MacAddict Tracks Down eBay Scam Artist

OS24Ever writes "A future high school history teacher, Jason Eric Smith, sold an 867MHz PowerBook G4 on eBay right before finals. He found out the hard way that people are out there to rip you off, and he went to great lengths to catch this guy with the help of Mac heads everywhere. A great read and agreat way for us little guys to get back at these scammers."

Comments

My Favorite quote is.....

[neurostar]

"That night I dreamed of Mr. Christmas and a baseball bat, some duct tape, and roofing nails."

neurostar

Re:My Favorite quote is.....

[fidget42]

This was best described in "The Princess Bride" with the definition of "To the pain."

Re:My Favorite quote is.....

[GreyPoopon]

Is this the correct spot to insert an inappropriate comment about correctional facilities and large men named "Bubba?"

* Please note that this is not intended as any form of discrimination against anyone with the name of "Bubba."

Re:My Favorite quote is.....

[kmellis]

"That night I dreamed of Mr. Christmas and a baseball bat, some duct tape, and roofing nails."

I have this recurring dream every year about this time. Weird.

A smart mob / posse?

[certron]

I think this is interesting for the sole fact that a whole lot of people who owe no direct kinship to each other elected to cooperate for a common cause.

I was listening to a presentation about different pagan holidays, and one component of one of the rituals was to honor / remember your ancestors. What made me remember this was that the presenter said that the ancestors didn't have to be biological, instead could be cultural, intellectual, or spiritual ancestors.

In this case, it seems that these 'artificial' families are willing to stick together and cooperate on a common goal, even if they themselves will not directly benefit. I suppose this is just a regular community, with enough people in it that a few would be motivated to assist. Then again, I could just be amazed by my own insight, marvelling at a fact that others have known for ages, and so think that I am smarter than I actually am. :-)

Re:A smart mob / posse?

[bricriu]

There's a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick," that involves the plot point of the President of the US giving everyone new randomly-from-amongst-a-certain-set-of-words-and-n umbers-assigned middle names. The idea was exactly what you say -- that now everyone has a new "family". Typically loopy Vonnegut, but ultimately an interesting idea (which is also typical Vonnegut behavior).

I'm sorry - but he was an idiot in the first place

[Dark Paladin]

I sell things on Ebay as well (usually old games that I'm done with) - and I don't do COD. Paypal - sure. Checks and money orders, but I wait until they clear before they ship.

I know we should be more trusting of people, but I've become convinced that 20% of the population is made of Assholes that can be trusted only as far as they can be shot.

Still, I have to admire his spirit tracking the guy down - if nothing else, that's one less asshole to worry about. Only 1 billion to go!

The importance of a 'P'

[Mr Guy]

If he was a spammer and not a scammer, he could have just posted it here and had the guy in hours.

All would've been different...

[Anonymous Cowtard]

...if this guy had just waited to ship the item until the payment had cleared. If the buyer wasn't interested in that, then wait for another buyer who *is* willing.

Would've saved him a lot more trouble and money in the long run.

Re:All would've been different...

[ScuzzMonkey]

And then we would have got the story from the [i]buyer[/i] about how he sent this check off and it got cashed and WHOOPS! the PowerBook never showed up and he then had to track down the seller and threaten him with a baseball bat. :)

FedEX Responsibility

[rjstanford]

Doesn't FedEX have some responsibility in this case? After all, if you ship something COD and they accept a counterfit check, why is that completely your fault?

I'm not saying that it isn't legally your problem, just that in an ideal world it shouldn't be. After all, presumably it would be FedEX's fault if they accepted something written in crayon on a brown paper sack ... where do you draw the line? Any ideas?

Re:FedEX Responsibility

[Mandi Walls]

I dunno, man.

Cashier's checks look different at every bank. You can't expect the FedEx guy to whip out his cel phone and call the bank right at the guy's doorstep to check out the legitimacy of the paperwork.

He's just the messenger.

's almost as bad as relying on the manager at McDonald's to catch counterfeit $20s.

Mac users are a posse, man. They're like one big inbred family. They trust other Mac users 'cause they have some bizarre kinship for being on the short end of the tech stick.

Like us here, only with the social stick...

--mandi

Re:I'm sorry - but he was an idiot in the first pl

[oyenstikker]

Surely you're not trying to say that there is only one asshole in every 7 people.

Re:You can stop payment on a cashier's check?

[.sig]

I think the point was that they were counterfeit cashiers checks, which is why the secret service was involved. It was implied in the article, but nevere flat out said.

Re:I had a farfetched thought...

[Denito]

What a fantastic idea. Instead of losing your money to scams, you can instead use it all buying GPS devices that you ship away and never get again.

I haven't heard such great idea since my meeting with accounting 10 minutes ago.

