Bitcoin Forum

Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages.

plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL

That does sound like a lot of hassle indeed. I hope it's worth it. Also you probably did the right thing by PM-ing those who had there PMs exposed. It's a good time to remind people that PM stands for personal message, not private message...


Do/did you get any compensation for the effort you had to put into this?

LOL.

This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D

I would guess that this probably has something to do with why one of the BFL threads was recently apparently locked.

Hello. I'm writing to let you know that due to a subpoena that I received related to a case against BFL, I was forced to release some of your PMs.

In particular, I released all PMs that you sent to or received from the following people, possibly even if you deleted the PM:

Inaba
BFL-Engineer
BFL_Josh
SLok
BFL_Sonny
BFL AM Dave
bcp19
nibbknot

LOL.

This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D

Awesome.  :D

Use PGP if you want privacy. ;)

@theymos,

are you obliged to give them these 'data' or not?


You are right, I can't imagine someone read a pgp encrypted message and he doesn't know what the hell is write in that message (because he doesn't have the key for decrypt it http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif).

Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed.

And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications.

I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it.

Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed.

And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications.

I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it.

Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed.

And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications.

I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it.

Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however.

I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software.

This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D

The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this.

When the investigators read the BFL threads they'll probably think everyone here is nuts. They might want to lock up everyone involved as a public safety measure. lol

The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this.


It was 2.3% of topics. (This still amounted to ~5 GB of text.)

The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this.

I don't see a reason why the forum would need to automatically decrypt your PM's for you. If you were to have everyone give a public key to the forum to have your PM's automatically encrypted to, then decrypting a PM would only be a matter of using your PGP client to decrypt the message manually for you which really would not take that much effort. This would let people determine how much security their PGP private keys have.

We're not talking about using PGP or any third party software at all. We're talking about doing this via javascript, so everything happens in the browser, and the user doesn't even need to know it's happening. PM's will function just like they do now except you'll need to enter a password to read your PM's, the password and plaintext PM's are never sent to the server and all encryption/decryption is done in-browser, similar to blockchain.info/wallet. This is SIGNIFICANTLY less safe than PGP, but it's probably sufficient to mitigate really invasive subpoena's etc.

Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however.

I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software.

Well to avoid the problem of people potentially forgetting their password to decrypt their PM's the forum could automatically encrypt PM's sent to someone using javascript, users would then store the private key locally, outside of their browser in order to decrypt the message. If PGP is used, and the user is using GPGTools (https://gpgtools.org/gpgsuite.html) as their PGP client, and their private key is stored locally, then decrypting it would be as arbitrary as highlighting text and making two clicks (and entering your passphrase).

In theory, the javascript could be modified so that whenever someone enters their password to decrypt a PM that the password is transmitted to either the forum or a third party attacker which would essentially allow them to decrypt any PM for that user.

It is open source.

publicly viewable?

http://github.com/epochtalk

I think the PM encryption system shouldn't be dependant on any software other than a standard web browser as a lot of users won't install the third party tools and thus a lot of users won't turn on PM encryption. The idea is this system will be used for most messages as an extra layer of security, anything private should be encrypted with PGP or something similar, if most people don't turn it on it is completely useless.

I disagree with theymos and actually think that forgetting your password is a feature. Anyway in your case losing your private key is the same as forgetting your password, and if you use default GnuPG settings and encrypt your private key, should you forget the passphrase for that you'll still lose your private key and as a result, your PM's. Users who fear they may lose their PM's due to forgetting a password should backup their PM's.

You are right that the JS can be modified, I mentioned above one solution is to copy blockchain.info's solution which was to use a browser addon to verify the JS. Users worried about the JS being modified can install the addon, however it should be optional.

Well with blockchain.info/wallet if your password is compromised then you can simply move your funds to another address that is not compromised (hell you can create a new bc.i wallet with a better password). With having a private key that is decrypted in the browser if your password is compromised and the password protected private key is stored by the forum (I think it would have to be) then it would not be possible to protect the privacy of your PM's.

If the passphrase to my PGP private key is compromised (but not the private key itself) then I can simply change the passphrase to my PGP private key (I think this is possible- you could have it temporarily in decrypted format then re-encrypt it with a new passphrase (then obviously securely delete all old copies of your PGP private key).

Having the forum automatically encrypt your PM's to the recipients' PGP public key allows the person receiving the message to choose their own level of security. You are right that less people will use it if it is dependent on any third party software, however the forum can only hold people's hands so much when it comes to security/privacy.

