Slashdot Mirror
Ebay Seeks Federal Assistance In Banning User
stubob writes: "CNN.com reports in this article that Ebay wants a federal judge to ban a user for life for 'using foul language and flouting its own attempts to ban him.'
Ebay's defense is that he is 'disrupting the normal course of conduct.' This could be a great precedent, for /. at least, and maybe would give someone incentive to go after spammers (or even phone solicitors.)" Being that Ebay is a private, voluntary enterprise, isn't this a bit like asking a federal judge to keep the neighbors' dog out of your yard? Sounds like the user has already been banned -- by Ebay. Perhaps what they really want is a restraining order?
I could swear that your post said something about being humorous.
I just registered a new account on eBay (old one expired I think).. They didnt ask for a credit card #. Just name,address, and email. Had my account set up in 5 min.
Boycott Shampoo! Demand REAL POO!
Gasp. Civilization is disintegrating around us!! A person is using foul language in an auction site. Darkness is falling. Wild starving dogs prowl the streets. Incidents of cannibalism have been reported. God is dead.
<BR>
<BR>
Three times in one day, is it national censors day in some strange country far away and everyone wants to get in on the act?.
what's more all three cases are completely unenforceable, I can't see them being able to stop people linking to drug related sites, or sites that link to drug related sites etc...... , I'm sure I've got a few games I didn't pay for lurking about somewhere and no one checked my age when I got them, and now they try to ban someone from ebay because they didn't use 'appropriate' language. I think word Ban should be classified as obscene, (unless it comes before Microsoft).
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
This comes down to: The internet is still pretty annonymous, and there's really not much we could do about it even if we wanted to. I guess they could issue a restraining order and go after him for violating it if he's caught on the site again, but that's kind of like closing the barn door after the cows are already gone, assuming he doesn't just start going under another name. How would they know it was the same guy.
I just don't get what Ebay thinks a court can do for them.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Continually reestablishing accounts under false identities is patently bogus, and all E-bay is doing here is loading up the "contempt of court" gun on this guy. If he comes back again, the courts can throw the book at him. What other option does E-bay have???
Descrimination based on sex, race, or other criteria is already covered under the law in various jurisdictions (some cover sexual orientation, others do not). This has nothing to do with this case...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
An injunction is one of the ordinary common law remedies for trespass. Basically, you can get money for the past trespasses, and an order for the miscreant to STAY OUT.
so is he not allowed to come within 3 IP addresssed of 216.32.120.133 or what?
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
What do trolls eat?????
"Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
It's nothing to do with eBay. Complain to their ISPs that they're violating the newsgroup charter by posting commercials. Try and get them yanked from their ISPs.
Sounds like a very clear case of a breach of AUP to me.
dave
I wonder whether eBay has considered what will happen when word of this gets out? The internet is full of obnoxious @ssholes who like to say/do things just to piss other people off, and without a doubt a few thousand of these will start visiting eBay regularly the moment they hear that there's a well defined and easy way to piss people off there. You'll probably be seeing a link to the piss-eBay-off HOWTO before long, and seeing links to where you can download scripts to make it easier.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
yeah, yeah, you saw my nick, right? C'mere and give old Richard a hug!
-Sincerely
-Sincerely
Fauqme Indegautas
> Actually, it was me... I set up a script to dial in to ISPs, create random email addresses at free email services, and randomly make accounts at ebay, posting large ammounts of profanity. they ban me, and i make another account at an ISP, and i've got another username, etc...
Sounds like Jon Katz trying to get us to see his stories.
Hmmm. I wonder if they'd call the law if he started posting them on eBay?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually, in many ways you're right. Maybe it is stupid to give people my real details, it makes me wonder about changing my /. details actually.
/. flame session. You're right : Don't feed the Trolls. After all, it only makes them hungrier for more.
/. having.
:)
/. flame war.
...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
I really was not trying to start a
By the way, your quality of posting is good. Even if you make me look bad on a few points, this is the level of comment I dream of
>> None of them claim copying and distributing MP3
>> is legally correct, or morally, for that
>> matter.
> Really, brainiac, I could swear you just said
> they did. Oh well, must be my mistake.
No, in general. It's become acceptable to pirate music via MP3, but it's admitted that's it's illegal, like driving above the speed limit, or smoking weed.
Morally? As a (sometime) musician, I do have a pro-recording artist perspective on this. I agree that the companies exploit both the artist and the consumer. But still, if making music is your way of making a living...
Braniac? Nah, straight C student me
>> I REALLY don't want to turn this into a
>> stupid
> Then STFU already.
I really wasn't trying to start one.
Mong.
*
*...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Remember: Nothing is Cool.
Violating his civil rights as a sufferer of Tourette's syndrome.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I complain to the ISP's as well, but since the worst the ISP's can do is cancel his account, it simply doesn't discourage them. The number of free ISP's/Email addresses is infinite. But if I have the page they are advertising taken down? Well, that's much more inconvenient for them. Especially if it's a small business starting it's first foray into the world of spamming. Any work they've done on submitting their site to search engines, business cards, etc, all has to be re-done. It's a much more effective way of stopping the spam than getting a spammingfscker@hotmail.com email pulled, that doesn't hurt them at all.
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
This is correct. The user is tresspassing onto E-Bay's private server, and as such is violating the law. If a dunk man was slobbering on people in a McDonald's, they would have the right to call the cops. This is the same concept.
Nope...Only if you're placing bids of >$15,000 US
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
Please, let's not turn the power to collect sales taxes over to the federal government. The minute that happens, Congress will start putting conditions on how that money is distributed back to the states.
One of the reasons that Governor Leavitt (along with several other governors) is interested in finding a way for states to collect sales taxes on internet-based purchases is to keep this power away from the federal government.
As the amount of money involved in 'e-business' increases, it will not be ignored as a potential source of tax revenues. I'd prefer to keep this taxing power in the states rather than letting the feds get even more influence over local governments.
(BTW - saying Leavitt is 'rabid' and 'spewing fire' about this issue is overstating things a bit.)
"For example, make karma invisible to the user. Make scores invisible to those lacking moderator points."
Uhh, no. Problem: Scores are very useful to see when you want to "skim" the comments for what is likely "good stuff" so hiding them isn't cool. Karma, on the other hand, I suppose we could leave that a mystery. Not sure about that one, though. Mine sure hasn't gone up much...
-cajun
You mean your (snail) mailbox isn't innundated with credit card offers?
They're not asking "the government" to ban the guy, they're asking a federal judge. Probably because they're in one state and he's in another. And what they're seeking is probably injunctive relief. Legislative action at the federal level can't be directed against individuals, since the constitution forbids bills of attainder.
But we're not talking about Nazi Germany here. This should be a pretty simple private property case. Because it involves written language, people sometimes think it's a free speech case.
/. ,etc.) are in fact privately owned, and what the ramifications are for free speech and expression in light of that.
If the Aryan Nations applies for a permit to march here, the city is all but required to give them permission. That's free speech (and its a good thing -- even if the AN is not). If members of same said group show up at the mall and do a demonstration, they'll be hustled out on to the street in short order. A mall is private property, and it's guests can be chosen by the management as they see fit.
If there is ANY issue to discuss here, it should be that many communities "public spaces" (i.e. shopping malls, business centers,
And no, the original post was really not that funny, but that's beside the point.
- Andy R.
Y2K problem? Surely that means we've got 47.5 years to fix the bugs?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
"there will never be a true armed Revolution in America until the police start treating white people the way they have historically treated Black people."
I would ammend that statement to read "until police start treating the middle class the way they treat the poor."
Having spent several years as a PWG (Poor White Guy) I can tell you that the police didn't give me any special treatment, let me off on traffic tickets, give me warnings or treat me with the basic courtesy that one ought to show another human. However, once I was able to afford a reasonably new car (I bought a '97 in '99) I saw my instances of being pulled over, searched & ticketed drop from once every month or two to once, period.
The cop's logic goes something like this: The poor ones are more likely to steal, the poor ones are more likely to have warrants on them, the poor ones are more likely to be driving without insurance, or with a broken tail light. By pulling over a poor guy, he can write 4 tickets in one stop (I've gotten as many as 5 at once, all when I drove an old beat up "hooptie" car.)
