eBay Provides No Privacy For Sellers

Phanatic1a writes "Quoted in an article in The Nation, eBay's chief of security Joseph Sullivan brags up eBay's "flexible" privacy policy to LEOs, telling them "If you are a law-enforcement officer, all you have to do is send us a fax with a request for information, and ask about the person behind the seller's identity number, and we will provide you with his name, address, sales history and other details--all without having to produce a court order." The tens of millions of Paypal customers eBay has access to the financial records of might be curious to see what else Sullivan promises..."

Comments

other details

[frieked]

we will provide you with his name, address, sales history and other details

Other details... hmmmm, wonder if this means: Seller is super great/fast AAAA+++++++++ recommend to all A+A+A+A+A+A+

Re:other details

[cshark]

It's funny that people are still shocked by this. Ebay makes no secret that they will provide any information to ANYONE who asks for it. Really, try faxing them a request for user information, including credit card info, name, address, etc. See what happens. I think it's amazing that we don't have laws preventing this kind of decemination of information. All the more reason to use alternative auction houses. Although, I don't know how well any of them fair.

Re:other details

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's amazing that we don't have laws preventing this kind of decemination of information

So if I want to sign up to be a seller with ebay and let them give out my information the government should intervene and prevent that? Whatever happened to letting conssenting adults enter into contracts? Guess what you are looking for is a nanny state to baby you?

Re:other details

[cshark]

I'm just saying that they don't have good enough checks and balences in place. It's lazyness on ebay's part. You must not sell on ebay. If you did, it would scare you that I could get your credit card information by simply saying I'm with a regional police department in a FAX, without even a phone call. Consenting adults should be able to enter into contracts. But privacy should be enforced a little more tightly. Or at least with some research and/or confirmation of who you're actually giving information to. Their complete lack of liability for this sort of thing doesn't help either. Call it babying all you want. I call it bad business.

Re:other details

[SlayerofGods]

LOL you must be a little slow in the head.
We don't want to give them out on our personal info. If you wanted to tell people your SSN and Credit Card Numbers just post them here, who needs ebay.
We don't want a babysitter, we want the government to do its primary job and protect our privacy and our rights.

Re:other details

[dasmegabyte]

Actually, I think this is all the more reason to USE EBAY. I'm selling things honestly, I have nothing to hide, and I want people to feel secure that they can get retribution if I try and weasel out on them. Ebay knows this and they don't want cheats any more than people want to be cheated. They're spending millions to increase their usage and don't want to get any more bad press.

I'm not too worried about people getting my "sensitive info," because i'm not stupid enough to GIVE ebay or paypal any more info then they need. My address, buyers can already look up. My "real name" i have to give to everybody who sends a check. My financial records with paypal are reported to the IRS and pretty boring anyway..."1000 in, ebay taks 4%, 1000*.96 out." Yeah, they have my bank account routing number, but you can get that by faxing my bank as well.

Now, if my other option is to use a fly by night auction site...where they strongly protect my user info and never let anybody have it...i'm shooting myself in the foot. Fewer people will trust my info, meaning bids will be lower, and more people will expect me to split costly escrow fees with them. I consider THAT a much bigger deal. But then again, I'm not selling warez CDs or placebo weight loss pills.

Re:other details

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point. But what do you do if someone fraudulently gets your information because of ebay's liberal information policies?

Re:other details

[tashanna]

You're very right. Consenting adults do have every write to enter into a contract. But eBay (and every other site I've ever seen) also tack on the bottom their right to change their mind to whatever the damn well please. Even if I enter into the agreement knowing that they won't give away my info, who knows what they'll be doing 6 months from now.

As long as the click-through agreements can be changed at a whim by only one of the parties, I won't treat it like a binding contract

-- Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

Re:other details

[dasmegabyte]

The same thing I do if they raid my trash and get my bank statement. Soon as I find out about it:

1) Call my bank, place a hold on my accounts. I have 100% fraud protection, so that's not a problem. I just tell them the date of the first awry purchase and they go to it. Either way, by freezing my assets I discourage the theives from using my info again, which is important. I don't have dozens of revolving credit accounts like some of the idiots on 20/20 who've had their identities stolen...the max on most of my credit cards is $1000, and i get an email if an attempt is made to charge over the limit.

2) Contact the FBI. They'll work with my bank to find out who took my ID.

3) Call up my mom. She has my original birth certificate and other information that'll be important to prove I'm me. Not that it will be too hard...my fingerprints are on hard file with the state from a job I did with the DCJS.

4) Pat myself on the back for having spare cash around. It might be a while before everything's resolved.

To be honest, I'm less freightened of ID theft then I am of physical burglary. Thanks to my fraud protection (from my credit union. love your credit union...they're far less likely to screw you then an investment bank) I'm guaranteed not to lose anything. If a guy breaks in and steal my grandfather's watch, I'll probably never see it again.

Re:other details

[kosibar]

From the article:
"In order to give you details about credit-card transactions, I have to see a court order."

According to the article, they don't just give out credit card information to anybody who sends them a fax. I suppose if you say you're with a regional police department in a fax and produce a well-forged court order, you could get my credit card information, or anybody else's on eBay, but otherwise I think that your comments are incorrect. Considering the seriousness of impersonating a police officer, and a court of law, you would be behind bars well past the expiration of my card.

Re:other details

[Anonymous Coward]

All the more reason to use alternative auction houses.

Indeed. I've had pretty good luck with Auction Fire, not so good with BidWay. Both are much smaller than ebay, so you get far fewer buyers for your stuff. The first seems like it's getting better while the second seems to be dying...

What other ones are out there? The problem here is that being a monopoly is a very good thing -- maximize the number of buyers for your sellers and maximize selection for buyers. So the old 'competition is always good' doesn't really apply here. If there's a lot of competition, you may get better auction sites, but they'll all have the liability of not having as much of a potential audience as ebay. Too bad ebay is now abusing their virtual monopoly.

Re:other details

[klaun]

I think it's amazing that we don't have laws preventing this kind of decemination of information

So if I want to sign up to be a seller with ebay and let them give out my information the government should intervene and prevent that? Whatever happened to letting conssenting adults enter into contracts? Guess what you are looking for is a nanny state to baby you?

Who said anything about two consenting adults? It's one adult and one huge corporation. One of the parties to the contract will definitely die after at most about 120 years, can work no more than 168 hours in a week, can be imprisoned or executed, has few protections from debts that are enshrined in law, and can't sell parts of itself to raise money. The other party is physically immortal, cannot be imprisoned or executed, has no hard limitation on the man-hours available to it, has all sorts of protections from civil, criminal, and tax liability, and in general is not equal to a person.

This inequity between the two parties means that one gets the shaft. That's because the corporation can dictate to you and you don't have any power at all to negotiate. I don't need a nanny state to baby me, I need a state that doesn't create "artificial persons" and then turn around and say "we want an unregulated marketplace."

By creating "artificial persons" that limit the liability of an enterprise which in truth is often just one person or a very small group of people, the government has created for itself a responsibility to regulate said artificial persons.

So take your laissez-faire politics back to the land of unicorns, dragons, and other mythical beasts.

Re:other details

[Anonymous Coward]

So take your laissez-faire politics back to the land of unicorns, dragons, and other mythical beasts.

You don't know what you're talking about. Dragons rock.

Re:other details

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry, sir. Did you suffer over $20,000 in losses? No? Then we won't take the case."

Re:other details

[dekashizl]

You frame the issue in a really interesting manner and raise some good points, but I feel you've only shot down the previous poster (AC who claimed that regulations == nanny state baby-sitting you) without offering a solution.

I agree that the gap between physical man-persons and corporate "artificial persons" as you call them is significant. I also understand where the previous poster is coming from, in that I don't want all my interactions fully managed by the state.

A good compromise here, I feel, is comparable to the mandatory food labels in the US which list serving size, calories, fat grams, carbs, and ingredients list in quantity-order. This doesn't force consumers to eat healthy, but at least it makes it easy to know what they're getting without having to go out of their way to call the manufacturer to request information (or read dense, confusing, hard-to-find, and ever-changing privacy policies). The analogue here would be a simplified privacy-summary table of a pre-specified format (both human-readable and machine parseable formats), with minimal legislation regarding who needs to show the table, and punishments for violating terms.

I think this food packaging regulation is one of the best things that's come from our government in a long time in terms of finding the balance between over-regulation and idealistic laissez-faire libertarianism. I wish it could be a model for many other things.

BTW, if anybody has information on when/how/by whom this was legislated (the food labels), I'd love to read more about it.

Re:other details

[treat]

I suppose if you say you're with a regional police department in a fax and produce a well-forged court order

You didn't even have to read the article to know that eBay is not requiring a court order to give out information.

Re:other details

[binarybum]

We don't want a babysitter, we want the government to do its primary job and protect our privacy and our rights.

I thought the government was suppossed to take those things away from us.

Guess that's just what growing up in the post-modern era will do to ya.

Re:other details

[plague3106]

I don't have dozens of revolving credit accounts like some of the idiots on 20/20 who've had their identities stolen...the max on most of my credit cards is $1000, and i get an email if an attempt is made to charge over the limit.

Except the idiots on 20/20 usually have new credit cards taken out in thier names by the ID thief, as well as loans. Its doubtful that any of your existing accounts would be in danger, since the real danger of ID theft is the new accounts 'you' opened.

Re:other details

[Felinoid]

Yes eBay is in effect dictating it's contract to you. In an equal relationship you get to discuss terms and has out what you'll agree to.
Also eBay has the power to change it's agreements and you can eather agree or close shop forever.
Some businesses use this tactic to scam or shaft business partners. Or they just flat out ignore there own responsabilitys to the contract.

scary stuff

[zedmelon]

I understand this from eBay's perspective to a point:

There is also the genuine anxiety surrounding the potential consequences of not following up on a perceived terrorist threat.

..but this part:

It also expands the category of information that law-enforcement figures can seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include, among other things, IP addresses and credit card and bank account numbers.

Besides buying copies of "Mein Kampf" and "The Anarchist's Cookbook," what sort of flags could be construed as putting one's transactions over the limit?

Re:scary stuff

[WegianWarrior]

Besides buying copies of "Mein Kampf" and "The Anarchist's Cookbook," what sort of flags could be construed as putting one's transactions over the limit?

I guess buying GPS-systems, small jet-engines and books on aerodynamics may fool them into thinking you plan to pull a stunt like this.

In all seriousness thought, there are two things I am really curious about. Fristly; if no courtorder are needed, how do they make sure that the one asking for the information is in fact entitled to it? Secondly, will this 'service' be extended to non-US police as well (as a significant numbersellers and buyers actually hails from the rest of the world)?

Re:scary stuff

[gurps_npc]

They do not. You personally can send them a fax, claiming to be a police man, and they will send you what you ask for.

As such, it already applies to non-US police

It should also be noted, that a simple phone call, from an experienced socializer can easily get the same information from 80% of businesses.

P.S. Impersonating a Police Officier is a crime. You can be arrested for doing this, so do not do it.

Re:scary stuff

[devnull17]

I'm not sure about terrorism, but I've heard that a good deal of what gets put up on eBay is stolen. (The Boston Globe had an article on it a couple years ago.) With all the outright fraud perpetrated by eBay sellers as well, I can't help but think that this might be a good thing.

Re:scary stuff

[John Jorsett]

Besides buying copies of "Mein Kampf" and "The Anarchist's Cookbook," what sort of flags could be construed as putting one's transactions over the limit?

I can cite one possible example. A few months ago, somebody on eBay was selling a genuine U.S. military GPS unit (known as a PLGR). They're supposed to be available only to DoD or other government personnel or contractors because they're not subject to Selective Availability if it's ever turned back on.

