Quote from: shorena on January 27, 2017, 08:38:24 PM

I strongly disagree. Extortion is evil[1][2] and should be punished.
[...]

[2] QS also send me a well constructed argument as to why no information gained this way can be reliable. Maybe they are willing to repost this here for everyone to read.

Quote from: qs

>Basics of extortion -
>In order to attempt to extort a victim, a criminal will need to at least claim
>to have information that the victim will not want to be released, (or could
>threaten to do an act [that is usually illegal] that the victim does not want
>the criminal to do). The extortionist does not need to actually possess such
>information (or have the ability to do the threatened act).

>The criminal can threaten to release information that ranges from something
>very vague, something very specific that is untrue that the victim does not
>want released, something very specific that is true that the victim does not
>want released, something specific (true or untrue) that the victim does not
>care if it gets released, among other things.

>Theoretical success of extortion attempts -
>I would speculate that an extortion attempt that threatens to expose criminal
>activity would be the most effective. The logic behind this theory is that
>exposing criminal activity would likely have a very broad ranging effect on a
>persons life; for example, serious criminal charges would likely affect a
>person financially as they would need to pay to mount a defense (and/or
>attempt a plea bargain), and potentially pay fines/court costs, would affect
>a persons future ability to earn money as they may both lose their job as a
>result of even a criminal charge, and a criminal conviction may affect their
>ability to get a new job, would affect their relationships with
>friends/family, as these people may not want to associate with someone with
>a criminal past, and could obviously affect the victims freedom as they
>might be at risk of jail time.

>If you compare this to something like an extortionist telling a victims wife
>that the victim is having an affair, or telling the victims boss that the
>victim is drinking on the job, the scope of the potential damage is much
>more limited.

>Making good on an extortion threat -
>A criminal might threaten to release some information if some amount of money
>is not paid. Neither the information to be released nor the amount of money
>needs to be specific when making the extortion threat. The criminal may or
>may not communicate a specific deadline. If the victim has not paid a
>satisfactory extortion payment by the (stated or unstated) deadline, then
>the criminal may release the information they have on the victim, however
>if the criminal does this then the victim no longer has any incentive to pay.
>A criminal may get around this problem by releasing only a portion of the
>victims information. The classic example of this in pop culture is a
>criminal threatening to kill the victims wife if he does not disclose the
>location of the treasure and when the victim does not initially give up
>this information, the criminal will seriously hurt (but not kill) the
>victims wife in order to give the victim additional time to change his mind.

>Paying an extortion payment -
>The fact that someone makes an extortion payment does not necessarily mean
>that the information claimed to be in possession of by the criminal is true.
>I had posted a couple of reasons why a victim may pay an extortion payment
>when untrue information is being threatened to be released. Another reason
>why someone may pay an extortion payment is that they are on parole, and a
>persons parole office receiving a report of criminal activity by the victim
>may result in the victim going back to jail while this claim can be
>investigated. As a result of this,
...
>I would not consider the fact that
>someone paid an extortion payment an admission that the information used
>to extort the victim is true.

>Using extortion as an investigative tool -
>As discussed above, evidence of an extortion payment is not evidence of
>guilt. Furthermore, someone that an investigator believes is guilty, but
>needs the (invalid) evidence of a suspect making an extortion payment is
>still very innocent by any reasonable measure - this is not a situation
>where evidence of guilt has not yet been presented to a court (otherwise
>this evidence would not be necessary), this is a situation where the
>investigator is not in possession of conclusive evidence of guilt - as a
>result of this, if an investigator were to use extortion as an
>investigative tool, they would be potentially extorting an innocent person,
>which will violate the suspects due process rights. In conclusion, using
>extortion as an investigative tool will potentially yield flimsy evidence at
>best, and will potentially harm an innocent victim, while violating the
>victims due process rights along the way.

>Making a sworn encrypted statement confirming proceeds of extortion will
>not profit self -
>As discussed above, I believe threatening to release information about a
>persons criminal activity is the most likely to result in an extortion
>payment being paid, and as a result of this, I would speculate that
>extortion threatening to expose criminal behavior is the most common form
>of extortion. If any random citizen could make a sworn statement that the
>proceeds of an extortion attempt would not result in a profit for the
>extortionist, then this would be a loophole in the law. Notaries do not
>retain copies of documents they notarize and almost always will not even
>look at the document they are notarizing beyond the fact that the person
>signing is in fact the person they are saying signed the document. A
>criminal make this sworn statement, attempt to extort several people who
>they think might be a criminal, then use that statement as a get out of
>jail free card when one of the extortionists victims go to the police.
>There is no mechanism in place to enforce this sworn statement, nor is there
>a mechanism in place to prevent the criminal from destroying the document
>containing the sworn statement if the extortion is successful (and at which
>point the victim is unlikely to complaint to the police). Additionally,
>there is no way for anyone to decrypt the encrypted message, so there would
>never be anyone looking for proof that the extortionist did not profit from
>the extortion attempt if it was successful. In conclusion, I see this kind
>of statement to be little more than something that the extortionist plans
>on using to protect themselves in the event that the extortion attempt is
>unsuccessful.

