Topic: [Payout Updates] Bitcoinica site is taken offline for security investigation - page 4. (Read 156653 times)

Users accusing Aurumexchange of TOS break are indirectly supporting the hypothesis that Zhou Tong is the hacker.

If Zhou Tong is the hacker, then Aurumexchange released information of a customer.

If Zhou Tong is NOT the hacker, them Aurumexchange released information of an unknown person.

I see nothing wrong with how AurumXchange handled this matter, but that's merely my personal opinion. Let's see how this turns out and whether the people owed money gets the money back eventually. As I see, now a conventional lawyer has been put on the case AFAIK, and then we can probably expect a large lump of the money ending up in the pockets of that particular lawyer, esp. if this drags out, and there will be court case(s) and so on.

Since I don't have a stake here, it's not that important for me personally, however I do have sympathy for those who has lost their funds, and I hope they get paid back.

ZT has been communicating, while the others haven't been communicating that much. And obv. they should. But not much more to say about that as you can't mend broken characters through a forum.

I do wonder whether funds from the hack would be being transferred back now had this not become public.  In the short-term, the outcome may be better for Bitcoinica users than it would have been had AurumXchange handled this more conventionally.

-1

+1

Are you referring to the donations that Matthew referred to? I think Vladimir said that it was to BitcoinTV. If not, what evidence makes the shilling 'clear'?

I personally don't see any shilling because both sides make good points (except those that somehow know ZT is lying and that his friend doesn't exist).

Shouldn't ZT have been given an opportunity to respond to the accusations first? Without that opportunity to respond, don't you think AX ought to be held responsible for the result of publishing the information that was published?

Imagine how this might have turned out if ZT had been given an opportunity to respond to the accusations? Wouldn't AX have used AML laws to determine if he was telling the truth or not before publishing? And once that had been determined, I still think publishing would be a bad thing to do but at least the outcry would have been just.

It is interesting. It's at the very heart of the whole controversy.

If the information hadn't been released or if ZT hadn't been incriminated BEFORE he had a chance to at least reply to the accusations then we wouldn't be in this situation.

None of us would know whether ZT was the main suspect (well there would be theories on the matter but nothing conclusive as AX wouldn't have substantiated it) until a full investigation had been done.

At that point, ZT would have either been proved a liar or the investigation would have determined that the money really did come from a friend.


There is nothing else to do whilst the investigation is ongoing. I'm sure the AML investigation is going as fast as it can because until it's resolved, we won't find out if ZT is telling the truth or not.

This is really the whole problem here. I don't know if ZT is telling the truth. You don't know if he's telling the truth. The investigation will though. Those that say they KNOW he's lying already - I can't see how they could possibly know that. I'm not saying he isn't but how could I conclusively decide that with the information I have?




How can logic determine if ZT is lying or not? Doesn't this also mean you believe he's guilty? How have you proved that his friend doesn't exist? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong but how did you come to that conclusion?



I would have done everything AX did except I would withold all information until an investigation had been done. That's the way it's meant to be done.


Lawsuits can still be brought because the information effectively painted ZT as guilty without giving him an opportunity to reply to the accusations. See how the news media goes about news items - they give both parties the opportunity to address the matter and they publish both sides if it's to be published at all.


This implies he's already guilty. Or are you literally just wanting to know how he would feel in that scenario?

Is this not the exact same issue we have with you releasing ZT's information?

I think everyone agrees with you that information already in the public domain shouldn't be covered as that had already been published though.

Derailing seems to be Rarity's main motivation, imo.

For fuck's sake, there's already a thread for Rarity/ml derails - stop shitting up this one.

No, I quoted you admitting to stalking Zhou Tong and incriminating yourself while referencing violence and murder towards the subject of your stalking.  And we have a thread for you to be butthurt about being quoted over here, as you know.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97365.40

Rarity and Maged have falsely accused me of threatening to hurt Zhou Tong, and wanting to hire a hitman, so I'm kind of in a unique position where I know for a fact Rarity and Maged are more than willing to make false, irresponsible accusations with no evidence, or inadequate evidence.

AurumXChange has falsely accused me of being a paid employee of Zhou Tong, so I'm kind of in a unique position where I know for a fact they are more than willing to make false, irresponsible accusations with no evidence, or inadequate evidence.  It's a stretch for me to accept their accusations against others such as Zhou Tong without some official legal backing.  You are free to disagree, of course, but just be happy well funded businesses aren't making up lies to publicly attack you over your opinion.

Having a laugh at a few of you: "Hey guys Zhou is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." "AURUMXCHANGE IS GUILTY OF VIOLATING ZHOU'S PRIVACY, GRRRR, GNASHING OF TEETH! EVERYONE LOOK OVER HERE, ZHOU'S PRIVACY IS BEING VIOLATED!"

roflmao over here

This is why I suggest any business include an out that says "in case of customer complaints, any and all factual information not restricted by law will be used to defend the character of this business." Also don't forget to include an anti-class action clause for US residents and a binding arbitration clause.

Haha, oh excuse me still thinking about how people who say "maybe Zhou is a victim of a multi-millionaire Chinese relic collector, we need to keep our minds open. Oh and also not question why he would associate with such an individual in the first place. Nor ask why he would re-use a password on this Relic Hunter's webstore knowing he was a shady character with intimate knowledge of credit card fraud. Nope, just place INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in place of those questions and also respect his privacy."

