[buahahaha]

It is theft. It's not a scheme, or a game, or a trick. They are stealing money. It needs to be made punishable.

As these frauds get more sophisticated, it won't just be "dumb" money getting burnt. The answer to "someone stole this from me" isn't "well you shouldn't have been so dumb" - whether it is your wallet, a package from your doorstep, or a bit. Theft is theft.

[BearGoesChirp]

There is a dead comment here that I think raises an interesting question (even if perhaps not in the most appropriate way).

When dealing with electronic goods, where do we draw the line with theft. Even in video games, electronic goods do have an effective market value (even if real money trading is banned), and there have been a few court cases surrounding items of great value. Often times the items stolen has a market value too small to be worth investigating, but what of the cases where there is a significant investment. Eve Online has some interesting cases where the market value being above a few thousand US dollars. Diablo 3 use to have a real money auction house with items worth up to $300, and with a gold market that allowed for items to be sold for even more than that.

Now, Diablo 3 bans scams and would take action against players engaging in them. But in Eve Online, it looks like some of the tactics used are allowed. In another game, Path of Exile, scamming people is allowed (and there even seems to be some protections for scammers). While Path of Exile bans real money trading, there is still a black market and certain items do have a market value, some worth noticeable amounts.

And while I can't think of any case yet, it would be possible for a video game to be created where the in game currency is a crypto currency that is usable outside the game as a crypto currency as well.

I'm not saying we should legalize all scamming, but I do think it is worth discussing further where we draw a life, if we draw a line, and what that line looks like.

[TheCoelacanth]

The same line is also drawn with physical goods too. If you report something worth a few hundred dollars stolen, the full extent of the investigation will probably be to file a report and then include the item in a list of things to look for in periodic checks of nearby pawn shops.

[IIAOPSW]

>As these frauds get more sophisticated, it won't just be "dumb" money getting burnt.

legit question, has there ever been an online scam that isn't obvious after an hour of research?

rhetorical question, is it reasonable to expect people to do an hour of research before "investing"

>The answer to "someone stole this from me" isn't "well you shouldn't have been so dumb"

Sometimes the answer really is "you shouldn't have been so dumb". "People shouldn't steal" is not a blank cheque to be negligent.

[Retric]

If someone takes a pallet of hundreds sitting in the open on the back of a truck. It's reasonable to say: "Take reasonable precautions, temping targets promote crime."

Bitcoin forums are filled with people that are both incompetent and well off, that's going to attract sharks. For similar reasons Google brought in investment advisers pre IPO to educate staff that where about to become targets.

PS: That's not to say any form of theft is ok. Just locked doors keep people honest and let police focus on more important things.

[candu]

If someone takes a pallet of hundreds sitting in the open on the back of the truck, and it doesn't belong to them, it still meets the legal definition of theft. It might not be the best idea to leave it there, but that doesn't magically absolve the thief of legal responsibility.

This example isn't even one of those murky ethical grey areas around property (see: copyright law extensions, squatters' rights, medieval concepts of hunting rights, privatization of public resources, farmers' rights to re-grow seeds, etc.) - it's out-and-out theft.

[Retric]

I completely agree. However, a large chunk of society would take it even if they had never stolen anything before and did not intend to commit a crime that day.

PS: Look up Duty of Care, people can share responsibility even if a third party is commuting a crime. Placing a 10 lb solid gold statue on your roof and advertising this is is not just negligent, but flat out dangerous.

[TeMPOraL]

What you say shows the exact same mistake (but in opposite direction) as the "victim-blaming" crowd - conflating moral responsibility with practical wisdom. Yes, putting that gold statue on your roof is just stupid, because of the world we live in. No, that doesn't make the burglars less responsible, morally and legally, for robbing you. Those two statements are true at the same time.

[Retric]

What makes you think I disagree with that idea?

If everyone walked around holding a loaded gun, you would see far more gun violence. That has nothing to do with morality, just impulse control.

I am not saying people are not responsible for their own actions. Just that forms of crime prevention do actually work.

[TeMPOraL]

> What makes you think I disagree with that idea?

The whole subthread kind of looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that theft is theft.

> I am not saying people are not responsible for their own actions. Just that forms of crime prevention do actually work.

So we agree on that. My point is that it's not either-or - effective crime prevention doesn't make a crime not a crime.

[CyberDildonics]

That's not how the law works. If you lie to get someone's money, that's fraud. If you take their money, that's theft. People being taken by obvious cons don't make these things not theft or not fraud.

[Retric]

That's not what I am saying. Bank vaults among other things prevent many bank robberies. If someone does not rob a bank then they are not a bank robber.

The above says nothing about people who do rob banks.