5 ms·

Alright, lets remove tip4commit server from picture. So to put you in jail I just need to find any project you work on, find your name and ask for donations on

by hippich 12y ago

Alright, lets remove tip4commit server from picture. So to put you in jail I just need to find any project you work on, find your name and ask for donations on your behalf? Doesn't this sounds wrong to you? also, people who downvoting here - make sure to read HN rules about what downvotes are for. They are not to downvote different ideas, but to remove useless posts.

DanBC 12y ago
> also, people who downvoting here - make sure to read HN rules about what downvotes are for. They are not to downvote different ideas, but to remove useless posts. Can you show me where it says that in the rules or guidelines or FAQ?
DanBC 12y ago
If you set up something to collect donations for exDM69 they might have to explain to the police what was going on. That takes time, and costs money. exDM69 can avoid spending that time and money by asking you to stop collecting money for them. And so now you have a choice: offer to give timy amounts of money to someone who will never accept it; or you could respect that person's wishes by not accepting donations for them. (And that's the honest thing to do for the people giving you the money! If Bob tells you he's never going to accept the money it's dishonest to keep accepting donations for Bob).
exDM69 12y ago
> So to put you in jail I just need to find any project you work on, find your name and ask for donations on your behalf? No, you would not be able to put me in jail. At worst, the penalty would be a fine. But that would not happen in practice. What would happen is that I receive a letter from the local authorities, demanding me to explain why there are donations being asked for under my name. Responding might need me to get legal advice and perhaps contacting the hosting behind the service to find out who is asking for donations and why. In other words, that would mean a lengthy paperwork process and perhaps some fees for legal advice. That would be a nuisance.
- hippich 12y ago
  In other words, it is possible to make life miserable, not jailed. And the only way to be protected against it is to not be know. Security by obscurity. This sounds like an incorrect approach, especially from member of "hacker" community.

by hippich 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

> also, people who downvoting here - make sure to read HN rules about what downvotes are for. They are not to downvote different ideas, but to remove useless posts. Can you show me where it says that in the rules or guidelines or FAQ?

DanBC 12y ago

If you set up something to collect donations for exDM69 they might have to explain to the police what was going on. That takes time, and costs money. exDM69 can avoid spending that time and money by asking you to stop collecting money for them. And so now you have a choice: offer to give timy amounts of money to someone who will never accept it; or you could respect that person's wishes by not accepting donations for them. (And that's the honest thing to do for the people giving you the money! If Bob tells you he's never going to accept the money it's dishonest to keep accepting donations for Bob).

exDM69 12y ago

> So to put you in jail I just need to find any project you work on, find your name and ask for donations on your behalf? No, you would not be able to put me in jail. At worst, the penalty would be a fine. But that would not happen in practice. What would happen is that I receive a letter from the local authorities, demanding me to explain why there are donations being asked for under my name. Responding might need me to get legal advice and perhaps contacting the hosting behind the service to find out who is asking for donations and why. In other words, that would mean a lengthy paperwork process and perhaps some fees for legal advice. That would be a nuisance.

hippich 12y ago
In other words, it is possible to make life miserable, not jailed. And the only way to be protected against it is to not be know. Security by obscurity. This sounds like an incorrect approach, especially from member of "hacker" community.