The point about DNA being permanent and unchangeable really stuck with me. Unlike a password or a Social Security number, you can’t just reset your DNA if it gets stolen, which makes this way scarier than a normal data breach.

This was actually a really good way to explain it; I get why they used that example instead of just saying “these are different.” It makes sense that just because white-collar crime and cybercrime are both “types of crime,” that doesn’t mean they work the same way or need the same fixes, kinda like how you wouldn’t treat two totally different cancers the same way either.

This one kinda hit different points; obviously, crime is going to evolve as fast as tech does, but it’s wild that actual research on it is still behind. Feels like criminal justice is just constantly playing catch-up with something that never stops changing.