(Whenever I would drive my girlfriend's nice new car, using the same driving methods, in the same neighborhoods, the same cops would give me not a second glance.)
Here's a lovely quote by my good buddy Kurt Vonnegutt Jr.
"The two real political parties in America are the winners and the losers. The people refuse to acknowledge this. They claim allegiance in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead." -Kurt Vonnegutt, Jr.
-The Reverend
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
please post any and all comments involving Open Source Man, slashdot-terminal, or the Slashdot Bitchslap as replies to this post.
I still have no idea what's going on with osm, i have no pity for slashterm, and i don't particularly care, but i have a feeling this discussion is going to be littered with comments on this subject as they relate to what EBay is doing, and things would be a lot more tidy if all Bitchslap-related comments were all just dumped in one place.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
eBay can kill off his identities, but not as fast as he can create them. Further, this has to do with interstate issues so they have to go to a federal judge. IMHO, this is exactly what should be happening.
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
In a flower garden, a weed can't do you much good. In society, criminals are essential. It is inevitable that powerful men will pass bad laws. It's just an unchangeable fact of human nature. Therefore, it behooves any government which calls itself "for the people" to reasonably limit the authority with which government can enforce ANY law, because having someone get away with a real crime is better than having someone get caught for pissing off the Powers That Be.
Saying that there is a "potential" for abuse is like saying that Windows has the "potential" to crash your computer. You're right; not all human life is special. Would you like your government to release a list of its "special" citizens? Or have it decided on a case-by-case basis by the cops? Or would you like a gov't that pretended that everyone was special, and gave rights and protections even to people that didn't deserve them?
Classify the following as flowers or weeds: Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, John Scopes, Rosa Parks, Lenny Bruce. Each of these people was widely regarded as trying to damage society, and most of them were prosecuted for it.
Slashdot's moderation rules bring wheat to the top (mostly), because they're engineered with the assumption that everybody is a greedy, abusive asshole who's trying to subvert the moderation system for their own selfish ends. America's laws bring freedom (used to, at least) because they're engineered with the assumption that politicians and policemen are evil, power-hungry tyrants who are trying to subvert the will of the system for their own gain. The laws that protect us from these guys set a few criminals free, yes. I like it that way.
It crosses the "feds" boundaries too. What if I (a US citizen) order something on the net from .au? Do I have to pay national sales tax (I know... there's no such thing, but JordoCrouse is essentially suggesting one)? Do I have to save all my receipts, and hand them in on April 15? How likely am I to actually do this?
Remember: the internet is NOT national... it's bigger than that!
-- Michael Chermside
Uhm yeah. That's easy -- delete all the user accounts and just drop back to showing news items with no discussion groupes. Major step forward.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
And then later:
Being a rather large Marine...
Ah, that explains why you don't know how to spell "Forum". :)
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
This is a valid question, not a troll.
Aren't people now going to start pretending they are him?
/. is known for it's "playfull" element... one of you *must* have logged into EBay?
...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Come on -
Mong.
*
*...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Remember: Nothing is Cool.
If they have tried to ban him, can't they consture his continued attempts to use their service as computer trespassing, thus press criminal charges? Why the injunction?
Do you really live in Mongolia?
That's pretty strange.
Is there precedent for using the courts to ban someone from a private affair (school, eBay)?
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
But a few lines up....
Although the company has "terminated 40 to 45 of his accounts in the last three months alone," Anderson has circumvented the company's moves by re-registering under other identities, Pursglove said.
I can see giving up after this happening once, twice, MAYBE three times. Does anyone honestly believe that he's not going to go back, when he went through the trouble of already creating *at least* 45 accounts?
"I SWEAR, if this happens ONE MORE TIME......" <-- Said by Anderson 44 accounts ago.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
You misspelled,
"What's the big fucking deal, bitch?" -- Eric Cartman
NightParrot
"It's not like it hurts anybody. Fuck, fuckity fuck fuck fuck."
Since it's a private company, it should be allowed to ban any user it wants.
I work for a small company (about 15 people) and we sell our product mostly in our little state. We've been a good corporate citizen for more than 20 years, and we have the exclusive distrobution rights in wisconsin to handle a lot of differant products. That is to say, we're a local state company.
If, on our web site, there is a user from another state that harasses our customers in our little discussion forum, can we shut him up for "disrupting interstate comerce"? If so, what would be our burden of proof in such a situation?
My point being, does just having a presence on the net automaticly make you an interstate, or international comercial entity?
___
Guido and Antony, two pipe swingin' brothers from da bronx.
Not in the State of Oregon. It's more polite to ask the person in charge, but if I start petitioning, they cannot leagally remove me (again, in Oregon).
I dunno. It's clear that SOMETHING must be done to raise the signal to noise ratio back to what it used to be. After all, Slashdot's trolls are not simply J. Random Idiot crossposting as much crap as they can across usenet.
Have a look at the multiple incarnations of the "inchfan" hidden forums for instance. The trolls here have mounted a deliberate, organised, campaign of attack and disruption against slashdot. These aren't your standard usenet idiots, these are a much more insidious form of troll.
Perhaps the answer is to have the community itself do the policing. Rather than have a fiat handed down from Taco, Hemos, or any of the other editors (or in the case of eBay, whoever's in nominal control), the community could easily decide for ITSELF who is unredeemingly disruptive.
Consider, we already have a karma system (and eBay has feedback) set up to filter the good posts to the top, and allow readers to bypass the trolls, astroturfers, first posters, "goatse.cx"'ers, gritsers, portmans, "steve woston"s and other miscelaneous crap. It should be relatively simple to establish a final, negative threshold beyond which it can be safely assumed that the troll in question has no redemming value. The script could automatically generate a notice to Andover's (or eBay's) legal team to lay down the restraning order on Slashdot's attackers.
(Before anyone mentions the ability to post as anonymous coward, let me remind you that ACs are anonymous because
The community itself would, therefore, be making the decision, rathar than having it handed down by fiat. All Andover (or eBay) would have to do with the process would be to file the restraning order paperwork itself... no policing of their own.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
I regard *your* comments as Trollish, his being more constructive, actually. I notice you don't put your name behind your comments?
There's the name....email address...and URL. Happy?
Justify This:
...
I can't justify this. I don't have to. But I don't claim its Open Source.
People claim this is "Open Source".
Why do you believe what people claim? And who claims this? I know a ton of people who barely know what a computer is that use Napster and burn their own CDs...if I asked them what Open Source was they'd have no clue.
I have a lot of clue what Open Source is all about. I actually live with one of the core Helix Code developers. I used to work with the Conglomerate guys. Also guys whose work is now in various Linux distros.
I'm gonna take your work, be it school, artistic or "workplace" work, I'm gonna pass it off as my own
But that's okay, becuase it's all in the Open Source spirit.
I am proud of you. But, if you know what Open Source is...why do you claim it is a haven for criminals? Why do you claim the spirit of the movement is passing off others work as your own? Do you really understand what is behind the Open Source movement? This last statement makes me think you still believe it is free as in beer.
The Open Source movement is not about getting other's work for free. Read ESR's THE CATHEDRAL AND THE BAZAAR and get a clue.
I claim this is theft.
I have a HD full of MP3, I feel slightly bad about it. But I listen, becuase it's become socially acceptable to steal music in this way.
You keep going with what society deems as acceptable. When you get a your own opinion on the matter you come back and we'll discuss this again.
Yeah...I know I usually give up after 45 tries...luser...
/.
I could see creating a second account to evade something...but if you go through 45 accounts...are you really going to stop now?
I would love to talk to this guy...And ask him how often he acts as a Troll on
Certainly, at the moment, it's not technically possible to ban a user - witness the success of k-lines on iRC (success == null). In the UK, where over 200 free ISPs exist (we pay for local phone calls instead), I have absolutely NO idea how they could block someone technically - and in the US, new IPs are pretty easy to come by too, I'm sure!
;-)
So asking the courts to deal with it may, perhaps, force this particular user to stop abusing the service. But then the flood of cases which would follow would totally swamp a not-very-computer-literate legal system, and lead to chaos overall.
I think I just argued myself into a corner. I have no idea what to do
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
It is not a crime to be obnoxious to a company, so a restraining order would not be appropriate, legally. Harrassment is out of the question, because he bothers the users. Breach of contract won't work either, because the penalty of breach is termination. And, unless the man lives in Texas, the death penalty is out too.
