4 ms·

Not true if the other party stands to profit from the misleading activity. For example, pump & dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump https://en.wiki

Not true if the other party stands to profit from the misleading activity. For example, pump & dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

anigbrowl 8y ago
Good point, but I'm not sure if fake market behavior (along with the direct exhortations to participation) directly maps onto fake real world behavior with no solicitation. As a (somewhat ridiculous) counter example, suppose I know you, a trader, love tap dancing and I, also a trader, happen to be a skilled tap dancer. On Monday I show up outside your office and start tapping up a storm. You are unable to resist the sound of your favorite thing and rush out of your office to enjoy my performance. I return at the same hour Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and by then you are out on the sidewalk expecting me when I show up. Friday you leave your office as usual but you wait for me to show in vain, for I am in my office and taking advantage of your absence to make a big trade against you. Have I defrauded you? You believed that I would show up to entertain you instead of competing against you in the market, and frankly I trained you to think so only to enrich myself at your expense.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  I don’t know why people think it’s ok to intend to commit fraud, intend to swindle someone, do it. Then have a long song and dance about how the fraud committed wasn’t actually fraud Let’s make it simple you intend to commit murder, you buy the tools, draw up a plan, then get arrested. Guess what you are up for with zero interaction with the victim
  - Chris2048 8y ago
    You haven't established that this example is fraud. Murder is murder, tap-dance distraction isn't fraud.
    - zaphirplane 8y ago
      Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here, the rest is your defence lawyers plausible deniability argument
      - speedplane 8y ago
        > Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here... Intent is a tricky thing to prove, it requires knowing the state of someone's mind. Until we have mind-reading devices, there is no way to know someone's state of mind with complete certainty, so we necessarily have to rely on circumstantial evidence, including what someone said, wrote, and yes, researched in the past. Researching a grotesque topic is by no means proof that you committed a grotesque act, but it's definitely a nugget of evidence.
        Chris2048 8y ago
        But muder is illegal. Tap-dance dostraction might not be.
        zaphirplane 8y ago
        Rhetorically, What is the intent here ? The intent was explained as to distract to extract an advantage. The story was told with us knowing both sides view. I have no idea who you think you are fooling. As a community service in case you’ve convinced yourself, have a read of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud “ In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right “ Exactly the story I’m replying too Once again this is about the intent, it’s not about how you can hand wave it away as something else, that part is for the trial In law fraud <=> deception <=> intent
        Chris2048 8y ago
        Where is the "legal right"? Distracting someone for gain isnt illegal. Also, I dont appreciate the tone of your post, eg "as a community service"
AznHisoka 8y ago
But these guys wouldnt be broadcasting this to everyone - just the people who were idiotic enough to look at the spoofed data. They are conducting acts (albeit crazy ones) in a private setting. Technically, thats really what they are doing, and it would be hard to prove otherwise.
- tantalor 8y ago
  How can you claim privacy if the scam depends on being observed?
  - AznHisoka 8y ago
    They are being spied upon by having their location data sold be carriers. They did not sell their location themselves. For all intents and purposes, they are conducting acts in a private setting that is being violated upon.
Chris2048 8y ago
> "artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements" You'd have to argue cellphone activity/location is a legitimate "positive statements".

Not true if the other party stands to profit from the misleading activity. For example, pump & dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

anigbrowl 8y ago

Good point, but I'm not sure if fake market behavior (along with the direct exhortations to participation) directly maps onto fake real world behavior with no solicitation. As a (somewhat ridiculous) counter example, suppose I know you, a trader, love tap dancing and I, also a trader, happen to be a skilled tap dancer. On Monday I show up outside your office and start tapping up a storm. You are unable to resist the sound of your favorite thing and rush out of your office to enjoy my performance. I return at the same hour Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and by then you are out on the sidewalk expecting me when I show up. Friday you leave your office as usual but you wait for me to show in vain, for I am in my office and taking advantage of your absence to make a big trade against you. Have I defrauded you? You believed that I would show up to entertain you instead of competing against you in the market, and frankly I trained you to think so only to enrich myself at your expense.

zaphirplane 8y ago
I don’t know why people think it’s ok to intend to commit fraud, intend to swindle someone, do it. Then have a long song and dance about how the fraud committed wasn’t actually fraud Let’s make it simple you intend to commit murder, you buy the tools, draw up a plan, then get arrested. Guess what you are up for with zero interaction with the victim
- Chris2048 8y ago
  You haven't established that this example is fraud. Murder is murder, tap-dance distraction isn't fraud.
  - zaphirplane 8y ago
    Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here, the rest is your defence lawyers plausible deniability argument
    - speedplane 8y ago
      > Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here... Intent is a tricky thing to prove, it requires knowing the state of someone's mind. Until we have mind-reading devices, there is no way to know someone's state of mind with complete certainty, so we necessarily have to rely on circumstantial evidence, including what someone said, wrote, and yes, researched in the past. Researching a grotesque topic is by no means proof that you committed a grotesque act, but it's definitely a nugget of evidence.
      - Chris2048 8y ago
        But muder is illegal. Tap-dance dostraction might not be.
        zaphirplane 8y ago
        Rhetorically, What is the intent here ? The intent was explained as to distract to extract an advantage. The story was told with us knowing both sides view. I have no idea who you think you are fooling. As a community service in case you’ve convinced yourself, have a read of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud “ In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right “ Exactly the story I’m replying too Once again this is about the intent, it’s not about how you can hand wave it away as something else, that part is for the trial In law fraud <=> deception <=> intent
        Chris2048 8y ago
        Where is the "legal right"? Distracting someone for gain isnt illegal. Also, I dont appreciate the tone of your post, eg "as a community service"

AznHisoka 8y ago

But these guys wouldnt be broadcasting this to everyone - just the people who were idiotic enough to look at the spoofed data. They are conducting acts (albeit crazy ones) in a private setting. Technically, thats really what they are doing, and it would be hard to prove otherwise.

tantalor 8y ago
How can you claim privacy if the scam depends on being observed?
- AznHisoka 8y ago
  They are being spied upon by having their location data sold be carriers. They did not sell their location themselves. For all intents and purposes, they are conducting acts in a private setting that is being violated upon.

Chris2048 8y ago

> "artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements" You'd have to argue cellphone activity/location is a legitimate "positive statements".