Go against ebay rules, get burned

[Nefrayu]

Ok, so it sounds like from this article the guy listed his system on eBay, but then sold it to a guy who "saw his ad" on eBay, but didn't actually bid on the item. This is 1. Against eBay rules for selling, and 2. Stupid. There's no way to get any kind of verification on who it was he was talking with (as he found out), no way to check out the guy's prior habits (via feedback), and no way to get back at the guy without a lot of effort. Every sale on eBay is insured up to a certain amount, with fraud protection offered through PayPal and through credit cards, COD is also the worst way to go.
I tell everyone who contacts me in this manner to bid on my auctions. Period. There's a reason eBay has these rules, and this is one of them.
But, no one ever said Mac users were the shiniest apples in the barrel.

The broken window theory

[Fished]

One of the things he mentions is tha tthe FBI and Secret Service were not interested in anything less than $5000. Chicago police just weren't interested... This brings up something called "the broken window theory." It goes like this: some socioligists whose names escape me observed that, as long as no window was broken in a building, they tended to stay unbroken. However, as soon as one was broken, if it was not repaired every window in the building would be broken in a couple of weeks.

The idea here is that, by ignoring small crimes, the police miss chances to prevent big crimes. The funny thing is that the people wanted for "small" (I don't think of $3000 as small, but that's just me) crimes are often pulling the same scam again and again - but no one ever turns them in. These "small" scams can add up to really large amounts of money and become big ones.

A few years ago, we had a homeless man who we gave a household job to steal a check out of my wife's checkbook. We only found out when we got a call from the grocery store, asking if we had actually written the check. Of course we hadn't -- the reason the grocery store had called us was that the guy had pulled the same stunt, at the same grocery store, seven times before. No one ever pressed charges. Well, we pressed charges, and it turned out the guy was also wanted for 10 counts of car theft, forging, fraud, etc. etc. ad nauseam. The really nauseating part? The police never followed through on our theft and forgery complaints, even though this guy had dozens of similar complaints against him.

So, the bottom line in my not so humble opinion is that, if you want to prevent crime, you don't need to outlaw guns or anything: just start enforcing the laws you already have.

Re:The broken window theory

[Anonymous Coward]

you should have planted a joint on him before calling the cops, that would have got them interested.

Re:The broken window theory

[psxndc]

This is also know as the tipping point. There is X point in a relationship where going just beyond that point causes a dramatic shift in that relationship. Example: Say crime in CityX is 5%. 6% is the tipping point such that if crime stays at 5% it will remain 5% indefinitely. By inching that percentage up 1% to 6% for some reason the reality is that crime will jump to say 12% the year after it hit 6%. It's just a weird phenomenom that has to do with people's perception of a reality becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. More info can be found here

psxndc

Re:Would a Windows User?

[MoneyT]

Mac users are very protective of their computers, and will go to great lengths to ensure that people don't steal them. Theres a similar story floating about how one person had their mac stolen from thier house and used tibuktu and some funky apple scripts to trace the mac to a house. Long story short, police show up, find stolen computers, guy gets his computer back.

Just cause PC users are accustomed to losing money in bad investments doesn't mean that mac users are.

[Yes, that last statement is a troll]

Re:something's rotten

[ShdwStkr]

No.

From FedEx's COD Policy (here)

quote

D. Checks (including cashier's, official, certified, business and personal checks) and money orders for the C.O.D. Amount will be collected at the shipper's sole risk, including, but not limited to, all risk of nonpayment, fraud and forgery. FedEx has no liability with respect to any such instrument.

end quote.

Awfully dangerous

[interstellar_donkey]

This story should be fowarded to everyone at the Chicago police. It should be an embarassment for them.

The ho hum attitude of law inforcement regarding things done on the Internet is sad, and scary. If the young man hadn't finally been able to contact an agency that actually wanted to do their job (stop crime), who knows where it would have gone.

Being a vigilante is never a good idea, but when the police don't do anything, it leaves the average person little choice.

I suspect we'll start seeing this more and more in the future, as long as law enforcement refuses to act on these things. Why should a person have to spend their own time and money in order to stop criminals? Are we going to reach a point where the only way someone can get an investigation is if they pay somebody to do it? I thought that's what our taxes which paid for police departments were supposed to do.

Just wait.. Withen a few years somebodys going to get killed because the police sat on their hands and a frustrated victim did their footwork and blows the person who scammed them away.

Re:Awfully dangerous

[anonymous loser]

Put simply the average detective's case load is way too high to worry about a $3k fraud. When you have more work to do than you can possibly do, what do you tackle first? The case that gives you the biggest bang for your buck. I.e. cases involving fraud of *large* amounts of money, murder, drugs, etc.

