radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 10:17:17 AM
Here's an in-depth five page article about criminal activity on eBay. Any comments, anyone?
http://forbes.com/ecommerce/asap/2000/1127/134.html
[ edited by radh on Nov 22, 2000 12:49 PM ]
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on November 22, 2000 10:20:03 AM
http://auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=2&thread=289773
|
VeryModern
|
posted on November 22, 2000 10:41:29 AM
ebay has fallen out of favor.
|
RM
|
posted on November 22, 2000 10:56:13 AM
Hi radh,
I think it's a very unfortunate article. I don't believe that criminal activity on eBay is anywhere near as bad as the article suggests.
eBay tends to be very reactive to bad press. It wouldn't surprise me to see new features like FBI background checks and seven day waiting periods for placing bids. (Hmmm, that would make ten day auctions much more attractive huh?) 
Remember, you heard it here first!
Ray
|
radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 12:55:01 PM
Hi Ray.
What did you make of this quote from the article:
"Unfortunately, some eBay users are unconcerned about scams because they've simply adopted many of the sleazy tactics themselves. Almost every one of more than a dozen experienced buyers and sellers I've spoken to admitted to sometimes using at least one blatantly unethical tactic, and several confessed to activity that could conceivably be prosecuted as felony fraud in most states."
|
radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 12:55:48 PM
mrpotatoheadd: thank you much for the link.
|
Freddy57
|
posted on November 22, 2000 12:59:00 PM
Can you say "Federal Regulation is on the Way"? Then if you want to sell all you have to do is get permission from the Government. A federal permit shouldn't cost more than a few grand or so.
|
radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:00:29 PM
And say, Ray -- how'd this quote strike you?
"...one frequent seller (who, like many of the people interviewed for this article, requested anonymity because of his dependence on eBay for his livelihood)."
A dozen people admit to felonious criminal activities under the cover of journalistic anonymity?????????
|
radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:04:33 PM
Freddy57: Interesting idea, but I doubt that the Feds wanna get involved. The courts keep handing down precedents that make eBay equivalent to an ISP, and thus they are said to have no legal responsibility for whatever transpires on their entire site by its users.
|
RM
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:12:45 PM
Yes radh, I agree. Absolutely outrageous claims. The worst piece of trash I've seen written about eBay in the almost four years I've been around here. JMO.
Ray
|
capotasto
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:19:40 PM
Mr potatohead,
nice link, but some posters need their own thread.
|
reamond
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:24:50 PM
Hey Rad-
Not all courts have granted eBay ISP status. One court just permitted class action status for the fake sports collectables with eBay as a defendant.
Thus far the only issue the court has granted ISP like staus to eBay for is a copyright infingement case.
I hope a judge wouldn't rule on class action status if he knew going in that eBay was immune as an ISP.
|
radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:33:09 PM
capasto: I pages through several pages of threads and did not notice the thread that mrpotatoheadd kindly brought to my attention.
reamond: thanks for the heads up; I did not know that any ruling for class action status had been handed down, although last week I saw mention that such a ruling was due soon.
ray: I am absolutely astounded that a magazine with the reputation of Forbes is allowed to make anonymous claims of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY -- I thought that even priests aren't allowed immunity under the law, for confessions by parishioners of outright FELONIES. I am quite astounded by this, and truly would like to know more about the reporter who ""researched"" this report.
|
radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:36:34 PM
And Ray -- due to the anonymity of the Internet, do you realize how EASY it would be for any corporate competitor or Hater 0f eBay to sign up a couple hundred userids and then to create a huge amount of """evidence""" -- using FAKE ids and of course, NONE of the strange auctions & bids ever get reported to any legal authority.
ANYBODY could do this, and ANYBODY could show such """facts""" to any journalist, who could then present an article to the general public, an article based on anonymity.
|
macandjan
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:36:59 PM
[ edited by macandjan on Dec 3, 2000 02:35 PM ]
|
radh
|
posted on November 22, 2000 01:51:54 PM
macandjan: thanks for sharing your incisive view on this matter.
|
reamond
|
posted on November 22, 2000 02:48:39 PM
If it were a positive story it would not have gotten published. They had to follow the headlines of other publications with the fake sports stuff.
Look at the last paragraph- it then mentions that the vast majority of transactions go well according to users.
As far as slander and libel with the "press", you have to prove actual malice even if the "facts" are shown to be false. Actual malice is nearly impossible to prove- that is the true freedom of the press !
|
raygomez
|
posted on November 22, 2000 02:51:26 PM
What a great article! Right on the money.
It tells the public what we have known for some time; that eBay is rife with hustles and rip-offs.
I have a friend at Readers Digest. I may submit this to him because this is the sort of public protection article that they like.
Thanks, radh for getting the word out!
|
RM
|
posted on November 22, 2000 03:02:09 PM
raygomez,
Yes, I think Readers Digest would be just the place for an article like this. Right up there with the National Enquirer as far as credibility.
Ray
|
chum
|
posted on November 22, 2000 03:28:03 PM
Here is another fraud case to add to that great article.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ao/20001122/cr/stolen_high-tech_gear_found_on_ebay_1.html
|
litlux
|
posted on November 22, 2000 05:06:21 PM
One needs only to look at these boards and at the eBay Soapbox, Town Square and other boards for daily examples of the fraud that this article talks about.
Worse, the lack of action by eBay to respond to widespread fraud problems and deceitful sales practices is DESTROYING the public's confidence in on-line auctions.
Did you read that most of the scams are practiced on "novice" bidders. Do you suppose they will ever come back? eBay is developing a reputation for rip-offs and all sellers will pay the price.
I am glad Forbes put the light on these problems. eBay has been sweeping them under the rug for too long. And it is time the good sellers got on eBay's case about the bad sellers rather than whining about articles like this.
And the scams run by some buyers have also been given the light of day. eBay needs to be on top of this developing trend as well to keep the honest sellers aboard.
What could have been more accurate than the reporter's comment about getting a real person on the phone at eBay to deal with a problem?
The article was not perfect by a long shot, but it sure as heck pointed out what so many have said for so long with so little response from Meg and Co.
No doubt this article will contribute to the continued decline of eBay's stock value. Perhaps the stockholders will light a fire under their neglectful employees to do some cleaning up. Certainly we, their "community", have been unable to get them into action for lo, these many months.
Larry
[ edited by litlux on Nov 22, 2000 05:15 PM ]
|
amalgamated2000
|
posted on November 22, 2000 05:51:43 PM
I am absolutely astounded that a magazine with the reputation of Forbes is allowed to make anonymous claims of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY -- I thought that even priests aren't allowed immunity under the law, for confessions by parishioners of outright FELONIES.
It happens ALL the time. I'm watching Bob Woodward on TV right now -- what was the Woodward and Bernstein work on Watergate if not reporting of anonymous claims of criminal activity?
Priests DO have protection under the law and can not be compelled to reveal confessions of felonies. Remember the Rosie Grear/O.J. Simpson thing?
However, reporters do NOT have legal protection. If, for example, this reporter were called before a grand jury (or Congress, for that matter), he could be legally compelled to identify the individuals involved. Reporters almost never comply, and risk being held in contempt and going to jail.
But, fortunately, no one is allowed to excercise prior restraint to keep anybody from writing anything. You can write what you want. After the fact, there may be legal consequences, though.
|
