this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
69 points (88.8% liked)
Videos
14082 readers
413 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll definitely be downvoted for this too but I completely agree. There's a fine line between entertainment at scammers' expense and vigilantism for views. Publicly spreading the faces of people you're accusing of a crime without any sort of trial is definitely the latter and has little direct impact on shutting down these operations. This video screams ego trip.
I used to watch Kitboga and they were much more ethical (at least when I watched). They'd lean heavily into the entertainment side, waste a lot of the scammers' time which they then couldn't spend on actual victims, and report/shutdown accounts as they came up which actually does directly impact their operation. Your scam call center still works if one of your workers gets their face posted online, it doesn't if you have no bank account.
That would be a sound argument if they weren't doing the crime right there on the video.
I suggest you read the next few words in that sentence which you conveniently left out of your quote, might help clear up any confusion.
It's not a legal proceeding, he's the (very capable) victim of a crime at that moment. It's his experience as an individual, not an authority.
It's like if he had a security camera on his front porch and filmed porch pirates stealing his deliveries, then turned his sprinkler on
That argument doesn't work, all you're doing is pointing out the issues with vigilantism. He's also committing a crime, are the scammers now in the right too since they're targeting a suspected criminal?
This is why trials exist.
What crime? He's accessing resources they connected to his network
Accessing a system you're not authorised to access, regardless of how that access was obtained, is generally not legal. The way to sort that out is, you guessed it, a trial.
When someone opens a connection on your network you are not obligated to avoid utility of those connected systems. It is not a crime to connect to things which have willfully joined your network.
If someone puts a camera on your network, you can view it. Authorization is moot when it's in your house.
Edit I agree if you seek out someone else's network and connect to and operate devices there.
Edit edit put simply they forfeit any expectations of privacy when they open a connection to his network
This is very untrue and you definitely shouldn't be giving out legal advice like this on topics you're not knowledgeable on, but exactly which part is a crime and how criminal it is will depend on your local laws. Some such computer misuse laws are intentionally written very broadly with generic wording precisely so that edge cases such as unintentionally granting an unauthorised party access to a system does not clear them of wrongdoing when they do so.
As for how to tell which laws are relevant and whether you've breached them? Well, I'm sure the answer will shock you.
Nothing on lemmy is legal advice lmao.
Further, they opened 2 way remote desktop connectivity. That is a literal invitation
Edit now that that is covered, and completely distinct from all previous points and lines of discussion, it's pretty shady to be looking for legal safe harbor for scammers who rob people all over the world every day.
They are opening persistent 2 way connections to people's machines with the clear goal of destroying them. There is little argument to suggest it is inappropriate to observe them while they do it.
This is an argument that happened entirely within your own head, not in this thread. I think I made it clear right from the start I'm against scammers and approve of (ethical) actions taken against them, but I'm also against people who dox, invade privacy, engage in vigilantism, and gain unauthorised access to other's computer systems (particularly when it's for profit and ego). These are not mutually exclusive, there is no disconnect there. I even gave an example of more appropriate actions to take against scammers, notably actions that are actually effective.
Criticism against "justice" porn is not remotely the same thing as condoning scammers. You're arguing in bad faith and you know it.
Observing criminals in action is not vigilantism. Discussing how that could be construed as illegal behavior is shady.