Month: December 2013

31 Dec 2013
Sticky Post By Posted in Life Permalink

New Year’s Resolutions, Sherlock Holmes style

Sticky Post By On December 31, 2013

Happy New Year everyone! Going into 2014 I want to share one of my favorite quotes from Sherlock Holmes writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He said: “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

Think about your brain attic: Is it cleaned and streamlined, and filled with only the things and people who are most important to you? Or does it look like an episode of ‘Hoarders’?

I don’t really do New Year’s resolutions, but as I start 2014 I plan to give more serious thought to the careful construction of my mental attic.

Happy New Year from The Love Detective!

12 Dec 2013
Sticky Post By Posted in White Collar Crime With No Comments Permalink

Beware Holiday Charity Scams

Sticky Post By On December 12, 2013 With No Comments

‘Tis the season of giving. . . but from Santa skimming the Salvation Army pot to Twitter appeals for fake flood victim relief, the holidays often bring out criminals who definitely believe that it is better to receive than give. After dealing with three charity scam cases in the past month, I thought this would be a good time for a refresher course on how to figure out if a charity is legit. So, before you pull out your wallet, check out these six tips.

1. Call the IRS.

Most tax-exempt organizations are required to file an annual return –  normally some variation of Form 990, with the IRS. Ask for literature from the charity, and check out the mission statement, board of directors and financial statements.

If the form isn’t available on the website, request a copy. Charities, except for churches and public charities whose annual gross receipts are less than $5,000, are also required to make form 501 (c) (3), which verifies their federal tax exempt status, available to the public.

When all else fails, sometimes it’s best to go straight to the source and call the IRS.

Yes, I was on hold for 45 minutes yesterday, but I was able to verify that the children’s organization I was checking out did NOT have federal nonprofit status. So the PayPal button on the ‘fundraiser’ bit of the website was most likely donating straight to the site owner’s shoe fund.

2. Check with watchdog groups.

Groups like the Better Business Bureau and CharityWatch have tips for giving wisely, and services that allow you to find legitimate charities. The CharityWatch Charity rating guide advises that legitimate charities have at least 60% of charitable donations going to program services.

More than 40% earmarked for administrative fees is often a red flag.

3. Beware of sound-alike names.

Many charities – especially those that pop up after natural disasters – mimic the names of reputable ones, and in at least one case flood victims were duped by scammers impersonating actual FEMA officers.

I never give out bank information, either over the phone or in person, to someone soliciting a donation. Instead, I ask the charity to email me information, or send it to my PO Box (more on this later).

4. Don’t be fooled by a figurehead.

Don’t let the fact that a charity is trendy, or everyone else on your Christmas card list is doing it, pressure you into not asking questions. Remember: This is how Madoff and Enron happened!

Fraud occurs at every level: The New York Times reports that a Jewish community leader was charged with stealing $7 million from one of the city’s most influential social service organizations.

5. Don’t be pressured into ’embedded giving’.

I first noticed this phenomenon when buying toilet paper at Whole Foods. At the checkout, right before I swipe my card I’m asked if I want to save the whales or stop genocide. At Petco, they phrase the appeal in a way in which it is almost literally impossible to say ‘no’: Will I give a dollar to help save a homeless pet?

I’ve had my weak moments, but since so-called ’embedded giving’ is often very hard to track, customers may be better off checking ‘no’ at the counter and sending a donation to a reputable pet charity or shelter instead.

6. Remember the difference between ‘non-profit’, ‘tax exempt’ and ‘tax deductible’.

A company can file with the California Secretary of State and be listed as a ‘non-profit’ corporation, but this has nothing to do with the charity’s federal tax exempt status. To find out if a company can legally take donations, it’s worth checking with the IRS.

And remember, some legitimate tax exempt groups that are politically active or involved in lobbying cannot receive tax deductible donations.

 

05 Dec 2013
Sticky Post By Posted in TV / Film With No Comments Permalink

What Bladerunner taught me about Detective Work

Sticky Post By On December 5, 2013 With No Comments

As a huge sci-fi fan, Bladerunner is one of my top five favorite movies of all time. But the iconic 1982 Ridley Scott film was ahead of its time in more ways than one, especially when it came to Rick Deckard’s investigative techniques. First of all, he shows us that there is no ‘one size fits all’ technology for catching bad guys.

In the movie the LAPD uses the Voight Kampff test, a type of futuristic lie detector machine that measures biological responses to questions – but instead of focusing on breathing, heart rate and sweat the VK test focuses on changes in a suspect’s eyes.

Supposedly, a blade runner can figure out if the robot is a real person by how it responds to questions intended to provoke an emotional response. This technology is already becoming a reality, as researchers study the effects of cognitive load on pupil dilation.

But the test is not foolproof. In the Philip K. Dick book ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’ that the movie was based on, Deckart goes into much more detail blade-runner-008-voight-kampff about how the test becomes outdated as the robots get smarter, and every few years has to be replaced with new technology.

As Rachel points out, some humans probably would not pass the test. It takes him more than a hundred questions to figure out that Rachel is a robot after finally nailing her on a question about eating boiled dog.

It’s easy to imagine a sociopath, serial killer or cutthroat businessman answering the same way. This is something that investigators should keep in mind when evaluating cases: Each individual is unique.

Even the most advanced technology is only as good as the human operating it. 

Shows like CSI show cutting-edge technology used to solve cases, but leave out the part where low-tech mistakes like incorrectly bagging and/or breaking the chain of command in evidence can totally screw up a case.

In life as in the movie,  lie detector tests are heavily dependent on the skill of the adminstrator – which can vary hugely.

In California, there is no licensing requirement to administer lie detector tests – so the person quizzing you could have come from the FBI, or quizzing baby daddies on Maury.

With or without a machine, reading body language is notoriously difficult. Untrained people only get it right about half the time. Paul Ekman, perhaps the most famous human lie detector in the world, explains on his site that interpreting micro expressions can only determine if someone is hiding an emotion – they can’t tell you whether the person is lying to you, or just repressed and lying to themselves.

Technology is an important tool, but it’s only as good as the investigator who knows how to use it.

Sometimes old-school detective techniques work best. 

Deckard has flying cars, guns and fancy gadgets, but in the end he catches his suspects through routine detective work: He examines evidence (the snake scale), pounds the pavement to find the source, and looks at photos over and over from different angles.

Later, he interviews people at the bar, gets a bit fed up and has a drink. But his tenacity pays off with a break in the case: He’s able to snag the stripper/snake dancer when she shows up.

Emotional intelligence is a valuable skill. 

Deckard starts his journey as a selfish cop who blocks out or ignores his mixed feelings about killing replicants.

By the end of the movie he has been forced to re-examine everything he believed about life and existence.He has started a love affair with one android, and has his life saved by another robot whose mood swings and lust for revenge make him seem totally human: He breaks Deckard’s fingers minutes before spouting poetry and pulling him off the ledge.

Obviously his journey is extreme, but it’s a reminder that part of being a great investigator is an ability to understand what drives people, and to connect with them on their level. g

Obviously his journey is extt a

Ask Me Anything

I would love to hear from you!

[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]