Most active commenters
  • ben_w(9)
  • _heimdall(6)
  • lupusreal(6)
  • cutemonster(3)
  • mnw21cam(3)
  • spacebacon(3)
  • kelnos(3)

←back to thread

460 points wglb | 67 comments | | HN request time: 2.207s | source | bottom
Show context
0xEF ◴[] No.41199904[source]
I hate that it kicks off with "DISCLAIMER: This is not my work. I would never and don't condone illegal hacking of scammers"

You know what? I do. We all should. These scammers are awful people and deserve to be attacked. I am tired of toothless authorities like CISA and the alphabet agencies in the US doing next to nothing about it unless some YouTube scam baiter does the work for them. Scammers destroy people, not just financially, but emotionally as well, even driving some victims to suicide. As far as I am concerned, any wannabe hacker out there should be using these scammers for target practice.

replies(16): >>41200015 #>>41200161 #>>41200218 #>>41200779 #>>41201185 #>>41201202 #>>41201398 #>>41201432 #>>41201617 #>>41201878 #>>41202474 #>>41202492 #>>41202844 #>>41204073 #>>41204174 #>>41204583 #
1. chii ◴[] No.41200161[source]
vigilantism can spiral out of control. While it makes sense in this scenario, it's because the scammer is obviously breaking some law and is criminal. What happens if it wasn't so obvious?
replies(5): >>41200327 #>>41200477 #>>41200923 #>>41201147 #>>41204978 #
2. newsclues ◴[] No.41200327[source]
I’m fine with a war on scammers getting out of control to the point where bombs are being dropped on scammers call centres.

They are the modern Hostis humani generis

replies(4): >>41200452 #>>41200461 #>>41200479 #>>41200765 #
3. cqqxo4zV46cp ◴[] No.41200452[source]
Really, really sounds like you don’t have many real problems in your life and don’t know who to blame for societal issues.

People here will lament about the exploited H1Bs causing literal genocides at Meta until the cows come home, but literally other any person working a job they don’t necessarily like and in a living situation that’s undoubtedly worse deserve to be literally bombed because they sent you a text message.

Jesus Christ.

replies(1): >>41200715 #
4. cutemonster ◴[] No.41200461[source]
Seems you didn't know that lots of people in scam call centers aren't there voluntarily. Trafficking and threats

> ... lured to countries through fake job adverts but are instead forced to work in scam call centers, pushing cryptocurrency investments, as well as work-from-home, lottery, romance, and online gambling scams. All this, while being subject to "abject abuse."

> A report from Interpol from earlier this year said victims are also subjected to extortion via debt bondage, beatings, sexual exploitation ...

https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/08/human_trafficking_for...

and:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/hundreds-thousand...

replies(1): >>41200483 #
5. themaninthedark ◴[] No.41200477[source]
If society doesn't want vigilantes than it must take an active role in pursuing and punishing criminals.
replies(5): >>41200739 #>>41200760 #>>41200789 #>>41201090 #>>41201346 #
6. ben_w ◴[] No.41200479[source]
chii wrote: "What happens if it wasn't so obvious?"

Is Musk a scammer? Bitcoin? The commission Apple charges on the App Store? The Fortnight monetisation system? Facebook's claim to be able to accurately target adverts? Vaccines and masks? OpenAI?

People on this website have said so about each of those examples.

That is why it's bad to go down that path.

replies(2): >>41200916 #>>41201624 #
7. ben_w ◴[] No.41200483{3}[source]
Mm.