So, what can we do with the trolls? Even if a user of EBay filed a restraining order against the troll, how do you set the conditions? "You can't be within 3 clicks of this person at any time." That won't work. Again, we have a system of government that can't cope with change until a few years after the cause. Damn Republicans and their big government.
Pax Digitalia
Ban them! Ban them all!
--
www.scorbett.ca
Excellent point - I always assumed that that would be a sufficient deterrent from people making multiple accounts and buffing up their own accounts. Perhaps not.
My thoughts to this is that eBay probably does not check to see if the credit card is a valid one, and that it belongs to your user information (address, etc.) I may sound harsh, but how hard/unreasonable would it be for eBay to require that you only use credit cards assigned to the same name and address as what you register with, and even initially charge $10.00 to start your account? (which would be refunded upon your first transaction)
Please, no flames, as I'm no merchant, and honestly don't know what troubles/service fees such a process may incurr. I do know, however, that some merchants DO go to this extent to ensure that credit cards are valid.
In short, my point is - I don't think eBay checks to see if your card number is valid, or if it's even assigned to you. (at least when you initially request a UID)
Seems that this is pretty close to the textbook definition of harassment. I would hope that we as entities in "cyber-space" could get a restraining order against a harassing user. IRL wouldn't you be a little concerned if you had had to remove someone from your personal property 40-45 times. After all the goverments main role is protection of its customers (both we the people and we the companies), so this seems like a classic example of why the government exists. Just because the offense took place on the internet does not mean the offense didn't happen (or that the goverment is censoring the internet when stoping it). After all why do you pay taxes everyday if not to have a hand in stoping people like this?
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Yes, a great precedent.. WE definitely need a lot more laws restricting companies. I know I do.
Spam should be opt-in only.
phone solicting: also opt-in only. and make it mandatory to reveal the phone-number used.
rights are for people, not artificial entities.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Criminal courts can also involve Commonwealths, of which there are 4, not just States (46). For instance, if you were in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, or Virginia, your case would be known as Commonwealth of KY/MA/PA/VA v. Joe Schmoe. Everywhere else, it's The People of the State of California v. John Doe.
One example of the status of Commonwealth for these four states was one famous case in the 1920s: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.
I know it's nitpicky, but I just felt like pointing that out.
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Actually, I think he's saying that when face to face with him, the typical junior high kid (or whoever) would, in the interest of self-preservation, consider their choice of words more carefully.
As far as eBay goes, I think they should consider a foul-word filter that automatically locks out the account after some number of automatic warnings. Put a notice of the requirement in the Terms of Service, and move on.
Ebay wants a federal judge to ban a user for life for 'using foul language and flouting its own attempts to ban him.'
Here's one of his postings I found on E-Bay. Obviously, it has been removed by now.
128MB SDRAM -- Early bird special
Users have been flocking down to the stores to get their claws on these. Why not just kick back with your feather pillow and get them from me cheep here on e-bay. At this price you're practically robin the bank! Heck, buy four of them and hawk them at your local pawn chop. Chicks really love a guy with a 128MB SDRAM chip. This is one nest egg you do not want to be without!
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
No, dipshit, Walt fucking Disney's.
Yowza! If you REALLY want to get noticed and have your 15 nanoseconds of fame like Braxton Anderson, hike on over to Ebay and annoy them -- they're biting!
You also have the option of getting a credit history check. I would imagine this is flawed, in that you can put fake #'s and get an 'ok'. In which case, that's how he is doing it.
Who moderated this as 'Funny'?
You don't have to agree with it, but Chops' posting is a copy of the argument structure often used to explain how Nazi totalitarianism came (democratically) to absolute power in what had previously been the world leader in culture and science.
The process is an old one. Find an unpopular group. Claim they are the cause of all of society's ills and exclude them from the society and its protections. Then proceed to the next scape goat. Soon there will be no one left with the courage to oppose anything you choose to do.
The health of a society is not determined by how it protects its 'best' citizens. The health of a society is determined by how it treats its 'worst' ones.
I was just using my experience as an example of how the law can be used to determine whether a place is public or private; not suggesting that the guy has anything to do with Oregon or petitioning.
It might not be so easy for eBay to win this one since the courts themselves won't want to set a precident that gets themselves in trouble (i.e. flooded with similar cases without being able to enforce adequately)
You have to consider the fact that it's not just some guy at eBay who thinks the person is annoying and wants to have them banned..
eBay, being a company with lots of customers, has to consider the feelings of those customers. While the actual eBay staffers may not have any problem whatsoever with 'profane abusive language', some vocal portion of their customers apparently do. I agree with you that it's stupid to get upset over the simple use of a word, but there are alot of stupid people out there and as a commercial enterprise, eBay has to worry about the idiots as well as the intelligent.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
The dude is a jerk, which is, of course, no crime. However, among the conditions of using E-bay are that you agree not to be a jerk, that you agree E-bay can set the rules for jerkiness, and you agree to 'get out and stay out; if they kick you out." he agreed to that each time he created an account. Otherwise, he has the same right to come and observe, but not participate, as any random stranger. "participation" in web sites is not public, "viewing" pages is (unless access is restricted). Even accessing pages is a limited right -- or certain DoS attacks would be legal.
If you own a lunch counter, you certainly can refuse to serve anyone you wish -- unless you do so for a strictly illegal reason. Race has been deemed to be an illegal reason; in some circumstances, so is gender. The list of such protected categories is short and each is enacted in a specific law. You can, for example, refuse to serve Democrats, etc. (just be careful not to exclude people who can characterize their category as a 'disability', which would be against the ADA. "people I don't like" or "people who smell bad" are not protected categories per se.
You can't discriminate on race, etc. when selling a house (Fair Housing Act) but you can refuse to sell to a jerk. There is no law forcing you to take the highest bidder. If your neighbor begs you not sell to his wife's college flame, that's your right.
Each of the other items you claim as Federal decisions are misstatements (unless you can supply a specific case I'm unaware of). Homeless people enjoy the same use of public parks as *you* do (you can do what they do), so it's really *public* use of public parks. Lunatics can be locked up without their consent *if they may reasonably be seen as posing a danger to themselves or others*. A woman's right to privacy does not allow her to murder because murder is a legal term, and the courts have said that abortion is not murder. You may think it is, but apparently, you hold a lot of baseless opinions.
The truth about trolls: They're just spammers, wasting our time/bandwidth and calling it 'free speech'
Not in most states, if the business is offering walk-in "public accomodation." Just because you don't like someone, you can't ban him from your restaurant, and you certainly can't get the police to remove him.
True, in most states you will find that licensed public accommodations undertake a duty to serve the public (restaurants, stores, hotels, taxis, etc.) However, their rights to exclude are pretty broad, even in those states. Thare are specific protected categories, and aside from that it hinges on the officer's judgement of whether s/he wishs to intervene.
[The courts, including the Supremes, have ruled many times that the police do not have a specific obligation to protect and individual or property in every specific instance. People have been attacked by known felons, when the felon was under observation and the attack was observed by police, without intervention and without recourse]
The truth about trolls: They're just spammers, wasting our time/bandwidth and calling it 'free speech'
Why doesn't ebay just sue the guy? Would seem to be the quickest and most cost effective way to send a message. On the other hand, maybe this was dreamed by some PR firm as a way to cozy up to the government to avoid regulation that they fear may some day result from the negative publicity(in my opinion unfare) that ebay seems to receive regularly (e.g kidneys,babys for sale)
If you ignore eBay's "get lost", there are no penalties. If you ignore a federal judge's "keep away" command, you can face some pretty serious contempt of court penalties.
And, I think it's Sad that /. would endorse such an action. You may not LIKE the trolls, but they ARE a part of /. (and really the net in general) culture. When you start to get exclusionary, you're being MUCH worse than someone who just deletes offensive posts. I'd rather see them delete posts than support, or worse yet take such an action as this. Who knows, maybe they really (DID/WANT TO) sue osm and other trolls. As someone who plays both sides of that fence, I'd be MUCH less likely to participate if Slashdot starting banning and suing people for life just because they didn't like something - how could they be considered objective after that? Not to mention that it would SEVERLY hamper any effort to stand up to people like Microsoft when they come calling demanding that you remove something. No, this is a bad bad idea, and Ebay should just get a clue and deal with it - and /. certainly shouldn't be endorsing it.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Ebay currently run adverts here with the slogan "all you need is an e-mail address" and, they only raised the phone number issue with me when I complained about spam going to the special mailbox I had set up just for e-bay's use.