Re:scary stuff

[drooling-dog]

Besides buying copies of "Mein Kampf" and "The Anarchist's Cookbook," what sort of flags could be construed as putting one's transactions over the limit?

The irony here is that real terrorists are unlikely to leave tracks as obvious as this (or so I assume - IANAT). Hence it is virtually guaranteed that most of our "homeland security" dollars are going to be wasted on wild goose chases and the harassment of the politically questionable and/or curious. This will allow everyone to claim that they're diligently doing their jobs, but we'll be no more "secure" as a result.

Re:scary stuff

[zedmelon]

You're absolutely right. It probably *is* a good thing, IF it doesn't get abused.

The possibility of catching the guys on "The Homeboy Shopping Network" is a very good reason to have eBay readily cooperating with authorities; I'm just intimidated by how many potential methods of abuse this "feature" could attract.

Re:scary stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter how secure we are. All that's important is that it looks like we're secure.

Re:scary stuff

[hesiod]

> This will allow everyone to claim that they're diligently doing their jobs, but we'll be no more "secure" as a result

Sounds dangerously close to the description of the police.

Re:scary stuff

[Zirnike]

Um... Impersonating a US police officer is a crime, in the US.

"Hello e-bay, I'm the Malasian US police representitive. In the process of tracking one of our CD pirate rings, I discovered that user gurps_npc has sold pirated things. Could you please send me his soul?" isn't strictly illegal, except in Malasia.

Re:scary stuff

[plugger]

Impersonating a police office is indeed a crime.

I'm in the UK, so if I faxed EBay's US office, where would I be committing the crime? Where would the deception be taking place?

Re:scary stuff

[eyegone]

Besides buying copies of "Mein Kampf" and "The Anarchist's Cookbook," what sort of flags could be construed as putting one's transactions over the limit?

Well, you certainly don't want to be caught with a copy of The Federalist Papers in John Ashcroft's America.

Re:scary stuff

[CharlieG]

Surplus PLGRs have been around for a while, and as far as I know, are NOT a problem. The problem is with the encryption card that goes WITH the PLGR. Without the card (which changes regularly), the unit is no more accurate than a civilian GPS unit, as it will not be able to decode the P-code, and falls back to CA only mode, which is the same signal civilian units use

so what?

[feed_me_cereal]

This story is very simmilar to a very old story here. Anyway, I'm not sure what the big deal is this time. The author says "brag" as if this is a crazy notion. He's bragging because this policy keeps buyers safe. I'm a privacy advocate, but in this case, why the hell should seller information be kept private from the police? I've been ripped off several times on eBay. I'm very glad to hear that sellers aren't anonymous!!!! So, you should be allowed to stay annonymous when accepting money on the promise of delivering goods?? WTF?! Could you imagine some of the anonymous trolls on this stie selling you shit? How does this escalate directly to giving out buyers bank info? I don't think he'd be bragging to customers about that deal. It's COMPLETELY different.

Re:so what?

[lazira]

There are proper venues for requesting information where there is evidence of wrongdoing. What if the government just needs more food for its big database?

Re:so what?

[knobmaker]

So what?

According to Sullivan, "when someone uses [eBay's] site and clicks on the 'I agree' button, it is as if he agrees to let us submit all of his data to the legal authorities..."

In other words, sellers, as they enrich ebay, agree to give up any reasonable expectation of privacy. What ebay is saying is a lot worse than you realize. If a seller rips you off, why shouldn't the same rules apply to ebay as they do in other criminal situations? As it stands, ebay doesn't require even a subpoena to release information such as your name, address, and telephone number. No involvement with the justice system is required, nobody has to talk to a judge and justify invading your privacy.

For just one example of why this is a Bad Idea, consider that most private investigators cultivate a clerk in the local law enforcement structure, someone who can get him information he's not legally entitled to have. If a lunatic feels offended by something an ebay seller does, that lunatic can hire a PI, who will get his buddy to use the departmental fax machine to get the info the lunatic wants. According to the story, that's all it takes: a fax from a law enforcement agency.

When the lunatic shows up at your door with a gun, remember to say "So what?"

Re:so what?

[jcw2112]

If a seller rips you off, why shouldn't the same rules apply to ebay as they do in other criminal situations?

oh i dunno, because the seller agreed to the terms when s/he clicked "i agree" before becoming a seller? it's ebay's site. they can do as they wish. remember, ebay is a private company and not a right/privilidge. entering into a buisness agreement with them is the same as it is with anyone else. there are terms and both parties agree to them before buisness can be done.

let the seller beware.

Re:so what?

[stratjakt]

Whats a reasonable expectation of privacy?

You can bid on my new PowerMegaMacG4 TiMegaforce auction - PayPal only please, send payment to stratjakt@hotmail.com.

I'll ship it - I swear.

Re:so what?

[spiritraveller]

You must have missed page two, where they mention the FBI knocking on a "Stanford-educated" Pakistani man's door because of books that he purchased on eBay. It's a good thing he had his ducks in a row immigration-wise, and that he was "Stanford-educated" or you can bet they would have thrown him in detention with the rest of em.

They aren't limiting this to sellers who are accused of not shipping. They are applying this to anyone that the government thinks is suspicious. And that is their own choice of words.

Re:so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are sending someone a package in the mail you already have their fucking address. Moron.

Re:so what?

[egriebel]

I've been ripped off several times on eBay. I'm very glad to hear that sellers aren't anonymous!!!!

Dude, you don't get it. This is strictly to curry favor with the FBI and other Executive-branch agencies in their search for the latest bogeyman-du-jour, "terrorists".

Like local law enforcement has the time to look into you being ripped off $5 for buying bogus Hummel figurines?

Re:so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a seller rips you off, why shouldn't the same rules apply to ebay as they do in other criminal situations?

Because you agreed to different rules.

No involvement with the justice system is required, nobody has to talk to a judge and justify invading your privacy.

Why should they? You already agreed to it.

Re:so what?

[rock_climbing_guy]

I wouldn't actually try this, but I bet you could get information just by sending a fax from your own fax machine if you programmed your fax machine to report that it came from the police.

Re:so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so explain to me why E-bay bothers with this whole keeping seller identities secret from buyers? Wouldn't it be more honest to just make sure everyone is identified upfront?

Re:so what?

[akaina]

Lunatics aside, what infrastructure of "official" fax numbers does eBay mine to keep out private citizens? I don't hear them boasting about a secure infrastructure and that's THE primary concern. Not to mention, I'm sure there are ways to spoof fax numbers. The whole thing is shoddy at best.

Just remember: "You can have freedom, or you can have security, but you can never have both"

Re:so what?

[jcw2112]

"honest"? i don't know that i get that. there's nothing to be "honest" about. there's an agreement that all parties enter into before any transactions take place. you want to sell? fine. these are your terms. you want to buy? fine. these are your terms. an agreement like that has nothing to do with honesty.
remember, this is a for-profit entity. they set their terms and if you want to do buisness with them, you agree to said terms. it's really that simple. if you don't like those terms, don't agree to them and take your buisness elsewhere. no big deal.

Re:so what?

[Gudlyf]

When the lunatic shows up at your door with a gun, remember to say "So what?"

That may be an extreme example of what could potentially happen, but how about some other issues that may come up.

Imagine selling a used computer on Ebay to a guy who just happens to be a police officer, looking to get a cheap system for his home. You state right up front on the auction that the system is sold "as-is", no returns and the system might work. Said buyer gets the system, plugs it in, and is royally pissed-off that the system doesn't work. Instead of heeding the "as-is" warning or using email to get in touch with you, he faxes EBay for your phone number, and now you're getting calls from the guy for tech support!

And then we have such auctions as "Ghost in a Jar". They're obviously just there to lure suckers, and if you fall for it, you pretty much deserve what you get. Let's say someone isn't so wise to it, and upon opening the jar, they don't get what they expect. They perhaps forge a fax or call their retired police officer friend to fax Ebay for your address, and now this lunatic's hammering at your door.

All of these examples sound preposterous and paranoid until the day you read about it happening in the news.

Re:so what?

[mpthompson]

And then we have such auctions as "Ghost in a Jar". They're obviously just there to lure suckers, and if you fall for it, you pretty much deserve what you get.

So, like, what are you trying to say? There isn't a ghost in the jar I bought off e-bay?

Re:so what?

[thaddjuice]

It depends on what you consider the rules to be in other situations. IIRC, the police don't need a warrant to get a copy of your phone logs or to ask around the local businesses for information about you. They also don't need to go through the courts to find out who owns a brick and mortar store that ripped you off. This isn't really any different.

Re:so what?

[dcsmith]

He's bragging because this policy keeps buyers safe. I'm a privacy advocate, but in this case, why the hell should seller information be kept private from the police?

In other words, "If you're innocent, why would you refuse to answer questions asked by law enforcement?" Hmmm.... Why does that sound familiar?

I agree completely that there should be no shield of anonymity in the event of a formal investigation, with a reasonable expectation that wrong-doing has occurred, probable cause to seek evidence, etc. This is not that. This is "Tell me private information about this person that I'm interested in just because I'm interested." Well, OK. Maybe ints not exactly private information... That's kinda the point.

Lastly, I don't recall anything in that article that says it only applies to sellers. "Buyers" seems to be at least as chilling, to me.

Re:so what?

[sribe]

In other words, sellers, as they enrich ebay, agree to give up any reasonable expectation of privacy. What ebay is saying is a lot worse than you realize. If a seller rips you off, why shouldn't the same rules apply to ebay as they do in other criminal situations? As it stands, ebay doesn't require even a subpoena to release information such as your name, address, and telephone number. No involvement with the justice system is required, nobody has to talk to a judge and justify invading your privacy.

You are aware aren't you, that there is NO legal way to set up a storefront retail operation without some form of contact info being a matter of public record? Why should a seller on eBay be any different? What person in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to have a market in which vendors are anonymous??? Do you really think it's fair as a seller to offer your buyers no reliable, verifiable way to contact you? Would you really buy anything off eBay if you thought for a minute that sellers were immune to being located except via extraordinary means?

Think in terms of "meatworld" for a second. How would you feel if you went to a store, bought a product which turned out to be defective, went back and found the store had just disappeared? What if you then tried to track down the store's owner, and found only a fake address? Worse, what if you went to your local government to find out the info about the store's ownership, and were told that the info was "private" and that you'd need to hire a lawyer, go to court, and get an order to see it?

Now, again, why should eBay sellers have some cloak of anonymity???

Re:so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

""Stanford-educated" Pakistani man's door because of books that he purchased on eBay. "

So? Being a pakistani there's more chance he's involved in terrorism than if it were a white female from Spain, or a white guy from Peru. I don't mind what books I buy being checked out. It's not like its going to `lead to` anything else.

Re:so what?

[HuskyDog]

why the hell should seller information be kept private from the police?

It shouldn't, but it should be kept private from someone who is pretending to be the police by virtue of a simple forged fax.

I suspect that eBay's policy may be illegal in the UK due to our data protection act, but I'm not sure (yes, they would still have to supply data to the police, but if they handed it over in response to a simple forged fax they could be in trouble).

Re:so what?

[shayne321]

"Instead of heeding the "as-is" warning or using email to get in touch with you, he faxes EBay for your phone number, and now you're getting calls from the guy for tech support!"

A) Assuming you shipped it from your home address, he can get your phone number (not to mention a map to your house) much easier by typing the return address into Google or other online address lookup services.

B) If you provide your REAL home phone number to ANY site or company you sign up with you deserve what you get. Do what I do, pay $8/mo for a voice mail account with your local voicemail service and give that number out.. Check it once a week in case anything worth while shows up. Cancel your land line and get a cell phone for your personal calls. No telemarketers, no crazies from ebay calling you.