For what it's worth, I can get them to hang up immediately if I recommend they join a trade union.

replies(2): >>41200979 #>>41200999 #
8. dumpsterdiver ◴[] No.41200715{3}[source]
Do you… know what the word literally means?
9. prmoustache ◴[] No.41200739[source]
You are saying it as if there was only one society with one juridiction.
replies(1): >>41203202 #
10. _heimdall ◴[] No.41200760[source]
At least here in the US, I can say one of the last things we need is more people in jail or prison.
replies(3): >>41203118 #>>41203213 #>>41215602 #
11. _heimdall ◴[] No.41200765[source]
You have never seen war first hand if you would be fine with starting a war over online scammers.
replies(1): >>41201976 #
12. prepend ◴[] No.41200789[source]
Society does take an active role through police, fbi, etc etc

Vigilantes are criminals too so society takes an active role in pursuing and punishing them as well.

replies(2): >>41200811 #>>41202604 #
13. willcipriano ◴[] No.41200811{3}[source]
That only works if you aren't in a:

Anarcho-tyranny

A stage of governmental dysfunction in which the state is anarchically hopeless at coping with large matters but ruthlessly tyrannical in the enforcement of small ones

https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123

Then you get your door kicked in for not paying taxes on $50 venmo transaction, or saying the wrong thing online but when there is a school shooter (or presidential assassin) the cops wait for them to finish while they play with their phones.

replies(2): >>41200900 #>>41201322 #
14. jazzyjackson ◴[] No.41200900{4}[source]
thanks for that example, it really paints a picture of the impotence of the state, tho watching the video it's easy to blame the failure on the hundreds of individuals that didn't take action, but they are meant to be the vangaurd; we handed the monopoly on violence to these people and for what?
15. throwaway7ahgb ◴[] No.41200916{3}[source]
To answer your question, No they aren't.

Until the REAL scammers are brought down, people will take actions into their own hands.

replies(2): >>41201034 #>>41201052 #
16. vouaobrasil ◴[] No.41200923[source]
Then society would quickly condemn the vigilantes. Vigilantism works precisely in those cases where the criminals being persecuted is obvious. It seems to me that there is an optimal amount of vigilantism and it's greater than zero in those rare cases where there is a person skilled enough to carry out the retribution.
17. mnw21cam ◴[] No.41200979{4}[source]
People who are the victims in a controlling relationship will usually say things that the controller wants them to say, even when the controller is not there. Ask me how I know.
replies(2): >>41201081 #>>41210301 #
18. cutemonster ◴[] No.41200999{4}[source]
Hmm what's your point? I'd think they're under time pressure, and if they see they can't fool you, they'll immediately proceed with the next target instead. (Regardless of if they're working for themselves or being trafficked & forced)
replies(1): >>41201162 #
19. ben_w ◴[] No.41201034{4}[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

If the question's answer was obvious and resolving false then none would have been described thusly, if it was obvious and resolving true then you wouldn't be denying it.

Merely asserting that they are not, in your opinion (though hey, look at those legal cases they have between them…) does nothing to remove the fact that they have been called this.

It also does nothing to help with the lack of legitimacy of vigilantes. Nor, in this case, jurisdiction: part of the problem here is international cooperation, because right now the USA (where the victim is) and China (where the gang is) are a bit chilly towards each other.

> people will take actions into their own hands.

Amateurs sending a bomb their way? That's one way to describe how WW1 started.

20. bigallen ◴[] No.41201052{4}[source]
I think the point they’re trying to make is that determining who is a criminal and what kind of punishment they deserve is a very difficult task that depends largely on perspective.
21. ben_w ◴[] No.41201081{5}[source]
I can well believe it, and my sympathies to you.

Hopefully the suggestion gave them an idea to reflect on later — I don't know of anything better that can be done when on the receiving end of a phone call.

replies(1): >>41202424 #
22. mcphage ◴[] No.41201090[source]
It’s difficult when the authorities over you have no jurisdiction over the criminals harming you.
23. nonrandomstring ◴[] No.41201147[source]
If we're going to invoke "vigilantism" (as opposed to notions of reasonable and proportionate self-defence) let's acknowledge how U.S. American culture at least in the 80s and 90s is drenched in a deep love of vigilante justice... The A-Team, Knight Rider, The Equaliser, even Batman! Who doesn't dream of a secret base inside a mountain, filled with surveillance gear, an anti-crime computer and a personal Apache attack helicopter waiting on the pad to rain fire down on miscreants?

