Maybe the Mint is doing something about bots

MorganMan94

My friend sent me a screenshot that he saw this on FB today

Kliao

Wow. The mint is actually taking action. Nice!

ɹoʇɔǝlloɔ

F I N A L L Y

TurtleCat

It may help with the next item down the road. I wonder how that person got a screen shot, though? That would have to have been shared by someone who is either guilty of using those bots or inadvertently flagged like those who were part of the DDOS attack last Thursday...

derryb

I'm noticing a lot of extra steps lately to complete a Paypal login. I'm getting good at counting bicycles, crosswalks, buses, traffic lights and bridges. Even when I get it right I get a followup series of characters to retype.

MsMorrisine

yeah, could be wrongly flagged.

I got captcha'd and the "banned" messages.

MorganMan94

@TurtleCat said:
It may help with the next item down the road. I wonder how that person got a screen shot, though? That would have to have been shared by someone who is either guilty of using those bots or inadvertently flagged like those who were part of the DDOS attack last Thursday...

That I don't know, I am going off what my friend sent me he saw on FB. The email is addressed to Bob and the poster is Shayne.

MetroD

I am NOT a fan of 'bots'. Notwithstanding, I was not aware that their use was illegal, except for tickets (i.e., The U.S. BOTS Act of 2016).

Anyone know if this threat of legal action is legitimate, and if so, the potential penalty?

TurtleCat

It would likely be against the terms of service, although I don’t imagine there would be any real penalty other than banning from purchase and/or IP Blacklist.

Weather11am

This is awesome!

MsMorrisine

the mint isn't playing around with hollow threats

jmlanzaf

Based on my experience in the last 7 days, the Mint is taking action against all buyers.

MetroD

@MsMorrisine said:
the mint isn't playing around with hollow threats

Did not mean to imply that the threat of legal action, if legitimate, was "hollow". Was just curious about the potential penalty. For example site ban, fine, etc.

jmlanzaf

@MetroD said:

@MsMorrisine said:
the mint isn't playing around with hollow threats

Did not mean to imply that the threat of legal action, if legitimate, was "hollow". Was just curious about the potential penalty. For example site ban, fine, etc.

I don't think they can go beyond a site ban. As far as I know, there are no laws broken. They can't very well fine you for breaking their terms of service. I mean, they could try, but they would have no legal authority to collect.

jmlanzaf

Nothing at all about bots here:

https://www.usmint.gov/policies/terms-of-use

derryb

@MetroD said:

Anyone know if this threat of legal action is legitimate, and if so, the potential penalty?

Well, it is a government website.

MetroD

@TurtleCat said:
It would likely be against the terms of service, although I don’t imagine there would be any real penalty other than banning from purchase and/or IP Blacklist.

@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think they can go beyond a site ban. As far as I know, there are no laws broken. They can't very well fine you for breaking their terms of service. I mean, they could try, but they would have no legal authority to collect.

Thank you for the responses.

foraiur

They could very easily pursue legal action and that would get quite expensive. It would also result in the personal information getting widely distributed. Not my area of expertise but they might try to stretch the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to argue repetitive requests cause damage. Some of the laws are really broad. In general with the fraud angle I think it's anyone who got multiple coins that is at real risk.

JBK

Good news but are we sure they properly identified the bots.

foraiur

This is from EFF. People are deluding themselves if they think the government can't come at you if it decides to make an example of an activity.

"The CFAA is the federal anti-hacking law. Among other things, this law makes it illegal to intentionally access a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization; however, the law does not explain what "without authorization" actually means. The statute does attempt to define "exceeds authorized access," but the meaning of that phrase has been subject to considerable dispute. While the CFAA is primarily a criminal law intended to reduce the instances of malicious hacking, a 1994 amendment to the bill allows for civil actions to be brought under the statute.

Creative prosecutors have taken advantage of this confusion to bring criminal charges that aren't really about hacking a computer, but instead target other behavior prosecutors dislike. For example, in cases like United States v. Drew and United States v. Nosal the government claimed that violating a private agreement or corporate policy amounts to a CFAA violation."

Dollar2007

Looks fake to me. Doubt the mint would write an email like that. And would they really program their email to use first name? They don’t even ask them to discontinue use first.

lkeigwin

I vote fake too. The wording is overly aggressive and threatening, intended to scare.
Lance.

derryb

"The bot ate my homework."

jmlanzaf

@foraiur said:
This is from EFF. People are deluding themselves if they think the government can't come at you if it decides to make an example of an activity.

"The CFAA is the federal anti-hacking law. Among other things, this law makes it illegal to intentionally access a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization; however, the law does not explain what "without authorization" actually means. The statute does attempt to define "exceeds authorized access," but the meaning of that phrase has been subject to considerable dispute. While the CFAA is primarily a criminal law intended to reduce the instances of malicious hacking, a 1994 amendment to the bill allows for civil actions to be brought under the statute.

Creative prosecutors have taken advantage of this confusion to bring criminal charges that aren't really about hacking a computer, but instead target other behavior prosecutors dislike. For example, in cases like United States v. Drew and United States v. Nosal the government claimed that violating a private agreement or corporate policy amounts to a CFAA violation."

Hmmm....that's interesting. It is also disturbing. Couldn't you make the same argument about sniping software on auction sites?

SIowhand

@Dollar2007 said:
Looks fake to me. Doubt the mint would write an email like that. And would they really program their email to use first name? They don’t even ask them to discontinue use first.

I agree. That notice did not come from a competent attorney.

airplanenut

@SIowhand said:

@Dollar2007 said:
Looks fake to me. Doubt the mint would write an email like that. And would they really program their email to use first name? They don’t even ask them to discontinue use first.

I agree. That notice did not come from a competent attorney.

So you’re saying it came from the government? 😁

Pedzola

"Legal action will be taken upon you"

Seems legit.

BJandTundra

From the looks of it someone is getting scammed. Either Bob or, us.

ricko

That is - IMO - a phony notice. Not even close to legal phrasing and terminology. Cheers, RickO

ms71

As somebody noted, the "Dear Bob" is a dead giveaway. You don't get legal notices from the guv'mint addressed "Dear Bob".

Swampboy

"...legal action will be taken upon you."
read
"Lament! The Gurkhas are upon you!"