Shayne

Re:so what?

[poot_rootbeer]

they mention the FBI knocking on a "Stanford-educated" Pakistani man's door because of books that he purchased on eBay. It's a good thing he had his ducks in a row immigration-wise

IOW, "it's a good thing he wasn't breaking the law, or else he would have had to face the consequences of breaking the law".

Well, yeah.

Re:so what?

[krb]

That's missing the point. In actual fact, i don't have to know who's selling me something. All i need to know is that the information is available in the event of fraud/errors/etc. Privacy isn't an all or nothing thing. Ebay, as the facilitator should make reasonable efforts to know and verify the identity of all sellers in the event that they need to resolve a dispute. But, there's a big defference between eBay knowing who the seller is and eBay making that information effectively public.

It's not dissimilar from the discussions surrounding future uses of smart cards for everyday transactions. It involves trust models that are based on knowing that something is true or verifiable without having to know all the details.

The bottom line is that ebay should know who the sellers and buyers using its service are, to a reasonable extent. They should also release that information only to the extent that the requestor can be verified as someone with a legitimate right to it. This includes the seller (who has a right to contact non-payers), buyer (who has a right to contact fraudulent sellers) and law enforcement. In every case, however, there should be a reasonable guarantee that the requestor has legitmate uses for all the information sought (i.e. as a buyer, i have no legitimate reason to obtain the sellers bank account or credit card numbers, whereas a LEO *may* have such reasons, but he should have to prove it by acquiring a court order).

Re:so what?

[goliard]

You are aware aren't you, that there is NO legal way to set up a storefront retail operation without some form of contact info being a matter of public record? Why should a seller on eBay be any different? What person in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to have a market in which vendors are anonymous??? Do you really think it's fair as a seller to offer your buyers no reliable, verifiable way to contact you? Would you really buy anything off eBay if you thought for a minute that sellers were immune to being located except via extraordinary means?

Gods, this is so stupid, I don't know where to start. First and foremost, by default it should be up to the two parties involved in commerce to decide what level of anonymity or identity they are willing to treat under. If I am comfortable buying something from someone anonymous and untrackable, as I have done many times in my life, that's my prerogative. If a seller says they will only treat with me anonymously and I don't like that, I don't have to buy from them.

My objection is to being forced to do business one way or the other. It would be just as bad to be forced to have always anonymous business as it would to have never anonymous business.

And for those of you dimwits who can't imagine a legitimate use one might have for anonymous commerce, I suggest you look into the history of birthcontrol and sex ed. The government has a nasty habit of being coopted by moralists who criminalize vending medicines, medical devices and information that they disapprove of.

Re:so what?

[I.A.N.A.T.]

If I am comfortable buying something from someone anonymous and untrackable, as I have done many times in my life, that's my prerogative.

Well, you can't buy illegal drugs on eBay. Your local streetcorner will continue to be an anonymous marketplace, but at least you can ask to see the 'merchandise' before you hand over the money. Since you're comfortable buying anonymously, please give me a list of everything you need, I'll give you the address of a condemned/abandonded house in my city, you can send the payment there, and I *promise* I'll send you your stuff. There's plenty of reasons for having the *buyer* be able to be anonymous....but not the seller. Don't feed me some bullshit about birth control. Planned Parenthood are *perfectly* happy to sell you birth control without knowing your real name....but you still know *theirs*

Re:so what?

[I.A.N.A.T.]

IOW, "it's a good thing he wasn't breaking the law, or else he would have had to face the consequences of breaking the law".

Well, yeah

Well said. It's like people who were all up in arms over the *illegal* immigrants we deported recently...they came up in a sweep because of their backgrounds, and it turns out they were guilty of visa violations and the like....so we deported them. Then people got all irate...like we were just deporting these people because of their background...well not so. Lots of people were investigated, about a third of them were BREAKING THE LAW. 2/3 did not get deported, only the ones BREAKING THE LAW. No one but me seems to be irate that there would be that many people breaking the IMMIGRATION LAW of the country they were trying to IMMIGRATE to. That seems very ungrateful to me.

Re:so what?

[Deagol]

Don't be a ass.

If they want to flush out and deport all illegal immigrants, then they should bloody well do it. But they don't, do they? They selectively harass certain groups when they feel a need to show the proles just who's in charge.

Do you have any idea just how much economic damage the wholesale deportation of illegals would do to this wealthy nation of ours? It would make 9/11 look like a hiccup.

I had to laugh when Salt Lake City rounded up a bunch of hispanic illegal immigrants working for the airlines. This was near the time of the 2002 Winter Budwiser and McDonald's Games. It was obviously a show of "see, we can be tough, too" kind of grandstanding. Had they cleaned out SLC of all illegals at that time, the airports and the hotels would shut down for lack of laborers, and the 2002 Olympic Shames would have barely limped along, if at all.

It's really sad. We enjoy these people's labor when they provide us with cheap strawberries, clean hotel rooms, and sub minimum wage work. Yet we shit on them when there's a political point to be made. What a fine society we are, huh?

Frankly, I never understood how it could be "illegal" to cross political borders, anyway. Is it xenophobia or simply the local taxing authority wanting it's cut of potential new income?

Re:so what?

[Lawrence_Bird]

As long as they have a court approved order, fine. If not, take a hike.

Re:so what?

[GeoGreg]

Ever heard of the Comstock laws in the US? These laws prohibited publication and distribution of information about reproduction and birth control Here is a brief excerpt. Mor information is available
here):

On March 3, 1873, Congress passed the new law, later known as the Comstock Act. The statute defined contraceptives as obscene and illicit, making it a federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across state lines.

So, there was at one time a very good reason for providers of birth control to wish to remain anonymous. And I am sure there are people in very high levels of government in the US who would like to make it that way again. That is probably impossible given current public attitudes, but you know, I heard that people who sell condoms are often terrorists....

Re:so what?

[exhilaration]

No, you'd want more.

1) Design letterhead for the police department, include a city seal and a motto ("To serve and protect") List a false address in case they ever mail something. The envelope will end up with the local cops, who have plenty of time and motivation to hunt you down.

2) Three numbers should be listed: main, fax, and emergency - the voice numbers should be promptly answered with "Police Department" until the information from eBay is received - make sure these are "American" voices, foreign accents will arouse suspicion. The numbers should be as similar to each other as possible. Again, try to use numbers that won't eventually lead back to you.

3) A specific, verifiable complaint must be included. If you want info on Seller X, bid on one of his items as Seller Y. The request to eBay should state that "Seller Y has filed a complaint against Seller X" - the information for the transaction should be easily verifiable by eBay.

4) Design a fake police ID in your favorite graphics program. Print it, make a bad photocopy, and include it with the request.

Your goal is to provide eBay with with whatever information they might be looking to verify, and to make them comfortable enough to accept it at face value. For example, you DON'T want them looking up the real number for the police, you want them to use the numbers you provide.

If this succeeds, you've got their trust. Referencing this case should allow you to bypass scrutiny in future requests. Once you have this information, wait a week, and send them a forged subpeana (sic) asking for detailed financial information. Include their previous response.

Re:so what?

[knobmaker]

You are aware aren't you, that there is NO legal way to set up a storefront retail operation without some form of contact info being a matter of public record?

Then how come ebay won't tell the buyers who the sellers are? This wouldn't be an issue if ebay would offer the same information to buyers as it does to law enforcement.

In case you hadn't noticed, it doesn't. Why is that?

Your argument about meatworld is largely spurious, since ebay makes no effort to find out if an actual complaint has been lodged against the seller before giving up the identity of the seller. In other words, you are apparently willing for ebay to accept the word of a faxed document that a seller deserves to be investigated. This is a remarkable display of confidence. Or naivete.

Re:so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

On March 3, 1873

Yeah...and an example from over a hundred years ago is applicable now why? Are you suggesting that the fraud artists on ebay are noble and persecuted? or the people who sell garage sale crap? Look, if you want to have anonymous sellers, which is just FUCKING STUPID online, go ahead and start your own site called 'PleaseComeRipMeOff.com' and let the people who have no expectation of privacy in a public business transaction use ebay to buy useless shit they don't need.

Re:so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

i>Don't be a ass

Do you mean an ass? I'll be whatever the fuck I want to. That's what makes this country great, isn't it?

If they want to flush out and deport all illegal immigrants, then they should bloody well do it. But they don't, do they? They selectively harass certain groups when they feel a need to show the proles just who's in charge.

So I guess when they have evidence of people breaking the law, they should ignore it, just because of the color of that person's skin? That sounds pretty fucking racist to me. It's not like they said 'we're going to look for people to deport' and in fact the 2/3 that WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW did not get deported. Imagine that. I don't enjoy the labor of any illegal immigrant. I would prefer to see all illegal immigrants become LEGAL immigrants, because then they wouldn't have to work for sub minimum wage, and they'd not even have to pay taxes unless they made over 30k a year with no kids or more with kids...the fact is, illegal immigrants receive social services that they are incapable of paying into at all. Not that they are tying to take advantage of the system, because it's a disadvantage for them, really. They can't vote and their voice is unheard, because THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
It's hard to go to the cops and report your employer for abusing or takign advantage of you when YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

Frankly, I never understood how it could be "illegal" to cross political borders, anyway.

Yeah. Frankly, I've never understood how it could be "illegal" to cross private property lines. I guess it's xenophobia. No, the private property owners just want my money. That's why I can't just go into anyone's house whenever I want...
It can be "illegal" because it's againt the law in this country. That's *how* it can be illegal. Why it's illegal is a different question. I can't think of any countries you can just go decide to become a citizen of simply by crossing its borders and squatting. We have a fairly easy immigration procedure, compared to much of the world. (Try becoming a citizen of Norway if you weren't born there)

Re:so what?

[Deagol]

Do you mean an ass? I'll be whatever the fuck I want to. That's what makes this country great, isn't it?

Yes, I do. Yes, it is.

If they want to flush out and deport all illegal immigrants, then they should bloody well do it. But they don't, do they? They selectively harass certain groups when they feel a need to show the proles just who's in charge.

So I guess when they have evidence of people breaking the law, they should ignore it, just because of the color of that person's skin? That sounds pretty fucking racist to me.

No, they were rounded up because of the color of their skin. That's fucking racist. Deporting them was simply a bonus for them (the feds, that is). Whether it's the law or not, deportation for simply being an illegal immigrant is pretty damned cruel punishment in my opinion.

I don't enjoy the labor of any illegal immigrant.

Unless you live in a cave and don't purchase commercial produce or have ever relied on cleaning and/or hotel services in a large metropolitan area, you have very likely enjoyed the labor of illegal immigrants. You could very well be correct, but you don't seem to understand how many commercial sectors in the US rely on this cheap labor.

Re:so what?

[doinky]

"We" never made the choice to allow illegal immigrants to increase the profit margin of these employers. At least, I have yet to be surveyed by any company on the topic. In fact, I bet most people, if surveyed, would rather illegal immigrants _not_ be here, even if it meant a Big Mac would be a dime more.

Privacy Policy?

[Richardsonke1]

What a coincidence...as I as refreshing to see if this story was live yet, what happened to be the advertisement but a EBay ad.

Anyway, about the story itself, how exactly is it a "privacy policy" if they themselves say thay will not stick by it.

Re:Privacy Policy?

[SharpFang]

They provide the same kind of "privacy policy" as Mafia provides "protection".

Re:Privacy Policy?

[LostCluster]

ReallyDumb.com Privacy Policy:

We reserve the right to transfer any and all personal information we have collected about you to anybody we feel like it for any reason whatsoever.

Yep, that's a privacy policy that's pretty easy to stick to...

Re:Privacy Policy?