Draw your own conclusions - I certainly did!
- Andy R.
Y2K, only.... oh sod it, I'm fed up with this sig now.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
The other side to the issue is that eBay has clearly tried to remove the user with no success. Is the government going to have any more luck?
Injunctive relief can be very effective, since one violation and wham! you're in jail. No trial, no delay (at least initially). It's being used against youth gang members for just this reason.
Actually, I believe the key phrases were "He's disrupting the normal course of conduct (of eBay transactions)" and "Although the company has 'terminated 40 to 45 of his accounts in the last three months alone,' Anderson has circumvented the company's moves by re-registering under other identities". First they kicked him off their property and then he kept coming back in. Since their website is their private property and (as has been frequently shown recently) they are responsible for the content of it, it sounds reasonable that they should be allowed a legal recourse to prevent him from entering it. One last note: Personally, I swear like a sailor and I don't tend to get offended easily by that kind of stuff. However, there are laws which have been held up in court banning swearing in front of women and children! I think it's unconstitutional, but courts (at least in Michigan) don't feel that way. Food for thought. -slackerboy
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
Why not simply modify his Ebay account so that all bids start at -1? They could call it something clever like the bitchslap. I wonder why CmdrTaco hasn't thought of something like this.
--Shoeboy
Would it not be a civil (not federal) court that would grant an individual (read:Ebay) a restraining order in the plantifs parties juritiction?
If Britney Spears decides to stalk Anna Kornikova wouldn't Anna would seek to restrict Britney from harassing her in her native germany? Using the local civil court?
___
I know nothing about the particulars of this case, but maybe the real target is his ISPs. I've known a few people who redefined what it meant to be an "asshole," but their ISPs made a deliberate decision to not get involved. (The fact that "taking no action" is still taking an action never occured to them.) Note well that quick research showed that this was something like their 23rd ISP in two years, so it's not a case where this ISP was just trying to avoid a knee-jerk reaction.
We all agree that the better ISPs will always ask to see a court order before yanking someone's access. Perhaps this is what it requires - a federal court saying that eBay has the right to evict people for life, and any ISP that offers him sanctuary *will* answer to that court.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
That last AC wasn't me (although I agree with him/her). I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself or remain ignorant. I'm not paid low enough to start teaching.
After reading the article, and the comments posted here I found had a question that seemed to be near the root of the issue.
Many comparisons to physical tresspass have been used as a means to demostrait ebay's legal case, but "there's no ^there^, there".
Since ebay is not a physical location, can tresspass law be applied? I'm not a legal expert in any form, so please let me know if any of my assumptions are incorrect.
Ebay displays content. Content that they get paid to display, and that they accept from clinets with various understood contrats. (items are thires to sell, they are items that are legal to sell.. etc. etc.)
Now they have a person who is fraduiently given them content, and using the fact that ebay has a huge amount of content to wade through to exploit cracks in thier system (vulnerability to multiple I.Ds)
So they banned this person, but with no effect. Is thier intent for a federal ruling to have a means to persue more stringent actions (read: money). Until now they have had only one recourse, banning the I.D., which as stated before, has had only limuited sucess.
My main question is, since no one has actaully stepped foot someplace they shouldn't, but rather exploited a hole in ebay's system, what sort of infraction is this?
..of ships and shoes and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings.
Do modems have id's similar to nics?
If so why not obtain that and ban that?
or log the time of connection and get the ip assignment from the isp?
im sure once his anominity is gone he will slink off with his tail between his legs...
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
What sort of "foul language" gets you kicked off of ebay? Was it Full Metal Jacket level cussing? Was this some sort of flame war? Was it original? clever? inventive? or just your basic troll cussin' type stuff? Inquiring minds want to know.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I know many people who feel the same way. The line of reasoning goes something like this: "If the guy's a criminal, he's a drag on society. Society as a whole should not have to deal with people contantly trying to destroy their work. If a person lives his life by stealing the hard work of others, then eliminating that life provides a large benefit to society, without any loss. Therefore the police and courts should be able to step in and end the lives of these people".
It's a little harsh, but there's just enough reason in there to make many people stop and think. Many weeds survive by choking the life out of flowers and beneficial plants, so when we get weeds in our garden we rip them out of the ground and destroy them so that the flowers can thrive. If people decide that they want to be societies weeds, why not do the same thing?
I don't totally subscribe to this line of thought because of the potential for abuse, but I can somewhat understand the reasoning of people who do. Not all human life is "special".
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
How is this a major news item? Ebay has 12 million users, but one slippery Chicago Man causes them so much trouble, disrupts their service so much for the other 11,999,999 users, and is so crafty at evading their internal banishment that CNN sees fit to report on it?
Naw, this is just a publicity stunt for Ebay.
Sick of 12? Try 13!
XML causes global warming.
f there is ANY issue to discuss here, it should be that many communities "public spaces" (i.e. shopping malls, business centers, /. ,etc.) are in fact privately owned, and what the ramifications are for free speech and expression in light of that.
Interesting point.
Very interesting, when one considers the efforts being made to privatize much of what is public (some have even suggested making streets and highways private tollways, and others have argued that public sidewalks are in fact private property).
Legislation strengthening the bill of rights is in order - extending them to any place which is made explicitly accessible to the public, such as shopping malls.
But then, I don't think private business should be excluded from abiding by the constitution either -- it dominates between 1/3 and 1/2 of our lives, yet our freedoms and privacy are nonexistent in the business sector. With current political trends toward replacing big government with big business, I see this only getting worse.
We may not be talking about Nazi Germany, but the future is looking more and more like a corporate faschist's wet dream: fat, apathetic and apolitical worker/consumer populace included.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I've never used Ebay so I don't know if the registration process already includes these things. If it doesn't IT SHOULD:
1. Credit card number
2. Authorization for credit check
Why? With this information EBay can verify the identity of the person. If it is someone they do not want, they can keep em out.
I'd prefer companies implement necessary security policies before reaching for my tax dollars.
Don't tell me you just posted this after moderating me down? Wow. Stupidity like that must be painful. HAND
-Sincerely
-Sincerely
Fauqme Indegautas
wouldn't be cool if it were. It's fun to give to those people in the airport though, to have them page your "exchange student" friend :)
-Sincerely
-Sincerely
Fauqme Indegautas
You apparently haven't heard the case of the town owned by a corporation (a big oil company) where they tried to get a lady to stop handing out religious leaflets. They claimed that since they owned the town that it was "private" and therefor could stop this person's right to peacefully assemble.
They were shot down by the supreme court because it was deemed that the public gathers there, opening it to laws governing public places. I never claimed that the petitioning was covered by the constitution (State or Federal), but it is protected by law even though it's on private property (because it ends up being a public place).
Before claiming that this is "untrue", I suggest looking at the petitioning laws in the State of Oregon.
It would be no large effort to associate a karma score with any given IP address
An IP address is no unique identifier. For example, my IP address pretty much reads "somebody on a modem somewhere in Indiana owned by UUNet" because it is pseudorandomized every time I connect to the Internet.
<O
( \
Will I retire or break 10K?
You make a mistake. There are two types of "courts" civil and criminal.
Criminal Courts involve the State (one of the 50, or the United States) vs. an individual. There is a prosecuter and a defendant.
Civil Courts involve two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant.
There are two jurisdictions (within the US), state and federal.
Civil Crimes between two parties within a state: state civil court.
Criminal crimes against state law: state criminal court.
Criminal cases including US law: federal court.
Civil cases involving US law, interstate commerce, etc: federal court.
I do not THINK that there is a seperate federal criminal and civil system. I believe that the states divide them because of their case load requiring so many judges that it results in an easier management system with seperate civil and criminal courts.
HOWEVER, the different courts are not different in scope, just management. i.e., cases are assigned based on the court's expertise, however a criminal court judge and a civil judge within the same district have equivalent jurisdiction, they merely see different cases.
