[GLBSE] Violating its TOS and Possible Laws depending on country of Origin

[RandomQ]

Please Read text in the Box Before Flaming me


I'm in no way in support of protecting scammers and people that commit fraud. My Issue is GLBSE breaking its own TOS and Possible Laws that would allow it to be sued and face damages and be shutdown.

I considered myself invested in the success of GLBSE because I have assets listed on them, and don't want to see any liability to GLBSE caused by Illegal Actions of GLBSE.


In this Thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93445.msg1205151#msg1205151 GLBSE releases the ID of a scammer.

Per GLBSE own TOS https://www.glbse.com/info/terms

8. The Exchange may at its discretion ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number, or any other information as deemed appropriate. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party.

So GLBSE violated its own TOS by Releasing his ID.

The Scammer is in Italy, so his local laws may be different.

It appears this is illegal in Italy based on ACT no. 675 of 31.12.1996

But if this happened to a USA based asset holder, this is very illegal and could be sued.

Also even if the scammer has been accused or charged with a crimes, its still illegal to do this in the USA and could cause liability  to GLBSE.  

I think the TOS needs to be changed to provided some warning that GLBSE will do this, I think its still Illegal to do in the USA but atleast the TOS will say they could do it.

I'm only looking for the best interest of GLBSE and want to point out something that could caused financial harm to GLBSE and is Illegal in other Areas of the world.

[Lethos]

The TOS probably does need to be clarified a bit better of the element surrounding how the niceties of the TOS don't apply to your account  info/data we have about you if you are suspect / proven of fraud.

9. The Exchange reserves the right to suspend trading of any asset, or suspend access to an asset creator's account, for failure of an asset creator to provide requested information, or in the event of suspected fraud.

I was not surprised Nefario shared the info/data I admit, after all, a lot of fraud has happened by those misusing his trading site. It's understandable he would be annoyed at them, as it damages his (and the companies) reputation as well.
However I am surprised his TOS didn't mention he could get away with doing that, when suspected or prove of fraud. So yes, [9.] probably should be expanded a bit to cover himself, if he's going to keep doing this.

I'm not much for legal jargon, so meh, scammers have it coming for them really.

[greyhawk]

This particular case it a little more difficult.

The scammer is natural Italian but has been living in Shenzhen (China) for quite some time now. It is a possiblity he has acquired Chinese Citizenship.

I'm not sure what the privacy protection laws are in China, but I doubt there are any.

[markm]

Are we talking about the scammer who agreed when providing his ID that it would be made public if he scammed/defaulted/(de)frauded?

-MarkM-

[greyhawk]

yes

[OneEyed]

Per GLBSE own TOS https://www.glbse.com/info/terms

8. The Exchange may at its discretion ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number, or any other information as deemed appropriate. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party.

So GLBSE violated its own TOS by Releasing his ID.

You are hereby assuming that Nefario has no other permission to release Alberto's documents and received them in the scope of GLBSE with no extra permission, so GLBSE TOS must apply. This may be the case, but this may also not be. Only Nefario, Alberto and possible witnesses know in which context and under what conditions this documents transmission took place and what rules govern their release.

[flower1024]

afaik nefario/glbse is hosted in UK.
EU has good privacy laws which prohibit sharing of any ID information.

if nefario has a problem with a scammer he HAS TO inform the police and give the id to them.

btw: nefario: whats the progress about getting a registered company in UK?

[Lethos]

Are we talking about the scammer who agreed when providing his ID that it would be made public if he scammed/defaulted/(de)frauded?

-MarkM-

So where did Alberto agree to this?

[WITRcenter]

Nefario usually acts according to his emotion but the brain. He forget that he should only hand this to the police but not push those materials  publicly.

There are another accuse against Nefario. someone is accusing Nefario scammed 8BTC here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110504.0.

[Lethos]

Nefario usually acts according to his emotion but the brain. He forget that he should only hand this to the police but not push those materials  publicly.

There are another accuse against Nefario. someone is accusing Nefario scammed 8BTC here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110504.0.

Not really the same thing, if you actually read up on the situation.

[RandomQ]

Also you could argue that GLBSE is hosted in the USA, VIA CloudFlare.

And US laws could apply ALA MegaUpload Style.

[WITRcenter]

Nefario usually acts according to his emotion but the brain. He forget that he should only hand this to the police but not push those materials  publicly.

There are another accuse against Nefario. someone is accusing Nefario scammed 8BTC here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110504.0.

Not really the same thing, if you actually read up on the situation.

Basically the same thing. He does not pay attention to the terms. So he write the terms poorly, and does not obey it when he forget it.

[Deprived]

Not sure what the fuss is all about in this particular case.

Nefario stated that Alberto had agreed, when he provided the ID documents, that they could be released if he scammed or disappeared with investor's funds.  If Alberto agreed to this then it has nothing to do with the TOS of GLBSE: Alberto has every entitlement to waive one of the rights he would otherwise have under his agreement with GLBSE.

If Nefario had released the ID documents of someone WITHOUT them having agreed to it, then that would be an entirely different matter.

Remember that the TOS of GLBSE are a contract that you enter into with them when you use the site.  As with an ycontract its terms can be variede with the agreement of both parties to it.  In Alberto's case, Nefario has stated that they varied the contract such that (under certain circumstances) the personal details of Alberto could be released.  Alberto did NOT have the same agreement with GLBSE after that as everyone else (by default) has.

If you want to look at things like the Data Protection Act and other related legislation in the UK (where GLBSE/nefario are based) then you'll find that they only deal with the handling/distribution of data WITHOUT the consent of the other party to whom the data pertains.  In this case Nefario has said he had Alberto's consent to release the information in these circumstances.