[Tackhead]

> They provide the same kind of "privacy policy" as Mafia provides "protection".

No, when I pay Guido the Slug one month's protection money, at least I get protection for the month. :)

Lack of privacy for the seller?

[ultraexactzz]

So, in essence, sellers on Ebay are as easy to track down as sellers in brick & mortar stores or otuer public places of business, with business licenses, vendor's licenses, or other government checks and controls... I fail to see a problem with that.

Of course, this opens them up for identity theft, just as much as it would normal businesspeople.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[anthony_dipierro]

Of course, this opens them up for identity theft, just as much as it would normal businesspeople.

How so? It only a name and address. You can get millions of them from this thing called the phone book. Is everyone who is listed opened up for identity theft?

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[chrystoph]

You miss the point that eBay, not the law (statutes, courts, etc), is determining what material the LEOs are given.

This totally voids several rights of due process. I would also be concerned as to its validity in a court. A third party may be rendering the evidence inadmissible or rendering it heresay.

Also, try this. You get convicted by something that eBay submits to law enforcement. What rights do you have to retaliate against eBay for not following legal procedure. They aren't LEO, so the safe guards built into the legal system don't apply.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[Anonymous Coward]

This totally voids several rights of due process.

You don't have a right to due process from a private company. You only get due process from the government.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[BootSpooge]

So, in essence, sellers on Ebay are as easy to track down as sellers in brick & mortar stores or otuer public places of business, with business licenses, vendor's licenses, or other government checks and controls... I fail to see a problem with that.

I'm not too worried about them releasing a mailing address. It's the ease with which they release financial records that's a real concern.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[Isao]

So, in essence, sellers on Ebay are as easy to track down as sellers in brick & mortar stores or otuer public places of business, with business licenses, vendor's licenses, or other government checks and controls... I fail to see a problem with that.

However this also covers buyers... While I can purchase a book at Borders with a credit card, would I be pleased if that then gets sent over to Law Enforcement without a warrant or writ? This is what happened with a D.C. bookstore being asked for Monica Lewinsky's purchase history.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Also, try this. You get convicted by something that eBay submits to law enforcement. What rights do you have to retaliate against eBay for not following legal procedure.

Ok, so if you're doing something illegal enough to be convicted for, why shouldn't they be able to release your information to LEOs?

If instead you meant to say 'What if ebay reports you to the law and you are wrongfully arrested and later released, what rights do you have to retaliate?' which is a different story altogether.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[Schwartzboy]

The problem isn't ease of tracking down eBay sellers. In a perfect world, or even one that works the way I sort of expect it to, eBay sellers are very easy to track down. under normal conditions, eBay provides buyers and sellers with methods of contacting one another, and presumably (not speaking from experience here) provides some sort of escalation process in the event of a problem. If 133t_eBayer42 promises to sell you something and doesn't send the Darth Maul lunchbox once you've paid him, I'm pretty sure that's fraud (taking money in exchange for goods that are never delivered), and LEOs typically investigate fraud if it's reported to them (I said in a perfect world). Presumably, this would involve a court order for eBay to hand over its seller info, and bang! Easy to track. What bothers me is the theoretical guy who makes a business of selling crap on eBay out of his home, or the college kid who sells his Autographed Bruce Campbell Femur (RARE!!!) for five bucks and never sells anything again. Neither one of them has ever had a problem with eBay, their buyers, or other sellers, and are both fairly decent human beings. Both of these people can have their personal information laid bare to LEOs on a whim, simply because the guy in his house pissed off his ex-wife, who is now dating a cop who decides to have some fun with him, or because somebody takes offense to finding a femur available for sale on the internet.

I agree completely that there need to be controls and consequences for scumbags on eBay just like any other arena, especially if said scumbag never sent me that MIP TELETUBBIES PR0N DVD (All Regionz) that I won. I just don't see where lack of court order + eBay handing out personal information right and left + oblivious sellers who probably never realized this (or never read the agreement when they signed up, which is another thread altogether) = necessarily a good thing.

One could easily argue that if I don't like it, I should just stop selling my navel lint online, at least at that particular site. Fine with me, if that's the only way my info will ever truly be safe from that mouth-breathing cro-magnon grunt who used to beat me up in the third grade...who is now one of the LEOs in question. He may even be serving and protecting you today. Cheers!

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[mindstrm]

First, as just a buyer, it's easy to hide any identifying information from ebay.

Second, there is a misconception out there about warrants and their requirement to disclose information.

Anyone is usually free to give out any information they want. If the cops come and ask me if I saw you last week, I can just say "Yeah, I saw Johnny at the Red Dragon Restaurant, he ate pickles, and said he was going to see his mistress afterwards". They do not require a warrant to ASK me, and I dont have to see one to be allowed to talk to them.
However.. a court document is the only way they can force me to divulge information, under oath perhaps... or whatever (I'm not getting into specifically which type of document or order is needed.. you get the idea).

The point is, as a business, Joe's Grocery is not required to give information to the police.. but he is also not forbidden from cooperating with the police either. It's his choice. If his customers had a reason to expect better privacy, they might sue him.. but he still has the right to talk.

The problem with your book buying scenario is that we don't want the police monitoring everything... that's completely different than the police walking in and saying "Did Mr. Joe buy a copy of "Shakira: An Autobiography" yesterday morning?". You have no reason to expect some kind of privacy and secrecy when making a transaction like that.

This is, as I said, a totally different issue than whether the police should be monitoring everything and looking for suspicious behavior.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[blibbleblobble]

"While I can purchase a book at Borders with a credit card, would I be pleased if that then gets sent over to Law Enforcement without a warrant or writ?"

Am I being paranoid, or are you being naive? When you go into Borders, or into a public library, most people here have every expectation that information about you will be sent to anybody (Law enforcement or no) without any warrant or writ.

It might not happen at all, and we can all be pleasantly surprised. But what are the chances of that?

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[I.A.N.A.T.]

Am I being paranoid, or are you being naive? When you go into Borders, or into a public library, most people here have every expectation that information about you will be sent to anybody (Law enforcement or no) without any warrant or writ.

It might not happen at all, and we can all be pleasantly surprised. But what are the chances of that?

Ask the legion of politicians and public servants whose video store rental histories have been made public....they thought they had 'privacy' too...but here's a tidbit of news for all of you idealists out there....if you're not on your own private property, if you're in what we call 'public', such as a store, or a park, or a restaurant, you HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. That's why we differentiate between public and private. Sure, it's crappy for stores to give out your info, but they are sure allowed to do it...remember, having someone else's credit card number *is not* illegal. Only using it is, or providing it to others with the expectation that it will be used, or selling it...whatver. But I'm prefectly free to stand around taking pictures of people's credit cards in a store all damn day...unless and until the store manager/HMFIC tells me to leave.

Re:Lack of privacy for the seller?

[I.A.N.A.T.]

simply because the guy in his house pissed off his ex-wife

Believe me, ex-wives do not need a cop to fuck with you, and they usually don't need one to find your address either. Also, eBay does not allow human body parts to be sold...there were a few famous auctions that tried this early in ebay's history.
Finally, this is no different than your local $MEGA_STORE. If some fax comes in from I AM A POLICE OFFICER, do you *really* think some 5.45/hr assistant manager is going to be able to verify it? Hell no. They'll happily sell you out just as quick as eBay will. If you think they won't, you're not going to enjoy waking up in the real world some day.

Hmm, could ebay be opening itself to liability?

[CmdrWass]

Any takers on how long before this is misused and someone sues ebay?

Re:Hmm, could ebay be opening itself to liability?

[Dr Tall]

As if credit card and identity theft weren't easy enough already...

Way too easy to fake

[gazuga]

Seems like they are leaving the door wide open for a "law enforcement officer" to get a user's info with a faked fax.

The policy is horrible, but I hope at the very least, they double-check before they start sending any info back.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[GrenDel Fuego]

That was exactly my thought. I wonder what sort of checking they do to make sure that the request came from a real law enforcement officer.

I'm tempted to send them a fax as a "law enforcement officer" requesting my personal information, and see if they provide it no questions acted.

Of course, I'm not sure how seriously that would be taken if they were to catch on. Would they persue a case of impersonating an officer if all I was obtaining was my own information that I already have access to?

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

Seems like they are leaving the door wide open for a "law enforcement officer" to get a user's info with a faked fax.

Oh God no! With my name, address, and sales history, someone might be able to write me a letter!

C'mon, this information should be public anyway. You're holding a public auction. People are entering into supposedly binding legal contracts to purchase items from you. Shouldn't people be able to know who you are?

Re:Way too easy to fake

[GrenDel Fuego]

provide it no questions acted.

I of course meant "asked" here. Next time I'll have to preview.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[Epistax]

I hope you see the reasons for it, however, as supplied by others. They need to be just as open as anyone who owns a store anywhere, or else scamming is afoot.

Alternatively you could open up every buyer, but that would be top-down-in-your-face-Bush-economics, now wouldn't it? (ducks)
all in fun...

Re:Way too easy to fake

[Otterley]

Ipersonating a peace officer is a misdemeanor in most states. In California, see Penal Code section 538d. The crime is punishable by imprisonment in county jail up to a year and/or a fine up up to $2,000.

This might deter many people from attempting such a thing.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[7-Vodka]

I take it you missed the part where it said "credit card numbers" which gives credit history, SS# etc --> PWNAGE.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[limbostar]

Yes, I'm sure criminals who are about to commit wire fraud and identity theft (punishable by 5 to 30 years in prison depending on circumstance) are very concerned that they may also be breaking another law at the same time.

"Holy shit, when we took off after robbing that bank we ran through a red light! The cops are really going to be on us now!"

Re:Way too easy to fake

[autopr0n]

Oh God no! With my name, address, and sales history, someone might be able to write me a letter!

Or drive to your house and TP it. (or kill you, whatever)

Re:Way too easy to fake

[Sergeant Beavis]

Laws do nothing to prevent crime. They only provide for punishment after the fact and keep honest people honest.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[Anonymous Coward]

They are also willing to provide any financial information you have setup in paypal. This and the fact that they apparently have no means of authentication setup to determine who is law enforcement and who isn't is a big deal. Also if the police are at the point where they need to find out what you are buying/selling online I think a warrant is needed.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[CyberKnet]

No, he just read the other part that said credit card transactions would not be handed over without a court order. (And, coincidently, that they recommend getting a court order for *any* information).

Hope that clears things up for you.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

Yes, I did. And I just did a search for the word "credit" in the article and it came up empty. Care to show it to me?

BTW, eBay doesn't have my SSN. And I'm fairly sure they don't have a valid credit card number of mine either.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

I rent, so it's not possible for someone to TP my house. As for killing me, that would be fairly difficult, and anyone willing to go through that much trouble can find my address a lot easier than faking a letter from the FBI to eBay. Like, for instance, they could look it up in the phone book.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[Tackhead]

> Impersonating a peace officer is a misdemeanor in most states. In California, see Penal Code section 538d. The crime is punishable by imprisonment in county jail up to a year and/or a fine up up to $2,000.
>
> This might deter many people from attempting such a thing.

Sign up for Police Academy as soon as you get out of college, do the protect and serve for a few years, get a fat pension lined up, get burned out, and use the fact that you're above the law to either go rogue (the dark side) or to help your friends and family out when they get assaulted, robbed, or ripped off on eBay (the light side).

"Don't hate the pigs, become the pigs!"

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

They are also willing to provide any financial information you have setup in paypal.

With a subpoena.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[blibbleblobble]

"Impersonating a peace officer is a misdemeanor in most states. In California, see Penal Code section 538d. This might deter many people from attempting such a thing."

Unless of course, you happen not to be living in California.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[Flamecoach]

It's amazing what you can learn from watching reruns of "Dragnet" isn't it?