Re:Awfully dangerous

[stratjakt]

>> And in a perfect world, they would have people assigned to this sort of thing, and enough of them to do something about it in a timeful manner.

In a perfect world, there would be no cranks or nutjobs who spend all day having the local cops run errands for them or otherwise bother them with trivial bullshit.

I'm not saying this guy is one, but we have a bitchy old crank down the street who calls the cops every time a kid cuts across her lawn on the way home from school.

I had the cops come to my door 5 nights a row at my old townhouse because the neighbour kept reporting my car as a 'suspicious vehicle parked out in front'. Luckily I work for a company that sells software to police, and my local county in particular, so the problem quickly went away.

Then there's the drunks who go out and pick a fight, get their asses kicked, then show up at the station wanting to 'see the guy locked up'.

And everyone who gets the short end of the stick on a business deal wants the cops to do something for them.

My point is, forget the fact that there's an overwhelming amount of crime for a cop to be able to deal with each incident in a timely manner.. Theres so much bullshit and whining, they never get to the real incidents. And when they do, their hands are so tied with beurocracy and paperwork and bullshit procedures that you aren't going to see your 'eye for an eye' instant gratification.

As I mentioned, I write and support software for the public safety industry. I can dial in to any one of hundreds of our CAD (Computer Automated Dispatching) systems and see the ratio of cranks/whines to actual incidents is literally 100:1.

In a case like this, if you have the evidence of who ripped you off and how, it's much better to get a lawyer and drag it into a civil court.

Disclaimer: Noone has more disrespect for cops than me, I work with 'em every day. There are many incompetent, arrogant, power-tripping douchebags with a gun and a badge out there. But they do have a pretty much impossible job to do. They write so many speeding/seatbelt tickets because thats all the system lets them do effectively.

Re:Awfully dangerous

[sweetooth]

This is flawed logic. By going after the big criminal you look good and stop one or two big thefts. If you let the small time fraud cases go you can ultimatly be letting a larger amount be stolen. The fact that it's taken in smaller amounts doesn't make it any less of a crime. In fact if you read the article you would see that the individual committing the fraud in this case was committing $10,000 in fraud that day. How many other times had he done this? Probably quite a bit. Is it worth it to go after one $100,000 fraud case and not 5 $3,000-$6,000 dollar fraud cases that may ultimatly add up to >$100,000? If small time criminals find out that as long as they keep the dollar amount down they won't be investigated by the police, they are basically provided incentive to continue committing the crimes in those small amounts. Over time it can add up to a lot of money. They are also likely to tell other people about it and the trend can increase.

Re:Awfully dangerous

[djrogers]

But of course, being concerned about that is fashionable in law-enforcement circles these days.

Umm, ok... I know it's really cool to use daddy's 1337 computer to make fun of cops, but how on earth can you bring yourself to question the motives of someone trying to save a child from rape, torture, murder, or worse?

What gives you the balls to even _think_ that a man who has dedicated his life to protecting innocent children does it because it makes him look good?

Tell you what, you sit in on an interview with a 9 year old girl after the fact, and then come back and tell me that cops just do what's 'fashionable'.

shmuck...

Re:I'm sorry - but he was an idiot in the first pl

[MalleusEBHC]

Surely you're not trying to say that 20% comes out to 1 in 7 as a fraction.

Hired to steal checks?

[Osty]

few years ago, we had a homeless man who we gave a household job to steal a check out of my wife's checkbook.

You hired a homeless man to steal checks from your wife? No wonder you got screwed.

(Hint: Next time, try using decent setence structure to not confuse your point.)

Mod Parent Up.

[Fished]

You know ... you've really got a point there. Maybe if we weren't putting all our law enforcement dollars into trivial, non-violent drug "crimes" (or would be non-violent if they weren't illegal) we would have time, money and energy to pursue things like theft, fraud, forgery, utterance, grand theft auto, etc.

Never thought I'd see an Insightful AC.

Re:Mod Parent Up.

[glesga_kiss]

And Budweiser wouldn't be to pleased with any legalisation. They are a primary contributor to Partnership for a Drug Free America.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think? ;-)

Funny

[cheezedawg]

I think its funny that

1) He no longer has his mac
2) He is out $3000
3) He failed his finals
4) He spent a bunch of extra money tracking the guy down (plane ticket, PI, etc)
5) He is still happy about it

I'd guess he is a "Glass is half full" kind of guy.

Re:Funny

[ChaosDiscord]

He may be out time, money, hardware, and grades, but he got revenge. Never underestimate the value of revenge.

(If I had the chance to catch someone who defrauded me, I'd do so in a second. If I knew he had defrauded many other people and would continue to do so, I'd spend a fair amount of time and effort to track him down.)

No, you read it incorrectly

[tswinzig]

"My girlfriend and I decided we would use the extra money to donate to some charities for Christmas"

Clearly he was talking about the guy that stole his Mac.... Melvin Christmas.

