Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there are. I said that in the last comment. There are two points here: * Estimates of "darknet" economies (and "criminal" economies in general) strongly express preferences for the mostly unfalsifiable LEO hypothesis that there's lots of crime just floating around out there , and they could do so much more about it if we just put up with a little more surveillance, etc. * There's no particular evidence that…
there is without a doubt a correlation between the significance of criminal enterprise and the rate of getting caught. they may be catching some low level movers with these practices, but not much else above that. The evidence is that there is functioning enterprises in the first place. If captures at the border were a normal distribution of all criminal competency.. that would be destabilizing to a trillion dollar i…
This is the problem with unfalsifiable claims. Why is that "without a doubt"?
I can formulate a just as intuitive (and just as baseless) claim: less significant criminal enterprises get caught less, since they fail the "significance" test.