As the federal criminal code is MUCH smaller, I do not believe that there is a seperate federal criminal court. Although there are federal crimes, most overlap with state laws and are left to the states.
Ebay appears to be asking the US court system to maintain the licensing agreement between two parties engaging in interstate commerce. As a result, federal courts have appropriate jurisdiction.
Alex
I agree 100%. And this is not a new problem. Way back when, I was a "teen moderator" on AOL, and we kept seeing the same assholes come back with different names all the time. We would boot them, they would return. That same thing is now possible on a much bigger scale.
I am sure the sys admins at eBay are pulling their hair out trying to keep these guys off. My feeling is that going to the government is a last resort. For me, thats A-OK. Lets stop this behavior before it becomes even more uncontrollable.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
It seems like this is the question that the courts will have to decide. Is eBay considered a public or private place?
r onics store found out that they cannot ask petitioners to leave since they fall under the same category as a mall; for selling more than one "category" of goods.
At first it seems like a no-brainer. However, from my experience with petitioning, I have learned that small differences create large distinctions.
For instance, if I want to petition in front of a grocery store, I have to ask permission because it is considered to be a private area. On the other hand, I can petition at any mall because they are considered public (since they sell more than one type of item or something like that).
A local chain (Fred Meyer) which is a combination grocery/hardware/clothing/toy/garden/office/elect
So... Is eBay a bunch of classified ads? Or a flea market?
Ban Jon Katz
___
The foul language issue is moot as far as I'm concerned. It's all about power and who has it and how to wield it. So, Mr. Moron E-bayUser decides to log on to what essentially is a private site and show his nuts? He's in their hizatch and using what they own to stomp around and make his lil pecker feel all tingly? Forget about deleting accounts. Ban his goddamned IP addy. Log him, ban him, buh-bye. Make him run all over town getting new and improved dial-ups. Cause you know the little pervo ain't gonna stop. He's hooked, man! He needs that fix. He needs to get all smothered and covered and gooey. Yeah.
Crypto is no help because you want to limit the number of identities someone can have, and yet you don't want to put any hurdles in the way of new customers.
Why not use hash cash? Each user will need to generate a hash cash token to identify themselves, and any given token can be banned. Since it is expensive to generate a new hash cash token, this will thwart such abuses.
I run a website and a little bit ago ran into problems with a kid posting idiocy to the Phorum message board (though I was secondary to his main target of annoying another b-movie website). Imagine ten postings that say nothing more than "F**k this, f**k that, bwhahahaha." He was an AOLer so I used AIM to contact him one night. Little brat sat there bragging about being able to annoy people with impunity. It's infuriating to encounter someone who has no respect for others when they think they can get away with it. Being a rather large Marine I'm certain he wouldn't act that way to my face, but over the Internet he feels free to be a bastard.
Sent complaints to AOL to get his account canceled, but he soon made a mistake by using a school (Jr High) computer to make his postings. After that it was very easy to contact the network admin with the IP address info and suddenly he became a very apologetic little boy with much less free time on his hands.
Sounds like the subject Ebay abuser conducted himself in much the same way, flouting their attempts to ban him and only trying to be a nuisance. After repeated attempts to handle it on their own by deleting his account and telling him to go away Ebay is laying down the law. They are establishing a case for pressing charges/suing for damages if he ever pulls this again.
I say more power to them.
Andrew Borntreger
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
The person is interfering with interstate commerce, making it a federal issue.
-B
Yeah, and waste company funds to keep the whacker employed. I'd love to have that company title.
- Justin
. .in the civil code to help people with problem customers, diffcult people or x wives and husbands. If you own a 7/11 you can expect a certian percent of the population to be disruptive to your store, and if you can prove it to a local judge, you can seek a restraining order in oder to maintain a civil 7/11.
___
Especialy the lame, offtopic ones.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The simple answer is that you could never ban trolls, as everyone would eventually go in the end. Think about how many serious arguments erupt over simple things like whether the GPL or the BSD is the better freeware license. Sooner or later someone will snap and begin trolling based on things like that (although I consider freeware licensing far too easy to troll, it's such low fruit). How many regular joe posters get marked down as flamebait or troll because they got hot under the collar. That's almost everyone at some point, and if not then I think you're maybe kissing a little too much ass to be taken seriously anyway. And you're right. The trolls(I'm not talking about the ascii-kiddies) do start probably half the intelligent conversation, keep the joes from making themselves out to be all that from time to time, and often serve to entertain. You'd have as much chance getting them off /. as you would off USENET.
-Sincerely
-Sincerely
Fauqme Indegautas
>When I ran a restaruant the police told me that once I warned someone to leave, if they didn't depart immeadiatly they were then tresspassing.
:)
:). But the myth that restaurants are on "private property" and you can do what you wish is simply wrong. A restaurant is not your home. If someone won't leave my home, I can have the police remove them at my request, or beat the crap out of them for that matter (in most states, not CA!). Act the same way in a restaurant and you're setting yourself up for legal trouble -- unless, of course, as in the example above, you do it to people who aren't going to be able to defend themselves legally.
:)
Maybe. And state/local laws vary a lot as to what public accomodation entails (I doubt your parking lot was public accomodation to a non-paying customer) and what is legal behavior (if no shirt/shoes didn't violate health codes, you'd have a harder time excluding them).
If you were excluding the above folks from eating in your restaurant because of their appearance -- without having a fairly clear dress code or something like that -- you were (likely) breaking the law. If the police would help you remove them, they were also taking on quite a responsibility.
Fortunately or unfortunately, most teenagers who dress as you describe above don't have access to many legal resources to defend themselves, nor much knowledge of the law -- of how to conduct themselves. If you denied me access to your restaurant, I'd likely be the one to call the police, and I'd explain the situation very clearly, carefully, and to my advantage
I'm not saying you're not reasonable above. I'd just as rather have the annoying teenagers go somewhere else, and get a life. Or be stuck at home (programming, maybe
(Footnotes: for a general review of public accomidation laws, take a look at the case of the gay scoutmaster vs. the Boy Scouts; at issue, whether the Boy Scouts could ask him to leave. In general, after the Boy Scouts were deemed to be offering public accomidation, the issue turned to whether (1) the Scouts has a _rational_ reason for excluding the gay Scoutmaster and (2) whether the exclusion was (since they were a private group) essential to their identity as a group. So, something like "exclusive restaurant can have people who don't dress up thrown out," Dennys you can't.
But remember the fiction above is for teenagers
Open source does NOT facilitate criminals. Just because it decentralizes control (or, rather, eliminates control) over a certain product does not mean that it's automatically going to facilitate illegal activity.
It's true, a program with decentralized servers, such as Napster, definitely makes trading MP3's easier. If they were all located on a central server, it wouldn't have gotten past infancy before the RIAA had lawyers all over their asses. Record company executives and their lawyers aren't getting the big picture, and neither are you. I have a cable internet connection, a cd-burner, and a rather large collection of MP3's. Guess what? I still buy traditional, purchased-from-Tower CD's. Like 2 a week. Most of the stuff I buy is music I never would have heard before if it weren't for the evils of pirated music. I live in the middle of bumf0cked Egypt, and there's no way I would have heard most of the music I like to listen to had it not been for getting music off the net.
Wow man, I just ripped into you. I feel so much better for getting that out of my system.
Lars, I just wanted you to know I found myself humming Master of Puppets in the shower, how much do I owe you?
you little commie Anonymous Coward-i dont want people to see what my real name is so they wont make fun of me because I have no valid points to back my arguments up Biotch!
Lars, I just wanted you to know I found myself humming Master of Puppets in the shower, how much do I owe you?
...realized this would halt all his use of Microsoft Word's .doc files and Microsoft's now proprietary "smart quotes."
OR, bid $10000 on the auction and don't pay it. You know his credit card automatically gets billed a percentage of the closing price. You know that right?
eBay is supposedly (at least to bid) an 18+ site, which in my book puts it at least rated R. It sounds like this guy was causing a few more problems than saying some naughty words... but getting courts involved over someones dirty mouth seems to be a little bit of overkill, especially for a site that isn't supposed to be actively used by minors.
prosebeforehos.com
damn straight. complain to every likely suspect in the spam. ebay auctions? websites? shut the lot down.