On The Internet, Nobody Knows You're A Dog

[The Fun Guy]

... unless you try to screw a Mac addict. Then you'll be hunted down in meatspace like a, like a, like a something-or-other.

Serves the thief right for messing with a Mac type. Everybody knows they're unstable to begin with, and all it takes is a just a little push for them to go postal.

(So, +1 Funny for the first paragraph, -1 Flamebait for the second? Worth the risk.)

Re:On The Internet, Nobody Knows You're A Dog

[Daniel Dvorkin]

My iBook is extremely stable. I, on the other hand ...

Re:Every group has the zealots

[wolfgang_spangler]

" I know in my heart that Mr. Christmas is really a PC guy. "

that line from the article is a pretty big clue. And his other rantings about how stupid pc users are. This from a guy that sent a $2900 computer to someone. And HE is calling people stupid. Wow.

He needs to be hit with a Clue-by-Four.

Reminds me of New York

[Dark Paladin]

As I seem to recall (and people from New York feel free to correct me on this), one of the things that Rudy Guiliani [sic] did was have the police start ticketing people who jaywalked.

The result? Overall reduction in crime - since if you were going to be caught for the little things, odds are you were going to be caught for doing a big thing (selling drugs, etc). And it made the police highly visible - and the one thing I remembered from my old criminal law classes (before I ditched law) - the likelyhood of getting caught for a crime is a far greater deterance than the punishment of a crime.

I have to agree - if we have a system that busted people for crimes - regardless of the "level" (no, I'm not suggesting death penalties for jaywalking, calm down, or a police state - just if a crime is obviously committed, like a bike theft **cough**like I went through once**cough**), go after it. Odds are, it would do more good in the long run by nipping these "small time" crooks in the bud before they ever become "big time".

Re:Reminds me of New York

[lysurgon]

Actually the Guiliani directive to crack down on "quality of life" crime went way further back than jaywaliking. In fact the aggressive prosecution of jaywalkers (and the outlawying of dancing in unlicensed city bars and clubs) is really where he went over the line.

The basis of the quality of life program was to try to move in and bust kids writing graffitti, homeless people loitering and especially low-level drug dealers. Beat cops had previously been instructed to avoid drug deals for fear of corruption.

The numbers largely speak for themselves (though there's a strong case that improved economic conditions do as much to deter crime as incresed police presence), but because of endemic flaws in the police system (e.g. a certain amount of ingranced racism) the whole campaign caused a lot of acrimony.

People (more often than not minorities) were being stopped and shaken down for guns and drugs illegally, but since these shakedowns seemed effective, the department allowed it to go on. The high-profile beatings and killings of minorities around the city was causing a lot of civil unrest. Thankfully, since 9-11 the relationship between the police and the people of the city seems to be back on track. Too bad it took such a tragedy to set things right.

Re:Reminds me of New York

[neocon]

I'm going to make a wild guess here -- you don't live in New York at all, right?

If you do, you must not get off campus much, eh?

You've just presented a remarkably inaccurate picture of the police program which turned New York around, and had already improved relations between police and communities (including minority communities) long before 9/11.

See, `the minorities' aren't any different than the rest of us. Everyone wants to be safe in their home and neighborhood. By having the police fight crime in minority neighborhoods as well as rich neighborhoods, instead of just giving up on areas like East Harlem and Bed-Stuy, Giuliani did more for police-community relations than any of the hundreds of `outreach programs' ever had.

20% huh?

[kfg]

You're one of those people who think the glass is half full, arn't you?

KFG

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[JVert]

./ Enhancement request:
Anything with certain kewords (ex: "in soviet russia") gets automatic -1 karma.
Yes I realize that includes this post right here.
And I'm willing to take the bullet for my country!
In slashdot we flame our own posts!!!

Funny quote about 23 pics of the house..

[cOdEgUru]

Imagine the butthead sitting with his buddy drinkin beeeer outside on the porch (assuming its out in the middle of nowhere) watching black cars and vw minis go by with strange white folk staring out through tinted glasses with cameras in hand snapping pics like crazy :) ..

Had to laugh..

Your logic is faulty

[PaxTech]

if drugs were legal they wouldn't cost NEARLY what they do on the black market. Most of that markup is to cover the risks. If heroin was legal, most addicts would be able to afford it by working at McDonald's.

I think possibly my biggest pet peeve is when people cite the negative effects of prohibition as a reason to keep drugs illegal.

