Summary of the events last night - And an apology.

[videos4btc]

both blockchain.info and BitcoinStore have improved their business practices.

In someways this was helpful event. Ironic but true.

Meanwhile, NetHead has published his own personal information and continues to keep the BTC that were accidentally sent to him.

He never gave them back? 

[adamstgBit]

BitcoinStore's ability to access this proof is removed due to abuse of the access

this community's ability to self regulate is really quite remarkably    

[DannyHamilton]

Meanwhile, NetHead has published his own personal information and continues to keep the BTC that were accidentally sent to him.

He never gave them back? 

Nope.

[thebaron]

lol

[thebaron]

BitcoinStore's ability to access this proof is removed due to abuse of the access

this community's ability to self regulate is really quite remarkably   

Except for that whole fraud thing.

[videos4btc]

Meanwhile, NetHead has published his own personal information and continues to keep the BTC that were accidentally sent to him.

He never gave them back? 

Nope.

Man, that is kind of dickish.  Btw: Isn't Roger the guy who lost 25,000 coins to some exchange hack? Maybe, its a bitterness carry over?

[DannyHamilton]

• BitcoinStore accesses proof that the address does belong to Customer and provides that proof only to the Customer
• Customer gets angry that this proof of his lie was available an publishes his own sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet to let them know that BitcoinStore has access to this proof
• BitcoinStore's ability to access this proof is removed due to abuse of the access

. . . I guess i would of done the same thing, prove to the guy i know hes lying to try and get the guy to send back the bitcoin...

Even if accessing that information is an abuse of your position as an employe of another business?

Think of it this way.

You work as a bank teller at your local bank.

At a garage sale you are running at home, someone gives you a sob story about how little money they have, so you cut them a break on a price.

Later when you are at work, you look up their account and discover they have more money than they had claimed.

You call them on it and ask for the full price of the item you sold them.

They call the bank and complain that their private account information was used against them in a transaction.

If I am the bank manager and you work for me, I can assure you I would fire you immediately for mis-use/abuse of company resources.

[repentance]

I guess i would of done the same thing, prove to the guy i know hes lying to try and get the guy to send back the bitcoin..

Really?  Josh is an investor in the new company which runs Bitcoin Magazine.  Would you be fine with him him having access to BM's user records and using that information if there was a dispute with a BFL customer who received an overpayment on a refund?

[thebaron]

I guess i would of done the same thing, prove to the guy i know hes lying to try and get the guy to send back the bitcoin..

Really?  Josh is an investor in the new company which runs Bitcoin Magazine.  Would you be fine with him him having access to BM's user records and using that information if there was a dispute with a BFL customer who received an overpayment on a refund?

Shit's fair game when you do something like that, IMHO.

[DannyHamilton]

I guess i would of done the same thing, prove to the guy i know hes lying to try and get the guy to send back the bitcoin..

Really?  Josh is an investor in the new company which runs Bitcoin Magazine.  Would you be fine with him him having access to BM's user records and using that information if there was a dispute with a BFL customer who received an overpayment on a refund?

Shit's fair game when you do something like that, IMHO.

And actually, I'd agree with you, but only on the condition that the privacy statement explicitly states that your personal information will be used against you if the company has a reasonable belief that you are attempting to scam or defraud someone.  You can't have a privacy statement that claims that ALL users personal information will be kept private, and also release that information when you believe that someone is engaging in fraud.  That is fraud in and of itself.

[repentance]

Shit's fair game when you do something like that, IMHO.

Well then let's just have all Bitcoin organisations share their user information and make it public whenever they feel they've been wronged.  We could start with a list of people who had negative balances on Bitcoinica, everyone who's ever tried to defraud MtGox, and people who didn't return Nefario's overpayments.

And actually, I'd agree with you, but only on the condition that the privacy statement explicitly states that your personal information will be used against you if the company has a reasonable belief that you are attempting to scam or defraud someone.

The privacy statement would need to state that your private information can be released to other companies and made public by them -remember it was blockchaininfo's user information, not BitcoinStore's own information, which was made public - the user information of a different company than that which had the dispute with its own customer.  Kind of ironic given how much people worry about the possibility of Bitcoin businesses releasing user information to the authorities without a warrant.

