
Scamming: The Misunderstood Confidence Man (2015) [pdf] - pmoriarty
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=yjlh
======
aj7
Fundamentally, a confidence scheme is any system where overwhelming pressure
is brought on the mark to concentrate on the outcome, x, rather than the
expectation value, xp(x), where p(x) is the probability of the outcome.

~~~
nodesocket
Explaining it in terms of a mathematical formula is probably not the most
effective. You probably don't mean to be, but it comes off condescending.

~~~
ci5er
Surely not more condescending than scolding a stranger for the way they
express their own internal mental models...

------
lr4444lr
_The concept of scamming cannot be precisely defined and outlawed. It is
essentially a form of opportunism, "self-interest seeking with guile."5 The
voluntary participation of the victims and the challenges associated with
identifying scamming often result in skepticism toward the plausibility of
scams and demands that individuals would be responsible for the choices they
make._

Maybe I'm a little out of my depth criticizing an article by two professors
from a college of law, but how on earth can you attempt to define scamming
without mentioning fraud? The con-man willfully misrepresents his part of the
transaction despite knowing the mark to believe otherwise. And it isn't a
matter of subjective degree. In the Nigerian Prince scheme, for example, there
is no prince, and there is no diamond fund tied up in escrow. It's a complete
fabrication. That's the difference between market persuasion and crime.

~~~
IggleSniggle
“Giving an impression of future return” has a wide spectrum...from outright
lies, to willful misleading, to over-confident misrepresentation, to
accidental miscommunication, etc.

Does a work of art have any objective value? Well, the value is generated by
society being pursuaded that it has value. It’s ability to continue to sustain
value is dependent on continual re-buy-in of that premise.

~~~
lr4444lr
What I'm saying is, there is a sharp difference between saying in 1895 when
the young Picasso was still in training, to have taken a signed sketch he had
thrown away and said "this is a work of art by an up and coming artist named
Picasso - he's going to be one of the most renowned artists in the next
century. I'll let you have it at a great deal", and making your own sketch
last week with a forged Picasso's signature and saying "this is a genuine
early work of Picasso". I don't see any ambiguity about the latter.