Re:Way too easy to fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but impersonating an officer is the sort of thing that'll really piss off the pigs, not to mention make damned sure you're not going to get any love from the judge when it comes to sentencing. There's a big difference between 5 and 30 years in prison.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[hesiod]

> Care to show it to me?

at the bottom of the page, where it says "Page 2"

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

Are you saying it's on page 2? I couldn't find it on either pages.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[plugger]

If they keep honest people honest, they presumably prevent crime too.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[hesiod]

> Laws do nothing to prevent crime. They only provide for punishment after the fact and keep honest people honest.

Okay, Beavis, if laws keep honest people honest, then without laws you are implying they would be dishonest, therefore crime ensues. DUH. Your conclusion contradicts your statement of fact. Sounds like you listen to too much Choking Victim.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[hesiod]

> Unless of course, you happen not to be living in California.

In which case you find your state law that makes impersonating an officer a crime. I guarantee there is one in at least 48 states' lawbooks, although the description of the crime and the punishment may vary wildly.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[hesiod]

Paragraph 5 of the article:

"In order to give you details about credit-card transactions, I have to see a court order. I suggest that you get one, if that's what you're looking for."

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

Sheesh, I must be blind. Not to mention my find is broken... But as your quote makes clear, that requires a court order. I don't think a faked fax is going to cut it. And even if it did, there's not all that much you can do with someone's credit card number. If all this does is increase the number of people able to steal from credit card companies, then I think I'm on paypal's side on this one. Bring down the banks!

Re:Way too easy to fake

[hesiod]

> there's not all that much you can do with someone's credit card number

WTF? In that case, can I have yours, as mine appears to be broken.

> If all this does is increase the number of people able to steal from credit card companies

No, they are stealing from people. Have you ever had your CC stolen? Many CC companies will harass you to no end to pay the charge you didn't make (unless, of course, you are rich enough to actually pay for the false charges -- then the CC company will take it off ASAP), or else file charges. This is not a solution

> I'm on paypal's side on this one

Umm, it's eBay that they're talking about. Paypal, while owned by the same company, does not fall under this.

> Bring down the banks

Dumbass. I love when people make stupid remarks like this. It proves you haven't got a fucking clue. If the banks are "brought down," your money is worthless. Welcome to anarchy, and you'll be one of the first to die (what's your address again?).

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

WTF? In that case, can I have yours, as mine appears to be broken.

5403024332383829

No, they are stealing from people. Have you ever had your CC stolen?

Yes.

Many CC companies will harass you to no end to pay the charge you didn't make (unless, of course, you are rich enough to actually pay for the false charges -- then the CC company will take it off ASAP), or else file charges.

All you have to do is call them up and tell them that you did not make the charge, and they have to take it off immediately. That's required by law.

Dumbass. I love when people make stupid remarks like this. It proves you haven't got a fucking clue. If the banks are "brought down," your money is worthless.

And so is everyone elses. Everyone else has a lot more than I do, so I see that as a good thing.

Welcome to anarchy, and you'll be one of the first to die (what's your address again?).

Anarchy? Die? I said down with the banks, not down with the police.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[hesiod]

> I said down with the banks, not down with the police.

After money is worthless how do we pay the police? What incentive do they have to continue "fighting crime?" Moral responsibility? If the dollar is suddenly devalued to 0, much looting & chaos would ensue, leading to the police being harassed, killed, or quitting out of fear. Hence anarchy.

Re:Way too easy to fake

[anthony_dipierro]

After money is worthless how do we pay the police?

After the banks fall I'm sure new ones would form. And the downfall of banks doesn't imply the downfall of money.

What incentive do they have to continue "fighting crime?" Moral responsibility?

What incentive do they have now? It's much easier to steal money than to earn it by being a cop. Their incentive is the law.

If the dollar is suddenly devalued to 0, much looting & chaos would ensue, leading to the police being harassed, killed, or quitting out of fear. Hence anarchy.

If all the banks suddenly went bankrupt, the dollar would not be devalued to 0. In fact, the value of the dollar would most likely increase. But that's neither here nor there. When I say "down with the banks" I don't really mean that literally every bank should come tumbling down in a pile of rubble. I mean, it makes a nice ending to fight club, but it's not going to happen in reality. On the other hand, if a few criminals steal money from a bunch of credit card companies, you're not going to see me crying for the credit card companies.

Easy to fake...

[jjh37997]

I wonder how many requests they get and what kind of verification they do to make sure that the requests are legit?

Honestly, how hard is it to photoshop up some letterhead and fax it to eBay claiming you're a member of law enforcement? This could be an easy way for crooks to get the credit info of some of eBay's powersellers, who likely have some excess cash.

Re:Easy to fake...

[Darth_brooks]

it also adds "impersonating a law enforcement officer" to the list of charges. Given that the crime would likely span over two or more states, it becomes a federal offense.

What side should ebay err on? the side of protecting the privacy of a seller or the side of protecting a user from being bilked out of a few grand? There's privacy and there's protection, and a hard line to walk between the two.

Re:Easy to fake...

[homer_ca]

Can't be that hard... Wonder if they'll fall for Roscoe P. Coltrane, Sheriff of Hazzard Country?

Re:Easy to fake...

[b-baggins]

Seller and privacy being uttered in the same sentence has to be one of the finest examples of oxymoronic speech I have ever seen, even on slashdot.

Re:Easy to fake...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but Boss Hogg maybe...

hmmm, daisy...

Re:Easy to fake...

[I.A.N.A.T.]

This could be an easy way for crooks to get the credit info of some of eBay's powersellers, who likely have some excess cash.

yeah, they can send in shitloads of requests...then filter the results to the city they're in..then go there...or perhaps, they would just go to the rich parts of the city, and look for big houses, because owners of big expensive houses are also likely to have some excess cash. Why go through all the trouble when you can just drive to Nob Hill or wherever?
I mean, if you're going to be committing crimes on the 'net, it's just so much more profitable to commit fraud or identity theft...not case robberies.

Re:Easy to fake...

[FFFish]

It also sounds like an easy way for rip-offees to get the info for the rip-off artists who screwed them.

I think I'll start marketing a booklet on faking letterhead, with a baseball bat included. "How to Revenge EBay Scam Artists in Three Easy Steps."

I'm hosed...

[zedmelon]

eBay itself goes further than this, employing six investigators who are charged with tracking down "suspicious people" and "suspicious behavior.

I guess I'd better not post any more "Stable version of Windows" auctions...

*sigh*

Re:I'm hosed...

[Dr Tall]

Heh, trying to sell a stable version of Windows is the only thing more outrageous than selling nothing.

Re:I'm hosed...

[Anonymous Coward]

which flavors of 'stable windows' are you selling?
BSD Windows?
Linux Windows?
OSX Windows?
Lindows?

ahh the joys of a flexable gui (minus osx and that point..)

Re:I'm hosed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to sell copies of "THe Wit and Humor of Zedmelon" either, you are not funny.

Re:I'm hosed...

[HiThere]

Possibly just "X Windows", though I believe that they prefer you call it the "X Window System"

Re:I'm hosed...

[Temporal]

Yeah, Microsoft might get upset if they knew you were selling pirated copies of Windows 2000.

Re:I'm hosed...

[zedmelon]

touche'...

You're completely right; this didn't deserve a +5.

In fact, your comment is funnier than mine, but I'll take that +5, because I didn't deserve the troll here, either.

Unofficial

[syberanarchy]

You know, I dated a cop's stepdaughter, and the chick got really fucked up. Not because of me, mind you, it was because of her mother being a drunky bitch. Of course, they blame me, since it's much easier to blame an outside influence than your inadequate parenting. You mean to tell me that if this guy wanted to be an ass, he could call up my purchasing/selling habits? Wow...

Aren't there fucking laws against this sort of thing?

Re:Unofficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the law of common sense -- stay away from headcase children of cops. Anyone raised by a cop can't be fun to be around.

Re:Unofficial

[ichimunki]

Yes. There are laws that restrict the behavior of cops. While they might not prevent the ethically questionable behavior you mention, it would potentially make any such information obtained difficult to use as evidence in court.

Re:Unofficial

[ryanwright]

Aren't there fucking laws against this sort of thing?

Fucking laws? Well, those only apply if she's under the age of 18.

A successful business sells out on customers

[pytheron]

I'm trying to think of any large business valued at over a few mill that doesn't bend over backwards to lick the collective asses of law enforcement agencies. It's alot less hassle, avoids possible court time and bad requests for info (whilst they undoubtedly happen) are rare. I guess eBay think most customers will just swallow theses Terms and Conditions and business as usual (which will be the case).

Re:A successful business sells out on customers

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like it, don't use Ebay.

Re:A successful business sells out on customers

[Daniel_Staal]

If you don't like it, don't use Ebay.

Very good point. Would you like to help me start a competitor? Or point me to one?

Re:A successful business sells out on customers

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I'm trying to think of any large business valued at over a few mill that doesn't bend over backwards to lick the collective asses of law enforcement agencies.

Verizon perhaps?

Re:A successful business sells out on customers

[Jaysyn]

www.trodo.com, but it's not even close....

Jaysyn

Re:A successful business sells out on customers

[Zeriel]

RIAA != law enforcement, which is precisely why Verizon was holding out.
=P

Re:A successful business sells out on customers

[Daniel_Staal]

No kidding, it's not even on the first page if you google for 'trodo'!

(I did look at the site too... Sad. I've seen more items in a store that was closing the next day...)

Because after all ...

[burgburgburg]

Nobody with bad intent has ever been able to figure out how to fake a fax. I mean, law enforcement letterhead is more secure then nuclear launch codes.

I'm sleeping easier now.

If there were 2 Ebays,

[f97tosc]

one were police could get names and addresses of sellers and one not, where would you buy and sell?

I think I would settle for the one where they could. It seems like some protection against fraud - and I don't really mind if they get a hold of my name and address, or that I sold some used computer book.

Tor

Re:If there were 2 Ebays,

[I_am_God_Here]

one were police could get names and addresses of sellers and one not, where would you buy and sell?

I would use both. One for porn and EQ characters and the other for everything else.

Re:If there were 2 Ebays,

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but which one would be private ;)

Police only?

[Richardsonke1]

If it's so easy to get this information, how hard would it be for me to create my own police letterhead, a badge number, and have them fax the info to my local Mailboxes, etc.? I mean, say someone rips me off, this would make it soo easy to get them back. Can you say Identity theft?

Re:Police only?

[stratjakt]

Sure, and you get anally raped in prison when caught.

And what of the person who ripped you off? At most, owes you a few bucks for the repackaged Luke Skywalker action figure that he sold you as "Never removed from box".

Re:Police only?

[b-baggins]

Many illegal things are easy to do. Breaking into a home, killing someone, shoplifting. People don't for two reasons: Respect for the law, fear of the law.

Re:Police only?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Hmm, don't you think there is any room for some kind of overall principle here? Like, if you are nice to people, and they are nice to you, then you might end up happier?

There are plenty of situations I can think of where one could break the law and get away with it. But (if it is a sensible law) people generally don't. Do you have any comprehension as to why that is?

Re:Police only?

[Hatta]

I don't know about you, but the reason I don't kill people is because I have respect for life, not for the law.

Re:Police only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear or respect for the law is NOT what keeps me from killing people and robbing houses.

As thin as the concept is, it's civilization that makes undesireable to do. I never thought "i'd kill that guy.. but i'd go to prison".

Re:Police only?

[I.A.N.A.T.]

uhh..yeah no one has any ethical or moral codes of their own....*boggle*

ebay sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

The guys in this forum have interesting things to say about eBay too.

Dupe

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

At least it's been months, not hours.