Re:Your logic is faulty

[krlynch]

Not to be contrary or anything, but do you have references to any studies that show this? I imagine that this conclusion is NOT true. My reasoning is the following: pricing on addictive substances is generally highly inelastic (that is, demand and price are only weakly coupled). That is, producers can demand just about any price they want, and the users will continue to pay that high price. The same is true of many currently LEGAL addictive substances: alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, heating oil, food, etc (okay, I admit that I'm using "addictive" a bit loosely here). The demand for these substances has little to do with the current price (when the price of gasoline rises 50%, for instance, you don't drive substantially less ... you suck it up and pay the high price), and the current price has little to do with current end user demand. I don't see any reason that legalization of a currently illegal addictive substance would drive its price down. Nor do I see that driving down the price would greatly increase the number of users (the demand). I know that I, for instance, wouldn't run out and start to ingest cocaine or marijuana if it was suddenly legal...

Please throw me some links if I'm wrong though; I'm quite curious if there is information contrary to my reasoning.

Re:Your logic is faulty

[egburr]

What you say would be true if "supply and demand" were the only force operating there. Competition has a huge effect, too.

For your example about gasoline prices, the prices are directly affected by supply at the origin, but not much by demand at the end consumer. Most gas stations in an area are within a few cents of each other, because they are all maintaining prices as low as they can while still making a slight profit. Why? Competition. They don't get a lot of choice in the price, because (1) they do not determine the price they buy at, and (2) they have lots of competition.

For drugs, the street dealers also generally do not determine the price they buy it at, but they do determine the competition (or lack thereof). In an area with a large organized group of dealers, how long does an upstart independent competitive dealer survive? What happens when two competitive dealers (or organizations of dealers) lay claim to an area? Lower prices or physical violence?

Legalizing drugs may not be the complete solution, but it would go a long way towards lowering prices. When every gas station and grocrey store and drug store has a recreational drug counter, the competition will drive prices down to the point that the retailers are just barely making a profit. Also, a minimum quality of product will be assured. Taxes will be collected. The economy will benefit. (OK, so maybe I'm going a bit overboard there.)

The people who can't handle their addiction will at least be able to get more for a lower price, and maybe overdose themselves out of existence. In the long term, that should cut down on the theft needed to maintain habits.

Re:Your logic is faulty

[swv3752]

Check out the price of caffein. Caffein is more addictive than cocain, though the two used to be mixed together. The difference is that the effects are milder and the withdrawal is not as bad. the majority of headaches that people experience in the US and other Western countries are actually from caffein withdrawal.

Anyways the price of caffein, or coffee, tea, and cola if you will, is kept in check by competition. Alcohol is also kept in check because there is competition. Oil is not a fair comparison as that is held mostly by a Cartel- OPEC anyone?

Make it legal but controlled and most of the crimes associated with it would disappear. Just not overnight.

SHHH!!!

[ez76]

If you get ripped, just follow the signal or keep track of where it last vanished (perhaps it went into a basement where it couldn't be tracked any further). Meet the crook at his/her door with a .45.

How many times do I have to tell you people?

The first rule of GPS-based loss recovery retribution fight club is:

You don't talk about GPS-based loss recovery retribution fight club!

Re:Would a Windows User?

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Story is right here dude

Wait At Least 10 Business Days to Be More Sure...

[Ron Bennett]

The check *appeared* to clear. Many people figure that once the deposited funds are made available in their account - typically one or two business days, that the money is theirs...

The problem is that a deposited check, etc can be canceled or not honored for upwards of 10 business days. So for one to be virtually sure that a check, etc is "good", they need to wait at least 10 business days (2+ weeks)...most folks don't wait that long, but they should or they run the risk of being scammed.

Also, even if the check itself is real (lets not even get into forged cashier checks, etc - even a well seasoned banker would have difficulty detecting some forgeries), the account it's associated with may not be and/or lacking any funds.

Bottom line is that waiting for clearing is critical...below is my understanding/experience with these things...not the gospel...

Common payment methods and clearing/dispute time frames:

Wire: Same day and very safe...they're not without risk though, but problems are rare. Some places that accept wires for payment impose a two day waiting period.

Check: 10 business days for personal/business checks. Cashier checks, etc have much shorter clearing times - BUT that assumes they're real...if unsure/concerned, then one should wait 10 business days as with personal checks.

Money Order: At least 10 business days if forged. It's best to wait, then be sorry if unsure.

Direct deposit (ACH): 2 business days. Can be reversed/disputed for upwards of 60 days.

Credit Card: Varies on circumstances and issurer, but can be reversed for upwards of six months later.

The law and procedures are very complicated and full of exceptions, etc...the bank, acting an agent, must make deposited funds available within a short period time as dictated by law/banking procedures...but the point is one should NOT assume just because their bank says funds are available that the funds are truly theirs...because they may not be :-(

Ron Bennett

Re:I'm sorry - but he was an idiot in the first pl

[saskboy]

And if you live in Canada, you can neither send nor receive merchandise, and be covered by PayPal's seller protection, because Canadapost is not recognized as a shipper by PayPal.

www.paypalsucks.com and if you use it for anything more than playmoney on the internet, you are a bafoon. PayPal is only for buyers with credit cards, not for sellers who are dumb enough to use it.

