posted on October 21, 2000 11:20:32 AMfrustrations of a victim of a crime to HIS feelings of frustrations of being a victim of being defrauded.
Uh, he's putting his feelings in the same class as those of a victim of a violent felony - not because they're at all comparable, but merely to generate sympathy for his contemplated response.
A more appropriate analogy would be "losing at 3-card monte in a subway station."
posted on October 21, 2000 11:44:30 AM
neomax: I believe that your suggestions, if followed, would not lead to any psychological satisfaction to the victim, but rather would drill in a greater sense of helplessness.
Indeed, one could be cynical and state that many aspects of online auctions, as well as many areas of cyberspace, are a mirage for what is actually a gargantuan experiment in enforcing Learned Helplessness across a broad spectrum of the public.
lol. just *joking*
If one has been defrauded, the first two things to do are to file a FRAUD Form with eBay and to file an INSURANCE Claim with eBay.
Then call 1-800-ask-USPS and instruct them to send you a MAIL Fraud form.
Go to the Internet Fraud Center and fill out the online form, so that the FBI has the information in their huge database at https://www.ifccfbi.gov
Some people also advise you to notify your own police department, to find out if they will notify the police in the criminal's city. If they won't, you can call the police in that city, yourself, and also lodge a complaint with the Attorney General in their state of residence.
posted on October 21, 2000 12:16:44 PM neomax asked:
I am curious how others feel about this strategy recognizing that:
1. I'd be pretty much nailed by negs and would face suspension for my acts. So what, I probably wouldn't care as I wouldn't be buying much more after being ripped off for that amount anyway.
2. I'd be getting some quick justice for my lost $200 (or even with safeharbor insurance reimbursing me the $175 -- $25 out of pocket.)
Is it worth it?
If I did that, should I be suspended?
Is this an appropriate use of the tools to get justice when ripped a new one?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Pat, I think it is very dangerous to suggest to members of the general public that they ever take the law into their own hands. How would you feel if someone followed this advice, and you later learned that the individual was thereafter harrassed in a whole number of ways by cybercriminals - who for all you know, are in RL clinical psychopaths or at least highly sociopathic, as opposed to the legendary cute liddle trolls?
With the exception of the eBay FRAUD Report, I seriously would dis-advise anyone to deal directly with eBay's Safeharbor, as there have been many reports on messageboards, that anyone can have their lawyer write a letter to eBay, and that eBay must release the names of any persons who have ever reported you to eBay.
There are too many reports all over the place that would make me conclude that Safeharbor has many individuals working for it who either are attempting to subterfuge eBay ---- lol, just "joking", or else it is simply obvious that they have no real investigative skills.
Now, all of you may violently disagree with me, but I don't care, and I am not going to debate it -- I am simply sharing that were a friend of mine asking for advice, I would strongly advise them to ONLY file the FRAUD report and the INSURANCE claim -- in so far as eBay is concerned, and to otherwise stick with the PROFESSIONAL law enforcement authorities.
I realize you may disagree; however, I do NOT want to advise any friend to take any action which may haunt their entire online and offline future, and so I believe that it is important to NOT make reports to Safeharbor about anything, whatsoever.
If you make a report, and the person is NOT committing outright fraud, or is simply not following a listings rule which you may not even understand anything about -- it is NOT wise that you ever ever ever grant eBay the right to have you victimized ever thereafter.
I've been doing some reading elsewhere, and I was pretty surprised to see that Safeharbor reports are still referred to as CONFIDENTIAL.
I believe that idea to be an outright flagrant LIE, and so I would caution people to beware.....and even if they wish otherwise, in their own dealings with eBay, and specifically anything having to do with Safeharbor or LAW, to NOT think of eBay as anything other than a venue.
posted on October 21, 2000 12:23:35 PMUh, he's putting his feelings in the same class as those of a victim of a violent felony
He's putting his feelings the same as someone who's been the victim of a crime & is trying to seek justice w/in the bounds of the law only to find that the victim has fewer rights than the perpetrator.
