If by "very clever move" you mean "very clever scam," I might agree. 

Yet another reason you have to be literally retarded to open up biz dealings with subhuman turds like this.

You basically give them permission to harass you by phone forever.

Enjoy that shit.  I hope the non-paid shill dumbfucks who have posted garbage to every BFL thread are suffering this now while they are hiding their heads in shame.  How does it feel to be so stupid?  Feel free to post answers here, feel free to wear a mask.

Individual candidates are required to report both donations and spending, listed by donor and by expenditure.  These reports are available to the public in all kinds of forms, from a horribly structured giant spreadsheet to CSV to searchable lists often created by third parties.  So if the candidate can't explain where money came from to the penny, it gets seized and they pay huge fines.  PACs to some extent as well.

But then there are things like so-called "Super PACs" and outright "dark money" groups entirely exempt from disclosure.  The genuinely wealthy might prefer their campaign dollars not be denominated in anything but the name Benjamin.

God I hate defending BFL.  But this is actually entirely consistent with what they said and, incidentally, with federal law including the Do Not Call registry.

It is not selling information about you to a third party to pay a third party to call you.  It is providing them with information they need to do a job they hired them for.

It is not sharing your information with anyone else for THEIR marketing purposes if BFL provides them with your information to do a job that BFL hired them to do.

It is, in fact, using your personal information to "help maintain the business relationship" they have with you, if they give that list to a company they hired, so that that company can act as their agents to call up their "loyal customers" to try to sell them more shit.

Now, if randoms start calling you and could only have obtained your information from BFL, that's another matter.  But it's entirely legal for a company to telemarket you if you have a prior business relationship and haven't specifically asked them to stop.  It's just as legal for them to contract out and have someone else do the calls.

Making friends everywhere.

Even as a big fan of campaign finance reform in general, this would be pretty awesome.  Imagine all the Bitcoin boats such a scheme could float.

Did a small test sale Tuesday night (6 Nov).  Said it would be there by 12 Nov.  Was actually there this morning.  Only difference was six days was slightly longer than their usual projected date.  The actual time it took to appear was normal.

Larger transactions may be handled differently.

My guess less than two years.  Three years max.

Nothing other than the fear of being caught.  The same people can currently use smurfs to make donations or funnel money through all kinds of dark money organizations to accomplish their ends, without necessarily directly contributing to any specific candidate.

I think the creators display somewhat unnecessary hostility toward mainstream entities like the Bitcoin Foundation that, yes, are operating aboveground.  That certainly doesn't mean that those of us, including me, who feel there are benefits to mainstream adoption are hostile to projects like DarkWallet.  The misconception that Bitcoin is somehow inherently anonymous is a dangerous one to those who operate under it, and projects to enhance security and anonymity for whatever purposes are a good thing.

The fact that a technology can (or even certainly will) be used for illegal purposes is no reason not to develop it if it has legitimate uses.  Remember also that "legitimate" varies by your address, and the government you live under, and for instance, Ed Snowden is a "terrorist" in the United States and people who believe in democracy are criminals in China, Iran and you name it.

I hope that any such project is carried out with the understanding that it will be subject to vigorous attack and vulnerability research and that even perfect ideology won't compensate for shitty technology.

You are an expert when you call yourself an expert.

You are a recognized expert when someone agrees.

You are a renowned expert when you put on a bow tie.

You are an internationally recognized expert when someone actually pays your air fare to go somewhere and say something.  Or when you've been on at least one TV show with someone whose teeth have been laser-whitened.

Another entry for the bozo bin.

Sounds like some last-ditch furious scamming to squeeze some more money out of the nearly-dead racket before the inevitable collapse.

New Jersey's delicious Consumer Fraud Act, yes, I'm familiar with it.  More importantly, it allows attorney fee-shifting, making it much easier to find representation in such cases.  Some lawyers make that their entire practice.  Why nobody in NJ has gone after BFL is beyond me.  However, it's generally pretty difficult to establish advertiser liability short of conspiracy, and § 230 of the CDA has been construed as providing near-absolute immunity to liability for Internet providers for the content of third-party ads they run.

I don't think any software at all would be invulnerable to BIOS-based malware that meets the description of BadBIOS, especially if you assume BIOS-based malware that is specifically aimed at wallets.  This is independent of whether BadBIOS exists as described.

Seems to have broken my login links to all my accounts, and I didn't save most of their account information.  I think I posted the main one to this thread and the others were for insignificant (microbitcoin) amounts, but how do I get back in?

So many of the major advertisers on this site are outright scams like BFL that when I see something advertised here, I just assume it's a scam automatically and put it on my list of things to avoid unless given information otherwise.  So at least for me, advertisers who pay for ads on this site are basically slapping a big SCAM sticker all over their product.  Perhaps this is something the forum should consider when taking ads, because that is the kind of thing that determines their value.

I don't think these policies make the site itself a scam, but I do think it shows a willingness to fund the site by other people's fraud while willfully turning a blind eye to it.  That may not be illegal, but it certainly isn't admirable.  That doesn't mean I still wouldn't recommend it as the best source of information on the subject matter, at least to a jaded cynic who starts out with the assumption that everyone is a crook and a scammer unless shown to be otherwise, but I'd never send anyone less than that here without stern warnings to beware everything.  At least unless I didn't like them much.

I can understand the general libertarian idea that what people say and do is their own business and taking a hands-off moderation policy to an extreme.  But they don't do that.  The mods are abusive and arbitrary and delete posts on pure whim with no explanation whatsoever.  So the policy has nothing to do with that kind of thinking, because they're control-freakish in the extreme on that.

But when you publish ads, you're making an editorial statement about what you're made of, and if what you're made of is BFL, well, you're at least half a scumbag.

Well, if you can easily see that the contents of the media articles are at best shallow and at worst utter bullshit, you shouldn't be so quick to accept their characterizations of the researchers themselves at face value.  Even some people here are working on implementing and testing how such an attack would work and (presumably) how to respond to it if it did.

The reason this isn't a huge problem (and why it hasn't affected price) isn't that it doesn't exist, but that if anyone did try to do it they'd a) be caught pretty quickly and b) there would be a rapid response.  Part of why there'd be a rapid response is that people are poking at it looking for potential attacks and (one hopes) having countermeasures already in place if they're ever used.

Wherever you live, you lack reading comprehension, even in your own language, because I think a chain of restaurants knows where their own franchises are.

Because the media hype is a bunch of bullshit and everyone can see that.  It also completely blows the claims of the researchers out of proportion.  It also says nothing about Bitcoin that was not already widely known, i.e. that an attacker with control over a large part of the network can do bad things.  For everyone to panic about something that isn't even news would be sort of like suddenly discovering the 51% attack is possible and panicking.

Yes, someone with a vast amount of computing power could squander it for little or negative profit solely to harm the network.  The same can be said of any network.  Actually, worse can be said of most, i.e. many networks are so porous a random script kiddie could fuck them up for little to no effort just for the hell of it.