Repeat article, sort of?

[Greedo]

Sounds a lot like this guy's story.

Basically, stolen iBook has dynamic DNS and Timbuktu (VNC-like app) installed on it. Owner notes when stolen computer is logged into the net, runs Applescript to help track it, recovers it.

I think I read about this on /. back in January.

Re:something's rotten

[derch]

The article's slashdotted, so I'm replying under the assumption the fake certified funds looks legit on first glance.

First, it's a question of reasonably expectations. If the Fedex guy accepted your "Sertifyed Chek," you'd probably have a case of incompetance against the delivery man.

On the other hand, if it looks like certified check, what do you really expect Fedex to do? To verify that it was valid, you'd have to get the funds and then call the issuer before handing over the package. That's going to add several minutes per COD package. In the case of some businesses, Fedex would have to schedule 15 - 45 minutes for delivery.

I worked for a company that was burned by a fake cashier's check once. The check looked real. Our bank accepted the check without problems. It wasn't till several days later that the bank found out it was a fake. In our case, the receiver had called his Fedex station and asked them to hold the package at the station, and he picked it up there. The address he had given us was actually a vacant lot.

Essentially, the carrier acts as your agent when collecting the funds. It'd be the same as if someone walked up to the counter and passed you a bad cashier's check or counterfiet money.

I'm sorry, but you didn't read carefully enough.

[uigrad_2000]

Checks and money orders, but I wait until they clear before they ship.

As others said, it was a cashier's check. Normally there's no reason to wait for a cashier's check to clear.

From the article:

I called Sgt. Knapp at 2:45. He told me he was on his way back to the house. They'd already made the delivery and arrested the guy. He had more than $10,000 in counterfeit cashier's checks waiting for deliveries.

Don't circumvent ebay's safeguards!

[cardozo]

Ebay has fraud protection program. Why didn't this guy go through them. Sure they're not going to go arrest the guy, but they'll certainly close him down on ebay. Even now he can get some of his money back from them... if it was an ebay transaction

For that matter if Mr. Christmas had done this a lot, why didn't the seller look at the buyer's feedback? Certainly if Mr. Christmas has been ripping people off the sellers would leave negative feedback.

Well, it turns out that videopro55 has no feedback!

Looking on ebay for the transaction turned up nothing either.

From a more careful reading of the story, I infer that the seller took it off of ebay and sold it privately. This was a bad idea. Yeah, you have to pay ebay a commission, but that's their business, and you wouldn't have sold it without them. It's also against ebay's seller policies to do this.

So while I'm really very sympathetic about this guy getting ripped off, I think he could have been a little smarter about it.

Lesson to all of us: Don't circumvent ebay's safeguards.

Re:Don't circumvent ebay's safeguards!

[Mitreya]

Ebay has fraud protection program [ebay.com]. Why didn't this guy go through them.

I am definately not going to support avoiding ebay auction fees (isn't that violating the auction? what did he tell to the person who was the highest bidder??). However, to your point I have one thing to answer -- Bullshit! The ebay fraud protection is useless. It does work but with $25 deductable and UP TO $200. So escrow service is your only chance with very expensive items.

Re:Entrapment?

[asmussen]

This wouldn't have been entrapment even had the police been the ones offering the item for sale on Ebay to begin with. All that happened was that an opportunity was created for him to use one of his counterfeit checks. Nobody even had to suggest to him that he illegally pay for the item with a counterfeit check, and even if somebody were to suggest it to him, including the police, it would not neccessarily be entrapment. (See the above link) He wasn't even approached asking to legally buy the item. He initiated the transaction himself in response to a publicly posted auction, which although admittedly posted as bait, was nothing even remotely resembling entrapment.

Re:Would a Windows User?

[Software]

>Mac users are very protective of their computers, and will
>go to great lengths to ensure that people don't steal them.

Fine, I'm with you, BUT this guy wasn't protective of his computer - he sent it to someone else! He was protective of his money.

OK, the Mac heads helped him out, Mac users are all one big team, wonderful. But some of the lines in the article puzzle me: "It's hard to sleep comfortably knowing some asshole has your Mac and is doing god knows what with it."

Was it easier for him to sleep when he thought the cashier's check was good?

Re:Then again.....

[White Roses]

Well, (a) casual users aren't the problem. And (b) studies have shown that whether or not drugs are legal, you'll have similar numbers of addicts. An addict is an addict. AA's 12 step program is just a replacement addiction, albiet a safer and more productive one. Besides, drug legislation has historically been used for property seizures for the government, rather than as any kind of real deterrent to drug usage, going back at least to the seizures of opium dens in San Fransisco in the 1800's.

