[kube-system]

> The phrase "could be" is doing a lot of work there. Yes, all of these crimes could be — and I would argue SHOULD be — addressed by regular (presuming local or state) police work. Sadly, it is not.

I agree that it is not. I am saying that you don't need a team of 10 cybersecurity expertise to show that someone mailed bricks or stole their cousins venmo money. Ten traditional detectives would be cheaper and a better fit.

Any technically sophisticated scams that would require a team of cybersecurity experts are likely already at the scale and scope that the FBI already does address them.

The intersection -- a technically sophisticated scam that is a small dollar amount -- isn't a problem that exists.

The reason that large cities don't spend much time on small dollar crimes is because they have bigger stuff to worry about. Yes, there's definitely people selling stolen phones on my local Craigslist, but there's also people stealing checks out of mailboxes and washing them to steal $50,000+. It makes sense to address the latter first.

[toss1]

Ok, so you're saying that much of it is within the scope of regular detectives with appropriate training? If so, I'm inclined to agree -- no sense applying over-the-top expertise when not needed.

Actually, chatting about it, it seems like the ordinary L1/L2/L3 service teams approach could work well. Ordinary up-trained detectives on most cases, when they hit something more complicated, call in the L2 guys/gals, and when it goes over their skillset/toolset, call in the L3 team, etc...

However it gets done, it certainly seems that we need something more than we've got.