Topic: How to handle a high profile hacked account? (Read 355 times)

I know you see every interaction with me as an opportunity to try to cast aspersions upon me, but please try to restrain yourself and stay on topic. I don't need to defend myself from your chopped up and rearranged quotes, interpretations and off topic shitstirring.


As you can see from my unmodified quote, I was clearly saying that I found the user to be constructive, not that the accusations should be ignored completely.

Now regarding the actual topic, I love how you built this narrative that if I advocate for discretion any fraud that takes place is my culpability. No, the ultimate responsibility rests with the harmed user. What you are pretending to not understand is that these indiscriminate inquisitions you are so fond of are arguably far more destructive to this community than any scammer. In the end, users can protect themselves by doing their own due diligence. How do users protect themselves from a mob of OCD clowns perpetually looking to "get the bad guy" at all costs, even when it costs the people they are claiming to protect?

Character attacks? Interpretations? You literally suggested second chance for user who has strong connection to scammer because they are "overall constructive addition to the forum". You are not hypocrite? You accused FH for deleting topic which he said he didn't remove and then you tried to hide behind question mark - and now you are lecturing us about "harming innocent users"?

You suggested OP to do "nothing" unless account:
If that happens, who will decide it is fraud? Or maybe account is not hacked and you will harm innocent user by waiting "something" to happen and then accusing them, which will potentially cause them more damage.

I suggested OP to reveal account earlier, you suggested later, my logic is wrong and yours is correct?

No, its called a lack of a logical argument, so you need to make character attacks to distract from it.

No, this is something called "I am not interested in your political games".

May I ask if the (suspected previous) owner was active in the German section? Since many users are buying BTC p2p there that might be a risk (although the user hasn't posted anything harmful yet) .

If I am wrong and the suspected account I've found wasn't posting anything in the German section before you can ignore my comment.  

I said no such thing. I don't need to defend myself from your interpretations, only what I actually said. Protect one member at what cost exactly? I never said do nothing, this is what is called a "false choice" logical fallacy. I do not participate in mobs, so no, it is not hypocritical. Again, the question is what is the cost of this pattern of behavior. If it drives away 10 contributing members forever to out one scammer who will just be back in seconds on a new account is it worth it?

It doesn't look so, just recently you said something like "scammer is overall good member" and they "should be unbanned".

If we "protect" at least 1 member I would say that is a good progress. Make small steps. Or, do you think, "if you can't make big steps don't do anything at all"? That would be wrong.

I think you are very hypocritical here.

Exposing scammers and making newcomers and people who fail to do due diligence is not right thing to do? That is another side of trust system. Do you think trust system should have only one side?

So what is wrong with exposing potentially hacked account?  

I don't want people to fall victims to scams either, however the fact of the matter is in the end a fool and his money will always be parted no matter how shiny you think your internet police badge is. It is impossible to protect everyone from themselves and their own lack of due diligence. Even if innocent this whole mob justice OCD process you have all set the precedent as being the norm is an equal if not greater threat to innocent users because it is unending and there are zero repercussions if you are wrong. I am sure you believe you are doing what is right, however the process is seriously flawed and destructive. Conveniently though this costs individual trust police nothing when they are wrong.

No you overreacting narcissistic moron, if someone suspects that account has been hacked or changed hands it should be shared among other forum members to prevent potential scam, especially if it is "trusted" account.

It has nothing to do with feeling good or whatever you think it does. Some people don't like scams and are fighting against it, it has nothing to do with "raising profile", like it or not.

I would argue that this should be the course of action no matter who the account is. Frankly there is enough info here for the resident autists to dig this up as it is. What is more important is the behavior of the person in control of the account.


This is one of my primary grievances with the culture of this forum. If you are right you get to feel good about yourself and tell everyone how great you are for preventing scams, raising your own profile in the process. If you are wrong, oh well it costs you nothing to seriously invade some ones privacy, disrupt their life, income, and possibly burn their reputation. No skin off your back, so fuckem right? I have hockey pads, I can be Batman too!

This mentality is exactly why systems of due process exist in law, and exactly why Theymos made some of the most recent trust system changes.

Hacked or sold?    Can you post account ID?

If you are right about this you could prevent potential scam - highly green trusted account in wrong hands can be dangerous. If you are wrong don't worry too much about it, you have every right to suspect that some account has changed hands because of "certain things".
Stick to facts and proofs, ignore the rest  

---

Edit* I should probably remove last part as it looks like I repeated "suchmixer's"  words, but, the truth is, I should probably click "preview" button next time before posting something...

https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php


Arguably the opposite is not right either - holding off exposing the hack because the account is famous or something. Ignore that part and just look at the facts and potential risks etc.

I would highly suggest you simply monitor the account and collect evidence if it reveals itself. I know you have good intents, but there are a lot of ways you might cause some unintentional harm here. Unfortunately the user is now aware you suspect them, so if they are up to something illicit they may now attempt to conceal it. If the account does act as if they are setting up fraud of some kind, then I think some more public scrutiny would be warranted.

So I see an account that I think is hacked but I would really hate to unintentionally harass this user or have this user harassed by publicly posting my suspicion if I am wrong..

This is a highly green trusted account and I would argue has a historically significant post history that I would hate to see tampered with by the hacker..

I sent it a pm..
But I don't know if that is the right thing to do or if I should do more..

If it is hacked I don't think slamming it with flags and red trust is the right thing to do.. Rather, I think it should be frozen or something so the hacker doesn't go destroying it..

It would be nice if admin could stop this account from deleting or editing old posts and/or trust.. Even if we need to red tag and flag this account due to the hack I also believe users removing old positive trust from it would be a shame..

In the time since I noticed it now the PW and email have been changed too.. I think it just happened but don't know where that log thing is..
It doesn't look like it is actively trying to scam or anything but it looks like the hacker is testing the waters by posting with it. Posts that seem quite out of character for the true owner, and sent a bunch of merit for the first time..

I PMd Switzerland about it and they agree it looks extremely suspicious.. Also one problem is that their is a lot of potential for bias against this account and I can't help but feel some would just love for it to be erased from BTCT history..

What do?