A more appropriate analogy would be "losing at 3-card monte in a subway station."
Really? So, in your opinion, anyone who is defrauded on ebay is just "asking for it", therefore we should feel no empathy?
You do have a point there about the scum-crook being a potential psychopath who is more than willing to seek you out and create other types of grief. That one might be visited in the night is a sobering notion.
The countervieling force here is that the psyhopath can't be certain that when he takes someone on, he hasn't parachuted in Russia
This just brings up that old saying about 'armed' societies ... i.e. societies where everyone is packing heat ... armed societies are polite societies.
We also know that one of the ways that online societies differ is that most folks simply face and talk to a screen, not their nemisis. That may explain why online society is not generally as polite.
All this understood, I just have the feeling that the innocent should not unilaterally 'disarm' -- i.e. swear off on principal, all the tools they might have and opt to limit their role to that of powerless victim.
Fact is, unless the scum-crook who chooses to not play by the rules is dealt with swiftly and decisively by the authorities, the type of lawlessness -- I do call it frontier justice -- will by nature exist. It is not a matter of choice, but a matter of survival.
However, if the authorities can deal swiftly and decisively with lawlessness, then the need for frontier justice is deminished.
But in the present circumstance, no one knows if the lawlessness is being dealt with effectively or not. We only hear the cries of innocent victims. The voice of authority is silent and that silence brings no comfort.
In an analog community -- the type we all live in -- the police write daily reports. These reports are public record. Newspapers have reporters who cover the police beat and publish those they deem newsworthy. The entire community has the opportunity to know that a house in their neighborhood was burglarized. Further, they are informed or have the right to know when a suspect is captured. That suspect's arrest is also entered on the public docket and anyone can attend his arraignment and trial.
If a particularly heinous crime is committed the sheriff and the DA and all are out there assuring us they're doing their job. In the marketplace we call ebaY, there is no top cop out there promising to bring the perp to justice or his name is not John Law.
Said another way, what we lack in this 12-million person marketplace -- we can almost call it a city -- is what "isworeiwouldneverdothis" calls a transparent system of justice.
Here we are with the largest marketplace in the world and we're operating with a secret justice system.
That this justice system has lost the confidence of you, radh, and others is obvious. That it doesn't meet the needs of justice in a city of 12 million is equally obvious.
The question is what do we do about that?
Some have formed the posse's, others neighbor watchs and others may IMO reasonably contemplate direct response ... effectively fighting fire with fire. There are still others who say you can only act through existing authorities ... and if they can't help you, you are SOL. (BTW: If I were a scum-crook, I'd be saying the same thing because I would want to maintain the status quo as it makes the pickings ripe.)
posted on October 21, 2000 02:46:32 PM
I saw the original post and I'm not sure the story is true. Doesn't anyone remember the original poster saying that "his friend" bid on this item, knowing that the seller's feedback said he had as many negs as positives? Why would someone even bid (if this whole story is even true).
I think some legs may be coming off, because he is pulling them so hard....
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Would anyone here bid on anything from this seller?
posted on October 21, 2000 03:48:14 PM
neomax: sorry, Pat - I do NOT consider eBay Safeharbor to be a "secret justice system."
Indeed, I do not believe that the term "justice system" is anywhere near what the job of Safeharbor is.
And it distresses me that Safeharbor still seems to have a lot of pretty incompetent people staffing it.
Or at least that is the distinct <i>impression</i> I receive reading messageboards all over the Net. I do NOT, however, know if ANY of these reports are accurate - I do know that with my own VERY few dealings with them over the last -- oh, since whenever it was announced that eBay releases the names of its ""community"" informers -- in my FEW dealings, the resultant emails would have been absolutely HYSTERICAL - if I took their replies seriously.
