> And how is that different than misuse of a third party service?
Because a purchase of, for example a server, is a one-time deal. The server is then in the hands of the scammer, and can be used for all kinds of ill intent and Dell for example has no way of knowing, and even if they knew, really don't have any recourse to address it.
A third party service, on the other hand, has an ongoing relationship with the scammer, assuredly having access to some form of payment details, some kind of ongoing communication in order to fulfill the service they're contracted to provide, and provide ongoing labor to that end which assists the scammer in, well, scamming.
> You seem to assume they aim to provide this service on purpose for illegal activity.
I'm saying they're not asking questions because the scammers checks are clearing, and I don't think that's right. That's what a lot of providers do, they provide the services, and even with ample evidence that everything isn't quite on the up and up, they just keep cashing the checks because why wouldn't they? I'm not even saying they're twirling their proverbial mustache here, I'm saying companies are inherently unethical, and only act ethically when mandated to. So let's mandate it.
> I'm saying they're not asking questions because the scammers checks are clearing, and I don't think that's right.
Where are you getting the information to assert that as fact? Or even as likely?
> I'm saying companies are inherently unethical, and only act ethically when mandated to. So let's mandate it.
If a company knows it's being used in a crime, then it's an accessory to the crime. We don't mandate ethics, we create laws. In this case, how is the law failing, beyond you asserting some situation is happening without providing any evidence?
Can you actually explain what we know to have been done wrong here, even ethically if not lawfully? All I've seen so far is a lot of accusations about what must be happening, when I see (and have provided) clear examples of how it might not be the case. Or should we just punish people and companies based on assumptions now?
Because a purchase of, for example a server, is a one-time deal. The server is then in the hands of the scammer, and can be used for all kinds of ill intent and Dell for example has no way of knowing, and even if they knew, really don't have any recourse to address it.
A third party service, on the other hand, has an ongoing relationship with the scammer, assuredly having access to some form of payment details, some kind of ongoing communication in order to fulfill the service they're contracted to provide, and provide ongoing labor to that end which assists the scammer in, well, scamming.
> You seem to assume they aim to provide this service on purpose for illegal activity.
I'm saying they're not asking questions because the scammers checks are clearing, and I don't think that's right. That's what a lot of providers do, they provide the services, and even with ample evidence that everything isn't quite on the up and up, they just keep cashing the checks because why wouldn't they? I'm not even saying they're twirling their proverbial mustache here, I'm saying companies are inherently unethical, and only act ethically when mandated to. So let's mandate it.