4 ms·
Exactly, but it will never be zero. There will always be scammers trying to get rich quick on the trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. All org
by awesomepantsm 10y ago
Exactly, but it will never be zero. There will always be scammers trying to get rich quick on the trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. All organized crime has to deal with some amount of posers trying to cash in on their reputation.
Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Traditionally this would be breaking people's knees, and I imagine well-organized cyber crime boils down to the same thing in the end.
- cel1ne 10y ago> ... trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. > Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Are you really trying to frame some extortionists/scammers as honest and some as dishonest? How about they all are criminals, extorting money as they do from random people, they don't care about?
- ardacinar 10y agoSome scammers can be honest. You might say "Transfer X amount of money to me. If you don't, you can never get your data back". Saying and acting on that doesn't make you dishonest, it makes you an asshole.
- cel1ne 10y agoThat depends on your definition. Googling brings up "dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief" Thus I think a scammer can be called dishonest.
- BobCat 10y agoAn honest kidnapper would have mentioned the Lindbergh baby was already dead...
- throwanem 10y agoA trivial application of the principle of charity makes it obvious that the meaning here intended is 'truthful'. Splitting semantic hairs rather than discussing substance benefits no one.
- posterboy 10y agoSubstantial discussion without accurate semantics is impossible, whereas splitting semantic hairs is substantial discussion in its own right. And the hairsplitting accuracy is necessary because the literal question of good and evil is hardly insignificant.
- kwhitefoot 10y agoIt is not insignificant but it is not the point of this discussion. The word honest was being used in a restricted context. One might argue that trustworthy might be a better word in this context but the meaning was clear nonetheless.
- posterboy 10y ago>The word honest was being used in a restricted context That seems to be the problem, then. Call it a restricting context and we are back to the matters of good and evil.
- inimino 10y agoDo you really not understand the point that is being made here?