Question to Kvinna

[miranda]

I am not an attorney. I presume you are NOT an attorney - are you? But I believe you are only partially-correct about the photos.

For example, do you think Paris Hilton or Britney Spears - or any of hundreds of other celebrities have given their permission for their photos to be published? Britney even had VERY sensitive photos taken recently - and published on the internet - and I understand those are perfectly legal.

No, I am not an attorney. (yet)
If one will post a pic of Paris Hilton and will say she is a scamer, then he will end bad.  This is the difference. You can post personal pics without permission only if you don't say that that person is a scammer. Only police and official criminal data base can post pics of scammers or criminals. Are you a police or an official agency? You only can write a story or discuss about scam. But no photos. And you don;t need to be a lawyer to know that. You probably know how many celebrities sued magazines because they wrote something that is not a true or a celebrity doesn;t want to see that information there. It is their right. So all those pics of real or not real scammer broke the law.

if someone COPIES the photo from one site and posts it elsewhere

If he copies from the original site. But how he can be sre that it is an original site? I saw many websites with stolen pics and information and there were "All rights reserved" there!  So they steal information and say it is an original.  It is an internet. By the way, I saw some black-list sites and they all have the same pics.  Whic one is orignal site? 
I don't like an idea to make a black list. It doesn;t stop scammers. They will use different pics. It is so easy to steal pics now. But girls who are on those pics can have big problems. I heard many stories about girls who posted a profile on a dating site and then finished in the black list. Those pics were stollen and girls did nothing to be there. Men found those pics in the black list and how, tell me, can that girl prove that she is not a scammer? If those black-lists can injure normal women, then they have to be deleted all!
By the way, I read about black-listswho just steal pics and say they are scammers. They do it because they need a data bese so people will think it is a good black list. Is it normal?
Your luck those women are in far. If they would be americans, those sites will pay so many hehe. Will not have money for hosting. 

You see - it is (in my opinion), not clearly as black-and-white as you suggest.

If it comes about celebrities, yes. But if it comes about scamers and not scammers, you CAN NOT post those pics because it breaks the law. No one can call somebody a scammer till police did it. 

[miranda]

I meant that if you post a girl's photo on youe site and say she IS a scammer, you may end up PUBLICLY accusing someone of doing a crime while this girl may be a married mother of three and know nothing about scammers and Internet dating. When someone post Britney's photo, they don't accuse her of being a bank robber or a scammer or a prostitute, right? But on your site and sites like your they often may accuse innocent women of being a criminal/scammer. What can you say about this? How can you know that someone whose photo hungs here is a criminal? Did you meet with that girl and grab her hand? Did she demand money from you under gun point? Are you 105% sure that it was THIS girl who scammed you? You can't be sure most of the times. That's why I think that your ways of fighting scammers isn't totally correct although I give you a credit for trying to fight those scoundrels becuase these jerks discredit all Russian girls. I don't see anything bad when a scam scenario is revealed, be it a book or a website like yours. It doesn't matter HOW it is revealed and for some people it might be easier to watch a movie like "Dirty rotten scoundrels" than read a boring report on some forum and sift throught hundreds of posts in looking for information. It doesn't matter HOW you or other people reveal about the scam tactiks but posting someone's photo who may actually not be a scammer and not even know that her photo is stolen, is not a right way to fight scammers. Because scammers often use someone's else photos. I think that a real scammer won't even use his own photo. Do you see the difference between telling others about scammers and accusing a girl from a photo of being a scammer? No cort in the world, if it is a right court, will say that you're right and those girls are scammers. In Russia there is a saying: Not caught, not a thief. If you didn't catch this particular gril FROM A PHOTO by hand, you have NO RIGHT to accuse her. Accuse a scammer who did it but first make sure that scammer is actually the girl from the photo. Do you see the difference?

[Bruno]

breaking a law by posting personal photos without permission... Prove me wrong.

Just review several law about privacy and internet...

... online exposures of personal information have been seen as justified as exposing malfeasance ...