Honestly, the published legalese of many Bitcoin services is woefully inadequate and would likely not withstand scrutiny by a court.  The reason why the published legal terms of services like PayPal and Technocash run to tens of pages is because one page, vaguely worded ToS and privacy policies have little real world meaning or enforceability.  People don't read the detailed legal shit before agreeing to it any more than they read and fully understand EULAs.  They're often especially unaware of domestic legislation which may have legal superiority over the civil law agreement to which they're a party.

One reason I'm so against businesses ripping their ToS or privacy policies off other websites is that they're often not competent to judge whether those terms/policies are legally valid or applicable in their own jurisdiction.  It's effectively just mumbo jumbo which lulls users into a false sense of security and may have absolutely no real world relevance.

Unfortunately, many Bitcoin start-ups are launched on a shoe-string budget and don't seem to regard spending money to get the legal stuff in order a priority.  My viewpoint is that if you fail to get the legal stuff in order when starting your business, you have only yourself to blame if it bites you in the ass down the track. 

I am stunned that a writer would not do adequate due diligence in an article passing judgement on the legality of certain issues and make the effort to research the actual laws at issue. But rather than turning to a somewhat contentious internet community for answers, perhaps your follow-up article would be well served by referencing some of the following:

Ministry of Employment, Trade, Industry and Diaspoa Affairs
Address:    4th Floor, Financial Centre, Kennedy Avenue, Roseau
Telephone:    (767) 266 3276
Fax:    (767) 448 5200
E-mail:    [email protected]
Hon. Dr. Collin McIntyre is the Minister.
The Ministry of Employment, Trade, Industry and Diaspora Affairs has responsibility for formulating and implementing Dominica's domestic and external trade policies. This includes export development and promotion, regional integration in CARICOM and the OECS, external trade negotiations, industry development, investment promotion, consumer protection, standards management and meteorology and Diaspora relations.


Ministry of Finance
Address:    5th Floor, Financial Centre, Kennedy Avenue, Roseau
Telephone:    (767) 266 3340
Fax:    (767) 448 0054
E-mail:    [email protected]
Hon. Roosevelt Skerrit is the Minister.
The Ministry of Finance has responsibility for ensuring that the public finances are maintained in a satisfactory condition and for monitoring fiscal and economic performance. The work of the Ministry is pursued partly through its oversight responsibility for resource allocation in the capital and recurrent budget(s) as implemented in the line Ministries and Departments. In addition, the Ministry of Finance undertakes a variety of functions directly and these may be categorized into two (2) broad areas namely, strategic and administrative or statutory.

Audit Department
Address:    2nd Floor, Treasury Building, Hillsborough Street, Roseau
Telephone:    (767) 266 3304
Fax:    (767) 448 6834
E-mail:    [email protected]
Mr. Clarence Christian is Director
The main objectives of the Office of the Director of Audit's functions are:
  

•     The detection of fraudulent activities or irregularities as early as possible and promptly report to the relevant authorities including the Ministry of Finance.
•    To determine the reliability of information produced within the various Government Ministries and Departments and the effectiveness of related internal policies and procedures.
•    To assist Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Departments in attaining the most efficient administration of their respective Ministries and Departments through recommendations.
•    To ascertain the extent of protection and safeguarding of the states resources against losses of any kind.

from https://www.aurumxchange.com/content/privacy

I somehow failed to find any references to Dominica's "Data Protection Act 1998". Is there such a thing in existence at all? Google seems to be completely unaware of it, so are all Dominica's government websites that I could find quickly.

If they mean (or simply mindlessly lifted some UK's website policies) UK's Data Protection Act 1998, which I am familiar with. Then, protection afforded by the act to personal data is rather very significant and most of it simply cannot be contracted out.

Moreover, they have failed in their terms to even mention which jurisdiction their website is operating in (there is some mention of Dominica on AML page, but it is simply not enough). As such it is potentially can be argued, that they are subject to either jurisdiction of wherever their customers are located or that of UK due to most likely reference to UK legal acts in their Privacy policy.

Now this may raise a number of very interesting questions. Additionally I could have go over their legalese with a fine comb and likely find so many inconsistencies that it likely would be enough to bury them in most legal proceedings. Should have hired a real lawyer in proper jurisdiction to draft those terms.

With due respect, it is rarely enough to know what the legislation states without also knowing the case law on how that legislation has been interpreted.

As a side note, several people have referred to AML law which was actually repealed by Dominica last year and replaced by several new pieces of legislation aimed at preventing and punishing money laundering.  it's estimated that money laundering accounts for about 2% of Dominica's GDP and there appear to have been very few prosecutions for money laundering in Dominica, despite the previous legislation.  The existence of legislation does not indicate the extent to which it's enforced.

Privacy policies and agreements are not the same as actual privacy laws.  Customers' financial information may still be protected by law even in the absence of a privacy policy or if the privacy policy is legally deficient.  The extent of that protection may well vary greatly by jurisdiction, though.

Still No UPDATE.....

I want my 600 BTC before the price exceeds $30