Let's say that's more than just individual morality but a concrete cultural relation to wealth, power, justice and social contract of the state.

replies(1): >>41202966 #
24. ben_w ◴[] No.41201162{5}[source]
If they're a good person in a bad place, a union can help — and I suspect that if the calls are monitored, the villains who coerce them will want to avoid future calls to a number that regularly undermines their authority over those they traffic.

On the other hand, the examples people commonly share of where someone contacts a knowing scammer to appeal to their humanity, is that the scammers laugh at their victims — so if the people on the phone are the villains, then I think them hanging up immediately may cause more emotional pain than the stream of expletives they're used to.

Regardless, it saves me time.

This approach may not be so useful now that GenAI, both LLMs and synthetic voices, are getting good.

replies(2): >>41201257 #>>41201509 #
25. johnisgood ◴[] No.41201257{6}[source]
> This approach may not be so useful now that GenAI, both LLMs and synthetic voices, are getting good.

They are getting REALLY good, it is the old "it is photoshopped" except with sound. The problem though is not being able to differentiate, especially not the people scammers usually target (the elderly).

You cannot believe your own eyes AND ears now, sadly. It might sound dramatic, but it takes "trust no one and nothing" to a whole new level.

replies(1): >>41202053 #
26. UncleMeat ◴[] No.41201322{4}[source]
While it is true that the justice system is often used to disproportionately hurt the poor, nobody is getting their door kicked in for not paying taxes on a venmo transaction.
replies(1): >>41202429 #
27. lupusreal ◴[] No.41201346[source]
Precisely correct. People have a natural right to receive justice, so IF the government abdicates its assumed responsibility to provide justice people have every moral and ethical right to enact justice themselves.
replies(3): >>41201481 #>>41202384 #>>41204806 #
28. spacebacon ◴[] No.41201481{3}[source]
People with every moral and ethical right to enact justice are the types that can acquire clearance and join various authorities in the pursuit.

Vigilante’s don’t abide by the laws so aren’t well positioned to dispense justice in a non hypocritical way.

Maybe carve out a low level clearance that gives grey hat types a little room for counter red team activity.

replies(1): >>41202097 #
29. bluGill ◴[] No.41201509{6}[source]
A union cannot help them. They generally are in places where there isn't a better option. Go on strike, we will just find someone else to replace you. Unions work when you are hard to replace. (hard is a trade off between many things, not just the cost of training someone new; but also things like the legal climate or future strikes)
replies(1): >>41202066 #
30. danaris ◴[] No.41201624{3}[source]
The existence of a gray area in between "obviously fine" and "obviously wrong" doesn't mean that there is nothing in those outer categories.

It is, at least hypothetically, possible to define "scammer" clearly enough that the more egregious and clear-cut types are taken care of more expeditiously.

Not sure if there's a way to actually enforce that better, but "it is possible to disagree over whether some things are scams" is not the same as "there's no way to agree on whether anything is a scam".

replies(1): >>41202159 #
31. newsclues ◴[] No.41201976{3}[source]
Maybe I have and the calls aggravated my ptsd?
32. ben_w ◴[] No.41202053{7}[source]
Mm, indeed.

I expect that, at some point in my lifetime, bio-printing and tissue culture will probably reach the point we can't even have trust in real life, not even with fingerprints and a DNA test.

Will this happen before or after we become post-scarcity? I don't know.

