@Makyen Note: I'm specifically thinking of at least A) significant patterns, rather than based primarily on keywords (various); B) "Scam aimed at" (36.0%TP); C) "Health-themed spam" (98.8%TP)
@SmokeDetector This post is advocating pirating the Bigasoft Video Downloader Pro software using a 3rd party key generator, which is illegal in most jurisdictions. That's highly inappropriate, IMO.
@user12986714 It's not a DMCA issue. My understanding is that the post is active advocating doing something that's criminal at the federal level in the US.
I'm not sure if inciting to commit a federal crime is a crime. If it is, then there's an active duty to report it (i.e. it's criminal not to report if you have actual knowledge of the crime).
@Makyen People may not be from US, which makes the issue more complex. However as SE is US based, it is certainly appropriate to use some way to notify SE about the issue.
As far as I know, in some countries it is okay as long as not used for commercial purposes; and some countries do not even have copyright protection at all.
@Makyen To be more explicit: The crime of Misprision of felony requires that you have "knowledge of the actual commission of a felony" and that you do some act that could be interpreted as helping to conceal the crime, and you don't report it.
@user12986714 Yes, copyright and the protections afforded by it is quite complex and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
@user12986714 I can see that argument. However, it still makes it dicey for people to vote to close, delete, flag, as all of those lead towards deletion, which could be considered an act to "conceal". ouch (potentially)
Note that the OP in this instance claims to be in Lagos, Nigeria.
@Makyen Basically it is really hard for the prosecutor to prove that a certain person clearly knows the nationality of another person who is over the Internet. And one could always choose not to investigate, as there is no obligation for one to investigate a potential case of crime.
And the code is (P1 && P2) for P1: knows that is cognizable by a US court P2: conceal and not report, and since !P1, !(P1 && P2)
@user12986714 Yes and no. It could be argued that the code doesn't require that you have knowledge that it's a "felony cognizable by a court of the United States", just that you have actual knowledge of the action and you act, in some way, to conceal it (and not report it).
@user12986714 Please use !!/watch-number for such watches of phone numbers, or other numbers which don't require the number to be exact (e.g. a fragment of a URL path must be exact, so is difficult to obfuscate, which is what the number watch tries to prevent).
@Makyen Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felonycognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible (italic restricts whoever, bold restricts felony, I suppose?) (this can be important because it may mean those down/close/delete voting are in danger)
@user12986714 We're delving into the interpretation of the statue. The only real way to determine how it is interpreted is to look at the case law. I don't have convenient access to a repository of such, and I don't plan to spend the time/effort/money necessary to obtain access. :;
This emphasizes the importance of using anonymous network at Internet entry point (which I failed to perform on this account, so SE has a copy of my actual ip)
@user12986714 That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@user12986714 There is only one watchlist. All entries are checked against post bodies, titles, and usernames. To only look for usernames, you have to restrict the regular expression such that it won't match a body or title. For short usernames, this can be done by making sure the regex is required to match the entire string, so start the regex with ^ to indicate the start of the string and end it with $ to indicate the end of the string.
@user12986714 Yes. It appears that it only tests against bodies for that message on the PR. Ideally, the search page would be updated such that there's a "watch/blacklist-keyword" entry which then tests against bodies, titles, and usernames.
@user12986714 The first is called a scoped flag, as it makes sure setting/resetting the flag doesn't end up affecting any other portion of the regex. Scoped flags can turn the flag on or off. The second format is a global flag and they can be turned on, but not off.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, pattern-matching product name in body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, +3 more (396): Granite Male Enhancement Where to Buy? by heidi ballardx on android.SE
@user12986714 This is a restriction to maintain compatibility with the "normal" Python re regex module. The documentation for the flags format in that module is here. [Actually slightly below that, but that's the closest anchor.] However, SD actually uses the regex module.
@SmokeDetector This is a typical Anonymous Teacher post, which is plagiarized from, probably, two sources. There are numerous possibilities for the sources, based on Google searches. Honestly, they do this so much, it really isn't worth the effort to do more than verify that it's plagiarized. The first portion appeared to be from a different source than the list of 5 items in the second half.
The link is not to Princeton's site and does not appear to be related to the Wordnet project, either. We started to see spam for the promoted site yesterday. I'm tempted to flag this as spam but perhaps you can explain why you link to this site and whether you are affiliated with it. See also How not to be a spammer. — tripleee15 secs ago
@doppelgreener That pattern looks like it's already caught by Blacklisted website in body and Blacklisted website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