People living in the mainland of the USA might be able to complain to their telco and get 0800 (freefone) numbers shut down, you may want to check. spam is pretty equivalent to telemarketing, and telemarketing freefone numbers may be against an AUP.
dave
They can forcibly remove homeless for no other apparent reason than obvious homelessness, at least in Texas. And they do.
Suppose I own a lunch counter, and I don't like the things you say, can I throw you out? What if I don't like the way you look or smell and neither do my normal patrons? Does that mean that you have dissrupted my normal business and I can chuck you out?
Can I apply the same reasoning to the person I sell my house to?
Who decides what is reasonable? Well, a Federal Judge does, that's who. They have made such reasonable decisions as: Homeless people may not be removed from public parks; Lunatics may not be locked up without their own consent until they hurt someone and are treated as criminals; and my favorite, A woman's right to privacy garantee's her ability to murder her unborn child.
It's a little harsh, but there's just enough reason in there to make many people stop and think. Many weeds survive by choking the life out of flowers and beneficial plants, so when we get weeds in our garden we rip them out of the ground and destroy them so that the flowers can thrive. If people decide that they want to be societies weeds, why not do the same thing?
And let me guess: you, or people like you, get to decide who's a weed, since there's no way you are one, right? This is wrong on so many levels and you are way too far gone to even try to explain them.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
FSCKING eBay. One one NG I'm a regular on we get tons and tons of people advertising their eBay auctions, even though sales and auctions are expressly disallowed by the charter and FAQ("No Sales/Auctions here" is in the freaking _subject_ line of the FAQ posts)_AND_ we've created at least 5 other groups which were chartered for those specific activities. But when we try to wield our LARTs against these Lusers, eBay sends us a little note saying "we are not responsible for the online behavior of our members"
So people who slow down their business and disrupt their community get _Federal_ action taken against them, but their users who interfere with other online communities get their protection.
Fsckers. I hope this guy gives them hell.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
And it would have been such a nice flame.
Bleh!
Legislation strengthening the bill of rights is in order - extending them to any place which is made explicitly accessible to the public, such as shopping malls.
First, I don't think mere legislation would be enough. A constitutional amendment would probably be required to make it stick (standard IANAL disclaimer applies).
Second, the issue of extending the bill of rights to public spaces gets wildly tricky. If folks with a petition can stand in a mall and get signatures, and/or if the Jehovah's Witnesses can preach, can I run a hot dog stand in a mall? (with the appropriate licenses from the city of course) Is it OK to admit people who are visibly armed?
By themselves, these are stupid straw-man arguments, so bear with me here. Malls exist (and derive their "value added") because all the stuff that goes on in the streets doesn't happen there. Now, if you extend the rights of the streets into the malls, you are depriving the owners of something quite valuable (i.e. the ability to collect much higher rents than a comparable standalone storefront would).
Property rights are also part of the Constitution. Countries that have ambiguous or ill-defined property rights are generally really un-fun places. (actually, most of them are a lot of fun in the "let's party!" sense, but also miserable at distribution of wealth, with most tangibles being held by an extremely small group of people tied to the current leadership).
The problem in the U.S. is largely local, and the solution should probably be local as well. It was easier to allow large property developers to take 1000 acres of land to build a mall than to take the time to build a living, viable, and open community space. Likewise, it should probably be possible to rewrite zoning ordinaces to say that anyone with a large, enclosed retail space should draw up a series of guidelines under which people should be able to excercise some form of free speech/political expression, possibly in the same vein as broadcasters are required to air a certain number of public service announcements as part of their programming.
No, I don't know how to make this happen either, but it's worth a think.
Slashdot already has a self-policing system, I don't know if the same could work for E-bay or not. If you lower your noise threshold, you get should expect to get lots of noise.
> Fuck, people really need to sit back and
:)
> relax... either that or go to a kids sporting
> event and break the umpires jaw to blow off
> steam...
Just an aside here, but as an 8 year veteran of little league umpiring --- the parents there are already too violent and loud-mouthed. Its amazing how upset they'll get just because their kid struck out. So please, don't encourage them anymore. I can only eject so many of 'em
Umm there are such things as federal civil courts.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
That was amazing.
Be careful where you click that Maus though. You never know who's watching.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
I worked for eBay and quit not too long ago. They do have problems keeping people off of eBay by banning ip addresses because of DHCP Servers, NAT, and Proxy Servers. Most individuals are removed because they either are using eBay to commit crime, breaking their established rules (posting slander, using foul language, selling illegal products, and etc). eBay warns the individual that they will take action (take him/her to court) if they register back on eBay via email after they get their account suspended. This is the first incident that I have hear that they are actually taking action by taking an individual to court. This individual must have registered over 40 times and is caught by Safe Harbor everytime. Since eBay cannot ban this individual from eBay, they are asking the court system to help. Kind of interesting where this is going to take the future of the Internet. Oh, eBay is not a private company. They are publicly traded on the Nasdaq with the symbol ebay.
could slashdot do this to trolls?
Jeremy
If you think education is expensive, try ignornace
Ebay doesn't need a judge, they just need a local prosecutor willing to actually crack down on small scale fraud (which is what this guy is doing by lying to create those bogus accounts).
The laws of this country are already set up to reasonably handle cases of abuse, but despite the flames floating around slashdot about big bad uber-government intervention, the reality is that most enforcement agencies are far too busy to prosecute all but the most egregious white collar crime. They won't do so unless specifically asked. Even then, local issues (e.g. problems that local taxpayers are having) usually trump problems that come from out of state.
True, Napster was first for Windows - sad though it is, Windows IS the dominant desktop platform.
/. flame war. This is the first time I've ever been moderated down, from the start. For example.
...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Justify this :
Artist makes song
Song is produced, edited, recorded
CD (or whatever) is distributed
Shop assistant sells CD (one license)
Somebody converts CD to MP3, giving it to 50 people.
Artist gets revenue from 1 CD sale, as does company, shop etc...
People claim this is "Open Source".
I claim this is theft.
I have a HD full of MP3, I feel slightly bad about it. But I listen, becuase it's become socially acceptable to steal music in this way.
People claim this is "Open Source".
I have a lot of clue what Open Source is all about. I actually live with one of the core Helix Code developers. I used to work with the Conglomerate guys. Also guys whose work is now in various Linux distros.
None of them claim copying and distributing MP3 is legally correct, or morally, for that matter.
Still, we had an entire RAID stocked to the brim with MP3, Warez etc...
I regard *your* comments as Trollish, his being more constructive, actually. I notice you don't put your name behind your comments?
I REALLY don't want to turn this into a stupid
I'm gonna take your work, be it school, artistic or "workplace" work, I'm gonna pass it off as my own.
But that's okay, becuase it's all in the Open Source spirit.
Mong.
*
*...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Remember: Nothing is Cool.
Hey, sombody moderate this guy up. Thats the most elegant solution I have heard yet.
I expect to see an apache module on freshmeat before this weekend is out!
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Or:
Joey-bag-a-rocks-help-ya-find-ya-wallet
___
This really isn't a new situation, and if the judge does ban him, it is not setting a precedent. Earlier this year (or maybe it was late last year), the rec.skiing.alpine newsgroup pretty much erupted in an all-out flame war which got to the point of threats of physical violence (there were reports of people visiting other people's houses late at night). The situation got to the point where the police were called, and eventually the courts placed a restraining order on TwoBuddah (who was making the threats). Anyway, the newsgroup calmed down nicely.
The point of this story (I think there was a slashdot article on it earlier) is that banning a user from a public service has been done before (although in this case it was a Washington state court I believe), and was in fact successful. The person in question definitely deserved banishment, as he was disrupting a public place (just like a drunkard can be forcibly removed from a department store if he is bothering the customers), so I don't see any problem with asking for legal intervention in the banning of a person from EBay, so long as his behavior warrants it (which appears to be the case here).
I believe it was Ralph Waldo Emerson (or perhaps another writer...) who said that "one person's right to swing his fist, ends where the other man's nose begins." For example, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to etch, "I'm an asshole" on the hood of my car.
I don't believe this is really an issue of freedom of speech or censorship. It appears as though the individual is attempting to deter an open market with clear intent, malice and forethought.
Oh, one last thing, isn't my right to kick somebody off my site my gun-given-right too?
cc# is required to sell, not to set up a buying account. . .
