New investigations board & restrictions on posting personal information

[theymos]

The reason that doxxing has been allowed up until now is that it's occasionally very useful in scam investigations. However, oftentimes doxxing someone is used as a weapon in itself instead of a part of any investigation, and as a result innocent people are sometimes hurt. So to protect the innocent while hopefully not hampering scam investigations too much, here are some new rules on doxxing:

1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity, excluding links that the person himself has posted. It is not allowed to post somebody's personal information in any other public place, including in signatures.
2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox if it is especially obvious that you're just using the dox as a weapon. For example, if there are no remotely-plausible trade complaints, then the person can't be a scammer, and their dox should not be posted.
3. As before, anything that the legacy insecure government/banking system requires to be secret is not allowed anywhere. This includes social security numbers, credit card numbers, and certain account numbers.

This applies retroactively to old posts. If a thread contains a lot of personal information strewn throughout it, then the whole thread will be moved to Investigations. If it's only a few posts, then those will be split off. From now on, it's probably a good idea to create two threads for big scammers: one in Scam Accusations and one in Investigations.

From time to time there may be cases where it is very desirable to publish some results of an investigation. For example, if a class action lawsuit is filed, then the person's username should probably at least be publicly linked to the legal case so that other people can join in. For now, there is no uniform policy for this, and if you need to make some personal info public, post in Meta and we will deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

[1713494016]

1713494016

[1713494016]

1713494016

[ColderThanIce]

I'm interested mainly in this part:

This applies retroactively to old posts. If a thread contains a lot of personal information strewn throughout it, then the whole thread will be moved to Investigations. If it's only a few posts, then those will be split off. From now on, it's probably a good idea to create two threads for big scammers: one in Scam Accusations and one in Investigations.

Would it be beneficial to report posts/threads that aren't in the Investigation section yet but should be located there?

I'm also curious about protecting the innocent when attempting to dox scammers. If a dox is made of the wrong person (for example, someone with the same name as the scammer, or living at the same address as the scammer) will this information be removed from the website if proof is given that the information is inaccurate?

[theymos]

Would it be beneficial to report posts/threads that aren't in the Investigation section yet but should be located there?

Yes. In fact, reporting is especially important for this because you often have to follow these cases pretty closely to notice doxxing. I was only able to quickly find a handful of threads that should be moved.

I'm also curious about protecting the innocent when attempting to dox scammers. If a dox is made of the wrong person (for example, someone with the same name as the scammer, or living at the same address as the scammer) will this information be removed from the website if proof is given that the information is inaccurate?

No, that's the point of the Investigations board. I was receiving many reports from people who were apparently incorrectly identified in this way, or from people who may have actually been innocent, and it just seemed unreasonable to leave the posts where Google can index them. However, in the interest of free speech and open debate, they can exist (even if incorrect) in the Investigations section.

[ColderThanIce]

I'm also curious about protecting the innocent when attempting to dox scammers. If a dox is made of the wrong person (for example, someone with the same name as the scammer, or living at the same address as the scammer) will this information be removed from the website if proof is given that the information is inaccurate?

No, that's the point of the Investigations board. I was receiving many reports from people who were apparently incorrectly identified in this way, or from people who may have actually been innocent, and it just seemed unreasonable to leave the posts where Google can index them. However, in the interest of free speech and open debate, they can exist (even if incorrect) in the Investigations section.

That makes sense to me, and seems to be a fair way to protect people who may just have had bad luck and fallen victim to an incorrect dox. However, on the other hand I think it's also beneficial to have accurate dox information publicly accessible for everyone, especially potential employers of these scammers. With the Investigation board made private, this information won't be easily accessible and employers may be hiring people who have stolen millions of dollars in bitcoin without even knowing they've done things like that before. I realize that background checks for employers isn't Bitcointalk's responsibility, but the Investigation board will be removing valuable background information on scammers from people who aren't actively part of this community, such as potential employers.

[theymos]

However, on the other hand I think it's also beneficial to have accurate dox information publicly accessible for everyone, especially potential employers of these scammers.

My first draft of this policy was 3x longer and had a process for moving info out of Investigations, but the other mods and I were thinking that this was too complex.

