[DownToBrassTacksAgain]

Hi.

After a long absence on the forum I had the foolish idea to login again, specifically to message member /u/AngieJ, who recently wrote a few posts relevant to issues I've tried to solve for quite a while. Since said member had blocked private messages, I sent a PGP encrypted message as a dump.li link in reply to a recent post.
In "reply", said member immediately posted my entire message unencrypted as a public comment, "for those looking" (which includes... well you know...).

When I started my reply (below) that post was still "pending moderation", it only appeared as I was about to send said reply. Quite astonishingly, moderators of the /d/CafeDread sub-forum seem to have deemed this okay to approve.

So I am adamantly requesting that you remove that comment ASAP, and I would strongly suggest to consider appropriate sanctions for such reckless behaviour. Regardless of what you think of the content of my message to /u/AngieJ, this is a very dangerous precedent if you let this fly.

I'm going to send this to /d/darknetmarkets too, since it's quite a bit of a concern for the general "ecosystem" if some "VIP" members can now be allowed to overturn the sanctity of PGP encryption, for sheer "entertainment value".

Thank you.


[Paris]

Ya that isn't how any of this works. You sent a message like that to a known troll and got trolled. And you want us to remove it? For what? Him to post it all again and make it more known. He didn't dox you or anything. Just made you look back from your own words.


[DownToBrassTacksAgain]

Well, although it does not meet the definition of "doxxing" strictly speaking, this act of "trolling" as you say is most definitely covered by the *purpose* of the "no-dox" rule:
"Doxing exposes individuals to real-world dangers, such as harassment, violence, identity theft, or law enforcement targeting, which undermines the anonymity and safety essential to our darknet community."

Private and/or encrypted messages are meant to be seen only by their intended recipient. That's gotta be a somewhat more important rule than forbidding "mass downvotes" or "derailing conversations with off-topic comments", dontcha think? If you can't enforce such basic, ironclad principles, all the other rules are worthless, as there can be no "safety" and no "community" to speak of. I, for sure, no longer feel safe here. Perhaps I screwed up, but the consequences could be far more severe than a mere inconvenience. And yet you seem to think that it's "fair game".

Besides, how come a "known troll" has their own sub? Aren't sub-forum owners and moderators held to a higher standard of rigor and decency?

/u/DaVenom, moderator at /d/OpSec, replied that it was "nasty" and encouraged me to report that comment, but based on your reply, I doubt that it will accomplish anything... So what will?

"For what? Him to post it all again and make it more known."
The latest reply seemed to imply that the "known troll" in question is kinda aware of having crossed a line and somewhat amenable to acknowledging it. [...]
(Unless it's a wicked way of playing jiu-jitsu with the rules, pretending to be a good boy for a while, while knowing that whatever happens the harm is already done... since it's common knowledge that Darknet forums are actively watched and archived by LEA...)

I'm only asking you to remove this, then I won't attempt to talk to anyone on that forum ever again. I got the message now, loud and clear.


[Paris]

Again that is not how any of this works. This entire forum is a free speech area. He showcased your, in my view, very poor blackmail/extortion activities. After asking him for $15, help setting up an email server and, windows Whonix VM in a way which is fucking crazy.

You are asking for his kindness but you open with hostility, frame his help as mandatory, demanding his money and technical assistance, and honestly is just manipulative throughout the whole message. The may you made the request for him was coercive and hostile.

I get your desperation and difficult circumstances. But the idea that we would remove this because your stupid request got posted is CRAZY. You need to get your head out of your ass and realize nobody is required to help you with shit. You are not the boss of anyone.

This is the darknet. You are with criminals here. You don't feel safe here anymore? Are you fucking kidding me man?

This is my tough love to you. I would suggest not responding and taking it kind. At least I won't be like Angie and post your poor manipulation attempts in public.