Re:Dupe

[boy_afraid]

Are you and I the only ones that realize that this discussion is a dupe???

Re:Dupe

[1u3hr]

Some wanker modded the original "dupe" post down as "offtopic".

As today's FA in the Nation notes, this story was originally in Israel's Haaretz, and was covered here in February:

Posted by michael on Friday February 21, @12:50AM
from the info-for-the-lowest-bidder dept.
l2718 writes "Ha'aretz has a disquieting report on a presentation made by eBay's senior counsel to law-enforcement officials. Apparently eBay logs all user interaction with them, and will happily hand over all the information to any law-enforcement official without a warrant -- a fax is quite sufficient. He is actually proud of their 'flexible' privacy policy."

The issue is not so much why the editors are so braindead as to repost the same story five months later (they don't give a shit, is the obvious answer), but why there has been no reaction at all in that time, except for the geek ravings here that no one takes any notice of. Ebay got away with it, and who knows how many other companies are doing the same without admitting it, or having anyone stand up to them.

Not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with a relatively large community site, and we work the same way. I'm a bit of a libertarian, so it galls me a bit, but it really does make sense for the most part.

Now, if law enforcement wanted the personal data froms someone who wrote an anti-Bush post, I'd argue for making them produce a court order.

But when law enforcement wants data about someone who we can see has sent hundreds of threatening emails to another user, who has posted in our message boards about how they're going to kill their ex- , or who we've had to ban from chat or message boards for repeated abuse... sure, we'll hand it over, no court order needed. And our privacy policy says so.

And you know what? Of the maybe 100 times law enforcement has asked us for someone's personal data, every single time that I can recall involved a user where we just *knew* the request was coming. In many cases, we had advised someone to *call* law enforcement after they contacted our support group with believable threatening emails originating from our system.

I believe in the hotly debated "right to privacy," but I don't think that that's incompatible with helping law enforcement in some cases.

In the eBay case, clearly it's in their interest to reduce fraud on their system, so anyone with half a brain would expect them to cooperate with law enforcement. What, do folks have a "right" to defraud folks on eBay? Or is eBay somehow obligated to make investigation of that fraud as difficult as possible?

Cheers
-b

Re:Not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find horribly wrong with this is the casualness which with their customer's private/personal data is being treated. It only mentions that credit card information requires a court order, never does it state the same for non-credit card information.

By allowing law enforcement easy access to information, you permit them the ability to launch broad sweeping searches on, let's say, users with user names that start with "bob." With large amounts of data, law enforcement personnel can then collect data on whatever they want, whoever they want, with no oversight or control. While most agencies and personnel can be trusted, there are elements to every system which can't.

I for one would prefer Ebay to challenge each and every request, to authenticate, verify, and make damn well sure that information on specific users has a beauracracy which law enforcement must go through. Just giving out information at the beck and call of law enforcement pretty much makes all of us available for wide sweeping scrutiny by the police.

Re:Not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't doubt your experience here, and I don't doubt that giving information to law enforcement can stop some heinous crimes. BUT, this is not a new problem. The problem of giving information to the police, or them gathering information, has always been around. And we as a society have decided that the police need judicial oversight to demand information (sometimes). We have a system to protect citizens from abusive police and we have a system to force uncooperative citizens to give up information (warrant etc).

Its is troubling that the parent post thinks that he should decide on who the police can investigate without judicial oversight.

Re:Not unusual

[gessel]

It's really wonderful to know that the system mostly works.

The problem is it doesn't always work that way. Don't forget Cointelpro, and more recently the Ramparts case in LA and the Riders case in Oakland. As if to disprove that wide-spread, systematic abuse was part of the past, the DOJ brought us their post 9/11 roundup policy.

Getting a warrant is trivial. It is not an impediment to law enforcement and represents only the most inconsequential of protections (no wiretap request was turned down last year). What it does provide is a paper trail a tiny bit of oversight, and that means some recourse for the Abner Louima's of the world, and possibly a moment of reflection for the cops to question their own actions, even if the judge really isn't likely to.

It's right to help law enforcement in their legitimate business, but it's not up to a private company to determine legitimacy, it's up to the courts. That everyone has the right (I think still) to refuse to cooperate without a warrant is our only fig leaf; dropping it voluntarily just encourages abuse. We all owe it to our police forces to make it harder for the bad apples to ruin things for the good cops.

Hopefully some bad cop somewhere will misuse this policy of eBay's and the injured party will file a massive lawsuit against eBay for aiding and abetting the crime and collect a meaningful punitive reward. Probably not, but we can hope. In the mean time, eBay makes it easy for anyone who wants a few credit card numbers to pay their bills.

Re:Not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

But do you have these persons' credit card numbers, bank account numbers and other such information? Would you just turn that over too? How about social security numbers?

Name, address and phone and selling history - to law enforcement - is one thing, but financial records and ss#'s are quite something else. Don't forget that most sellers are individuals, not businesses. Even most of the businesses are sole proprietors working out of their homes. It's pretty frightening to think that families can be put at risk over selling a used item on e-bay and using PayPal for payment.

If you purchase an item, you get some information from the seller in order to have it shipped to you. If you don't get the information, why would you agree to it? The few items I've purchased have been shipped via UPS and I have both address and phone number of the shipper. It's just disturbing to me to think that my personal information could be provided to someone impersonating law enforcement with no restraint or real verification of the requester.

Re:Not unusual

[I.A.N.A.T.]

Name, address and phone and selling history - to law enforcement - is one thing, but financial records and ss#'s are quite something else

I guarantee you that every telemarketer that ever calls you has your name, address, telephone number, and SS# right there in front of them. If someone wants this information, they can get it. If you want to be a tin-hat, don't fucking buy the garage sale shit on ebay.

Cash Only

[nurb432]

This is why I normally only use cash. True my bank knows I took out money, but they don't know where it went.

And I refuse to give any personal info when purchasing.. its cash. .they don't need to know anything about me. Its bad enough I'm on camera, they can even track what car you get into, then trace your plate number.

What ever happened to the concept of privacy? And if you tell me its 'for my safety', you deserve to be kicked in the teeth.

Re:Cash Only

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, your life is boring enough that we've mostly stopped watching you. Althoug when we get bored, we occasionally play a conspiracy geek version of "license plate bingo". The goal is to figure out which Robert Ludlum book you figured out a particular move from.

Also, try talking to that girl at the bar next time instead of spitting your drink all over her when she smiles at you.

Sincerely,
Your friends at the gummint.

Re:Cash Only

[nurb432]

Suuuure and piss off my wife? Ill pass :)

Re:Cash Only

[eudaemonia_always]

I don't know what has happened to the concept of privacy. Mainstream media seems more concerned with delving into the life of Laci Peterson or Martha Stewart instead of investigating issues that concern millions of Americans civil liberties.

Re:Cash Only

[confused one]

Careful... There's a stripe in the cash that the government can use to track you!

BTW, the government's had cameras and microphones in your house for years. Every car is equipped with a special government version of lojack so they know where you are at all times. All photocopiers keep records by storing the images of each sheet copied. Every wristwatch sold includes a bug and a tracking device. Cell phones allow them to know exactly where you are and they record all of your conversations...

Have I made my point yet???

Re:Cash Only

[Radius9]

I spent a good year of my life with just cash. Didn't even own a bank account, would just go cash my paychecks. No credit cards, no checks, etc. It was a strangely exhilirating feeling, but it was also surprising how many times I got into arguments with different utilities about whether they had to accept cash as payment. Ameritech was especially bad about it, they never made it easy for me to pay my phone bill.

Re:Cash Only

[Anonymous Coward]

Does she give you anal, too?

Sincerely,
Your friends at the gummint.

Re:Cash Only

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are correct about the cell phones...

Re:Cash Only

[NetDanzr]

I found that using cash can cause more privacy problems than it solves. I, for example, use my ATM card only for groceries. I don't care whether the government or anybody else knows which cereals I like and whether I drink 2% or whole milk. I always use the self-checkout lines, and using cash there is a little complicated.

However, elsewhere I use only cash, and I ran into some serious problems already. Examples:

• Buying a TV and VCR at BestBuy, total value slightly over $1000. The store does not accept so much cash; I had to buy the two on two separate trips.
• Buying a laptop at CompUSA for $1400. Same problem; since it was a single item I could not buy it at all with cash.
• Buying some furniture of total value of slightly over $2000 (I also came with my own truck to drive it home). The clerk wanted my name, address and copy of my driver's license. The manager confirmed those requirements I left and bought it elsewhere.

I'm wondering when cash transactions over a certain value would be outlawed altogether.

Re:Cash Only

[Tackhead]

> Actually, your life is boring enough that we've mostly stopped watching you. Althoug when we get bored, we occasionally play a conspiracy geek version of "license plate bingo". The goal is to figure out which Robert Ludlum book you figured out a particular move from.
>
> Also, try talking to that girl at the bar next time instead of spitting your drink all over her when she smiles at you.
>
> Sincerely,
> Your friends at the gummint.

You mean that girl wasn't an Agent? Damn! When she said she worked for intel, she meant the CPU maker? Aaaaw, crap! She wuz teh h0t!

(Oh, I get it. You're just softening me up, so that the next time this happens, like, in 2009, it'll really be an Agent, and I'll be all like "Hey, maybe I should talk to her instead of just running away in terror like I did in '03!" :)

You can't fool me, you bastards!

Re:Cash Only

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRS requires documentation on transactions involving 10k+ in cash. (remember the scene in Say Anything when the agent asked the daughter if there were things around the house that would have cost 8-9k in cash?) Many companies keep in-house paperwork for the 3-10k range - that's probably why the funiture store wanted your ID.

As for you carring around that much of a load, are you packing heat or what?

Re:Cash Only

[Anonymous Coward]

I paid cash for my TV, which at the time was over $3000 total. That was at a local store rather than a big chain, so perhaps the chains are more cautious.

Re:Cash Only

[rushiferu]

"I'm wondering when cash transactions over a certain value would be outlawed altogether. "

In the US, all cash transactions over 10K require a social security number. All electronic transfers over a specific amount are flagged too, but that number escapes me at the moment....

Re:Cash Only

[blibbleblobble]

"I'm wondering when cash transactions over a certain value would be outlawed altogether."

When your favourite currency becomes worthless, and a Barclaycard representative replaces the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the house of commons.

Ever tried to pay by gold?

Ever wondered why the serial numbers on cash are magnetic?

Re:Cash Only

[Gulik]

I'm wondering when cash transactions over a certain value would be outlawed altogether.

I don't know if it will ever go quite that far; it seems a little ham-fisted. However, if private businesses are held in any way responsible for accepting stolen cash (or cash which is suspected to have come from one of those horrid drug dealers), they will, without any law requiring it, themselves adopt no-cash policies like the ones you've run up against. Since the government isn't mandating it, consitutional protections of privacy don't apply.

The fact that law enforcement then has access to absolutely every purchase you make over $100 is just a happy coincidence.

Maybe someone should sue Best Buy on the grounds that the cash actually says ``This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.'' (emphasis mine)

Re:Cash Only

[NetDanzr]

As for you carring around that much of a load, are you packing heat or what?

Coming from an unnamed Eastern European country, I'm simply not used to live on credit and to use anything but cash when paying. Two concepts that apparently sound strange to many Americans who tried to convince me to get a credit card ;)

Re:Cash Only

[poot_rootbeer]

What ever happened to the concept of privacy?

Outside of your home, you have never had any expectation of privacy.

Never.

Re:Cash Only

[dasmegabyte]

When they ask for your zip code, or telephone code, I say give it to them. Generally the parent company uses this info to figure out the general area their customers are coming from and decide where they should build new branches. So if it's something I have to drive far for...like the only pool supply store in my area, 30 miles from my house...it's in my best interest to let them know, and it's not really going to hurt me to give up this information.