I think that spammer, troll, scamer, etc ... can be called malfeasance...

In any case, antiscam site can fall under laws like these about "public interest" or these about "freedom of information"...

I posted here a part from that book and it was deleted because the "copyright" law.

Not really... the part that you have publish can be find on the internet, it is from public domain... but the site that publish these part have maybe a own copyright...

About your photo posted here ( or your post )... if you have read the term and condition of the forum, once posted, they become propriety of the forum... If you really wish privacy, simply use your own host server and post a link... delete the photo on your host server, and it will dissappear from the internet...

For information :

The Internet Privacy Act is a non-existent law cited by file-sharing, warez and peer-to-peer networks in order to deter anti-P2P organizations such as the RIAA. Networks which share music, films and software often invoke the act to attempt to protect themselves, claiming that it prevents the organizations from entering the site or network as it would breach the terms of the act. According to the networks, it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1995, but in reality he never signed the act as it never existed.

Seem that "criminal" use the term "privacy" for protect themself 

[Bruno]

In Russia there is a saying: Not caught, not a thief.

And here, we have law who allow capture suspect because of capable of the fact... something new who have appear after problem with terrorism... no more need to wait that the crime is make... a arrest is possible if enough information lead a judge to think that a crime is in preparation...

[miranda]

Bruno, you can believe what you want.

Can anyone tell me one thing? Let's make things clear. Is this an American site? What country's law does it follow? As far as I know, in America the law says the same: Not caught, not a thief. No court will accuse a girl to be a scammer if it can't prove she is one. No judge in his right mind will ever do that. Scammers are not terrorists. I don't know what country you live in and what your country law say but I know what it says in Russia and America. And since most of scammed men are from America, and I believe that this forum is also American, you all should determine what law you HER ON THIS FORUM will follow. Otherwise you'll mess up and might end up in a trouble. And with the crime preparation, it is the same: have a judge issue you an order and then you have a right to accuse and prosecute an individual, if you are a police or a prosecuting agency. If you are not, then you better be careful what you're doing and saying. Because when you point at someone else your finger, 4 others are pointed toward you. So, first decide what law you follow here. Because in for example China you can get death penalty for 60 different crimes. In America those are very few. Should we all follow Chinese, American, German, Papua New Guine or what law?

[Admin]

Bruno, you can believe what you want.

Can anyone tell me one thing? Let's make things clear. Is this an American site? What country's law does it follow? As far as I know, in America the law says the same: Not caught, not a thief. No court will accuse a girl to be a scammer if it can't prove she is one. No judge in his right mind will ever do that. Scammers are not terrorists. I don't know what country you live in and what your country law say but I know what it says in Russia and America. And since most of scammed men are from America, and I believe that this forum is also American, you all should determine what law you HER ON THIS FORUM will follow. Otherwise you'll mess up and might end up in a trouble. And with the crime preparation, it is the same: have a judge issue you an order and then you have a right to accuse and prosecute an individual, if you are a police or a prosecuting agency. If you are not, then you better be careful what you're doing and saying. Because when you point at someone else your finger, 4 others are pointed toward you. So, first decide what law you follow here. Because in for example China you can get death penalty for 60 different crimes. In America those are very few. Should we all follow Chinese, American, German, Papua New Guine or what law?

This is a site hosted in America, by an American, and subject to American laws. More specifically, subject to the State of Colorado law.

You go on to talk about a "court" and a "judge" and "crime preparation" and "prosecute" - well, you see Miranda, RWD is NONE of those things. We are NOT a court, and we are NOT a judge, and we do NOT prosecute. This is merely a discussion board. As you can plainly see, the topics wander in many different directions - but they are ALL expected to be thematic.

If something is posted here which is defamatory or disparaging - the offended party has the right to notify me and in a reasonable time, I will take action (assuming, of course, there is merit to their complaint).

It is ALL posted in the Terms of Service which you agreed to follow when you registered for the board. Did you read those?

