←back to thread

USPS text scammers duped his wife, so he hacked their operation

(blog.smithsecurity.biz)
460 points wglb | 6 comments | 08 Aug 24 23:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.019s | source | bottom
Show context
0xEF ◴[09 Aug 24 08:27 UTC] 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 #
chii ◴[09 Aug 24 09:19 UTC] 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 #
newsclues ◴[09 Aug 24 09:55 UTC] 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 #
1. ben_w ◴[09 Aug 24 10:26 UTC] 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 #
2. throwaway7ahgb ◴[09 Aug 24 11:47 UTC] No.41200916[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 #
3. ben_w ◴[09 Aug 24 12:09 UTC] No.41201034[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.

4. bigallen ◴[09 Aug 24 12:12 UTC] No.41201052[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.
5. danaris ◴[09 Aug 24 13:28 UTC] No.41201624[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 #
6. ben_w ◴[09 Aug 24 14:26 UTC] No.41202159[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.