Let's wait and see how much demand for moving stuff out of Investigations there really is.

[Quickseller]

2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox if it is especially obvious that you're just using the dox as a weapon. For example, if there are no remotely-plausible trade complaints, then the person can't be a scammer, and their dox should not be posted.

Do you think this would meet this criteria (also this thread should probably be moved)? Would this ("...go away or I post your dox...")?

From time to time there may be cases where it is very desirable to publish some results of an investigation. For example, if a class action lawsuit is filed, then the person's username should probably at least be publicly linked to the legal case so that other people can join in. For now, there is no uniform policy for this, and if you need to make some personal info public, post in Meta and we will deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

I would argue that this probably meets the criteria for an exception -- this guy has scammed many people for a large total amount over a very long time.

[tmfp]

Theymos
Say there is a thread in "Service Announcements" promoting a scheme which appears suspicious, posted by username XYZ.
A bit of research done perfectly legally by searching publically available data linked to XYZ and his scheme on company names, addresses and other info provided in that thread shows that in real life XYZ is John Doe, with an MO of questionable practices/outright scams/failed enterprises.
Will this new initiative prevent posts in that thread linking XYZ to John Doe and asking whether or not this is him and his history?
Instead, should I post a new thread in "Investigations" and crosslinks in the two threads? Will this be acceptable?

As you have currently set it up, "Investigations" is buried as a Child board of a Child board in a Sub Forum.
Is this an indication of your personal view of the (lack of) importance and desirability of these type of posts?

IRL, I conduct due dilligence and background checks daily as work. In order to be of some assistance (in my view, maybe not yours or scammers) to the Bitcoin community I post background data from time to time about what appear to be questionable schemes floated on BCT and other places, and the people behind them. I believe that this has been of some help to newbies in avoiding being scammed.
I am confused about whether you are signalling now that this sort of posting is unwelcome. You appear to be sending out mixed messages at a time when scamming is as rife as ever.
Please advise.

[ndnh]

Really good move!

As you have currently set it up, "Investigations" is buried as a Child board of a Child board in a Sub Forum.

I think that is a positive.

In my views, I don't encourage posting personal information of anyone. I believe doxxing is illegal?

[suchmoon]

It is not allowed to post somebody's personal information in any other public place, including in signatures.

If someone has dox in their signature do we report one post or all posts and how will moderators deal with that?

[Lauda]

I believe doxxing is illegal?

No, it is not. A DOX is (usually) a collection of publicly available information.

If someone has dox in their signature do we report one post or all posts and how will moderators deal with that?

Usually when we are talking about a multiple of posts (for whatever reason), reporting a singular one is going to be enough if the report is properly written.

[suchmoon]

I believe doxxing is illegal?

No, it is not. A DOX is (usually) a collection of publicly available information.

If someone has dox in their signature do we report one post or all posts and how will moderators deal with that?

Usually when we are talking about a multiple of posts (for whatever reason), reporting a singular one is going to be enough if the report is properly written.

Fair enough. Will you move all of their posts or ask nicely to change the sig? What if the user is banned?

[Lauda]

Fair enough. Will you move all of their posts or ask nicely to change the sig? What if the user is banned?

AFAIK no moderator is able to directly influence the signature of another user. However, in this case they would be breaking the rules and thus they would be warned and asked to remove it. When a user gets banned their signature will get removed (this is a 'recent' change), and thus they could just be "re-banned" which would remove their signature. This is generally the work area of global moderators, but this is how it could be handled (from my perspective).

[suchmoon]

Fair enough. Will you move all of their posts or ask nicely to change the sig? What if the user is banned?

AFAIK no moderator is able to directly influence the signature of another user. However, in this case they would be breaking the rules and thus they would be warned and asked to remove it. When a user gets banned their signature will get removed (this is a 'recent' change), and thus they could just be "re-banned" which would remove their signature. This is generally the work area of global moderators, but this is how it could be handled (from my perspective).

Thanks. Just making sure there aren't obvious loopholes. I already reported the BST thread in my sig to get moved because it has dox in the OP and much more further down the thread. Since the sig itself doesn't dox anyone I think that should be good enough.

