vigilantism can spiral out of control. While it makes sense in this scenario, it's because the scammer is obviously breaking some law and is criminal. What happens if it wasn't so obvious?
There are other forms of punishment besides jail time. But really I'm more concerned that the scam organization is shut down, even if the main scammer isn't put behind bars. If nothing else, it'll slow down and reduce the scams.
Given that we're talking about legal, rather than extra judicial, pursuit and punishment I would expect jail to be a part of that process.
Innocent people in jail, or for controversial reasons, seems like its own issue entirely.
Like the way too common attitude on this site rbat because some people are smart/resourceful enough not to be victimized, that somehow makes victims deserving for not being so fortunate.
Why would anyone but a scammer/criminal want such a society to even exist. I'll go so far as to compare to to the holocaust, that somehow it's fine as long as they're not coming for you?
"First they came for the vulnerable..."
Vigilantes are criminals too so society takes an active role in pursuing and punishing them as well.
Anarcho-tyranny
A stage of governmental dysfunction in which the state is anarchically hopeless at coping with large matters but ruthlessly tyrannical in the enforcement of small ones
https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123
Then you get your door kicked in for not paying taxes on $50 venmo transaction, or saying the wrong thing online but when there is a school shooter (or presidential assassin) the cops wait for them to finish while they play with their phones.
Red light ticket revenue funding small town budgets is another. Brake-light rationales for traffic stops…I could go on.
The key is what you pointed out, that these are never used against the elite class.
Society is supposed to take an active role, but sometimes they have other priorities.
Big companies getting hacked or scammed make headlines and generate FBI action. People like me, not so much.
Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.
Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions.
Obviously the reality of our legal systems fall far short of ideal, but IMO vigilantism is not the answer to that.
> Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.
You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.
Maybe ironic wasn't a great fit there, I stand by the rest of the comment though. I blame Alanis Morissette for my inability to recognize irony accurately.
> You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.
There's a legal definition of "criminal". Is it being an annoying little brother to think definitions are important?
Vigilantism is always a symptom of far greater problems, people don't do it just for fun and to cosplay as Batman.
I meant to say "the vigilantes" not "we vigilantes." I don't take part in it and don't condone it as long as we collectively agree to live under a legal system.
I agree with you though, vigilantes are imposing "justice" on innocent people. The right to a fair trial and a jury of your peers is a really important check on power. Vigilantes skip that whole process.
Vigilante’s don’t abide by the laws so aren’t well positioned to dispense justice in a non hypocritical way.
Maybe carve out a low level clearance that gives grey hat types a little room for counter red team activity.
In absence of a government willing or able to enforce laws, vigilantism creates a public pressure to fix the government. Either way though, people are entitled to justice. If the government doesn't provide it, then the government is responsible for the harmful consequence of the resulting vigilantism.
There's no such thing as a "natural right". Rights are granted, not innate. In the US we might think freedom of speech is a "natural right", but go to a country that doesn't have that, and you'll see how "natural" it really is. (And hell, even in the US, free speech rights are curtailed all the time.)
> IF the government abdicates its assumed responsibility to provide justice people have every moral and ethical right to enact justice themselves.
I don't agree with that. Look at how (for example) the 1800s in the US west looked when it came to so-called "justice", when the government wouldn't or couldn't prevent or track all that much crime. That's not a world I want to experience.
And not that I have not denied the negative consequences of vigilantism for society as a whole. Those consequences are the reason governments are supposed to seek justice in a more orderly and accountable manner. It is when governments renege on that responsibility that they bare the blame for the consequences, as people seek justice on their own (because they know justice is their right and will seek it themselves if nobody else will for them. This innate understanding of being entitled to justice is the proof that a natural right to justice does exist.)
Let's say that's more than just individual morality but a concrete cultural relation to wealth, power, justice and social contract of the state.
Of course, when the state demonstrates a dereliction of duty and becomes feckless in its ability to punish criminals in proportion to their crimes, this creates outrage and a strong temptation to engage in vigilatism. The state then shares responsibility for the resulting vigilatism.
