[dvfjsdhgfv]

You literally wrote "If crime remains a constant then having shitty software security is a safety valve" - so there is some implication otherwise how would that work? Why would crime become constant? If these are two different groups of people, why don't we have increase in both? This explanation seems too simplistic to me.

[nonrandomstring]

I can only respond to the part of your question that is coherent to me. The "how would that work?" part feels ill-formed and something I've already answered.

But "Why would crime become constant?" is very interesting. For that we turn to "criminology" [0,1]. Roughly, there are three "layers", biological, psychological and sociological. All of these are either fixed, or very slow and hard to change.

Indeed the biggest factors in "how much crime there is" are laws and reporting, how visible the crime is. Obviously we could make crime disappear overnight by declaring all behaviours legal. Really, the justice system can only absorb and respond to what the underlying social and economic conditions set.

Most crimes are resource motivated [2]. Violent crime makes headlines, ruins lives, changes votes and is generally undesirable. "Soft" crimes are less visible and have less impact, especially when they are against actors that are so immensely wealthy they do not even care (for example big-tech companies that see huge fines as simply the cost of doing business as usual)

When we have a fixed pool of criminal potential (set by these structural conditions), which would you choose as a new criminal entering the "market"?

And not surprisingly, Pew Research polls showed "violent and property crimes declined by 51% and 54%, respectively, between 1993 and 2018."

Therefore the hypothesis I was curious about was whether Removing the opportunity for cyber crime (via better security) would have the unintended side effect of shifting crime back into physical robbery and theft with its attendant violence.

What do you think?

[0] https://www.britannica.com/science/criminology/Major-concept...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology

[2] https://online.maryville.edu/blog/types-of-crimes/

[dvfjsdhgfv]

If I understand your point correctly (I'm trying to solve the "crime rate is constant but these are not the same people" conundrum), we assume there is a fixed pool of criminal potential, with some of these people inclined more to violent crime and others for soft crime, and today we have more favorable conditions toward the latter. If so, I'd arrive to the opposite conclusion: if, instead of removing the opportunity for cyber crime, we also relaxed laws related to violent crime, cyber crime wouldn't magically dwindle trying to stick to some magical constant, because even though the pool might be more or less stable, the types of people for both are mostly different.