[Quickseller]

How will the custom Google search (found in between help and donate) handle threads in the investigations section?

[theymos]

Do you think this would meet this criteria (also this thread should probably be moved)? Would this ("...go away or I post your dox...")?

I don't know enough about those cases to say. If you think so, create a new topic in Meta with your reasoning.

I would argue that this probably meets the criteria for an exception -- this guy has scammed many people for a large total amount over a very long time.

For now, I'm thinking that maybe the whole idea of publishing dox should be reexamined. What does it really gain? If people are going to use the dox to illegally harass this person, then that's not a good result. If people are using the information for legal cases and police reports, then that is good, but I think that in most cases this can be done from the non-public Investigations board.

On a case-by-case basis, I'd like to see a utilitarian argument in Meta about exactly what is gained by publishing specific bits of uncovered info. For example, maybe there is significant utility in publishing this person's name and general location, to warn others, but not his full address. Another thing which must be addressed is how we can be sure that the person being doxxed is the person who did the scamming, and that they are actually guilty of the scamming. I certainly don't want to return to the scammer tag era of me single-handedly deciding these things. After a few of these cases are hammered out in Meta, perhaps a uniform policy will emerge.

Theymos
Say there is a thread in "Service Announcements" promoting a scheme which appears suspicious, posted by username XYZ.
A bit of research done perfectly legally by searching publically available data linked to XYZ and his scheme on company names, addresses and other info provided in that thread shows that in real life XYZ is John Doe, with an MO of questionable practices/outright scams/failed enterprises.
Will this new initiative prevent posts in that thread linking XYZ to John Doe and asking whether or not this is him and his history?
Instead, should I post a new thread in "Investigations" and crosslinks in the two threads? Will this be acceptable?

Yes, cross-linking is good. Post your conclusions in Scam Accusations (eg. x is an alt of y, x has a history of scamming, etc.), but keep the investigations themselves in Investigations. My idea is that trustworthy members will export any important information about alts, trustworthiness, etc. from Investigations, while keeping the actual private information in a non-public section.

Is this an indication of your personal view of the (lack of) importance and desirability of these type of posts?

No, that's just where it ontologically belongs.

If someone has dox in their signature do we report one post or all posts and how will moderators deal with that?

Report one of their posts. If they don't have any posts, post in Meta about it.

When a user is autobanned (ie. a specific type of permaban initiated by moderators, but then put in place automatically), their signature is cleared. If a user doesn't deserve a permaban, then either they can be autobanned and unbanned by one of the mods with manual-ban permissions, or else an admin can adjust their signature directly.

How will the custom Google search (found in between help and donate) handle threads in the investigations section?

They'll be deindexed a while after being moved.

[tspacepilot]

1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), ...
2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox ...

I assume there's an exception here if you're posting your own dox.

[Quickseller]

They'll be deindexed a while after being moved.

The search page encourages people to use the google search. So if a person who is a full member, were to be doing a trade with "John Smith" from "Springfield" and this person is sending a Western Union payment and expects to receive Bitcoin in return, then this person might use the custom Google search to search for "John Smith Springfield" then the Custom Google search will come back with no results, even if there is a thread in investigations warning people that "John Smith" from Springfield has scammed many people for smallish amounts each (all adding up to a large sum).

[theymos]

The search page encourages people to use the google search. So if a person who is a full member, were to be doing a trade with "John Smith" from "Springfield" and this person is sending a Western Union payment and expects to receive Bitcoin in return, then this person might use the custom Google search to search for "John Smith Springfield" then the Custom Google search will come back with no results, even if there is a thread in investigations warning people that "John Smith" from Springfield has scammed many people for smallish amounts each (all adding up to a large sum).

Yeah, only public sections are indexed by Google. If you're looking for something in Investigations, you'll have to use the forum's built-in search.

[Quickseller]

But you are telling people that the Google search is recommended. Maybe you could add some kind of disclaimer that users should use the forum search when looking up "real" names, and to specifically not use the google search for these searches.

[theymos]

OK, I changed the text.