News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The No More Ransom Project by ardacinar on Monday October 31, 2016 @06:18AM (#12835537)
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.
Re:The No More Ransom Project by cel1ne on Monday October 31, 2016 @06:38AM (#12835623)
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.

Re:The No More Ransom Project by throwanem on Monday October 31, 2016 @10:16AM (#12836854)
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.
Re:The No More Ransom Project by posterboy on Monday October 31, 2016 @02:14PM (#12839425)
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.
Re:The No More Ransom Project by posterboy on Thursday November 03, 2016 @03:18PM (#12867070)
>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.