If your password is compromised, it is possible to change it. One way of doing this is to generate a random master key, which is actually the key that decrypts the PM's, and encrypt the master key with a password. So how it works is you open your Inbox, bitcointalk sends your browser your encrypted master key and encrypted PM's, you type in your password, your master key is decrypted using the password and then the PM's are decrypted using the master key. If your password is compromised you can change it, all you need to do is re-encrypt the master key with the new password, however should you ever forget the current password your PM's are gone unless you have another way of recovering your unencrypted master key. This is similar to how it works with PGP.

My opinion is that PGP should really only be used of private information. Automatically PGP encrypting PM's is not a good idea, you should really only PGP encrypt PM's that actual private information. The reason for this is that if the receipient's PC is ever compromised, if they are unlocking their private key everyday to read their PM's then the malware can easily keylog them, however if they are only unlocking their PGP once every month or two to decrypt private information, there is a greater chance that the recipient will discover the keylogger before they unlock the private key.

People also use their PGP keys for other purposes too like signing code, and this puts their key at more risk.

I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated.

If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it.

I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway.

I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these.

I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ?

I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ?

They mostly needed official business records from theymos not what can be accessed publicly. Also they needed a lot of PM's as well as deleted posts.

They most likely emailed him the subpoena, at least that is how they served him the DPR subpoena

It doesn't stop at the subpoena. I had to go to court for an employer as the custodian of records. I was required to sign an affidavit certifying the records I presented were true and correct and testify to that in open court. I hope theymos has some free time blocked out in the future. If they use those records to support their case he'll need it.

IIRC the DPR subpoena required theymos to appear in court, however it gave him the option to sign a affidavit saying essentially that the records he provided were true and correct copies of the business records; I don't think there would be any reason why it would be different in this case.

If either party wanted to dispute the completeness of what was provided or wanted to dispute anything that was provided was actually a true and correct copy of the forum's records then he would need to testify (or if either party wanted to otherwise dispute what was provided). I would say there is a pretty good chance that theymos won't need to personally appear, or if he does it will most likely only be for a disposition. I would say the BFL case(s) will most likely get settled out of court (and plea agreements will be reached for criminal cases)

I wonder when they will be requesting info on bcp19's alts. He's posted under:

Pokokohua!
badgerkiller
bcpokey
DaBitcoinGuy

Maybe a couple others I can't remember, but the guy just totally lost his mind (probably because of the subpoena) and revealed his latest alt account. Meh, par for the course when BFL is involved. ::)

I wonder when they will be requesting info on bcp19's alts. He's posted under:

Pokokohua!
badgerkiller
bcpokey
DaBitcoinGuy

Maybe a couple others I can't remember, but the guy just totally lost his mind (probably because of the subpoena) and revealed his latest alt account. Meh, par for the course when BFL is involved. ::)

Exclusive interview with Theymos: "I think that I fought for user privacy much more vigorously than most sites would in this situation, and I still had to release a lot of private data."

http://www.coinbuzz.com/2015/04/17/bitcoin-forum-gives-600-peoples-private-info-to-us-government/

The administrator of the world’s most popular bitcoin forum, bitcointalk.org, told users that he was forced by a subpoena to release 600 people’s private messages.

Michael Marquadt, a.k.a. theymos, told affected users that he would mark the information as confidential, but that may not be enough to keep it from going public. He goes on to clarify in the message, “In particular, I believe that BFL has full access to the PMs and could choose to release them.”

The bulk message was sent out to anyone who interacted with the Butterfly Labs staff accounts on the forums. Any messages – even deleted ones – sent to the following accounts may have been released:

    Inaba
    BFL-Engineer
    BFL_Josh
    SLok
    BFL_Sonny
    BFL AM
    Dave
    bcp19
    nibbknot

Forum administrator responds

CoinBuzz reached out to Marquadt (theymos) for more information:

When were you asked to release the PMs?

The subpoena is dated March 3.

Whom were you asked by?

Subpoenas are always sent by a government, usually a court. You can’t just go and send someone a subpoena. This one was issued by the US District Court for the District of Kansas. It is related to case number 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO.

Are you concerned about what might be done with the PMs you provided?

Yes. That’s why I spent so much time/money reducing the number of PMs I would have to release to the bare minimum. (The subpoena originally requested all PMs that even mentioned BFL, from/to anyone.) Only PMs to/from a few people who (apparently) are/were BFL employees were released. The PMs are also covered by a protective order, which should make it somewhat more difficult for the PMs to become public.

