6 ms·
I'll give you a read. If you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend the Knapp Commission Report. Its about police corruption in New York City in 1972, b
by IIAOPSW 3mo ago
I'll give you a read.
If you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend the Knapp Commission Report. Its about police corruption in New York City in 1972, but its lessons on systemic and institutionalized corruption are highly transferable to other contexts.
Probably the most common naive mistake I see is people thinking their subfield is special and they are the first to really notice / understand fraud within it. I've certainly seen people in the "sleuth community" (scientific fraud whistle blowers) reinvent the wheel a few times.
All fraud is basically the same. Financial, scientific, police corruption...it almost doesn't matter. I'm not even the first to say this. A really good summary can be found in Ashforth 2003 ("The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations").
So, with the caveat that I haven't read your work yet and maybe you already know, I'd say look at past corruption far outside your area of interest / expertise. There's a lot you can learn there. Police corruption reports are usually great because of how accessible they are in several senses (more numerous, usually simple to understand), but I have no police related agenda to push here and it really doesn't matter where you decide to look. Just pick any Commission and read their findings.
In the opening words of the Knapp Commission "We found corruption to be widespread".
- eries 3mo agoThanks for the suggestion
- laszlojamf 3mo agogotta love HN. Top comment on an AMA with an author who's actually written books is "Here is a book you should read".
- ChaitanyaSai 3mo ago[flagged]
- alexey-salmin 3mo ago> Here's where I thank AIs for the small mercies of slopping on pleasantries on otherwise tone deaf emails and messages. God I hate that, please send me more to-the-point tone deaf emails and messages.
- blazespin 3mo agoVery very patronizing of him to get upvoted.
- wavemode 3mo agoGotta love HN. A commenter does literally nothing other than recommend a book and the top reply is "don't recommend books to him - he's written books, don't you know that?"
- unholiness 3mo agoTBF I think it's just a remark on the upvotes. It's a perfectly cromulent comment with no business being at the top of an AMA.
- recursivegirth 3mo agoGotta love HN. You can't just have a thread without a psycho-analysis on how people interact with each other on a social media website.
- jezclaremurugan 3mo agoI upvoted it - because I loved those two suggestions and have already have them open in another tab. I believe a bunch of others would have done the same.
- figmert 3mo agoI don't understand what's wrong with someone suggesting a book to an author? Do you think all authors have read all other books? If you had pointed out the original commenter's patronizing comment, as if they with 100% certainty know better than the author who has just written a book about said topic (at least the commenter thinks so), then I'd have agreed with you.
- aklemm 3mo agoRight, and it's quite possibly not even very relevant to the book.
- alfredz 3mo ago[flagged]
- davidgrenier 3mo agoI think he's talking about company enshittification because of marke pressure, and not direct fraud though I haven't read the book.
- tonymet 3mo agoWhy did things worsen afterward ?
- IIAOPSW 3mo agoFor the most part it didn't, but to the extent it did, the answer is in the later Mollen Commission Report.