33. ben_w ◴[] No.41202066{7}[source]
Unions also give you a team that is rooting for you (even the mere psychological aspect can be surprisingly valuable), and potentially access to a legal fund.
replies(1): >>41203319 #
34. lupusreal ◴[] No.41202097{4}[source]
People have a duty to defer the enactment of justice to the government only if there exists a government which fulfills their end of the deal. If no such government exists, then people are ethically and morally free to do it themselves.
replies(1): >>41205831 #
35. ben_w ◴[] No.41202159{4}[source]
In principle, when the legal system handles the cases, I agree: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In this specific case, when it comes to vigilantes in particular? Then no. I think that a society which allows it will end up somewhere between lynching and anarchy.

Better law enforcement, which does not even have to mean "more laws"? Good. Batman wannabes? Bad.

36. jimbokun ◴[] No.41202384{3}[source]
Because the real world is a Batman comic book.
replies(1): >>41202870 #
37. mnw21cam ◴[] No.41202424{6}[source]
I think you're probably right. I came to the opinion a while ago that one of the very best things you can do to help someone who is a victim of a controlling relationship is to tell them things that are indisputably true in such a way that they can ignore you if they aren't ready to hear it or are unable to respond, but so that their mind will have something to chew on and slowly form the roots of a rediscovery of truth.
replies(1): >>41203063 #
38. shermantanktop ◴[] No.41202429{5}[source]
Civil forfeiture is roughly similar.
replies(1): >>41202823 #
39. themaninthedark ◴[] No.41202604{3}[source]
We deem vigilantes criminals because we have no way to hold them accountable if they infringe on someone's rights.

Society is supposed to take an active role, but sometimes they have other priorities.

Big companies getting hacked or scammed make headlines and generate FBI action. People like me, not so much.

replies(1): >>41203680 #
40. UncleMeat ◴[] No.41202823{6}[source]
Civil asset forfeiture is indeed horrible and often used to basically just steal from the poor. It is also totally different than having your door kicked down for failing to pay taxes or being arrested for saying the wrong thing online.
replies(1): >>41203173 #
41. lupusreal ◴[] No.41202870{4}[source]
I never read any comic book, sorry..

In absence of a government willing or able to enforce laws, vigilantism creates a public pressure to fix the government. Either way though, people are entitled to justice. If the government doesn't provide it, then the government is responsible for the harmful consequence of the resulting vigilantism.

replies(1): >>41204813 #
42. lo_zamoyski ◴[] No.41202966[source]
The trouble with vigilatism is that it involves a usurpation of state authority that one does not possess. State authority can be deputized under certain conditions, of course, and self-defense is an example (I can shoot someone trying to commit murder, for example; or consider citizen's arrest), but it isn't arbitrary and isn't vigilatism.

Of course, when the state demonstrates a dereliction of duty and becomes feckless in its ability to punish criminals in proportion to their crimes, this creates outrage and a strong temptation to engage in vigilatism. The state then shares responsibility for the resulting vigilatism.

replies(1): >>41215485 #
43. lo_zamoyski ◴[] No.41203063{7}[source]
This is what I did with a scammer. He kept rationalizing his theft, claiming he's just taking "a little" from many people who are well off and wouldn't miss it. Of course, not only is that bullshit, but it wouldn't justify the theft even if it were true. I appealed to his conscience, sternly, and didn't give him an inch. I ended the conversation by wishing that he will come to renounce his evil ways.

The very fact that he didn't hangup, that he felt he had to explain away his guilt to me (a few times) shows that he himself wasn't convinced of his rationalization and that he himself believed he was doing something wrong. I can only hope that the guilt gnawed its way into his conscious and that the worm that never dies led him to rethink his life and to pick up some honest work.

May the guilty lose sleep, and may their ill-gotten goods taste of ash, and thus be led to remorse and reform and the righteous path. This is love of neighbor.

44. justin_oaks ◴[] No.41203118{3}[source]
The parent commenter said "pursue and punish", not "put in jail".

