile. Hoping she was wrong, she created a fake profile for The Worst Woman in the World, AKA AaronCarterFan. Here it is. Prepare to laugh your ass off/puke all over your laptop.

She’s the worst, am I right? No one would ever want to date her! Definitely not. But they did.  She got 150 messages in 24 hours.

So, Alli decided to add another approach to her experiment. With her reply messages, she’d have to convince these guys that she was, in fact, The Worst Woman in the World. After all, maybe these guys didn’t actually read the profile?

She bragged about bullying children, she boasted about the skill with which she could fake being pregnant to exhort money from unsuspecting suitors. She even asked one guy to let her pull out his teeth.

NO ONE WAS DETERRED. Everyone still wanted a piece of the diabolical AaronCarterFan.

Alli’s takeaway was seriously kindhearted. Here’s her advice to the douchenozzles who were interested in her evil creation.

“Men of the world: You are better than this. I know many of you would never message AaronCarterFan, but many of you would, and a whole bunch of you did. You’re better than that. There are women and men out there who are smart, and kind, and challenging, and honest, and a lot of other really positive adjectives. You don’t want someone who will pull out your teeth and then sue you for child support; you deserve someone who will make you want to be better than you are, and will want to be better because of you. You deserve happiness, and love, and adventure. Be brave. Don’t settle.”

She’s a really nice lady, am I right? I’d love to be her friend.

BUT. I’m calling bullshit on the idea that the most important thing we can take away from these two online dating experiments is that men are shallow and dumb and maybe have low self-esteem. This is true. Some men do struggle with these challenges. The struggle is real, and we feel your pain, guys. We really do.

But. We’re not talking about destructive relationship patterns or unfortunate, self-sabotaging behavior. We’re talking about internet harassment. So here’s the big takeaway, folks.

Drumroll, please.

Men objectify women to a disturbing degree. The reason they’ll message a woman whose online dating profile isn’t filled out yet is the same reason they’ll message a woman whose profile clearly shows that she’s The Worst Woman in the World.

They don’t care who you are. The fact that you are a person, with real thoughts and feelings, doesn’t matter to them. You’re really just a sex toy. The equivalent of a super awesome blow-up doll. An object.

This is you. Courtesy of Jes via Flickr.

Feminism in the U.S. has made a ton of major gains over the last century. We’ve earned the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to play sports, the right to hold jobs, and the right to own property. In some states, we even have the right to control our own bodies. Because of all these gains, we’re often told that feminism is done. It’s over. It’s served its purpose, its goals have been met, and we can all ride off into the gender equality sunset.

But that’s a load of shit, designed to keep women from continuing to fight the feminist fight. Society’s true colors come out on the Internet, where anonymity and a lack of accountability invite everyone to drop their inhibitions. You don’t have to pretend to be PC on OKCupid. You can be who you really are, and no one will be the wiser.

You can demand sex and naked photos from a woman you don’t know — and get supremely pissed when she says no. You can be your douchiest, most asshole-iest self.

So loves, do me a favor. Keep fighting the good fight. OKCThrowaway22221 and AaronCarterFan clearly prove that it’s not over.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [me and the sysop via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ladies, the Men of OKCupid Think You’re a Blow-Up Doll appeared first on Law Street.

Online dating becomes more popular with each passing year. In 2013, 38 percent of singles reported having used an online dating site or some sort of mobile app. But in order to secure a successful online date, it takes time and effort to weed out all of the duds–after all, approximately 1 in 10 online dating profiles is faked.

Now, when I say faked, I’m not saying that people are lying about their looks, or amount of children, or whether they’re actually ready to settle down with the right girl. To be honest, if we included those kinds of relatively harmless fibs, I’m sure the number would go way over 1 in 10. I’m talking about faked profiles purely for the purpose of Internet fraud.

Internet fraud is not new. I know that I’ve received those horrifying emails from friends and family claiming someone has been kidnapped or robbed while in an exotic location, and they need me to wire $15,000 to a random location at least half a dozen times. And don’t even get me started on those spam emails where someone introduces themselves as a member of royalty, informs me they are getting their inheritance in a few weeks and will pay me some exorbitant fee, but just need some money to tide them over. The propositions are ridiculous, annoying, and unbelievable, yet thousands of people fall for them annually. In 2011, The Internet Crime Complaint Center reported 315,000 fraud claims, but there were probably many more that did not get reported.

One of the newest waves of such Internet schemes has been taking place on dating websites. And at least one scam on the popular dating site Match.com has ended in abject tragedy. In 2010, a 70-year-old Yonkers man named Al Circelli was contacted by a profile pretending to be a beautiful young woman in Ghana named Aisha. “Aisha” corresponded with the man for over a year, built up a rapport with him, and then informed him that she was in financial struggle. The profile scammed $50,000 out of Circelli until he went broke and actually had to borrow money from his son in an attempt to help her out. When he found out that it had all been a scam, he committed suicide.

Now, Match.com is being sued by a woman named Yuliana Avalos, and other unnamed plaintiffs. “Aisha” had been using Avalos’s modeling photos during her attempt to extort money from Circelli. Avalos claims that her pictures are used constantly on the site; at this point she has discovered at least 200 fake profiles in her likeness. While Avalos has become the face of this lawsuit, the others involved in the suit also tend to be young, attractive, and relatively visible women whose public personas have been co-opted to create fraudulent profiles.

According to the plaintiffs, it would be pretty easy to prevent this fraud from happening. There is facial recognition software that could pinpoint multiple profiles using the same photographs. And there are ways to track computers’ IP addresses to see if the computer on which the profile was created actually matches the city on the profile. She claims that the site knows about these fake profiles, but doesn’t necessarily do anything to stop them because even fake profiles inflate the number of users the site is able to report. The class action lawsuit is currently $1.5 billion.

A similar suit regarding fake profiles on Match.com was dismissed a few years ago. In regards to Avalos’s lawsuit, a Match.com spokesman has already claimed that the lawsuit is baseless, stating “the real scam here is this meritless lawsuit, which is filled with outlandish conspiracy theories and clumsy fabrications in lieu of factual or legal basis. We’re confident that our legal system is as adept as we are at detecting scammers and will dismiss this case in short order.”

Match.com absolutely needs to start working harder to weed out scam profiles. People pay for their service, and they should be guaranteed that they are only interacting with real profiles. That being said, I’m not sure how effective Avalos’s lawsuit will be. According to the claim, the defendants (Match.com and its subsidiaries) were cognizant of these fake profiles and broke laws by not removing them. From reading the complaint, the plaintiffs do seem to have identified a large number of fake profiles. But the question is, was it Match.com’s job to police these profiles? If so, could it be, for example, Google’s job to prevent fake emails? Companies can only do so much. Hopefully, Avalos’s lawsuit will help define those hazy parameters.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [maya elaine via DeviantArt]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Match.com May Pay Heavy Price for Fake Profiles appeared first on Law Street.