Elite DM - Don Krypto

This user was banned for grabbing IPs without letting people know, was banned on Sythe, had a temper tantrum and created Sythe_Hero this account. (ban evasion) and posted 13 invalid spam reports and only gets a TWC?

This user has obviously displayed his immaturity (has broken multiple rules) and should have to pardon.

Thanks.

 

I have nothing against this user personally and am aware of the fact that he's indeed not the only user using this bot. However it is very questionable when quotes such as "this won't help in your pardon process" and "i'll be sure to note this down for your pardon" are made, yet he returns with a TWC and all those quotes removed. When a ruling isn't being upheld I'd much rather have them take more time for it than take a 180 turn and overrule the initial ruling.

 

absolutely agree.

 

I'm so glad I wasn't the only one who wanted to post this. I have absolutely nothing against the user in question but when a user gets his way by throwing a temper tantrum is hilarious. I'm usually really quiet about this kind of thing but this is actually pretty dumb. If Don Krypto posted an appeal and it got overturned without his fit, then it'd be different. But good to know we can make a spam account to try and hide ourselves, make 12 reports that are spam, and get our punishments overturned!

 

So just because someone can say they're not using it for x reason is enough to not warrant something? A website is a million times different than actively collecting IP's, even more in a Discord about DM'ing. A gold selling website has no real use for an IP like a DM'ing Discord does. One wrong click from Don Krypto and all that incredibly sensitive information is gone. In the report itself, he even says he tried to get the bot creator to hash the IP's with no avail and still continued to use it. That's a big disregard for his users safety. Even if he doesn't use it for malicious reasons as he says (and I have no reason to believe other wise, again no flame on him) nobody was given any kind of warning of their information being grabbed like that. @Andy himself specifically says it needs to be mentioned, implying it never was. This isn't even about it being "bad trading practices" at this point - it's a blatant disregard for his communities safety and taking information without consent. That's not cool or okay to do. They're there to DM and feel safe - not have their information taken.

 

The particular issue with how this was handled was the polarizing rhetoric between different members of staff - the original decision was to ban the user, but was swiftly overturned by @Andy shortly for what seemed like a strawman argument.

To Andy's original point: Yes, web sites / web servers do have audit/access logs that show which web pages were accessed and by what IP - but this information is anonymized in nature.

Here is an example of an access log line to expect from a web server, e.g something like NGINX/Apache/LiteSpeed (typically the most popular webservers used), and so forth.

Code:

1.2.3.4 - - [12/Oct/2021:15:26:25 +0530] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 1717 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.81 Safari/537.36"

You get an IP, a timestamp, the path accessed, and user agent string along with the response code of the server. There's nothing here that specifically states who this user specifically is. None of this information necessarily compromises a users identity just from visiting a website alone.

It doesn't seem like there is any basis to be comparing a seller who is running a website/webserver with what was going on here - it'd be like comparing apples to oranges.

Your website would specifically need some form of user registration system, and you could of course try to line up sending someone a link to your site and timing when they visit it and cross referencing on the access log, but none of this comes close to what the originally banned user was doing - which was collecting specific deanonymized data on people, running heuristics on the IP addresses, and lying about collecting email data when the SaveCord bot offers this feature (IIRC).

Couple all of this with the fact that the banned user was accused for actively deleting most of his audit logs / messages, and the situation becomes even more suspicious. What exactly would be restricting them from maliciously acting on any of the info they already have in whatever way they see fit if they think they were "wronged" or otherwise?

Moreover, the decision made around this specific case is essentially setting a precedent - if someone like this is going to a get a slap on the wrist, I can see future situations of anyone doing something similar using excuses from this particular case to justify their behavior.

Sitting on this kind of information also seems a little questionable because I don't see what someone stands to gain when there are alternatives that don't involve compromising someone's privacy to verify users and so forth. The excuse on the original report to find "alts" etc and so forth seemed like a terrible cop out, since anyone can simply use anonymized services and alternative emails to fool this type of data collection.

At the very least - even if not considered "blackhat" - this kind of behavior at least gravitates towards a "greyhat" area and I don't see how it's possible to rationalize otherwise given the context.

 

Imagine if it was someone like me pissing around with it, staff would have a field day so I can understand the concern and why they feel let down

 

But this isn't some simple "No Home IP" type situation or they were slow at paying someone money. This is an actual lack of care for their servers people. There was no indication of it by them. In a previous report on Don Krypto, it was shown that they deleted entire chats that could be (and apparently were?) filled with information against them. But even more than that, in this report, why are all the other points ignored\not discussed? Specifically, points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are ignored. This could be because they're private and you say you don't handle private reports but... given all this going on, it seems odd that only one thing is mentioned in the verdict from @Pirate and @Andy. Could we get insight why those points are ignored\not mentioned? Is it because they're private or is it because they're not valid? Because this whole report just looks... not handled proper in the slightest.

 

I believe that the staff are being too lenient in this situation.