Even though I want to protect forum PMs as much as I can, users of any website should be aware that it is basically impossible for any service to completely protect data that you give them access to. For example, if Google received a similar subpeona saying, “Give us all GMail emails talking about BFL,” it seems plausible to me that they might give up this info without any fight at all, and maybe not even tell the affected users about it.

I think that I fought for user privacy much more vigorously than most sites would in this situation, and I still had to release a lot of private data. Therefore, you should always securely encrypt sensitive information before putting it on the Internet. Don’t trust third-parties with anything important.

Are you concerned about how BFL might respond to this?

I treated both BFL and the plantiff fairly here. They don’t have any reason to be upset with me.

I am somewhat concerned that BFL could get some info about people who were anti-BFL and use this against them somehow. For example, perhaps some of released PMs show that an ex-BFL-employee broke an NDA. (This is just an example — I haven’t actually read most of the released PMs, and I didn’t observe anything like this in what I did read.) This is unavoidable, unfortunately.

What is your opinion on Butterfly Labs in general?

As far as I know, they accepted substantial preorders and then failed to deliver in any reasonable timeframe. This is very bad. But whether this was due to bad luck, incompetence, or malice, I don’t know.
The long and troubled past of ButterFfy Labs

Butterfly Labs are perhaps the most infamous company in the Bitcoin space. For years they’ve been the centre of controversy, due to their long history of false promises, unreasonable delays, and unpopular customer service. In September of 2014 the mining hardware manufacturers were shut down by the Federal Trade Commission. They proceeded to reopen in January and set a timetable for shipping their Monarch hardware and issuing refunds to some customers, but this recent development suggests that they are still being investigated.

Here's what i know about bcp19

I said something about BFL being a scam. then i got some pretty new red paint on my trust profile

Dude, take a look at that account's stats history by activity. Guess what shows up? Nah, I'll tell you: Korean. Who also knows Korean, is in love with himself and BFL, and held a bullshit contest? Josh Zerlan.

Now where is my cookie?::)

Blazr is too smart to be BFL_josh. They also live in different countries/continents/extremely distant time zones.

Well, I don't see why the "BFL" account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366) was not included in the subpoena. Am I missing something? ???

Edit: Anyone!?

Dude, take a look at Blazr's stats history by activity. Guess what shows up? Nah, I'll tell you: Korean. Who also knows Korean, is in love with himself and BFL and held a bullshit contest? Josh Zerlan.

Now where is my cookie?::)

Probably because that account hasn't had activity since 2013, but who can really say for certain.

I wonder when they will be requesting info on bcp19's alts. He's posted under:

Pokokohua!
badgerkiller
bcpokey
DaBitcoinGuy

Maybe a couple others I can't remember, but the guy just totally lost his mind (probably because of the subpoena) and revealed his latest alt account. Meh, par for the course when BFL is involved. ::)

Can you upload the subpoeana here in the forum (as the other one, the silkroad subpoena?) thanks.

Subpoena for Bitcointalk information -- http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf

"Alexander et al v. BF Labs Inc." - http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.docket.html

Target Keywords: BFL
BF Labs Butterfly Labs Vleisides
Zerlan
Ownby
Ghoseiri
eclipse
butterflylabs.com
eclipsemc.com
monarch
jalapeno
nimbusmining

Subpoena for Bitcointalk information -- http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf

"Alexander et al v. BF Labs Inc." - http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.docket.html

Subpoena for Bitcointalk information -- http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf

"Alexander et al v. BF Labs Inc." - http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.docket.html

....
So not only keyword "BFL" but there are more. It will be a big pain for theymos.

[...] when the Government needs any info, it's hard to convince them. [...]

Huh... ??? What's you talking about? What does government have to do with this? Did you even read the subpoena (let alone the rest of this thread before posting)?

They think all posts and PMs will be helpful for their investigation but theymos has reduced it(according to OP).

P.S.

I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b

And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf

I thought it is the Government agency who issued this.  ???

If you know better than me, then would you mind explaining when the following are the Target accounts:

BFL_Josh
BFL_Sonny
BFL-Engineer
Inaba
BFL AM Dave
bcp19
nibbknot
SLok

Why did they ask for all the posts that mentioned that term?

=snip=
The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated.
 =snip=

I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b

And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf

I thought it is the Government agency who issued this.  ???[...]

