Clearer rules on releasing scammers info to public

1. A 2fa requirement for donors is not likely to happen.
2. I've been very active in the market I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not even going to reply to this as it's complete bs.
3. We're talking about releasing personal information to the public.
4. I'm aware of that. It's not realistic
5. Ehm no and there are more ways to scam than just via chargeback.

Sythe will never save ID cards.

 

1. I agree to release SVU information staff has to be there. If a hacker scammed with a user's Sythe account info, the Sythe's account information wouldn't be released it would be the one who scammed. The information of the actual Sythe account user should be still safe unless it was used in the scam. Logic
2. Yes it will take time, but dont downsize the fact people still use real pertinent information. Not everyone uses fake info, and even if they did they could still use that fake info in the future.
3. Are you daft?
4. Maybe you won't, but some people will take time of their day to prevent themselves from being scammed, and it would be put into one thread most likely not scattered across the whole subforum.
5. #1

 

I don't support release of any IRL information. So many reasons that's an issue, many of which have been covered already.

 

Release the name, and emails/skypes associated with the scam to the public. That should suffice.

 

I support this if they are scared to have their info out there then they shouldnt chargeback in the first place. The one and only issue I see with this is hacked paypal accounts, if there is a solution to this issue then 100% support.

 

it should just be in the t.o.s that you agree that your information will be released publicly if you scam

 

agreed.

 

This should be implemented, atleast a scammer will think twice if he knows his info will be public if he scams.

 

I agree, the main reason why we have so many scammers with donation ranks is because they don't fear being caught. Releasing info applies that.

Now this not being changed benefits Richard because it means more donation money so people who donate can scam.

It's better for the community, but if not changed it's better for Richard.

IMPO.

 

There needs to be a grace period for when to do this. Some situations may look to be scams, but it could turn out to be misunderstandings, which frequently happens.

 

I support releasing the IRL information, Most people know the main industry I deal in and frankly I've been doxed so many times u could probably tell me more about myself than I know.


Information is always public, whether u like to think so or not.

I cant see where releasing already public information to the community to prevent scams hurts anybody.


I certainly don't feel any sympathy for the scammer having his information released.

I support.

 

In light of your recent ban, I find this a bit of a... hypocritical statement.

OT: There cannot be a strict rule about something like this as there are way too many circumstances which could arise where the releasing of IRL info shouldn't be warranted.

 

We need this to make sure people are safe

 

Definitely! I think it's being discussed in the staff lounge too, so I hope we'll see some progress soon.

 

So what's going on with this?

 

So anyone see a problem with the current rule that's ignored/ not enforced?

Obviously something needs to be done. Open to more suggestions.

 

Realistically won't work. Personal information should be kept personal. Doesn't matter if it's a scammer or not.

Law enforcement agencies won't care about a small few $100.

If in a large scale multi thousand dollar transaction (ie. 3b Oldschool), write a sample contract of what both parties expect, and have a photo ID from both people, and then holding said ID and contract in a photo.

Even with that it'll be hard if it's from 2 separate countries. No level of security/personal threat exists for scammers on the internet other then a ban. If you're both from the same country, then a contract with ID may be helpful, but releasing information for people to publicly harass people, even if they scammed is a little beyond me. Either go with a contract, and have evidence of the whole transaction so if anything did go wrong you can go to a law enforcement agency, or just accept that it's the internet.

 

totally agree.

 

Nobody said anything about lawsuits. The only party that would be able to file a lawsuit is the one who was scammed and they would be the ones providing the information they received. The whole point of this is to bring their info to public so you can possibly stop more scams in the future. I think you are looking at this in the wrong way.