[Rassah]

• Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
• Customer requests BitcoinStore lie on Customs forms commit illegal fraud (against BitcoinStore policy)
• BitcoinStore, deciding to be polite and private about it, offers choice of refund or truth on Customs forms

FTFY

[DannyHamilton]

• Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
• Customer requests BitcoinStore lie on Customs forms commit illegal fraud (against BitcoinStore policy)
• BitcoinStore, deciding to be polite and private about it, offers choice of refund or truth on Customs forms

FTFY

Thanks but it wasn't broken.

I explained the specific action that both the customer and BitcoinStore took in the events you claim to have fixed, and left it up to the reader to know that lying on customs forms is illegal fraud and that offering a refund or truth on customs forms was a polite thing to do.

[Rassah]

Meanwhile, NetHead has published his own personal information and continues to keep the BTC that were accidentally sent to him.

He never gave them back? 

Nope.

Man, that is kind of dickish.  Btw: Isn't Roger the guy who lost 25,000 coins to some exchange hack? Maybe, its a bitterness carry over?

I think that was Bruce Wagner, to MyBitcoin, and he supposedly got 50% to 100% of that back.

[videos4btc]

Meanwhile, NetHead has published his own personal information and continues to keep the BTC that were accidentally sent to him.

He never gave them back?  

Nope.

Man, that is kind of dickish.  Btw: Isn't Roger the guy who lost 25,000 coins to some exchange hack? Maybe, its a bitterness carry over?

I think that was Bruce Wagner, to MyBitcoin, and he supposedly got 50% to 100% of that back.

Roger lost some coins also I'll find the article and edit it here.

Update: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67199.msg1100049#msg1100049     Basically, there in regards to BITCOINICA hack.

Eventually, someone like Roger is going to leave Bitcoin at some point.

[caveden]

So then can we safely conclude they both were wrong. Both Roger and Nethead? Would this be fair?

Yes, but with the remark that Nethead was actually holding something that belong to others (theft), while Roger's mistake was simply to act on impulse and publish the liar's personal details publicly - and honestly, I'm tempted to think like Rassah here and ask "What's the fucking problem in that? Should we really be that passive and let thiefs always get away, cleanly, without even some public shaming?"

I worked at a business where theft was common, and I never understood this. Why? Why should businesses accept the losses and allow the thieves to continue? Is privately, and if needed publicly, shaming them so horrible? Are they supposed to be concerned about hurting the sensibilities or feelings of the person who is stealing from them? Is this some sort of a culturally agreed on thing, where the reputation of a thief or scammer is too precious compared to the well being of the victim? Why don't businesses just stop putting up with it and stop enabling it?

[videos4btc]

So then can we safely conclude they both were wrong. Both Roger and Nethead? Would this be fair?

Yes, but with the remark that Nethead was actually holding something that belong to others (theft), while Roger's mistake was simply to act on impulse and publish the liar's personal details publicly - and honestly, I'm tempted to think like Rassah here and ask "What's the fucking problem in that? Should we really be that passive and let thiefs always get away, cleanly, without even some publicly shaming?"

I understand where your coming from. I would lean more so Nethead being the idiot here since he's pretty much a unknown to the community and still hasn't returned the coins despite everything. So I hear where your coming from.

[caveden]

The privacy statement would need to state that your private information can be released to other companies and made public by them -remember it was blockchaininfo's user information, not BitcoinStore's own information, which was made public

No, blockchain.info data was not made public by Roger, it was the Nethead himself who did it.
The information Roger made public was provided to Bitcoinstore.

[ldrgn]

You should treat the disclosure of personal information like capital punishment--to be reserved for only the greatest of offences and only when you are absolutely certain of the party's guilt.

This is absolutely wrong and ethically reprehensible.  You should treat your customer's private information as your greatest secret and carry it to your grave.  This goes for any business, Bitcoin or not.

[Rassah]

*bump* http://www.bitcoinstore.com/privacy-policy-cookie-restriction-mode

By the way, general question, but don't want to go OT here, so https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131745.0