I do not take their replies seriously - I simply notify them, occasionally, in order to keep my paper trail straight - as you see, I believe that my auctions are being stalked by at least two different individuals, and then of course, who knows what other pranksters.
If I proceed with a court case, I don't want some one asking, "WHY didn't you notify Safeharbor?"
Indeed, if they examine the replies, they'll be more likely to laugh and inquire, "WHY did you waste yer time contacting these folks??!"
In part of your post, you state, "But in the present circumstance, no one knows if the lawlessness is being dealt with effectively or not. We only hear the cries of innocent victims. The voice of authority is silent and that silence brings no comfort."
Yeah, but neomax -- face it, please, you and I, although deeply influenced by these awful stories we read -- we do NOT even know if we are actually reading the "cries of [RL true 3-D human] innocent victims" or if we are simply being brainwashed to believe that eBay is UNSAFE, UNSAFE, UNSAFE, UNSAFE, ad infinitum.
I will NOT encourage anybody to intentionally participate in auction interference -- because although Safeharbor would likely letcha get away with it, fact is that it is CRIMINAL to attempt to sabotage anybody's business. ILLEGAL.
Doesn't matter if the techno-proficient find it amusing to harm the ignorant.
posted on October 21, 2000 05:11:58 PM
neomax, again in reference to:
"...'isworeiwouldneverdothis' calls a transparent system of justice.
Here we are with the largest marketplace in the world and we're operating with a secret justice system."
~ ~ ~ ~
During the current attempt to keep ALL records of ongoing auction sabotage complete & current, I happened to send off something to safeharbor, and really when I got the reply, it was SO HYSTERICALLY FUNNY -- that I almost sent it to "isworeiwouldneverdothis" and dare her to out do this specific email response.
I mean Pat, it was soooooooooo bad, that one no longer could think in terms of incompetence, but rather simply presume that safeharbor is infested with corporate saboteurs who are sending us these """answers""".
Can you imagine that in my attempt to keep the olde e-paper trail complete that I actually received a reply telling me that they were sorry that there was nothing they could do, but that the individual I referred to was not a registered user --- and yeah, I know that's ONLY to be expected -- but see, this person wrote ME at MY email addie, and in the reply used MY EMAIL ADDRESS THAT SHE'D ADDRESSED THE EMAIL TO, to start her paragraph explaining, that so-&-so is not part of the registered user data base.
Don't get me wrong -- eBay is the only game in town, and eBay will succeed, many times over, and they will cover the globe --- and all of this misery you read about and refer to in this messagethread won't even ever make it into the footnotes of History. Notta chance. eBay will change EVERYTHING.
Maybe some time in the future, we can discuss:
What does it mean when a company whose visionstatement claims that people are basically GOOD,allows those same people to be victimized bycybersadists and assorted cybercriminals?
In other words......
What can we infer about a corporation that exaltsthe basic G00DNESS of Humanity whilst simultaneouslycreating the conditions & climate ofa cyber-environment where EVIL (apparently) flourishes?
I don't know if any of the allegations and horrible stories I read about in Usenet or on online aution messageboards have ANY validity whatsoever.
Fact is that since I cannot in any way substantiate any of the stories that alledgedly happen to others, I am uncertain if the above applies, except in terms of my own private personal experiences in the OAI.
And if the above DOES apply, then it is, IMO, simply my own fault to expose myself to said environment and arguments on the facets of moral philosophy are simply another rationalization, another face of denial.
Part of what is so mesmerizing to me about the OAI, is how ferociously eBay is so frequently despised by oh so many individuals and how these same people do not seem to be able to realize, that not only will eBay NOT fail, that eBay is here to stay, that eBay is the FIRST glimpse we have of the truly post-modern 21st Century.
IMO, as long at this last mesmerizing feature remains as an identifying characteristic of most of the OAI, there is NO hope for any change.