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This belongs in the /. Hall of Fame.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If I have a site that is dedicated to local products and services (like these) does just having my site connected to the net give me and my site the right to use the federal law to enforce my will across a states border? What about states rights?
___
ebay? why are they even taking this seriously? so what if he cussed? why are they wasting taxpayers money for something so stupid?
We spend our lives learning, if you like learning life is hard. it can never be only the ups the downs will always co
hmm link don't werk
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!
It sounds like he has been notified that he is unwelcome. He continues to establish accounts, probably in spite of agreeing to a terms of use that says he will obey the decisions.
It seems like court protection is reasonable. Federal also makes sense as this is interstate commerce. It would appear that his actions MAY be interfering with Ebay's ability to conduct business.
If I ran a store, and someone kept entering that was asked to leave, I could no doubt call the police and have them removed. This appears to be the equivalent.
I don't see a regulation of the Internet issue with this. This appears to be the same legal system that protects people in real space, and is a good precedent. The idea that you can actually remove users, even with an easy registration process, is a good one.
Remember when BBSes (awaiting the BBS and Internet aren't technically related flames) used call-back verification and would only allow one account so that you could be suspended? This is impossible on the Internet (DHCP/NAT, etc) and seems like the most reasonable approach.
I wish Ebay well.
Alex
I am a lover of penguins, obviously i know how to control a penguin...other wise i wouldn't love them. I'm glad we're focusing in on what you believe i do to penguins and not what the story is about.
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
The court system is already run amok!
Does anybody else see a similarity to the government "not up to speed" with technology and the issues that we now face in this "technology age"?
... they'd do likewise for msoft@buddy.ebay.com. That'd lower the asshole quotient on the site by a few orders of magnitude.
Everybody offering services to all comers (e.g. portals, free email services, free web page services) have this risk. There is no good solution. Crypto is no help because you want to limit the number of identities someone can have, and yet you don't want to put any hurdles in the way of new customers.
The best solution (which is not a good one) is to keep whacking the abusers until they get frustrated and go away. This might be doable by a robot, but likely requires a person.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
One day, not too far off, our friend (let's call him Troll, for now) goes of to bed. Empty bottles of jolt litter the floor, and the sheets stink, but he's really tired. Not even the pale green glow of the slashdot page can keep him awake.
Next thing he knows is that at some ungodly hour jackbooted stormtroopers with high-intsnsity lasers drag him out of bed, waving at the early hours of the morning, waving some strange warrant, and muttering about tacos.
Could we get Jon Katz banned for life?
Probably, but then he would just start submitting articles as J0n K475
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I'm surprised that none of you Slashdotters out there could come up with a humorous angle on this. Especially regarding all of our own little homes problems with such problems. So here is my attempt at it:
Febuary 3rd, 2003 Aided by Senator Orin Hatch, President Ventura has today signed into law a bill first proposed by the editors of Website Slashdot (which recently bought out AOL\TIme Warner\USQwest\GTE-Worldcom), which will permanently put a "lameness" filter over the nations information infrastructure. In addition to wiretapping the nations phonelines to detect any transmissions of the ASCII codes 124-255 in sequences greater then four; there will be a seven day waiting period for people tp purchase any keyboard that can fire more then 20 ampersands a minute. There is also talk that the bill may be extended to including a 1 byte tax on all capital letters.
In addition to this, First Lady Ventura will join Natalie Portman in a 3 billion dollar public service campaign called "Only you can stop ASCII art"
In addition, the house passed a 23 Billion dollar bill that will supply military aid to such high semicolon, backslash and astrerik producing nations as Bolivia, Peru, Costa Rica and Belgium to help get rid of their punctuation-producing crimelords.
The only dissenting voice comes from Jon Katz....who {insert Jon Katz joke here}
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
>If I ran a store, and someone kept entering that was asked to leave, I could no doubt call the police and have them removed.
Not in most states, if the business is offering walk-in "public accomodation." Just because you don't like someone, you can't ban him from your restaurant, and you certainly can't get the police to remove him.
I don't know what this guy's actions were. In most places, you can have someone who starts a fight thrown out. But fighting is against local law, imposes a threat of loss and liability on the business, etc. Does cussing at a bunch of folks constitute a threat or crime?
Depends on how or where. If he's grabbing random email addresses, then sending people unsolicited curse mail, cream him (or at least get a restraining order). If he's a jerk that gets into arguments with people and winds up cursing them out on the public forums, well, oh well. You can call the bouncer to rough up the village idiot, but you can't ask the police to get rid of him. (Well, unless you live in NY under Guilianni.)
What I'm saying is that the situation here matters, what he's done matters, and CNN reports none of that.
When will people learn that everything they say online will be there forever?
Well, I guess they'll learn the hard way. Happy flaming.
Instead of banning these individuals that receive a certain quota of complaints, perhaps Ebay should put them on an "unpreferred customer" list. These individuals are subject to random delays in net connectivity, including occasional 404's. Their bids are often "lost", their auction items as well.
The hope is that these specific individuals assume its a general internet problem and eventually decide it's not worth the trouble.
Obviously if word gets around that this is being done, these people will switch accounts just as they now do to circumvent bannings. But it might be more effective than outright bans until such time as they do realize what the problem is.
Obviously it won't cure all of the problem and some individuals will persist in obnoxious behavior no matter what you do, but it might help reduce the problem a bit.
What do you think sirs?
From Dave Barry:
Here is the problem: for many years, the Supreme Court wrestled with the issue of pornography, until finally Associate Justice John Paul Stevens came up with the famous quotation about how he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. So for a while, the court's policy was to have all suspected pornography trucked to Justice Steven's house, where he would look it over. "Nope, this isn't it," he'd say. "Bring some more." This went on until one morning when his housekeeper found him trapped in the recreation room under an enormous mound of rubberized implements and the court had to issue a ruling stating that it didn't know what the hell pornography was except that it was illegal and everybody should stop badgering the court about it because the court was going to take a nap.
Dave Barry "Pornography"
--
Eric is chisled like a Greek Godess
marotti.com
o The Web already provides a way to "ban" or restrict access to users. It's called password protection.
o If ebay can block a single user, can any webmaster place de facto bans on individuals or groups of individuals? Can I create a "for whites" only web page? Can I say this page is for athiests only, all others are forbidden to load it? Can I appeal to the government to have only beautiful women load my pages by my decree?
o Under what authority is any government able to force a "ban" on a particular user from accessing an online service? What prior examples of this are there?
o I've read some posts that suggest visiting a site when told explicitly not to is akin to hacking. (or cracking, for the extremely anal.) I don't think so. I can see that this is an unwanted computer connection or whatever. And while it's disruptive maybe, it's not a violation of security (and I'm sure computer crime has a clear legal definition). A company like ebay should realize that they are fostering an entire community. While they have every right to enforce their own communal laws, they don't to appeal to the government-at-large, which follows its own rules.
o Sometimes analogies are helpful when considering Internet issues, but in this case...are the web sites like stores at a mall? Are they like houses in a neighborhood? Is it like people who set up booths at a public park? I'm not sure it's so clear.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
As much as I hate trolls, I must say I love freedom of speach much more. I am not sure what this guy did, but I don't want this to start a presitant. You can't kick people off the internet sites for being anoying. As Americans it is our god given right to be an asshole! Can I get kicked off /. for saying that?
only 1 user uses bad language on ebay? I doubt that, lets imagine they ban that 1 user, I think thousands of users that are pissed off about that incident will use worst language on ebay.
So why can't they just automatically not allow posts which use foul language? "banuser() if ($post=~/(bird)|(pidgeon)/);"
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
A credit card is required for sellers and some buyers.
From the ebay registration FAQ:
A credit card is required if you are registering using an anonymous email address from Yahoo, Hotmail, etc. Your card will not be charged and will only be used for verification purposes as registration is free on eBay.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
This would be the same as a person being banned from a movie theater. That the manager caught the person bring in a flashlight on the screen during the movie. They tell the person to leave.
Then this person puts on a wig and come again.
Then the call the police and have the person arrested for tresspassing after the 4th time.
Given the nature of the web, it's easy to create a new personna and come in with a new disguise.
Fight Spammers!