Obviously if you believe Nefario is lieing about Alberto having agreed to the release of his ID in the event of his scamming/running with funds then that's slightly different.  But I'm not seeing any posts from Alberto claiming that to be the case - have I missed them somewhere?  Or do you have some other reason to believe Nefario is lieing about that?

[flower1024]

Not sure what the fuss is all about in this particular case.

Nefario stated that Alberto had agreed, when he provided the ID documents, that they could be released if he scammed or disappeared with investor's funds.  If Alberto agreed to this then it has nothing to do with the TOS of GLBSE: Alberto has every entitlement to waive one of the rights he would otherwise have under his agreement with GLBSE.

If Nefario had released the ID documents of someone WITHOUT them having agreed to it, then that would be an entirely different matter.

Remember that the TOS of GLBSE are a contract that you enter into with them when you use the site.  As with an ycontract its terms can be variede with the agreement of both parties to it.  In Alberto's case, Nefario has stated that they varied the contract such that (under certain circumstances) the personal details of Alberto could be released.  Alberto did NOT have the same agreement with GLBSE after that as everyone else (by default) has.

If you want to look at things like the Data Protection Act and other related legislation in the UK (where GLBSE/nefario are based) then you'll find that they only deal with the handling/distribution of data WITHOUT the consent of the other party to whom the data pertains.  In this case Nefario has said he had Alberto's consent to release the information in these circumstances.

Obviously if you believe Nefario is lieing about Alberto having agreed to the release of his ID in the event of his scamming/running with funds then that's slightly different.  But I'm not seeing any posts from Alberto claiming that to be the case - have I missed them somewhere?  Or do you have some other reason to believe Nefario is lieing about that?

i am not sure if thats enough.
if nefario had asked alberto "may i release your information now?" -> all good.

but what court has said that alberto has scammed funds? nefario's word and the opinion of this community is not legally binding.

[WITRcenter]

but what court has said that alberto has scammed funds? nefario's word and the opinion of this community is not legally binding.

+1

[Nefario]

We have not violated GLBSE terms of service as the currently are.

Alberto agreed to have his information released in the event of him scamming or running off with the funds invested when he verified, I would not have made the information public otherwise.

He was warned numerous times over the last month that if he continued to fail to take action on his obligations I would release the information.

This information has now been removed as he has begun to comply.

We're in the process of legitimizing GLBSE, as a part of that process I'm in discussion with a solicitor over a number of issues.

From this process there are likely to be some changes, certainly to our terms of service will change, and what action we take if someone fails on their contract obligations are likely to change as well.

I can't give any more details until after I've spoken with the solicitor.

Nefario.

[Lethos]

but what court has said that alberto has scammed funds? nefario's word and the opinion of this community is not legally binding.

Meni, was actually the one to revealed he was the scammer, Meni then asked Nefario to help fix a situation that Alberto would not.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93445.260

[Deprived]

Not sure what the fuss is all about in this particular case.

Nefario stated that Alberto had agreed, when he provided the ID documents, that they could be released if he scammed or disappeared with investor's funds.  If Alberto agreed to this then it has nothing to do with the TOS of GLBSE: Alberto has every entitlement to waive one of the rights he would otherwise have under his agreement with GLBSE.

If Nefario had released the ID documents of someone WITHOUT them having agreed to it, then that would be an entirely different matter.

Remember that the TOS of GLBSE are a contract that you enter into with them when you use the site.  As with an ycontract its terms can be variede with the agreement of both parties to it.  In Alberto's case, Nefario has stated that they varied the contract such that (under certain circumstances) the personal details of Alberto could be released.  Alberto did NOT have the same agreement with GLBSE after that as everyone else (by default) has.

If you want to look at things like the Data Protection Act and other related legislation in the UK (where GLBSE/nefario are based) then you'll find that they only deal with the handling/distribution of data WITHOUT the consent of the other party to whom the data pertains.  In this case Nefario has said he had Alberto's consent to release the information in these circumstances.

Obviously if you believe Nefario is lieing about Alberto having agreed to the release of his ID in the event of his scamming/running with funds then that's slightly different.  But I'm not seeing any posts from Alberto claiming that to be the case - have I missed them somewhere?  Or do you have some other reason to believe Nefario is lieing about that?

i am not sure if thats enough.
if nefario had asked alberto "may i release your information now?" -> all good.

but what court has said that alberto has scammed funds? nefario's word and the opinion of this community is not legally binding.

In that case Alberto should be complaining that he hasn't scammed (or run off with investors' funds) - and that Nefario broke the (privately arranged) term in their contract specifying the conditions under which his information could be released to the public.  The agreement wasn't specifically that ALberto had to scam - it also agreed Alberto disappearing with the investors' funds.  The latter is rather easier to establish than scamming - scamming requires intent, whilst vanishing with the funds is just a matter of simple facts: is he still around?  Do investors have their funds back?

Without knowing the exact wording of what was agreed (and you) can't know for certain whether Nefario releasing the ID was in agreement with their contract or not.  But what we DO know (unless you believe Nefario is lieing about such an agreement being made) is that the default contract in the TOS is not relevant - as it was varied with the consent of both parties (Alberto and Nefario).

EDIT:  Now out of date, as Nefario posted whilst I was typing this.

[RandomQ]

Alberto agreed to have his information released in the event of him scamming or running off with the funds invested when he verified, I would not have made the information public otherwise.

Nefario.

Was this a special Verification process for only Alberto or are you talking about the default verification process for all Asset Owners?

[stochastic]

...

Alberto agreed to have his information released in the event of him scamming or running off with the funds invested when he verified, I would not have made the information public otherwise.
...

You should post the agreement to having his personal information released then no one could question you releasing the documents.