• 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

                  • my_hat_stinks
                    link
                    fedilink
                    3
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    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.