• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I dunno something about scammers preying on the vulnerable never sat right with me.

      Watching them get a bit of karma is better than nothing at least.

    • my_hat_stinks
      link
      fedilink
      53 months ago

      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.

      • @deafboy
        link
        English
        73 months ago

        Publicly spreading the faces of people you’re accusing of a crime

        That would be a sound argument if they weren’t doing the crime right there on the video.

        • my_hat_stinks
          link
          fedilink
          03 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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

            • my_hat_stinks
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

                • my_hat_stinks
                  link
                  fedilink
                  13 months ago

                  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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    0
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    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

    • @hoch
      link
      43 months ago

      Found the scammer

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      33 months ago

      Same. Just like I can’t stand cringe humor. I know it’s popular, just it doesn’t gel with me.