Sure, you stamped the user with a TWC. However, you admit that they’re using/used a grabber who potentially could harm community members.

I understand there isn’t conclusive evidence on what it was used for and what it wasn’t used for but the fact is the member openly used it knowing what it did.

Therefore, back to my original statement on leniency, I think the TWC should be upgraded to a DNT until further evidence is made public / gathered so the community can get a better understanding. By issuing simply a TWC you still are exposing members to trading with the user. Who’s to say he’s not making an archive of information to use at a later time? With a DNT at least members know to stay clear for a while. Then the user will have to further pardon to prove evidence against him is harmless. This is better for both parties.

As far as the claim of “the programmer couldn’t remove the option” I believe that’s bullshit but someone within that field could answer it better than I so I’m tagging @Dev Zach to provide insight.

I think the mod team need to look into this more for the communities sake.

 

Not zach as tagged, but:

1) yes you can hash the ip so it doesn’t show as a normal ip.

2) yes, the dev could do it, however, from a dev point of view some users of your bot may need this information for certain purposes (work discord for instance to show you are logging in from the office ip, logging IP’s due to being a black market and looking for imposters etc.)

3) even though some users may need it, yes the dev could make an option for visable ip/hashed ip

4) just because 1 user asks for a certain feature implemented it doesn’t mean you have to implement it.

I’ve had numerous requests for additions to products I sell, however, some of the “niche” requests which serve no purpose other than a singular user wanting a change for a product 600+ people own will just get shut down immediately.

I imagine if there was more demand for hashed IP’s for that bot, then the dev may consider if, however given it’s likely just don kryptonwanting them hashed to please sythe… the devs gonna tell him to suck his balls because it’s extra work for a singular user which will add no value to the bot itself, especially since the IP’s aren’t visible to anyone except the discord owner(s).

 

Not really trying to dig anything up. But this whole situation has brought up some things that really need to be addressed.

1) The contents of so called Private Reports. Now Sythe mods spend an insane amount of time redacting and deleting personal information that is posted in different sections of the site and are doing an amazing job of it! However, with reports such as these would a post from Mod explaining the contents of the hidden posts so that the public are at least in the know about what may potentially was there.

2) Kind of related to point 1, but the entirety of the report with several different points some having been addressed in previous reports alongside some new accusations such as scamming, and ban invasion. Those were somehow not addressed? (publicly at least) a statement in regards to that would have been nice.

3) Assuming here, but @Sythe_Hero being Don Krypto brought out accusations against another user @QBD and @Gladiator. Going back into those reports the same problems occurred where if more insight was given it wouldn't appear as suspicious from a public view Resolved Resolved and maybe this? https://www.sythe.org/threads/ethereumtrader-autism-spam/ as its hidden/deleted.

 

Yeah, my reply's to staff overall. Why aren't those points being addressed that I mentioned? Not to you specifically, but you are staff so I figured you'd be able to give insight. Unless I was wrong, I thought something this serious would be addressed by the entire staff team, not just @Pirate making the decision (which is exactly how it seems). Truthfully, it shouldn't come down to, "Oh I hope you get your answer." It should be that I will get some kind of answer. We as the community should have members like yourself who can be transparent and open with us, and this feel like stuff is just being ignored\hidden. Staff shouldn't be unsure of things regarding decisions - they should have the information ready on why X thing happened, should things like this happen.

Yes, the points were originally been private by OP as far as I can tell? But even then, 0 comment on them in the thread. That's what I'm trying to get at. Was the only important thing in the thread the IP\e-mail logging\whatever else the bot did? Are none of the other points important? We have no idea, and we should get some kind of clarification on it. Again, in my opinion.

 

I feel that using this report as an example is appropriate. The lack of transparency in some reports is a little concerning, especially when the community is involved.

- Not saying that there is any corrupt ruling in this case, but we should learn from the past.

Redact sensitive info, but be transparent.

To the general public on this forum all we see is an entire report full of redacted information.

 

I think we're just being given the run around, a sloppy blowjob in the corner. It's actually quite sad to see, as I said above if it was someone like myself and a few others (given we have worked with private information ourselves to an extent) we would be beaten like a mexican drug mule

 

I have no idea who Don Krypto is, I don't know him. I have nothing for him or against him.
I believe the staff when they say there was no conclusive evidence that Don Krypto is in fact Sythe_Hero. Which is fine. I'll give Don Krypto the shadow of a doubt.

However, the more pressing concern here is a deathmatching server has been illegally grabbing people's IPs. a DM server.
So many questions, is the server rigged? Are people getting DDoSed? Doxxed? hacked? Where is their right to privacy? If I was a member of that server and I found out they were illegally obtaining my IP without consent, those would be my questions.

For that simple reason, I think this user should've been punished with something more than just a TWC. Sure I mean he could be genuine and truly had no ill intention with the IP grabbing. But the fact that he did it without consent is very alarming.
I don't know if he should be permanently banned or whatnot. But a TWC for something like this when others got temp bans for far less screams favoritism.