There are other forms of punishment besides jail time. But really I'm more concerned that the scam organization is shut down, even if the main scammer isn't put behind bars. If nothing else, it'll slow down and reduce the scams.

replies(1): >>41203804 #
45. shermantanktop ◴[] No.41203173{7}[source]
Sure, but it does match the GP’s point about tyrannical enforcement against small violations. The examples GP provided weren’t apt, you pointed that out, I’m providing another one.

Red light ticket revenue funding small town budgets is another. Brake-light rationales for traffic stops…I could go on.

The key is what you pointed out, that these are never used against the elite class.

46. capnsalty ◴[] No.41203213{3}[source]
We just need different people in jail. Release all the people who got caught with dime bags and lock up the people who steal money from seniors. Those are the actual monsters.
47. lupire ◴[] No.41203319{8}[source]
You are really arguing that slaves in a region with no functioning legal system should join a union?
replies(1): >>41203939 #
48. _heimdall ◴[] No.41203680{4}[source]
Unless I'm mistaken, we vigilantes are deemed criminals because it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state.

Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.

replies(2): >>41204780 #>>41205709 #
49. _heimdall ◴[] No.41203804{4}[source]
Fair enough. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but at least in the US you will almost certainly spend a bit of time in a jail when being charged, booked, and arraigned.

Given that we're talking about legal, rather than extra judicial, pursuit and punishment I would expect jail to be a part of that process.

50. ben_w ◴[] No.41203939{9}[source]
That's a description of the Russian revolution, I think? Wasn't that serfdom at the time?

Also literal slaves working together, even if you'd not call it a union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

51. kelnos ◴[] No.41204780{5}[source]
> it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state.

Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions.

Obviously the reality of our legal systems fall far short of ideal, but IMO vigilantism is not the answer to that.

> Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.

You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.

replies(2): >>41205304 #>>41265126 #
52. kelnos ◴[] No.41204806{3}[source]
> People have a natural right to receive justice

There's no such thing as a "natural right". Rights are granted, not innate. In the US we might think freedom of speech is a "natural right", but go to a country that doesn't have that, and you'll see how "natural" it really is. (And hell, even in the US, free speech rights are curtailed all the time.)

> IF the government abdicates its assumed responsibility to provide justice people have every moral and ethical right to enact justice themselves.

I don't agree with that. Look at how (for example) the 1800s in the US west looked when it came to so-called "justice", when the government wouldn't or couldn't prevent or track all that much crime. That's not a world I want to experience.

replies(1): >>41204963 #
53. kelnos ◴[] No.41204813{5}[source]
That's just your opinion. In reality that's not actually how it works, and what you describe is a worse world for everyone.
replies(1): >>41204918 #
54. lupusreal ◴[] No.41204918{6}[source]
What reality of ethics and morality do you appeal to, that isn't just another opinion?
55. lupusreal ◴[] No.41204963{4}[source]
Other countries violating rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist. I speak of natural rights and not legal rights for this reason.

And not that I have not denied the negative consequences of vigilantism for society as a whole. Those consequences are the reason governments are supposed to seek justice in a more orderly and accountable manner. It is when governments renege on that responsibility that they bare the blame for the consequences, as people seek justice on their own (because they know justice is their right and will seek it themselves if nobody else will for them. This innate understanding of being entitled to justice is the proof that a natural right to justice does exist.)

56. edm0nd ◴[] No.41204978[source]
I mean scammers are the perfect targets to hack because they cant go to the police lol

I have no issues with hackers hacking scammers and fucking their shit up.

57. _heimdall ◴[] No.41205304{6}[source]
> Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions.

Maybe ironic wasn't a great fit there, I stand by the rest of the comment though. I blame Alanis Morissette for my inability to recognize irony accurately.

> You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.

There's a legal definition of "criminal". Is it being an annoying little brother to think definitions are important?

