Blackmail is not unlawful. We are on the internet which is like being out on international waters. We do not fall under any statutory jurisdiction other than the Steemit terms and conditions. Telling the truth is never evil. It can be unsavory and as a community we can ostracize it but we may not actively harm it. The threat of being exposed is what keeps people behaving out here. No one has positive rights by default. they must be agreed to by all affected parties. I personally believe a better way to profit from finding a scam is to make a post about it and expose it. maybe sell the story to a whale so that it gets better exposure because why should the scammer have payed the ransom? you've already acted in bad faith so who's to say you'll keep your word or maybe ask for more money again and again. If you sold the story to someone else after, they would never know it. You might split some of the ransom to get your customer to co-operate with covering the tracks and pretend they also found the scam on their own.
Also, I am not seeing the scam, what's wrong with hiring a model? did moonflower specifically claim that the pic was her? how do we know the model doesn't also love steem? when a perfume or fashion model represents a product, Is that also wrong? the creators might be nothing like the models and the models might not even like the product. Is that truly a scam?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It is in many countries especially those with a common law tradition.
People are prosecuted for online crimes all the time.
http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Cybercrime/Cybercrime
Yes you do, indeed the fact that it's happening on the internet allows people to 'jurisdiction shop' as is commonly done with defamation, so posting on the internet is worse since you may find yourself in a legal jurisdiction less favorable than your own.
http://www.commonlawreview.cz/on-selecting-jurisdiction-in-internet-defamation-cases
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/domain/Betsy.html
would you elaborate on your last point there for me? I could see it holding water if they are both for instance American citizens or citizens or countries that have relevant agreements like England or something. But wouldn't that have to be proven? Am I wrong to that you can't assume jurisdiction online?
The plaintiff generally gets to choose jurisdiction online. They only have to come up with a justification for any of the parties involved, even the owners of the website, which the judge in that country will accept, and they can settle it in that court. This is an extremely common practice in online cases which favors the accuser over the accused.
In this case the options would likely be the country @moonflower resides in, the country @r4fken resides in, or the countries the operators of SteemIt.com reside in.
necessarily or probably? As I understand it, unless you differ arbitration beforehand with other contracts such as citizenship, the accused has to consent first.