Crime v 2.0
I have never been the victim of any crime on Internet, and I think I may be one of the luckiest person. I have pretty much done everything that is not advised like buying with my credit card on improbable foreign website which I barely understood. I can't say that I have many shieds either, and my computer may be full of viruses / spy programs / whatever but the thing is : I don't really mind. I'm pretty sure that my bank would cover me if I find out that someone has spent thousands of Euros on Internet.
I think that a lot of Internet victims, in addition of being unlucky, have been a bit naive at one point. As all of you (I imagine), I often receive e-mails saying me that I won a big amount of money, that I can make millions if I just give 10 dollars right now... I am sure that more people that we imagine click on these kind of links and get fooled. As I said, I don't do anything to protect myself but I don't take crazy risks either (when I was buying things, it was just records, for a small amount of money).
Concerning the scams from Nigeria, I think they're completely unethical and do not constitute a kind of modern Robin Hood. I almost think that it would be condescendent to give them this kind of credit. Unfortenately, I did not understand everything in the video so I cannot really express myself. The thing that really surprised me (and made me angry too), is that the journalist give his contact to the police in the end. This is unethical to me. We have these kind of journalist in France, showing how the scams work, but the face of the criminal would be flouted and his identity kept as a secret, and not given to the police. It is one of the main rule about journalism in France. I am curious to know what you think of that.
I would not consider Colbert as a criminal. He just plays with the absurdity of the Wikipedia system. I think that Wikipedia is an interesting idea, but I agree with Colbert when he says "if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true". The history has shown that at many times, one person was right against the whole world, and Wikipedia ignores this parameter. What Colbert does is just showing, in a provocative way, that the veracity of a piece of information on Wikipedia is arguable, and that does not make him a criminal, on the contrary.