[...]Why did they ask for all the posts that mentioned that term?[...]

[...]I read that in the first post but my concern was if they want to take any action on the users that just used the terms or they are only interested in the BFL employees-/ex employees posts.

As you can reed on the first page of the subpoena it were: KYLE ALEXANDER, and  DYLAN SYMINGTON of the WOOD LAW FIRM that requested it.

(And if you google WOOD LAW FIRM and BFL together, what do you get...?)

I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D

Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying.

As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning.

Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed.

And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications.

I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it.

I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b

And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf

We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads.

Its hard to when only 1/60 posts is actually about the case, which is CK's point. While there may be some useful content in that old thread, there's so much noise that its untenable to actually find that information in the thread.

Dogie of course you have to say that. Is not as though you contributed anything to the thread. Complaining is easier.

I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D

Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying.

As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning.

Ignoring scams leads to this. Being proactive could resolve it simply banning BFL in 2012 or 2013 as things escalated. If you don't want to bother doing hours of info collation then eliminate the scammers sooner and permanently. No remorse here this subpoena has happened. It will happen again without any proactive measures by admins.

We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads.

I have asked the 'same' thing and this is was the reply from BadBear:


I was lucky to have not sent any 'sensitive' pm to any 'member' of BFL team or person related with them.

I have asked the 'same' thing and this is was the reply from BadBear:


I was lucky to have not sent any 'sensitive' pm to any 'member' of BFL team or person related with them.

Ignoring scams leads to this. Being proactive could resolve it simply banning BFL in 2012 or 2013 as things escalated. If you don't want to bother doing hours of info collation then eliminate the scammers sooner and permanently. No remorse here this subpoena has happened. It will happen again without any proactive measures by admins.

[...]

Scams are not banned. Unless some other rule was broken during that timeframe (I have no idea if one was, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that one was not) then a ban would not have been appropriate.

A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud.

To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas?

To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas?

By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction.

Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer.

Why? It's not the responsibility of theymos to make sure the users of this forum are decent honest people. It's also not his responsibility to protect forum users from the law. He's a forum administrator not a mommy or a nanny. He only has one job duty on this forum and only owes one thing to its membership - keep the forum running. There are a bunch of little jobs inside that one duty like keep the spam down, ban the disruptive people, pay for the hosting, update the software, bla bla. Nowhere in that duty list does it say, keep members from being ripped off and hide them from the law.

By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction.

Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer.

We're not discussing logic or how things should be, had we our way. We're talking about US laws. US laws do not allow US person to run websites where people sell CI drugs, or promoting unregistered securities. This is basic stuff.


If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed.

Further, if most of the ads on Craigslist were made by killers, putting a disclaimer along the lines of...
http://s13.postimg.org/k25iulgrb/Capture.png
or, rather, "We do not remove ads by likely killers. Thus far, it appears that roughly 95% of these ads have proven to have been placed by confirmed murderers. Use your head." just wouldn't cut the mustard :-\

The forum has instituted a policy to generally not look into the various deals that people are considering to make. As a result it does not know if something is a scam or not. A similar thing can be said about unregistered securities as the forum does not verify that something that could be considered to be a security is properly registered.

Such policy is simply illegal in US. As I already have pointed out, "If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed." That's what is being discussed - users alerting Theymos of a crime taking place, and Theymos refusing to act because policy.

Why don't you cite the law that makes this policy illegal? Section 230 of the Communications Decency act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act) protects the owners of a website who publish information provided by others.

There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable

It does however "say": provide information to people who request it formally and with good reason... If Theymos had seen this as 'no good reason' (which in part he did) he's free to protest (which he did succesfully)...

Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point. The case law cited in your wiki article does not address knowingly facilitating illegal activities.
In other words, a website allowing users to post pictures & being 95% child porn is not going to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regardless of disclaimers.

Re. bitcointalk lawsuits: not you're referring to (links?), but the fact that theymos has not been charged with anything merely proves that bitcointalk is much more useful as a honypot, a place that a couple of fat LEO could monitor from the comfort of their office.
And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest.
As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative :)

Like I said in the past, the forum does not attempt to investigate if something is a scam or not therefore they do not have knowledge of illegal activity if there is any. Just because someone claims that something is illegal does not make it so. I ask again that you cite a law saying that the forum is breaking the law by not moderating scams.

