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?

6 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's a private company by gwernol · · Score: 5

    Since it's a private company, it should be allowed to ban any user it wants.

    And indeed, that's exactly what eBay did. They did ban him, but he apparently then came back on the system no less than 45 times under different user names. I guess in the end eBay got fed up with this bozo and decided the only sanction he might listen to was a legal one. Some people just don't know when to give up and go home.

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
  2. A last resort by Badmovies · · Score: 5

    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
  3. Seems pretty reasonable... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 5

    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

  4. hmmm by the_other_one · · Score: 5

    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!
  5. Supreme court's definition of porn by hodeleri · · Score: 5

    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

  6. In America... by Chops · · Score: 5

    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.