Of course, when it's Wal-mart, i give them somebody else's zipcode.

Re:Cash Only

[dasmegabyte]

Not to mention a lot of places are wary of big amounts of cash, and it's trouble for the cashier, who has to check each bill for authenticity.

I paid for my iPod in cash because, you know, I thought it'd be cool to whip out $538.92. Perfect change makes a perfect person and all. But it was just a hassle. Guy had to go looking for a cash pen, had to get his manager to accept it. Everybody was staring at me with this huge wad of bills in my hand. At least three people in the register over from mine got their 'pods on credit before my sale was done. Not exactly low-key.

Re:Cash Only

[I.A.N.A.T.]

but it was also surprising how many times I got into arguments with different utilities about whether they had to accept cash as payment

Yeah it's total crap. Lots of places have a 'no-cash' policy...even though it says right one the damn currency that it is 'legal tender for all debts, public and private'. I wonder who decided that 'all' didn't include them?

Re:Cash Only

[swv3752]

I am calling BS. Refusing a sale when legal tender is provided is grounds for civil and criminal penalties.

Re:Cash Only

[buck_wild]

Hm. Without a credit history, I wish you much luck if you ever decide to buy a house.

Re:Cash Only

[buck_wild]

Nope. As several posters above state, one *may* accept cash. It does not say that one *must* accept cash. And anyone can refuse to sell to anyone.

Re:Cash Only

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying some furniture of total value of slightly over $2000 (I also came with my own truck to drive it home). The clerk wanted my name, address and copy of my driver's license. The manager confirmed those requirements I left and bought it elsewhere.

Insist on paying by cash? Unwilling to disclose your identity? Obviously, you must be a counterfeiter.

But seriously, maybe the store has an inflexible policy of collecting customer info for later marketing purposes. I know I still get mail from a furniture store I did NOT have dealings with, which bought out another furniture store (mailing list and all) that I DID have dealings with.

Re:Cash Only

[swv3752]

Refusing a sale at a public establishment is grounds for a Lawsuit. Discrimination is a big deal.

Re:Cash Only

[buck_wild]

IANAL, but I believe you are incorrect. Does 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' ring any bells? Can't tell me you've never seen that sign. Perhaps it was near to the 'No shirt, no shoes, no service' sign. (off topic Jackass reference: On one show, a guy shoed up wearing nothing but an alomst-long-enough tshirt and shoes...and nothing else. He was still denied access to the convenience store.)

Discrimination, however, IS a big deal, and I would of course advise anyone who was refusing a sale to make absolutely sure that no such perception could be leapt to.

LEO

[wwest4]

> eBay's chief of security Joseph Sullivan brags
> up eBay's "flexible" privacy policy to LEOs,

If this means he intends to use recent amateur rocket technology to launch the policies into Low Earth Orbits, then I concur wholeheartedly.

Too bad ebay didn't buy ecash instead of fscking paypal. Oh well... see you in alt.anonymous.messages!

Just Wait...

[gillbates]

Until someone's daughter gets murdered by a sociopath who got her address from EBay by posing as a LEO (Law enforcement officer)...

Honestly, though, it seems like our privacy is all but gone. What about those people who have a legitimate need for privacy, such as estranged wives, and those victimized by cults? I guess they don't matter to EBay...

"Find your next victim with EBay - takes only a fax and a few minutes..."

Security concern

[t0ny]

My problem is not with the matter of eBay providing this information, but rather with their confirmation. For example, if I just send a fax and say Im a law enforcement officer from Asshole, IN, will they just accept my fax as confirmation of my identity?

Now of course that is illegal (misrepresenting myself as a law enforcement official), but since fraud is already illegal, what difference does throwing another shrimp on the barbie make?

Re:Security concern

[Unknown Poltroon]

"Now of course that is illegal (misrepresenting myself as a law enforcement official), but since fraud is already illegal, what difference does throwing another shrimp on the barbie make?"
Well, i was a criminal justice major, and worked as a sherriff for a few summers, and never once came across anyone impersonating a police officer. I get the feeling its highly frowned upon(read this as getting your ass kicked)

Re:Security concern

[homer_ca]

I think they're counting on after-the-fact enforcement more than any strong authentication. Impersonating a police officer is a more serious offence than fraud, and if anything else, it's enforced more strictly since police don't take kindly to challenges to their authority.

Re:Security concern

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric Cartman: Respect Mye Authoritie!!

Re:Security concern

[A55M0NKEY]

They should let anyone have it. If the item is a peice of crap I wanna know where he lives so I can egg his house put balogna on his windshield and stick a rancid chicken in his mailbox.

Re:Security concern

[vegetablespork]

put balogna on his windshield

I understand the other two, but what does that accomplish?

law enforcment and privacy

[arf_barf]

I have worked with various 'law enforcment' agencies on various IT projects (Databases) and trust me these guys dont give a damn about privacy policies or information sharing laws.

Most of the time it goes like this: hey do you have any information about such and such? Ok, give it to me.

The only reason there are no 'global law enforcement' databases about all of us is the sheer incompetence and beaurocracy of the public/government institutions...

Re:law enforcment and privacy

[IWannaBeAnAC]

The only reason there are no 'global law enforcement' databases about all of us is the sheer incompetence and beaurocracy of the public/government institutions...

... And the fact that not all nations have the same ideas on privacy and information as the USA....

Not similar: The same story

[burgburgburg]

I knew I read this months ago. And "The Nation" specifically says that they got the story from Ha'aretz, noting that the US news media hadn't picked up on the story. Other then some additional commentary, this is a repeat.

it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[intermodal]

I would think this would cause more problems for law enforcement than for ebay...just because ebay makes that a policy doesn't make it law enforcement's right to take advantage of that without a warrant. It's certainly outside the spirit of the associated amendment.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[anthony_dipierro]

Which amendment is that? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?" These are eBay's papers, and it's in eBay's house. The government can do whatever they want so long as they get permission. It's perfectly reasonable to search someone's papers with their permission. This is a question of eBay's rights, not those of the person whose information is being requested.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[intermodal]

you're neglecting the whole warrants part...it goes against the spirit of the amendment in that if law enforcement is gathering such info on a person without probable cause it seems a bit fishy to me

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[anthony_dipierro]

The warrants part only applies if the search is unreasonable.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[mindstrm]

No, he's not neglecting the warrants part. THe point is, if you are a cop, and you come into my house, and ask to see all my files, let's say it was all my EMAILS.

Now, I can tell you to piss off, and come back with a warrant. Certainly.
I am also within my rights to say "Sure man, here you go. Want a coffee while you work? What are you looking for, maybe I can help so we can get on with our days"

It's not YOUR info, it's EBAY'S info ABOUT you. Nobody said law enforcement was not allowed to gather information.. they just cannot FORCE people to divulge information.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[intermodal]

sounds unreasonable to me

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[anthony_dipierro]

the courts (and I) disagree. And you still haven't explained how the Constitution is being violated. That amendment merely says that warrants shall only be issued upon probable cause. No warrant was issued, so no probable cause is necessary.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[Loki_1929]

"It's not YOUR info, it's EBAY'S info ABOUT you."

That's a dangerous premise under which to operate. Using this logic, your credit card information also belongs to eBay, and can be sold/handed-over to anyone eBay sees fit. Taking this a step further, it also means that your medical information belongs to the hospital, and can therefore be sold, broadcast, or otherwise disseminated. I think eBay's mistake in this case is not making it abundantly clear that your personal information can and will be handed over to anyone who is or appears to be law enforcement. Hiding such a policy within a legalize-ridden privacy policy which changes almost constantly just isn't the way to secure the trust of your customers. Make no mistake, eBay's sellers and buyers are eBay's customers. I guard my customers' information, and it aggrivates me when another company does not.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[anthony_dipierro]

That's a dangerous premise under which to operate. Using this logic, your credit card information also belongs to eBay, and can be sold/handed-over to anyone eBay sees fit.

No, that logic merely says that it is Constitutional for eBay to hand over your credit card information to anyone eBay sees fit. Congress still can (and has) created laws making it illegal to do this.

I think eBay's mistake in this case is not making it abundantly clear that your personal information can and will be handed over to anyone who is or appears to be law enforcement.

I think everyone knew that eBay would give away information if it got a subpoena. So we're only talking here about name, address, and sales history. Your sales history is right there for everyone to see, so there's no doubt that it's obvious that the police can find that out.

Hiding such a policy within a legalize-ridden privacy policy which changes almost constantly just isn't the way to secure the trust of your customers.

I don't think many customers mind that their name and address will be given to the police when the police ask for it. Maybe they should have made it a bit more explicit, but it's not really all that big of a deal.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[Qzukk]

These are eBay's papers, and it's in eBay's house.

Are they? At what point do I give up ownership of my address? My name? Does ebay have the right to come and say "Your name belongs to us now, and we like it very much. So much, in fact, we're going to keep it. We've assigned you your new name, Number Three-Five-Five-Two-Seven-Zero. Have a nice day."

And lets assume it does belong to ebay, then does that mean that its ebay's responsibility to maintain that information on their own? Can I sue them if I move into an ex-ebay-con's apartment and the feds come-a-knocking with their big metal doorknocker because their personal possessions caused the event? Can I sue them if I move to an apartment and an ebay seller ships goods to my old address because PayPal (now part of ebay, remember) didn't update its address records?

Besides, outside of a case concerning fraud using ebay, what legitimate interest would the police have in my information as a seller? Oh wait, I might have bought or sold something "fishy". A book maybe? Or maybe the MPAA or RIAA buys a few cops to hunt down people selling DVDs and CDs on ebay. Crack down on those peons exercising their so-called right of first sale. Terrorists the whole lot of them!

Finally, to the people who reject the idea of peoples' rights: When it comes to justice, these rights exist for one purpose only. And that purpose isn't to let criminals walk the streets, it is to let the innocent walk the streets, because for every innocent person behind bars, thats one more robber or murderer walking the streets with you. And guess what, nobody's looking for the murderer anymore! Don't you feel safe now?

Which would you rather have? Some innocent person behind bars, case closed, DA pats himself on the back and calls it a day? Or nobody behind bars, police officers working the case and looking for the real criminal?

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[anthony_dipierro]

At what point do I give up ownership of my address? My name?

You don't own your address or your name (unless you're a celebrity who owns limited trademark rights on the commercial use of your name, anyway).

Does ebay have the right to come and say "Your name belongs to us now, and we like it very much. So much, in fact, we're going to keep it. We've assigned you your new name, Number Three-Five-Five-Two-Seven-Zero. Have a nice day."

Sure, why not? You can ignore them, of course, but they can say whatever they want.

And lets assume it does belong to ebay, then does that mean that its ebay's responsibility to maintain that information on their own?

eBay has no responsibility to maintain the information in its database. They could be responsible for negligence in certain cases if they provide false information, I guess.

Can I sue them if I move into an ex-ebay-con's apartment and the feds come-a-knocking with their big metal doorknocker because their personal possessions caused the event?

eBay's possessions didn't cause the event. The feds big metal doorknocker caused the event. Whether or not eBay acted negligently depends on a lot of details, like exactly what information they provided the police with. If all they did was tell the police that the criminal claimed to live at whatever address and that was verified by them by whatever method at whatever time... Well, I bet the police would have double-checked the information before knocking down the door. I bet the judge providing the search warrant would have forced them to.

Can I sue them if I move to an apartment and an ebay seller ships goods to my old address because PayPal (now part of ebay, remember) didn't update its address records?

No. Of course not.

Besides, outside of a case concerning fraud using ebay, what legitimate interest would the police have in my information as a seller?