- Dan

[miranda]

If this board follows the Americal law, then according to the American law you have no right to accuse any of the individuals from the photos here for being a scammer because you don't have enoug evidence that these people are what you THINK they are. Do you agree with this?   

[Admin]

If this board follows the Americal law, then according to the American law you have no right to accuse any of the individuals from the photos here for being a scammer because you don't have enoug evidence that these people are what you THINK they are. Do you agree with this?   

Nope, I absolutely do NOT agree. I said it before, and I will repeat - this is NOT a court of law - we have NO police authority.

If someone chooses to post here - they are free to express their opinions, share their experiences - and so long as it falls within the Terms of Service of the board, they are most certainly welcome to post their thoughts and experiences.

Look Miranda - I am growing weary of this silly debate. If you feel something is illegal or untoward - by all means, take whatever steps you feel are appropriate.

Otherwise, you need to become a contributing member of the community - or find one where you are better-suited.

You asked a question about what is a "troll." Here is the link to wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

- Dan

[William3rd]

Apparently, this person has no idea what the burdens of proof are in American jurisprudence or how civil actions work. Everybody calls OJ a murderer even though he was found not guilty at trial and the same goes for the child molester Michael Jackson even though he was found not guilty. Embedded in our laws is the right to express opinions which is what we do on these boards.

As far as the "scammers" go, where there is smoke, there seems to be fire

[miranda]

Miranda,

I am not an attorney. I presume you are NOT an attorney - are you? But I believe you are only partially-correct about the photos.

For example, do you think Paris Hilton or Britney Spears - or any of hundreds of other celebrities have given their permission for their photos to be published? Britney even had VERY sensitive photos taken recently - and published on the internet - and I understand those are perfectly legal.

There are some interesting sites on the internet which describe what is, and what is NOT, allowed to be posted on the internet - and I think you are incorrect in your assertion about posting personal photos without permission. But then again, I would need to know exactly what your definition of "personal photos" is - and there are other factors which bear on the issue.

I also know that if someone COPIES the photo from one site and posts it elsewhere - that is, most probably, a violation of the original site's copyright (assuming they assert those rights).

You see - it is (in my opinion), not clearly as black-and-white as you suggest.

- Dan

I'm not going to sue or report you unless I see my photo here IF I didn't give you a permission to post it here. BUT I do agree that anyone is free to post here what they THINK and this means WORDS, and NOT PHOTOS. If someone wrote here "Someone scammed me and I think it was Paris Hilton", he is free to say it and Paris is free to sue him if she wants to and if she knows she did not scam him. Then the guy is in trouble to prove his words and may pay A LOT for blaming Paris of what she didn't do. I don't care. According to your Terms here anyone can write what they want, of course. If they accuse someone, THEY are responsible of false accusation, not you Dan. That's how I understand it. But since everything you post here is property of the site, then the owner must be also responsible for what is posted here. Especially if it is a FALSE accusation.
It looks like you try to make me look silly and avoid my questions about PHOTOS. I don't care what others SAY/WRITE about how they were scammed. In fact, that sort of stuff should be revealed for others to learn about scammer's strategy. I do agree with that part. What I kept saying and you kept avoiding to answer is when it comes to posting peoples' photos here. I asked several times if you see the difference and you said nothing about it. Are you afraid to talk about it and admit that you or others here are doing something illegal? Like I said, I agree with the fact that anyone can WRITE here what they think but they have no right to post photos of people becaue they don't have enough evidence that the people in photos ARE scammers. In fact, they may not even know WHO is in the photo. OK, here's example: I post your photo here and say: Dan is a scammer. He sent me THIS photo in his email and asked for money for his grandma's operation. But HOW do I know that the photo you sent me was you Dan? What if this is some country singer somewhere in a center of nowhere in America? I don't know that. The same thing with photos you post here. Those girls may be innocent and not even know that they are scammers. But one nice day suddenly they find their photos in a black list. You try to shield yourself with your terms of service and this way say that you're not responsible for any activity in this site, even if it breaks the law. This is a no-no thing and you're a big boy to understand it. A good lawyer can esily shake the last cent off you for false accusation. If one of those girls are married to an American now, and you may not know about that, and she finds her photo here, you're screwed. And your terms of service won't protect you. You know that and that's why you're avoiding to answer my questions about PHOTOS. I didn't ask you about what was WRITTEN here and people's opinions and stuff like this.