>Laudas self admission of trolling those that are vulnerable -
>There are chat logs
>(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1397579.msg16071901#msg16071901)
>that capture Lauda bragging about trolling those that he feels are vulnerable.
>Someone engaged in criminal activity that is hidden would likely be
>vulnerable by Laudas definition, and attempting to extort someone would
>fit this MO.

>What I think happened -
>I think that Lauda, et al., were speaking to zeroaxl on slack, telling him
>that they had evidence of criminal activity (zeroaxl told me that they
>claimed they had evidence that he hacked bitfinex, MtGox, ran ponzis, ran
>botnet(s), among other things). At one point in the conversation, zeroaxl is
>asked to admit to his criminal activity, which he declines to do, and Lauda,
>et al., reiterate the information they have against him, and tell him they
>are considering to contact the police about his criminal behavior. Lauda
>then sends zeroaxl an encrypted message asking for a cut of the proceeds
>of zeroaxls criminal proceeds. Lauda, et al., inform zeroaxl via slack of
>the potential consequences of his activity that include being unable to
>trade on bitcointalk and HackForums. minifrig (this is intentionally not
>Lauda) first opens a thread claiming that zeroaxl is evading a ban, and
>should get banned - this is used to install fear that zeroaxl will not be
>able to continue to trade on bitcointalk. zeroaxl reads Laudas message and
>opens a scam accusation against Lauda, but not before TMAN starts writing a
>new scam accusation against zeroaxl. TMAN finishes writing the scam
>accusation against zeroxal, and creates the thread not knowing about the
>scam accusation against Lauda. TMAN makes additional posts claiming to have
>zeroxals dox, and claiming to have even more damaging information than
>mentioned in Laudas original message - this is to install additional fear
>about the potential consequences of the police being contacted. (note that
>TMAN explicately did not release zeroaxls dox, preventing anyone else from
>potentially contacting the police about this criminal activity). An
>unknown party opens a negative thread about zeroaxl on hackforums (zeroaxl
>claimed that a thread was opened about him in HF but that he had a good
>enough reputation there for that not to matter). Lauda, minifrig and TMAN
>(probably among others) were conspiring to try to get zeroaxl to pay an
>extortion payment.

>I believe that the fact that TMAN made a thread summarizing evidence against
>zeroaxl and made many posts claiming to have his dox at around the same time
>lauda made the extortion demand is sufficiently clear evidence that TMAN was
>conspiring with Lauda to attempt to extort zeroaxl. This is further supported
>by the fact that all three threads were edited to a blank OP, and locked at
>almost the same time, and that all three threads were moved to archival (and
>well out of sight) at almost the exact same time. The timing of minfrigs
>thread also makes it appear that he was part of the conspiracy, although
>the lack of claiming to have explicit negative information about zeroaxl
>weakens this link.

>I acknowledge that the link for TMAN and minfrig is not rock solid, however
>it is very unusual for someone who has not actively scammed someone, and who
>has not recently made a mistake in exposing himself in some way to have
>multiple threads (plus an extortion attempt) made about him in the span of a
>few hours. The only times that I have seen multiple threads being opened at
>the same time in that short of a timespan is when someone has very recently
>scammed multiple people or when someone has given out many inaccurate
>negative trust ratings - at least thinking back to the last 18 months or so.

Regarding minifrij's involvement:
Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1761133.msg17604583#msg17604583) minifrij confirms that he did as he was asked (in reference to deleting his first thread). Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1761133.msg17598908#msg17598908) minifrij says that he was aware of the evidence that was used as part of the extortion. It doesnt look like he admitted to knowing about the extortion at the time he made the first thread, but I get the impression that he did (to give him the benefit of the doubt, we can say that he did not). According to this (https://bitcointalk.org/gettopics.php?user=138940) minifrij has not created any threads reporting someone to be evading a ban in the past.

To summarize the above:
-The first time minifrij ever opened a thread about someone evading a ban was to report zeroaxl evading a ban
-Lauda/TMAN/others attempted to extort zeroaxl
-Both zeroaxl and TMAN open threads accusing each other of scamming
-zeroaxl asks that all threads be taken down so that he can negotiate with Lauda/TMAN
-minifrij removes his thread
-minifrij reopens his thread

If some of the specifics of the facts are changed, but the principal remains the same, then it would read as follows:
-Corrupt FBI agent A asks citizen X for money, or else he will bring up bogus charges against citizen Xs daughter
-FBI agent A opens a grand jury investigation on citizen Xs daughter, starts to present bogus evidence against her and makes citizen X aware of this
-FBI agent B pulls over citizen Xs daughter for speeding, who also does not have a drivers license on her
-FBI agents A and B are peers, and neither has any authority over the other
-FBI agent B does not normally pull people over for speeding
-citizen X, being aware of both the bogus grand jury investigation and the pending arrest of his daughter for driving without a license, asks FBI agent A to stop everything regarding his daughter so he can negotiate
-FBI agent B, at FBI agent As request, lets citizen Xs daughter go without a ticket
-two days later, FBI agent B arrests citizen Xs daughter for driving without a license when he originally pulled her over (she was not driving at the time of the arrest)
-What is FBI agent Bs involvement?