xxx
In his experience, OKHotshot said, law enforcement has been all but useless. “I’ve spoken with a couple of people that actually went to the police,” he said. “In some cases, the police just laughed at them.”
xxx
xxx
The 19-year-old student made three payments worth a combined Rmb20,000 (£2,332). Shortly afterwards, the man blocked her on social media and stopped taking her calls. Jenny went to the police, only to be told she was “too silly” for buying the scam. “They told me the money was gone for good, as online fraudsters were difficult to track down,” she said. “What I should do is only pick up phone calls from people I know.”
From China fights a financial fraud explosion | Financial Times:
xxx
What is the responsibility of intermediaries her? Should Discord be responsible for facilitating rampant NFT scamming? Should WeChat have stopped the payment to the boyfriend? Should a bank stop me from sending money to someone claiming to be from the bank?
xxx
But she had willingly handed over her seed phrase, and there was little anyone could do to actually get her art back.
xxx
You see the same problem with authorised push payment (APP) fraud here in the UK.
There are people on the crypto frontier who think all of this is fine and that “caveat emptor” should be the banner under which the future is forged.
They are wrong. I am sure many readers will be familiar with the landmark case of FTC vs. Standard Education Society in 1937. The facts of the case are not relevant, except to note that they relate to some sharp business practice taking advantage of fact that a great many citizens are not that bright. What happened was that after a lower court had found that if hopeless rubes ignored tell-tale signs then the courts had no business protecting them (an opinion that echoed the 19th-century jurists who marvelled at the stupidity of some Americans), Supreme Court Justice Black rejected the decision and found that
The fact that a full statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced… does not change its character, nor take away its power to deceive others less experienced. There is no duty resting upon a citizen to suspect the honesty of those with whom he transacts business. Laws are made to protect the trusting as well as the suspicious. The best element of business has long decided that honesty should govern competitive enterprises, and that the rule of caveat emptor should not be relied upon to reward fraud and deception.
Hell yeah. We live in civilised society governed by the rule of law and the general public are not cattle to be herded at the whims of cyberwarlords.
But what can actually be done? I hate to sound like a broken record (vinyl is back, man) but it’s all about identity. Or, more specifically, it’s all about credentials.
Snippings 