Topic: [GLBSE] Violating its TOS and Possible Laws depending on country of Origin - page 2. (Read 3316 times)

releasing personal info...i dont see ANY sense in it.

give it to the police: but never to a public forum...

imagine you are ill, get to a hospital... and an angry mob burned down your house

NO THANKS

You should post the agreement to having his personal information released then no one could question you releasing the documents.

Was this a special Verification process for only Alberto or are you talking about the default verification process for all Asset Owners?

In that case Alberto should be complaining that he hasn't scammed (or run off with investors' funds) - and that Nefario broke the (privately arranged) term in their contract specifying the conditions under which his information could be released to the public.  The agreement wasn't specifically that ALberto had to scam - it also agreed Alberto disappearing with the investors' funds.  The latter is rather easier to establish than scamming - scamming requires intent, whilst vanishing with the funds is just a matter of simple facts: is he still around?  Do investors have their funds back?

Without knowing the exact wording of what was agreed (and you) can't know for certain whether Nefario releasing the ID was in agreement with their contract or not.  But what we DO know (unless you believe Nefario is lieing about such an agreement being made) is that the default contract in the TOS is not relevant - as it was varied with the consent of both parties (Alberto and Nefario).

EDIT:  Now out of date, as Nefario posted whilst I was typing this.

Meni, was actually the one to revealed he was the scammer, Meni then asked Nefario to help fix a situation that Alberto would not.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93445.260

We have not violated GLBSE terms of service as the currently are.

Alberto agreed to have his information released in the event of him scamming or running off with the funds invested when he verified, I would not have made the information public otherwise.

He was warned numerous times over the last month that if he continued to fail to take action on his obligations I would release the information.

This information has now been removed as he has begun to comply.

We're in the process of legitimizing GLBSE, as a part of that process I'm in discussion with a solicitor over a number of issues.

From this process there are likely to be some changes, certainly to our terms of service will change, and what action we take if someone fails on their contract obligations are likely to change as well.

I can't give any more details until after I've spoken with the solicitor.

Nefario.

+1

i am not sure if thats enough.
if nefario had asked alberto "may i release your information now?" -> all good.

but what court has said that alberto has scammed funds? nefario's word and the opinion of this community is not legally binding.

Not sure what the fuss is all about in this particular case.

Nefario stated that Alberto had agreed, when he provided the ID documents, that they could be released if he scammed or disappeared with investor's funds.  If Alberto agreed to this then it has nothing to do with the TOS of GLBSE: Alberto has every entitlement to waive one of the rights he would otherwise have under his agreement with GLBSE.

If Nefario had released the ID documents of someone WITHOUT them having agreed to it, then that would be an entirely different matter.

Remember that the TOS of GLBSE are a contract that you enter into with them when you use the site.  As with an ycontract its terms can be variede with the agreement of both parties to it.  In Alberto's case, Nefario has stated that they varied the contract such that (under certain circumstances) the personal details of Alberto could be released.  Alberto did NOT have the same agreement with GLBSE after that as everyone else (by default) has.

If you want to look at things like the Data Protection Act and other related legislation in the UK (where GLBSE/nefario are based) then you'll find that they only deal with the handling/distribution of data WITHOUT the consent of the other party to whom the data pertains.  In this case Nefario has said he had Alberto's consent to release the information in these circumstances.

Obviously if you believe Nefario is lieing about Alberto having agreed to the release of his ID in the event of his scamming/running with funds then that's slightly different.  But I'm not seeing any posts from Alberto claiming that to be the case - have I missed them somewhere?  Or do you have some other reason to believe Nefario is lieing about that?

Basically the same thing. He does not pay attention to the terms. So he write the terms poorly, and does not obey it when he forget it.

Also you could argue that GLBSE is hosted in the USA, VIA CloudFlare.

And US laws could apply ALA MegaUpload Style.

Not really the same thing, if you actually read up on the situation.

Nefario usually acts according to his emotion but the brain. He forget that he should only hand this to the police but not push those materials  publicly.

There are another accuse against Nefario. someone is accusing Nefario scammed 8BTC here:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--110504.

So where did Alberto agree to this?

afaik nefario/glbse is hosted in UK.
EU has good privacy laws which prohibit sharing of any ID information.

if nefario has a problem with a scammer he HAS TO inform the police and give the id to them.

btw: nefario: whats the progress about getting a registered company in UK?

You are hereby assuming that Nefario has no other permission to release Alberto's documents and received them in the scope of GLBSE with no extra permission, so GLBSE TOS must apply. This may be the case, but this may also not be. Only Nefario, Alberto and possible witnesses know in which context and under what conditions this documents transmission took place and what rules govern their release.

yes

Are we talking about the scammer who agreed when providing his ID that it would be made public if he scammed/defaulted/(de)frauded?

-MarkM-

This particular case it a little more difficult.

The scammer is natural Italian but has been living in Shenzhen (China) for quite some time now. It is a possiblity he has acquired Chinese Citizenship.

I'm not sure what the privacy protection laws are in China, but I doubt there are any.

The TOS probably does need to be clarified a bit better of the element surrounding how the niceties of the TOS don't apply to your account  info/data we have about you if you are suspect / proven of fraud.


I was not surprised Nefario shared the info/data I admit, after all, a lot of fraud has happened by those misusing his trading site. It's understandable he would be annoyed at them, as it damages his (and the companies) reputation as well.
However I am surprised his TOS didn't mention he could get away with doing that, when suspected or prove of fraud. So yes, [9.] probably should be expanded a bit to cover himself, if he's going to keep doing this.

I'm not much for legal jargon, so meh, scammers have it coming for them really.