All of these things give people a sense they have been abandoned by a derelict state and must meet violence with violence, power with power. That's profitable for an "insecurity industry" that thrives on fear, but devastating to societal wellbeing.
They are the modern Hostis humani generis
People here will lament about the exploited H1Bs causing literal genocides at Meta until the cows come home, but literally other any person working a job they don’t necessarily like and in a living situation that’s undoubtedly worse deserve to be literally bombed because they sent you a text message.
Jesus Christ.
> ... lured to countries through fake job adverts but are instead forced to work in scam call centers, pushing cryptocurrency investments, as well as work-from-home, lottery, romance, and online gambling scams. All this, while being subject to "abject abuse."
> A report from Interpol from earlier this year said victims are also subjected to extortion via debt bondage, beatings, sexual exploitation ...
https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/08/human_trafficking_for...
and:
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/hundreds-thousand...
For what it's worth, I can get them to hang up immediately if I recommend they join a trade union.
Hopefully the suggestion gave them an idea to reflect on later — I don't know of anything better that can be done when on the receiving end of a phone call.
The very fact that he didn't hangup, that he felt he had to explain away his guilt to me (a few times) shows that he himself wasn't convinced of his rationalization and that he himself believed he was doing something wrong. I can only hope that the guilt gnawed its way into his conscious and that the worm that never dies led him to rethink his life and to pick up some honest work.
May the guilty lose sleep, and may their ill-gotten goods taste of ash, and thus be led to remorse and reform and the righteous path. This is love of neighbor.
I'm glad you broke free eventually :-)
> even when the controller is not there
That's good to know, don't think I knew about that
So yes, if you know someone who is a victim in a controlling relationship, then gently speak truth to them, don't push too hard, but be ready to give them meaningful help as soon as they come to their senses and ask for it.
On the other hand, the examples people commonly share of where someone contacts a knowing scammer to appeal to their humanity, is that the scammers laugh at their victims — so if the people on the phone are the villains, then I think them hanging up immediately may cause more emotional pain than the stream of expletives they're used to.
Regardless, it saves me time.
This approach may not be so useful now that GenAI, both LLMs and synthetic voices, are getting good.
They are getting REALLY good, it is the old "it is photoshopped" except with sound. The problem though is not being able to differentiate, especially not the people scammers usually target (the elderly).
You cannot believe your own eyes AND ears now, sadly. It might sound dramatic, but it takes "trust no one and nothing" to a whole new level.
I expect that, at some point in my lifetime, bio-printing and tissue culture will probably reach the point we can't even have trust in real life, not even with fingerprints and a DNA test.
Will this happen before or after we become post-scarcity? I don't know.
Also literal slaves working together, even if you'd not call it a union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
Is Musk a scammer? Bitcoin? The commission Apple charges on the App Store? The Fortnight monetisation system? Facebook's claim to be able to accurately target adverts? Vaccines and masks? OpenAI?
People on this website have said so about each of those examples.
That is why it's bad to go down that path.
Until the REAL scammers are brought down, people will take actions into their own hands.
If the question's answer was obvious and resolving false then none would have been described thusly, if it was obvious and resolving true then you wouldn't be denying it.
Merely asserting that they are not, in your opinion (though hey, look at those legal cases they have between them…) does nothing to remove the fact that they have been called this.
It also does nothing to help with the lack of legitimacy of vigilantes. Nor, in this case, jurisdiction: part of the problem here is international cooperation, because right now the USA (where the victim is) and China (where the gang is) are a bit chilly towards each other.
> people will take actions into their own hands.
Amateurs sending a bomb their way? That's one way to describe how WW1 started.
It is, at least hypothetically, possible to define "scammer" clearly enough that the more egregious and clear-cut types are taken care of more expeditiously.
Not sure if there's a way to actually enforce that better, but "it is possible to disagree over whether some things are scams" is not the same as "there's no way to agree on whether anything is a scam".
In this specific case, when it comes to vigilantes in particular? Then no. I think that a society which allows it will end up somewhere between lynching and anarchy.
Better law enforcement, which does not even have to mean "more laws"? Good. Batman wannabes? Bad.
I have no issues with hackers hacking scammers and fucking their shit up.