Most crimes committed in the name of drugs are to keep profitable turf and eliminate competition. Make no mistake, drugs are illegal in this country because it keeps wallets fat. Think what the Mafia would be if we never had the 18th Amendment.

Eligible for reward?

[Fencepost]

Keep track of the case as much as possible - you may be eligible for a reward from an organization like CrimeStoppers (Canadian?) or (International "Parent") or something similar. Unfortunately the sites don't seem to be particularly well set up for finding programs, but you've shown that you can be determined.

The sergeant you worked with may be able to tell you if there's a CrimeStoppers or other program that might cover you - particularly if you're just hoping to cover what it cost you track everything down.

Future History??

[JebusIsLord]

Does a future history teacher teach the present?

Re:Who's the scammer here?

[tdrury]

You are right that it is against eBay policy to sell off eBay - it's categorized as Fee Avoidance.
This often occurs when you list one item on eBay and in the description you claim to have more that you are willing to sell. You are skirting the Listing Fee which is against eBay rules.

However, you are allowed to cancel an auction at anytime - at _any_ time. It seems a little unfair but it does have legitimate uses. Often sellers will list an item locally (paper,signs,etc) as well as on eBay. If the item sells locally they can cancel the eBay auction by cancelling all bids then cancelling the auction (you must cancel the bids first or else the high bid at the time you cancel the auction does win the item).

Remember - no bidder has won the auction until the auction ends. There is no contract until that time.

Come and visit us on the Trust & Safety (Safe Harbor) boards. These sorts of issues get brought up daily.

I am an eBay junkie.

you got it all wrong, mac

[Hubert_Shrump]

I was not going to give up. That night I dreamed of Mr. Christmas and a baseball bat, some duct tape, and roofing nails.

Look, if you're going to have him retar up there, at least give him a hammer instead of the bat. He'll be up there all week! Jiminy!

hahaha

[penguin_punk]

Black cars?

You must have forgotten that these are Mac users. Remeber? These types drive Minis and New Beatles. I'll bet you that no matter what type of car it was, its colour was Aqua. (maybe teal) ;)

Re:Wait At Least 10 Business Days to Be More Sure.

[Ron Bennett]

"What about PayPal - is THAT safe?"

Well if you consider accepting 3rd party starter checks for payment, then maybe :-;

Seriously, PayPal is NOT a bank and thus provides virtually no protection - there are many well documented instances of PayPal freezing funds, withdrawing funds from people's bank accounts, negative balances, issueing refunds and allowing the buyer to keep the product too, etc.

PayPal is a very useful service, but anyone who trusts it for large amounts of money (of course that's going to be relative to one's financial worth, etc) is asking for trouble. They are not a bank and they basically play fast and loose with their policies - and good luck in contacting anyone there.

PayPalSucks.com and PayPalWarning.com shed more light on the darker side of PayPal.

http://www.paypalsucks.com/
http://www.paypalwa rning.com/

Don't get me wrong, PayPal works great and is very convenient for most folks, including myself...but still one should be aware of the risks they take on when using them to transfer money.

Ron

Advice on cheques/money orders.

[mindstrm]

With regards to certified cheques, anyway...
certified cheques and money orders are widely considered as good as cash.

The best way to deal with these things is NOT to put them in your bank account... but, if you can, to have them cashed on the spot. A postal money order can be cashed at the post office with ID.
A certified cheque (or any cheque. for that matter) can usually be cashed at the bank it was issued from, with proper ID. Some banks will insist they only have to do this if you take it to the branch it was issued from. Some will let you do it at other branches, but will require a small wait for confirmation. This is because, by law, a cheque is simply instructions for a bank to give you money from someone's account. There is no requirement that the receiver must use a bank account.

Los Angeles, too

[clem.dickey]

San Francisco is well-known for tolerance of illegal parking. About 25 years ago the SF police wanted higher wages but were forbidden to strike. One day the police protested by ticketing all illegally parked cars, especially those around City Hall and the local newspaper offices. That night the Chief of Police appeared on local TV to apologize for the unprofessional conduct of his men!

By comparison, there were - and are - Los Angeles suburbs in which police will ticket a car parked facing the wrong direction. The police infer that something illegal must have happened to place the car in that position.

This difference broke the Patty Hearst case. While the Symbionese Liberation Army held Patty Hearst in San Francisco, police and FBI had no luck finding her. Then the SLA moved to Los Angeles - unfamiliar territory for them. They parked a van in a red zone, which would have been no big deal in SF. Police arrived to ticket the van, determined that it was stolen, and caught or killed a large part of the SLA.