[DownToBrassTacksAgain]

= My bad =

I'm well aware that I screwed up, but what you interpret as "manipulation" and "coertion" and "hostility" was merely meant as a goofy premise (bookended by a goofy movie quote -- how the fuck could this be interpreted as serious hostility?!), based on a very poor assessment of that individual's character [...], itself based on several past exchanges (I also stressed that this individual had been among the very few halfway helpful and encouraging on this forum, but that was nearly a year ago, with a former account -- I very foolishly thought that by coming across as bold and "mean", in a tongue-in-cheek way, I'd have better odds of being heard than by begging... if only to elicit a blunt "go fuck yourself", which I foolishly thought was the most I was risking by doing that... my bad, my really really big fucking bad...).

= Safety and "free speech" =

Re: safety: see the bit I quoted from your forum's rules: "THE ANONYMITY AND SAFETY ESSENTIAL TO OUR DARKNET COMMUNITY". Those rules should apply to *everyone*, even if you don't like their activities, or their manners. If encryption does not grant a "reasonable expectation of privacy" under any circumstance, then it's pointless, and the whole ecosystem falls apart, there can't be even a tiny modicum of mutual trust if such a thing is allowed to happen so casually, merely to teach a lesson with "tough love". Free speech does not encompass snitching.
You realize the full extent of the consequences, don't you? You do realize that, based on the amount of specific details in that message, meant as private then "exposed", very perversely, "for those looking", it could be the basis of an investigation, even if I stop everything now, and even though I didn't earn a damn dime out of it? (It would be foolish to elaborate further since there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" over here...)
That's gotta be the new rule now: it's a free speech area (but discussing suicidal toughts is forbidden [...] because we are not equipped to provide "specialized counseling", GTFO to the nearest psych ward and take their good pills to forget about your pain as well as your identity...), we are criminals (but if we don't like your type of gig and/or your manners we are going to "expose" you and actively help LEA track your sorry ass...). If that's how it is, then acknowledge it, make a damn post about it: everybody should be aware that there ain't no "reasonable expectation of privacy" anymore on the fucking Darknet! Or else you'll have to explain why that insanely harsh punishment is reserved for me only... (Or why you don't seem to care about the opinion of one of your most respected moderators, the only person who expressed genuine support on this matter.)

= Good crimes / bad crimes =

Re: my activities: you have entire sub-sections of this forum devoted to indiscriminate types of crimes (malware, social engineering...) which inflict very real harm to random people; I personally find this way more despicable than targeting specifically people who have serious dirt to hide (and who, I know it for a fact, barely get a slap on the wrist when they are exposed and convicted). And I'm not reckless: several times I had to back off because a prospective partner found on this forum was behaving like a full-blown sociopath. Should I "expose" them all "for those looking"?
Anyway, I respect your opinion on the matter. But as much as I resent the kinds of indiscriminate scams I described, I would never have "exposed" the content of a private conversation where someone asked me to provide help in that kind of business, even if I didn't like their manners...
Make a poll on that matter -- I can't, now whatever I say will only bring more attention to that thing, as you aptly remarked... Ask if the "reasonable expectation of privacy" of private communication on this forum should be unconditional, or only apply to those we consider "good criminals". (Or I can make an alt account, quote you verbatim and ask if everyone is comfortable with that stance of yours... I would prefer not to, but please understand that I have to try everything I can to resolve this, for my own sake, with very little support and very limited means. And no, what I request is not "CRAZY", again, it's consistent with your own rules, which explicitly forbid much tamer forms of harassment.)

= Consistency =

Besides, it's woefully inconsistent: I got an account banned for a single post in /d/Jobs4Crypto which mentioned a fraction of what's in that message, asked for an explanation, got this from /u/HugBunter:
"Your post describes targeting a specific real life individual and indirectly could suggest harm to them (which can be broad to cover financial harm too). Anything that involves a real world identity, especially under the context of that post, will not be allowed here."
Then how can this be alright to have this on public view "for those looking", for the sole purpose of humiliating me and exposing me to "real-world dangers"?
[...]