> ... trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers.
> Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme.
Are you really trying to frame some extortionists/scammers as honest and some as dishonest? How about they all are criminals, extorting money as they do from random people, they don't care about?
Some scammers can be honest. You might say "Transfer X amount of money to me. If you don't, you can never get your data back". Saying and acting on that doesn't make you dishonest, it makes you an asshole.
That depends on your definition. Googling brings up
"dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief"
Thus I think a scammer can be called dishonest.
A trivial application of the principle of charity makes it obvious that the meaning here intended is 'truthful'. Splitting semantic hairs rather than discussing substance benefits no one.
Substantial discussion without accurate semantics is impossible, whereas splitting semantic hairs is substantial discussion in its own right. And the hairsplitting accuracy is necessary because the literal question of good and evil is hardly insignificant.
Re:The No More Ransom Project
by kwhitefoot on Tuesday November 01, 2016 @03:51AM
(#12844051)
It is not insignificant but it is not the point of this discussion. The word honest was being used in a restricted context. One might argue that trustworthy might be a better word in this context but the meaning was clear nonetheless.
>The word honest was being used in a restricted context
That seems to be the problem, then. Call it a restricting context and we are back to the matters of good and evil.
Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Traditionally this would be breaking people's knees, and I imagine well-organized cyber crime boils down to the same thing in the end.