Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#131

Post by Chris2048 »

tantalor wrote: post #83
anigbrowl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't meet the elements of fraud in the US because while you could argue that the performative activity was a deliberate representation (in contrast to a false claim where I tell you directly about a great deal on a bridge that doesn't really exist), you'll have trouble establishing the detrimental reliance aspect. If you see misleading activity and then jump to an incorrect conclusion instead of verifying its t…

Not true if the other party stands to profit from the misleading activity. For example, pump & dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

> "artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements"

You'd have to argue cellphone activity/location is a legitimate "positive statements".

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#132

Post by Chris2048 »

zaphirplane wrote: post #106
anigbrowl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, but I'm not sure if fake market behavior (along with the direct exhortations to participation) directly maps onto fake real world behavior with no solicitation. As a (somewhat ridiculous) counter example, suppose I know you, a trader, love tap dancing and I, also a trader, happen to be a skilled tap dancer. On Monday I show up outside your office and start tapping up a storm. You are unable to resist the…

I don’t know why people think it’s ok to intend to commit fraud, intend to swindle someone, do it. Then have a long song and dance about how the fraud committed wasn’t actually fraud Let’s make it simple you intend to commit murder, you buy the tools, draw up a plan, then get arrested. Guess what you are up for with zero interaction with the victim

You haven't established that this example is fraud.

Murder is murder, tap-dance distraction isn't fraud.

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#133

Post by diogenescynic »

hammock wrote: post #115
DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, consider how rare the Enron case seems to be. Since it's implosion, how many other companies were based on total fraud? Theranos is all that comes to mind and it wasn't even public. It seems like the system mostly prevents massive Enron style fraud.

Tyco, WorldCom, Healthsouth, Adelphia, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bernie Madoff... Shall I go on?

Trump.

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#134

Post by lolc »

creatornator wrote: post #53
lolc wrote: post #45

Soooo 1. Generate fake phone profiles of a made-up disaster crew 2. Wait for minor disaster at random refinery 3. Feed trackers with location data showing your fake crew moving into that refinery 4. Repeat 2, 3 to associate your profiles with disaster 5. Short some fine $refinery stock 6. Move your crew to $refinery 7. Profit I wonder whether this has already been pulled off :-)

I think realistically, the refinery wouldn't have a reason to release the information that they saw a red flag. The stock wouldn't be affected, there'd just be an internal scramble/panic attack.

The refinery wouldn't necessarily notice it's been the stage of a fake disaster. The scheme uses a channel (cell phone location feeds) the refinery is unlikely to watch.

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#135

Post by zaphirplane »

Chris2048 wrote: post #132
zaphirplane wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why people think it’s ok to intend to commit fraud, intend to swindle someone, do it. Then have a long song and dance about how the fraud committed wasn’t actually fraud Let’s make it simple you intend to commit murder, you buy the tools, draw up a plan, then get arrested. Guess what you are up for with zero interaction with the victim

You haven't established that this example is fraud. Murder is murder, tap-dance distraction isn't fraud.

Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here, the rest is your defence lawyers plausible deniability argument

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#136

Post by speedplane »

zaphirplane wrote: post #135
Chris2048 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't established that this example is fraud. Murder is murder, tap-dance distraction isn't fraud.

Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here, the rest is your defence lawyers plausible deniability argument

> Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here...

Intent is a tricky thing to prove, it requires knowing the state of someone's mind. Until we have mind-reading devices, there is no way to know someone's state of mind with complete certainty, so we necessarily have to rely on circumstantial evidence, including what someone said, wrote, and yes, researched in the past.

Researching a grotesque topic is by no means proof that you committed a grotesque act, but it's definitely a nugget of evidence.

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#137

Post by Chris2048 »

speedplane wrote: post #136
zaphirplane wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here, the rest is your defence lawyers plausible deniability argument

> Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here... Intent is a tricky thing to prove, it requires knowing the state of someone's mind. Until we have mind-reading devices, there is no way to know someone's state of mind with complete certainty, so we necessarily have to rely on circumstantial evidence, including what someone said, wrote, and yes, researched in the past. Researching…

But muder is illegal. Tap-dance dostraction might not be.

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#138

Post by doovd »

Chris2048 wrote: post #129
doovd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called spoofing and is illegal.

No it isn't, spoofing is feigning trading behaviour. Providing data that another company illegitimately bases their trades on isn't trading.

Yes it is. Placing orders you don't intend to be executed is spoofing. From the OP: "faked a bunch of activity"

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#139

Post by Chris2048 »

doovd wrote: post #138
Chris2048 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't, spoofing is feigning trading behaviour. Providing data that another company illegitimately bases their trades on isn't trading.

Yes it is. Placing orders you don't intend to be executed is spoofing. From the OP: "faked a bunch of activity"

I assume they mean phone network activity, not market trading activity.

Re: Oil traders are watching workers’ phones to spot problems at refineries

#140

Post by zaphirplane »

Chris2048 wrote: post #137
speedplane wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Researching how to dispose of a body is only research. Intent is the key word here... Intent is a tricky thing to prove, it requires knowing the state of someone's mind. Until we have mind-reading devices, there is no way to know someone's state of mind with complete certainty, so we necessarily have to rely on circumstantial evidence, including what someone said, wrote, and yes, researched in the past. Researching…

But muder is illegal. Tap-dance dostraction might not be.

Rhetorically, What is the intent here ? The intent was explained as to distract to extract an advantage. The story was told with us knowing both sides view. I have no idea who you think you are fooling.

As a community service in case you’ve convinced yourself, have a read of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

“ In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right “

Exactly the story I’m replying too

Once again this is about the intent, it’s not about how you can hand wave it away as something else, that part is for the trial

In law fraud deception intent

Post reply on HN