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

I don't see your point here. So what if the forum is a de-facto honeypot? Don't break the law?

edit: link to case regarding illegal activity on the forum (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2014/11/06/texas-man-arrested-for-4-5-million-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/)

He didn't have to protest, he did that because he's a bleeding heart liberal. If I was running this forum and received a subpoena I'd roll you over in the clover every single time. Mainly because I don't have a reason to make your criminal behavior become my legal battle.

Does bitcointalk run some kind of casino? Does it engage in the business of betting? If not then your cited Interstate Wire Act does not show that the forum is breaking the law.

Wasn't pirate40 running a ponzi scheme on the forum? I know that there were threads about his ponzi on here. If you are saying that by not taking down scams the forum knows about they are breaking the law, and it should have been obvious that he was running a ponzi that would eventually collapse (e.g. a scam).

Bitcointalk engages in "transmission of a wire communication [...] for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers."
Again, the fact that Theymos was not V& for pirate's f*ckup doesn't mean he is above reproach & should keep pushing the envelope. Most who break laws aren't charged. Until they are.

Before this degenerates into more internet lawyering & wiki quotin', let me point out that what you're doing now is absurd at best. You might think yourself a white knight, but in reality you're more like my clueless buddy, who started lecturing a statey when we got pulled over. From my passenger seat.
Had the cop gotten irked and as much as frisked me, it wouldn't have been his ass in the back of that cop car.

You may now return to... what is it that you do? Sell Bitcointalk accounts? :D

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal.

-snip-

(d) When any common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, is notified in writing by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, acting within its jurisdiction, that any facility furnished by it is being used or will be used for the purpose of transmitting or receiving gambling information in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of Federal, State or local law, it shall discontinue or refuse, the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of such facility, after reasonable notice to the subscriber, but no damages, penalty or forfeiture, civil or criminal, shall be found against any common carrier for any act done in compliance with any notice received from a law enforcement agency. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prejudice the right of any person affected thereby to secure an appropriate determination, as otherwise provided by law, in a Federal court or in a State or local tribunal or agency, that such facility should not be discontinued or removed, or should be restored.

-snip-

You may now return to... what is it that you do? Sell Bitcointalk accounts?

...
Before this degenerates into more internet lawyering & wiki quotin' ...

He didn't have to protest, he did that because he's a bleeding heart liberal. If I was running this forum and received a subpoena I'd roll you over in the clover every single time. Mainly because I don't have a reason to make your criminal behavior become my legal battle.

The term "Private Message" isn't as private as you might think.

We should start calling it Public Message with a twist of "maybe" privacy if no legal authority asks for it.

Why do I have to say that? Of course I didn't contribute to that thread, it was unusable and a mess. Not a lot of point investing time into thoughtful discussion there when its going to get buried by PG/GG within 20 seconds.

Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point. The case law cited in your wiki article does not address knowingly facilitating illegal activities.
In other words, a website allowing users to post pictures & being 95% child porn is not going to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regardless of disclaimers.

Re. bitcointalk lawsuits: not you're referring to (links?), but the fact that theymos has not been charged with anything merely proves that bitcointalk is much more useful as a honypot, a place that a couple of fat LEO could monitor from the comfort of their office.
And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest.
As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative :)

Does bitcointalk run some kind of casino? Does it engage in the business of betting? If not then your cited Interstate Wire Act does not show that the forum is breaking the law.

Wasn't pirate40 running a ponzi scheme on the forum? I know that there were threads about his ponzi on here. If you are saying that by not taking down scams the forum knows about they are breaking the law, and it should have been obvious that he was running a ponzi that would eventually collapse (e.g. a scam).

Odd, for it was PG/GG, me, Bruno Kucinskas, that contributed immensely to the investigation against BFL, conducting more research than most, with more discoveries than all the others combined not part of the "most" part. Recall, I'm the one that shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that BFL used BitPay as their own personal exchange to launder tens of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins via BFL's 1QAHVyRzkmD4j1pU5W89htZ3c6D6E7iWDs (https://blockchain.info/address/1QAHVyRzkmD4j1pU5W89htZ3c6D6E7iWDs) bitcoin wallet address to fiat, directed toward bank accounts currently unknown, albeit BitPay has the records.

"Bruno is making our new thread unusable and a mess. Meanwhile, you're more than welcome to use our Star System Rating Service, derived via our bespoke Much Wow Algorithm. Apologies for the echo."

so I just get back and you reward me with this PM release bs

Interesting day to come back on, considering your username!