You are 100% correct that everyone trolls on occasion, you can't ban everyone. I think what you are missing is that 40-45 times in the past 3 months is excessive. Just like everyone stares a cute member of the opposite (or same for some) sex on occasion, but approaching him/her with a knife is considered taboo. There has to be a line drawn at which point you go from expressing your opinion on a private server to just harrasing the users, just like there is a line between attraction and stalking.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Posted by timody on Dursday July 13, @06:31PM
/. at least, and maybe would give someone incentive t' go afta' spammers (o' even phone solicitors.)" Bein' dat Ebay be some private, voluntary enterprise, aint dis some bit likes ax'ing some federal judge t' keep de neighbors' dog out uh ya' yard? Sounds likes de usa' gots'ta already been banned -- by Ebay. Slap mah fro! Puh'haps whut dey really wants' be some restrainin' orda'?
fum de and-*stay*-out! dept.
stuliva' lips scribbles: "CNN.com reports in dis article dat Ebay wants some federal judge t' ban some usa' fo' life fo' 'usin' foul language and floutin' its own attempts t' ban him.' Ebay's defense be dat he be 'disruptin' de normal course uh conduct.' Dis could be some great precedent, fo'
It sounds like a dangerous precedent in setting up an equivalent to a restraining order on the Internet.
The other side to the issue is that eBay has clearly tried to remove the user with no success. Is the government going to have any more luck? [without the use of jail or other big-brother privacy infringement tactics]
Dave
I've used the nick "Waldo ?" since 1984 when I was a freshman in high school and that that oh-so-great "Hot For Teacher" video came out. (you know the one with "Sitttdowwwn wallldo." Riding the bus was hell.)
Back then the nick was used mostly on BBS's. The "?" (last name) was added because most bbs's required a First and Last name.
I've seen a ton of "Waldo"s since then. Just go on efnet (IRC) and try changing your nick to Waldo.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Completely off topic, but true. A little agressive, me thinks.
...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Comments like this should not be posted as AC, as it implies you're not 100% behind your posting :
- Becuase you don't wish to be contacted
- You don't wish to face the consequences of your posting (flames/down moderation)
- Because you don't want people to know that you disagree with the majority.
Well, I'm posting this with my username, with the +1 bonus intact.
I suggest politicised comments be posted WITH usernames, to add a touch of commitment and sincerity.
That's my twopence worth, anyway.
Mong.
*
*...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Remember: Nothing is Cool.
This seems rather juvenile: calling in the teacher on the playground b/c little johnny keeps calling me a cussword... (he did, too. the little bastard...)
The key phrase in the article was "profane abusive language". Isn't this more a wakeup call to the language we use? Why are people such prudes, is there any fundamental merit to someone claiming being offended by language? I don't think there is. I guess one could extrapolate to the supreme court's definition of porn...
Fuck, people really need to sit back and relax... either that or go to a kids sporting event and break the umpires jaw to blow off steam...
It's so silly that people just can't ignore this. No, they have to call in the legal system. I mean, I rise to bait as often as the next schmoe, but I chose to. (I think.) I can always PG-DWN/ignore. Hopefully baiting and trolling won't become misdemeanors in the future.
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
First they came for the warez kiddies, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a warez kiddie. They then came for the child pornographers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a child pornographer... finally they came for the assholes, but by then there was no one left to speak up for us.
I thought I'd heard that as a measure against fraud, EBay was now requiring a credit card number in order to register? If that's so, how is this guy getting all of these accounts?
In meatspace making an individual keep a physical distance away and have no contact with a person/business is called a restraining order. These orders are issued every day in courts across the land.
Sounds like ebay is trying to get an effective restraining order in cybersapce that can be enforced.
Hmmm, sounds reasonable. Anyone think there's a downside to virtual restraining orders? I can't think of one.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
I mean, it's dead on topic...
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
I would like to ban (i.e. get a restraining order against) this cadre of random ninja monkeys that keep following me around. Specifically I would like them to stop following me to /. so that I may read in peace.
"My squid kung fu is not your avg fish kung fu!"
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
No, I am not an "exception", I am a "TARGET".
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Easy, simple steps -- yes, even you could do it:-
1. Moderate DOWN all posts questioning or saying negative things about Open Source, no matter how reasonable or accurate they may be.
2. Moderate UP all pro Open Source posts, no matter how stupid or inaccurate.
3. Moderate UP all posts from people saying nice things about VA Linux/Andover/Malda.
4. Watch VA/Andover/Slashdot stock $$$$ rise
and have a really good laugh at all those suckers who let them get away with it. +ffb9[l0
That very federal / state issue is being fought here in Utah right now.
:) ) He asked the feds for help, but they say that under the current laws, compelling some guy in Virginia to collect Utah tax just doesn't work. So our honorable gov keeps spewing fire, but apparently, Utahs power ends at Utahs borders (and for all of you out there that are not from Utah, thats probably a good thing).
Our fine governor, Mr. Mike Levitt is rabid about being able to charge taxes for items purchased out of state. Apparently on our state income tax forms (and others, I guess. I haven't cared enough to find out), we have to tally all the things we bought out of state, and pay taxes on them. That includes web purchases. So that means that everytime I go buy myself something on ThinkGeek, I gotta save the reciept and pay taxes on them at the end of the year. (And you can guess how many times I do that..
So I wonder, how do we sort it all out? For me, I think the feds should handle it. That elimiates the pain and suffering of having 50 different laws and precedents and customs that need to be applied (which means that your average sysadmin would need to know the rules in all 50 states just in case something went down).
Of course, how the feds should handle it, and the legality of such a rule and all that other jazz is way beyond my post (so don't flame me for it, dammit...). Thats why I am sitting in this cube in Utah, and not Washington DC.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
eBay should just hire Hilary Rosen to run everything.
http://cassettefetish.com
Not in most states, if the business is offering walk-in "public accomodation." Just because you don't like someone, you can't ban him from your restaurant, and you certainly can't get the police to remove him.
When I ran a restaruant the police told me that once I warned someone to leave, if they didn't depart immeadiatly they were then tresspassing. Legally I had to tell them to be gone, but once I did, if they didn't leave I would call the police who would remove them. If the police had trouble I would press charges (I only considered it once, and we had continious trouble with non-customers blocking half out parking lot)
Restaraunts are on private property. We invite people to spend money in them, and try to be reasonable. When your presence is scaring/bothering other customers you are no longer welcome. Most "clean cut" people get scared when they see 75 high school kids in a parking lot, many smoking (Not legally), most with leather jackets, guys with long hair, nose rings, and so on. You could argue that the high school kid in a suit is just as likely to be a danger, but the custoemrs don't really buy it so it doesn't matter if the group is harmless of not. (This is one example, but it was real life several times while I ran the restaruant)
isn't this a bit like asking a federal judge to keep the neighbors' dog out of your yard?
You know, I guess it is, and given my neighbors & their dogs (and all the $#!* they leave on my lawn), getting help from a judge might not be a bad idea. . . I guess you could just say that eBay has a really big yard. Welcome to the Metaverse.
-"Zow"
Ok. How about this scenario?
I'm at work, and I've brought my home PC in to do some work. It's 2 AM, and I'm getting ready to go home. So, I start carrying my PC to my car. (Someone at this point calls the police, thinking I'm stealing some PC from work.) I go back inside and when I come out, there's a cop there, but I don't see him. I get in my car to drive away, and I can't hear the cop shouting to me to get out of the car. I start the car and begin pulling out.
Does the cop have the authority to start shooting at me? I think not. However, you seem to think that he should, since it appears that I'm 'stealing the hard work of others'. And, if you think that my story is too hard to belive, then there are a million other, more plausible scenarios someone could come up with (e.g. I've had to break into my own house before because I've been locked out late at night). I didn't think that criminals were guilty until they were seen in court and given due process. But, then again, IANAL.
But I do have to say that your line of reasoning is very scary in its consequences.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I would hardly call this a great precedent for anything. We don't need more laws that don't work interfering with private business. And it's a Sisyphean task to try to do anything to stop the onslaught of spammers, phone solicitors, etc. Kind of like trying to plug a raging river with corks. Look at /. -- even as more "lameness filters" are added to the code, the quantity of trolls has gone way up (apparently inversely proportional to the quality). Almost always, the government is not the best route for this kind of thing.
then we could ban /. trolls
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field