←back to thread

460 points wglb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
danaris ◴[] 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 #
1. ben_w ◴[] 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.