58. tedunangst ◴[] No.41205709{5}[source]
The people receiving vigilante justice aren't technically criminals, either, by that logic. You're inflicting punishment on innocent (not proven guilty) people.
replies(1): >>41206882 #
59. spacebacon ◴[] No.41205831{5}[source]
Who says no such government exist?
replies(1): >>41206456 #
60. lupusreal ◴[] No.41206456{6}[source]
A government which is effective at prosecuting phone scammers? That government doesn't exist in America. Victims who turn to vigilantism are therefore justified and the negative consequences of this are the responsibility of the government which is neglecting their duty to victims.
replies(1): >>41208730 #
61. _heimdall ◴[] No.41206882{6}[source]
Just realized I had a very meaningful typo in the last comment and its been to long to edit.

I meant to say "the vigilantes" not "we vigilantes." I don't take part in it and don't condone it as long as we collectively agree to live under a legal system.

I agree with you though, vigilantes are imposing "justice" on innocent people. The right to a fair trial and a jury of your peers is a really important check on power. Vigilantes skip that whole process.

62. spacebacon ◴[] No.41208730{7}[source]
As much as I want to agree with you and become a beekeeper I still see holes in reasoning. Governments have prosecuted a number of sim swappers and sms scammers. They are not effective at doing this at volume in my opinion but that can be argued.
63. cutemonster ◴[] No.41210301{5}[source]
Can I ask, how did you manage to get away from the controlling relationship? And I wonder if others saw what was going on, or if they didn't understand (when apparently you said what the abusive person wanted)

I'm glad you broke free eventually :-)

> even when the controller is not there

That's good to know, don't think I knew about that

replies(1): >>41222431 #
64. nonrandomstring ◴[] No.41215485{3}[source]
I agree, and think there are many facets of degeneration that lead people to disrespect the law and see justice as something they must provision for themselves; Surveillance cameras and drones instead of police in the streets. Algorithms and predictive policing instead of presence - ears to the ground and forward intelligence. Procedural and summary justice in place of juries and deliberation. Police who are uneducated in, and frequently break the law. Delegation to untrusted private power without democratic mandate...

All of these things give people a sense they have been abandoned by a derelict state and must meet violence with violence, power with power. That's profitable for an "insecurity industry" that thrives on fear, but devastating to societal wellbeing.

65. thejazzman ◴[] No.41215602{3}[source]
This feels like a really weird take to me. Like all crime should just be permitted because being a criminal has become mainstream?

Innocent people in jail, or for controversial reasons, seems like its own issue entirely.

Like the way too common attitude on this site rbat because some people are smart/resourceful enough not to be victimized, that somehow makes victims deserving for not being so fortunate.

Why would anyone but a scammer/criminal want such a society to even exist. I'll go so far as to compare to to the holocaust, that somehow it's fine as long as they're not coming for you?

"First they came for the vulnerable..."

66. mnw21cam ◴[] No.41222431{6}[source]
The controller did something so incredibly bizarre and outrageous that I finally saw what they were doing, and I could never un-see it. Others had spoken truth to me a few times over the years, but recognised that they couldn't change my mind for me, so they didn't press the issue. The controller was trying to isolate me from all those others anyway, so if they had pressed the issue the danger would have been that my controller might have then been able to say "See, they hate me and they're trying to break us up" and got me to further cut contact with them. (In fact, this had already happened a few times.) As it was, when I realised what was happening and asked these others for help, they had been waiting ready for me to ask, and sprung into action immediately. One drove all the way across the country to help me out.

So yes, if you know someone who is a victim in a controlling relationship, then gently speak truth to them, don't push too hard, but be ready to give them meaningful help as soon as they come to their senses and ask for it.

67. BoingBoomTschak ◴[] No.41265126{6}[source]
What do you do when law and justice become so disconnected that law enforcement actively ignores horrible things happening in your local community (e.g. the Pakistani rape/prostitution gangs in England, with Rotherham as central figure)? Do you just "vote better" and wait a few years for nothing to happen?

Vigilantism is always a symptom of far greater problems, people don't do it just for fun and to cosplay as Batman.