Re:no police force

[moosemoose]

well it was a rant and i do agree that some sort of structured law enforcement is desirable. but i think the two points that i wanted to make were (1) that behavior in our society is for the most part not moderated by the existance of police. in other words, most of us would continue to not murder and rape in the absence of a police force and conversely, those who do murder and rape today do not seem to be particularly deterred by the existence of the police and (2) small local groups (ala the post in question) seem to be more effective than large 'crime fighting' organizations. in the recent case of the theft of credit information of 30,000 people, the thieves were caught not by the police but in effect by the credit reporting agencies (after $2.7 million stolen). according to the news reports they would still be doing this today if they hadn't gotten greedy and started downloading 15,000 reports at a time. i used to practice law and i can tell you from personal experience that the police do not concern themselves with the small victim. steal 50% of a poor person's possessions and you get no police action. steal 1% of a rich person's and you get the crime lab.

ebay's safeguards MY ARSE..

[matt_wilts]

Here's the response I got from Ebay when I thought I detected shill bidding:

To: Matt {matt_wilts}
Subject: Re: Possible shill bidding on auction 1235911285 (KMM28339167C0KM)
From: eBay UK Investigations {ukinvestigations@ebay.com}
Reply-To: eBay UK Investigations {ukinvestigations@ebay.com}

Hello Matt,

Thank you for writing to us.

I sincerely apologize for the delay of this e-mail and hope that it did not cause you any inconveniences!

I have investigated your report regarding {{ insert user id }}, and can understand how this would be troublesome.

Please be assured, if a violation of eBay policy has occurred, we will take the appropriate action in accordance with our site policies. Such action may include issuing a warning, temporary suspension, indefinite suspension or terminating the membership.

Due to eBay's Privacy policy we are unable to provide information regarding the details of another user's account. We are equally
concerned about violations on the site, and will thoroughly investigate each report we receive. However, the details of our actions cannot be
disclosed with third party members. Please remember that this is for the protection of all eBay users.

We appreciate your assistance in keeping eBay a fun and safe place to trade..

I hope you have a wonderful week!
Regards,
Darcy
eBay UK SafeHarbour
Investigations Team

Must be some new use of the word "safe" that I've not yet come across...

Matt

Re:I had a farfetched thought...

[spike hay]

Better yet, why not just password-protect the bios? Once they pay you, tell them the password.

Re:Why didn't he HAVE the address already?

[MoneyT]

As said in the story, the phone number he was given went to a cell phone, the adress whent to another phone. Do you have any idea how easy it is to scam fedex? Have an item sent to an adress fed-ex. Track said item. Stand outside of adress pretentding to do yard work during deliviery day. Intercept fed-ex man before he gets to the door. Sign for package. The adress had to be verified another way.

Wouldn't work.

[j3ss]

Because all they have to do is pull the CMOS battery or whatver is powering the BIOS long enough so that the BIOS resets.

Re:Wouldn't work.

[Edmund]

Depends on the laptop. IBM laptops are well-known for being notoriously hard to crack. The passwords are stored on a seperate flash RAM chip on the motherboard, which is backed by a CRC checksum. In addition, the password is replicated on the hard drive, and when the BIOS password is set the exact same password is set on the hard drive.

If you simply wiped or tamped with the data on the chip, the CRC check would fail and the laptop would refuse to boot. Even if somebody managed to bypass the BIOS password by obtaining a "virgin" password chip (i.e. one that has no password set and a checksum to reflect that), they would still be unable to access the hard drive because they lack the password. If the hard drive was put into another computer, it would come up with a controller failure without the password.

Note that there is a way to circumvent this. You could buy a third party security chip (several companies sell them) and solder it in place of the original one. Then you simply toss out the original hard drive.

Apparantly a talented man from Australia has figured out exactly how the passwords are stored/encrypted on the chip and built a simple serial circuit and program combination to read it. The schematics and software are freely available on his website, and the idea is that you build the circuit, read the contents of the chip, send him the dump and pay him money to recover the password from inside the binary dump. This allows you to keep the hard drive.

Unfortunately, I don't have the URL of his website off-hand. If anybody has used his services, does it actually work? :)

- Ed.

More impressive

[harlequinSmurf]

I still think that the story of the guy who tracked down his sisters stolen iMac using timbuktu. here: Mac Thief Caught Thanks To Applescript & Timbuktu [slashdot] and here: Turning Macs on Thievery [wired.com]

Re:something's rotten

[Joe5678]

From the same page:

E. The maximum C.O.D. Amount is $9,999,999.99 per shipment. THE C.O.D. AMOUNT IS NOT THE SAME AS, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH, DECLARED VALUE. (See "Declared Value and Limits of Liability" section.)

Why do I get the feeling that their maxiumum amount is based on some entry field that only takes 9 characters?