[miranda]

Guys, nothing personal, of course! I just want to find an answer. 

[miranda]

Embedded in our laws is the right to express opinions which is what we do on these boards.

Agree, opinions. But not pictures!

[Admin]

Guys, nothing personal, of course! I just want to find an answer. 

You will not find the answers you seek here. I have told you repeatedly that we are NOT a court - we are NOT the police - although we have a few attorneys who post here, none are going to provide you legal advice on an internet discussion board.

You need to find another 'source' for the "answer."

We are merely interpreting and following the laws, as best we are able. Your assertions about what is, and what is not, within the bounds of the law, ring hollow.

I am nearing the point where I conclude your objective here is to disrupt - and not to contribute.

- Dan

[Wayne]

Usually if someone wants to publish your photo, they pay you a small sum of money and then if it is accepted, you can legally publish that photo.  So just send a few dollars to the scammer and save the Western Union receipt.  If the person accepts the money, you can get a paper from Western Union showing this and your a ss is covered.

[miranda]

Usually if someone wants to publish your photo, they pay you a small sum of money and then if it is accepted, you can legally publish that photo.  So just send a few dollars to the scammer and save the Western Union receipt.  If the person accepts the money, you can get a paper from Western Union showing this and your a ss is covered.

This is stupid to say the least. Because you STILL have NO PROOF that the money you sent was for PUBLISHING a photo. In fact, this is a provocation and a false accusation again. Unless you have a written or verbal contract with the "scammer" to post his/her photo, you have no right to do so. Even if you have a WU receipt.

[miranda]

Setting someone up is a crime itself. Did you know that? If you have no order from a judge, you have no right to set anyone up and then accuse them of whatever. You can't even listen to someone's phone, even if you know he/she is a criminal, ULNES you have an order. 

[miranda]

Apparently, this person has no idea what the burdens of proof are in American jurisprudence or how civil actions work. Everybody calls OJ a murderer even though he was found not guilty at trial and the same goes for the child molester Michael Jackson even though he was found not guilty. Embedded in our laws is the right to express opinions which is what we do on these boards.

As far as the "scammers" go, where there is smoke, there seems to be fire

Did the COURT rule that OJ is not guilty? If it did, then he is not giuty. And it is not up to you to decide if he is or is not guilty. That's why there are courts. If you PUBLICLY accuse him of being a murdered, he has all rights to sue you for a false accusation, if he wants to. The same with Jackson. You must see the difference. The court believes that they are innocent men, so the only right for you to prove this wrong is to go to the court and argue it there. You do have a freedom of speech but if a court rules a person is innocent and you write somewhere that he is not, the accused man can prosecute you and the law will be on his side. You think you have a complete freedom of speech? Then yell "Bomb!" at the airport and I'll see what freedom you'll have.

I agree with "where there is smoke, there seems to be fire". But how can you prove that the person on the picture is a scammer? Maybe your words will crash her life? Did you think about the real person who doesn;t even know that she is a scammer? So think before you say something. I am 25 y.o. and if I am immature it is not too bad because I am too young to be wise. But when an older person say silly tings, then... 

[William3rd]

OJ wont sue anybody and neither will Michael because they cant make the burden of proof to win their case- and neither can your scammer friends.

Sorry darling- it is the ignore button for you. It has been entertaining but you should have spouted some pearls of wisdom long before this.

[Bruno]

So think before you say something. I am 25 y.o. and if I am immature it is not too bad because I am too young to be wise. But when an older person say silly tings, then... 

Miranda, you are maybe lawer student... but William3rd is already a confirmed lawer... maybe take some time for read these forum and know people before "shooting" on them...