Re: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information
You did in fact destroy the value of the other user's property. Normally if you just found this information out via investigation that wouldn't be an issue. The problem is you explicitly used deception and violated an agreement with the user in order to obtain the information to do so. Just calling it "non-confidential information" is meaningless. Rights end where the rights of another begin. Just because you don't like people selling accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to commit fraud to do so.
I agree with Techshare that value was destroyed.
It is a bit like someone selling cocaine and it getting seized because they get busted. Or someone blackmailing someone and publishing the details so they have nothing to blackmail with anymore.
Not something that I particularly sympathize with.
Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud.
I also agree with Techshare on this.
Account sales (unless the account is stolen) are "deception" but not necessarily a fraud using the definition provided by TECHSHARE
However - if you use the alternative definition in the dictionary:
Quote
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
Then it is "fraud".
You used deceit to obtain this information, you made an agreement, then you destroyed his property which he has a legal right to. That is fraud.
This is where I disagree with TECSHARE
Deception was used but it was not fraud (Using TECHSHARES definition of fraud) . I do not believe a contract was made. The evidence that I have seen is where there was an attempt by an account seller to sell an account that he didn't own / no longer owned (potential fraud).
However if you use the alternative definitions there was fraudulent representation.
There was an invitation to treat / inquiry by the buyer. There was an offer on occasions but there was no acceptance of terms agreed by both parties - so no contract.
I covered that in more detail here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.msg51571002#msg51571002
You were given clearly confidential information based on the agreement you would make a purchase if you were made privy to that information. Your "rescinding" talk is just you wishing you could modify the terms after the fact, that is not how contracts work. The accounts now are valueless to the seller, which was the entire intent of you exposing them. You intentionally caused him loss of property value. This is by your own admission, now you are trying to use semantics to cover up this fact.
In order for there to be a contract to keep it confidential there has to be consideration and mutually accepted terms. There was no consideration or mutually accepted terms so it cannot be considered to be a contract. By the seller providing clearly false information in some of the cases it can also be argued that the seller was in breach of any contract if there was one.
The problem here is you made an agreement to gain this information. Just because you claim you had good intents is meaningless. You aren't some how special and allowed to have your own set of rules because you think your intent was well meaning. You want to get rid of this flag? Pay the man for the accounts you destroyed, ask for forgiveness from the seller, and I will advocate for you as you have remedied the damage you have caused.
All your double talk right now is just making you look more like you are full of shit. You fucked up, next time don't make agreements you don't intend to uphold. The fidelity of the trust system is more important than your compulsion to abuse it to punish people trading in goods you do not approve of.
I do agree that private sting operations are not a good idea. Police sting operations often have stringent rules and can be inadmissible under certain circumstances.