Am I missing something, or has Perlmonks really slid this far down?

Slid so far down as to discuss technical means of subverting internet scam artists intent on stealing bank accounts from unsuspecting grandmothers?

What I will comment on is how completely futile your efforts are.

Got to agree with that... I myself have said as much in this thread.

all they have to do is block every ip with more than 2 form submissions

Not if they hope to get more than one set of credentials from an ISP that uses proxy servers like, for one small example, AOL. And, as tachyon mentioned, IP spoofing might be helpful in that regard.

I won't comment on the possible legal ramifications of this post

So, you would be worried that these thieving scumbags would run to the law and file a grievance alleging you attempted to disrupt their scam to steal bank accounts?

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Vigilante "justice" is not justice. Whether you're talking about DOSing email scams or shooting abortion doctors or unilaterally toppling dictatorial regimes, failing to follow the rule of law is to join your enemies at their level.

Taking the law into your own hands assumes that you alone know what's right and wrong, and that your judgement is infallible. There are appropriate methods to achieve your goals. To remain within society, you must follow the social methods: those which have the proper procedural oversight and just review.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Vigilante "justice" is not justice.

You quote the word "justice" almost as if I had said it. I didn't. No one did in this thread.

I don't think the point is "justice" so much as it is defense. If you found yourself being attacked by a stranger, you wouldn't be concerned with justice, but you would try to fend off the blows. That's the issue at hand. We've been discussing how to thwart thieves from thieving or, at least, how to make it more difficult for them. We have not been discussing how to punish them.

I did use the term "vigilantism" but that is not synonymous with the phrase "vigilante justice". Philosophically, I believe it is both our right and our duty to protect ourselves and others from criminals. We have entrusted the government with a good portion of that responsibility by creating police forces, but where are the police on the internet?

Taking the law into your own hands assumes that you alone know what's right and wrong, and that your judgement is infallible.

A) What law? We are talking about a crime which is likely being carried out by people who live under one government on victims who live under another. Maybe international law sufficiently covers situations such as these but the difficulty and costs involved in prosecuting such crimes makes doing so unheard of.

B) What do you mean "you alone"? We are discussing this on a public web site. The OP was acting responsibly and seemingly was aware of the fact that his judgement might indeed be fallible. So he brought it to his community for discussion.

There are appropriate methods to achieve your goals.

Actually, we are discussing this primarily because there really is no sufficiently workable "appropriate" method to shut down internet criminals. Not yet, anyway. This is still a brand new world.

To remain within society, you must follow the social methods: those which have the proper procedural oversight and just review.

The society itself defines what those proper procedures are and what constitutes "just review." I applaud the OP for bringing this to a public forum for discussion. This is a generally accepted procedure for requesting a review in the internet community.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Slid so far down as to discuss technical means of subverting internet scam artists intent on stealing bank accounts from unsuspecting grandmothers?

That answered my question perfectly.

It was good while it lasted. I'll be leaving now, goodbye.