[ edited by radh on Oct 21, 2000 05:18 PM ]
posted on October 21, 2000 07:04:01 PM
SafeHarbor only seeks to dole out 'justice' on ebaY. They can provide whatever details about the crook exist to law enforcement, once they become involved, but SafeHarbor is not the police and they really can do little more than identify the crook within their system and try to keep them out.
Beyond that, it goes either to local jurisdiction, or if the amount is large enough, the FBI may become involved.
The problem is the way the laws are set up and how it works out between states. The victim must persuade law enforcement that they should go out and catch the crook who took $200 from them. In the meantime, they have rapes and robberies and murders and car theft rings and cons and everything else going on and yet they are in Minnesota and there is someone in Georgia screaming about how they were ripped of for $200 on ebaY.
If there are ENOUGH people who lost $200 to the crook, then it moves up their list of priorities, but even so, in order to obtain a conviction, the victim must travel, at their expense, to the state where the criminal resides in order to go through the trial process. If there are multiple victims, they all need to travel. The travel may be needed more than once, perhaps 2 or 3 times. Then, at the end of the day, the crook could get a light sentence with a quick parole, or even be put on probation. Let's face it, the jails are full and there are more serious crimes going on out there than someone selling bogus cable boxes or failing to ship diamond rings.
And it costs more money to prosecute! There are long distance calls and all kinds of stuff. The criminals know that the odds of their being caught, prosecuted, convicted, and then sentenced to anything substantial are fairly remote compared to other forms of crime.
The solution is not in carrying out personal vendetta or seeking some internet vigilante justice. The solution is in looking to law enforcement and legislators to start addressing this problem in a way that makes some bit of sense. They really don't have anything effective in place at present. They need something badly.
Or, if you're going to get vigilante about it, fly out and torch their house or something. Don't place some pansy bid retraction game. Of course, that's sure to get the police involved!
I agree with what you said about the grotesquely cumbersome system of justice and the only logical path to its resolution.
I do have to disagree with any suggestion of home invasion and arson. Indeed, I think if I were victimized, instead of taking a cheap shot -- the subject of this discussion -- I'd rather work toward a more general and effective reform.
Thanks, I wasn't really serious about advocating arson (as I think you know ).
When I think of vigilante justice it always conjures the vision of Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven as he leaves the bar at the end, after gunning down several men. He says:
"Any son-of-a-b*t*h takes a shot at me, I'm not only gonna kill him, I'm gonna kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down. Nobody better shoot."
posted on October 21, 2000 10:19:07 PM
Fraud is a huge concern of ebaY's. They've invested millions in pattern matching software and other fraud prevention measures because they know how it hurts the site and their bottom line.
My discussions with their Trust and Safety Division would indicate that they would LOVE user support and lobby for ways to make prosecution of the crooks easier and more efficient.
The answer is probably allowing testimony to be done via webcam and computer. Just as the criminals use the internet to commit fraud, the only sensible thing, it seems to me, is to use the internet to help prosecute and convict them.
That would take cooperation from ALL of the states, and it doesn't even begin to address international fraud issues. ebaY is 'Going Global' and that's a great thing, but extradition laws over what amounts to petty fraud on a global scale... I mean, is Germany ready to extradite or prosecute one of their citizens for stealing $15,000 from 5 people in the US, 3 in Canada, 1 in France, 1 in the UK, and 1 in Belgium? What if the seller is in Thailand or The Phillippines?
The issues are very complex and the amounts are relatively small in the overall scheme of things. The FBI won't get involved if it's less than $50,000.
Sure, start a new thread. I think it merits discussion, and who knows, maybe an idea could come out of it.
I'm going to be out of pocket for the next couple of days, but if you start it, I'll check back in upon my return.
posted on October 22, 2000 07:44:43 AM
Hey Neonex.
I like your strategy. You would not get blasted with negatives though, once you withdraw your bid you are no longer high bidder, all feedback has to be transactional meaning seller and high bidder.