Lots... Maybe they want to see if you're declaring the income on your taxes, for instance.

Oh wait, I might have bought or sold something "fishy". A book maybe? Or maybe the MPAA or RIAA buys a few cops to hunt down people selling DVDs and CDs on ebay. Crack down on those peons exercising their so-called right of first sale. Terrorists the whole lot of them!

Or maybe you're just paranoid. The FBI have a lot of better things to do with their time than crack down on people exercising their first sale rights or buying books. Maybe you'll get an FBI file if you buy a whole lot of "fishy" books. But so what? Believe it or not, you're not important enough for the FBI to care about.

Finally, to the people who reject the idea of peoples' rights

I'm all for peoples' rights. What right are you talking about that is being violated here?

Which would you rather have? Some innocent person behind bars, case closed, DA pats himself on the back and calls it a day? Or nobody behind bars, police officers working the case and looking for the real criminal?

I'd rather not have someone innocent behind bars, of course. And allowing police to gather as much information they can get from sources who are willing to give it is the best way to ensure that someone innocent is not put behind bars.

Re:it's not ebay that's being opened to liability

[intermodal]

and therein lies the problem. If there's no probable cause, there's No Fucking Excuse® for law enforcement to be rooting around in my dealings.

Don't you get it?

[Rogerborg]

If citizens of the United States are allowed privacy, a presumption of innocence, or the protection of due process, then the terrorists have already won.

Wait... that doesn't sound right. Which of us is smoking crack?

Re:Don't you get it?

[Tackhead]

> If citizens of the United States are allowed privacy, a presumption of innocence, or the protection of due process, then the terrorists have already won.
>
> Wait... that doesn't sound right. Which of us is smoking crack?

I don't know, but the crack-smoker is probably the one who gets arrested first.

New E-bay Privacy Policy

[SharpFang]

New E-bay Privacy Policy:

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Re:New E-bay Privacy Policy

[A55M0NKEY]

I wouldn't say a damn thing to the cops without a lawyer. Even if I was innocent which I am not. I'm definately guilty guilty guilty... They can lie to you and try to scare you etc. Any deals they offer to make for a statement could be non-binding for all I know. Only a lawyer could tell me if they were in fact under some obligation to stay true to a deal. Nope, my trap is shut till I have a lawyer there.

Attention Identity Thieves!

[gillbates]

Find your next victim on EBay! By simply posing as a law enforcement officer, you can have access to the personally identifying information of hundreds of people. All it takes is some forged letterhead and a fax machine....

Re:Attention Identity Thieves!

[stratjakt]

Nah, too much work.

Easier to pull carbons out of the dumpster behind 7-11.

You would prefer that eBay sellers were completely anonymous, with completely anonymous PayPal money drops, and when you buy something, you just cross your fingers and hope its not a scam?

Re:Attention Identity Thieves!

[gillbates]

Not completely anonymous, no. However, in the case of being scammed, it isn't very difficult to get a court order - just witness what the RIAA has been doing to Verizon customers. My main objection is that EBay isn't taking the necessary precautions to ensure they provide information only for law enforcement purposes. A signed court order has much more legitimacy and is more easily verifiable than a simple fax.

Game theoretic analysis

[f97tosc]

1 Buyers prefer that the order can be traced -> higher demand where this is possible

2 Some sellers may prefer that it can't

3 Thus if there are several possible sales portals, sellers have to chose between higher demand and prices, or the feature that they cannot be traced

4 Positive feedback: what kind of sellers prefer intracability over more money?

I think this is here to stay.

Tor

Re:Game theoretic analysis

[SharpFang]

> 4 Positive feedback: what kind of sellers prefer intracability over more money?

Those, who trade in high quality and really cheap stolen goods? ;)

> Tor

Tor?

Re:Game theoretic analysis

[tgibbs]

Those, who trade in high quality and really cheap stolen goods?

Most of whom quickly figure out that it is a lot simpler and safer to not bother stealing the goods at all, but simply rip off the buyer...

Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for a while they held out on those usernames.

name, address, and sales history...

[anthony_dipierro]

I don't see how this is a bad thing. Yes, eBay is a bad place to sell illegal drugs. So what?

Easy way to nip this in the bud quickly

[triskaidekaphile]

Any officers out there willing to poke around some congressional rep's eBay purchases or PayPal transactions?

Re:Easy way to nip this in the bud quickly

[agentZ]

No, because I would get in serious trouble.

Misuse of police authority is not taken lightly. Some violations, such as illegal wiretapping (e.g. phone monitoring, sniffing networks, etc) can carry civil penalities for the law enforcement officer personally. (See 18 USC 2520 for more details. Civil penalities of up to $10,000 per offense.)

I'm not sure about the specifics of gathering information like credit card data, but I suspect that I would get at least fired and probably hit with a civil suit.

Just not worth it for me, sorry.

Re:Easy way to nip this in the bud quickly

[Blue Stone]

I guess he needs to ask someone in the CIA, then.

Re:Easy way to nip this in the bud quickly

[agentZ]

That won't work either then. The CIA is chartered for foreign intelligence only. (See the CIA Mission Statement for more.) If the CIA handles anything domestic, they get in trouble with Congress big time.

Re:Easy way to nip this in the bud quickly

[Blue Stone]

Someone should have told them to stop importing cocaine into the country then, and squashing DEA investigations into their operations.

Seriously... dirty work to be done... CIA.

The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

The anarchists Cookbook was published by a covert government organization and was intended to cause physical harm to any who tried to execute the plans included in it. Anyone with a rudimentary education in chemistry, mechanical engineering, and explosives can easily see this.

An update to the cookbook entitles The Anarchists Cookbook 2000 or something along those lines has the same caliber of useless information in it.

Please do not try any of the "recipes" out of either of these books. You will most likely wind up seriously injured.

Thanks.

If you don't believe me then do a google search for it.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Cute. Get back in your black helicopter and go away now plz. kthxbye :)

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, I was not joking. I own a copy and it is laughable. Funny reading though.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The anarchists Cookbook was published by a covert government organization and was intended to cause physical harm to any who tried to execute the plans included in it.

Regardelss of whether it was a deliberate hoax or simple incompetence, the recipies in it are indeed dangerous, and likely to blow up in your face (literally) if followed.

For instance: The nitroglycerine recipe completely ignores the temperature control (i.e. ice bath) necessary to keep the heat of the reaction from setting off the product - demolishing the lab AND splashing the remains with the nitric and sulphuric acid not yet consumed by the reaction.

Don't try thiose recipes at home, kiddies.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Jaysyn]

What gives? The thermite worked fine.

Jaysyn

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to take this opportunity and call BS. I don't remember if there is even a thermite recipe in the AC but if there is and you got it to work you must have messed up the instructions very badly.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that "Jolly Roger" of "Jolly Roger's cookbook" fame lost an arm following his own recipes.

Most of the recipes and formulas I've seen online seemed incredibly stupid or sounded like bullshit.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[geekoid]

"The anarchists Cookbook was published by a covert government organization and was intended to cause physical harm to any who tried to execute the plans included in it."

Becuase getting free parking will cause the meeter to explode.

"The nitroglycerine recipe completely ignores the temperature control (i.e. ice bath) necessary to keep the heat of the reaction from setting off the product "

wha???
the copy I have talks about temperature control.

You are talking out youer ass, which is to be expected bacause that seems to be where your head is.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it. I comment from real life experience with that sorry excuse for a book and people actually defend it. The simple fact that you are defending the recipes out of the book shows you are totally uneducated on the subject matter or have not read it al all.

As for having my head up my arse, well, I don't know what to say. I am hurt, offended, and generally distraught by this comment. Give me a break. If you have the book, try the recipes, Then comment on how some recipe in a book exploded and blinded you in your right eye.

You amuse me, please reply.

Thanks.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[hesiod]

> I don't remember if there is even a thermite recipe in the AC

FYI, yes, from a very early version.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[karlandtanya]

Yeah, it's mostly cr@p. What you want is a book published around 1933 called "The Chemical Dictionary". Laboratory procedures to synthesize *all sorts* of interesting stuff. They work, too. Well, that's what I heard, anyhow.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stay where you are. The black helicopters and the Ministry for State Security^W^W^W^WDepartment of Homeland Security officers will be there to arrest you soon, you terrorist!

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, smoke a banana peel and chill out. Everyone's cool here.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[dasmegabyte]

My personal favorite was the "phone bomb," designed to use the current from phone to ignite the explosives when it was answered.

Problem is, as any Phreak worth his salt knows, there's more current going through the standard telephone BEFORE it rings than after a call has been connected.

If anybody had ever tried this device, they'd have surely killed themselves on install. If they ever even got that far.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Jaysyn]

Uh huh, explain that to my 6th grade teacher's car hood. And engine block.

Jaysyn

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uh huh, explain that to my 6th grade teacher's car hood. And engine block."

Ahhhhh, that explains it, 6'th grade. Are you sure you read it right son. Are you sure it didn't say "raising termites" instead of "making thermite"

Well, maybe by the time you hit the 8'th grade you will have learned the difference between real and make believe.

Thanks.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Jaysyn]

You sure are cute, little AC.

Jaysyn

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

"You sure are cute, little AC."

Thanks,
More so then your little sister though?

Thanks,
AC,
Posting this way because I don't have an account.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks,
AC,
Posting this way because I don't have an account.

or testicles apparently

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Cute. Get back in your black helicopter and go away now plz. kthxbye :)

Wow! The Chupacabra speaks!

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. I lost my testicles and cry myself to sleep every night because I have never taken the time to create an account on slashdot. I feel so ashamed of myself right now. Isn't this a little hypocritcal of you to say though?

You amuse me as well. Please reply.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'll bite.

You really cry yourself to sleep every night because your transvestite girlfirend demands anal. And she's got a bigger cock than you...

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[plugger]

Involving a mixture of fine mesh aluminium and carbon(?) powders, with a pretty magnesium ribbon stuck in the top?

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people bought the "DELUXE ANARCHY CDROM" available before eBay got a woody of success to start regulating what is sold in the auctions.

The "DELUXE ANARCHY CDROM" teaches all about herbal remedies, including growing bannan peals! After smoking so much hash myself, I learned all kinds of stuff about dohnut seeds, sporks, howto kill someone in a fight with your hands, and especialy howto peel bannanas to be used for smoking.

I wuv it!

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you are an ass... transvestite means you wear the other sexes clothes, not have their parts. Thats a transsexual. Lets gain a little knowledge if we're going to engage in stupid flaming k? Tho thats probably too much to ask.

Another AC

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[plugger]

Surely the higher voltage is present *whilst* the phone is ringing? About 50V, IIRC.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

You really cry yourself to sleep every night because your transvestite girlfirend demands anal. And she's got a bigger cock than you...

What the fuck is this? Is this some sort of an inside joke I am left out of? Of'course a girl would have a bigger cock! They're the ones that like raising the cute chickens in the first place! What in sam hell is so putrid about raising a bigger rooster?

Fucking somthing sticks like a goat's ass around here. There, I'm glad to have pissed in your corn-flakes!

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[MasterBlaster]

The anarchists Cookbook was published by a covert government organization and was intended to cause physical harm to any who tried to execute the plans included in it. Anyone with a rudimentary education in chemistry, mechanical engineering, and explosives can easily see this.

I don't know about the conspiracy part but I can tell you for a fact, as a US Govt. trained bomb tech, that some of the stuff will work, some will not work at all and some will work while you are mixing/building.

Many of us (in the bomb disposal community) assumed it was written by someone who either didn't know what he was doing and hadn't actually tried everything in the book or it was written by someone who thought it would be fun to help stupid people remove themselves from the gene pool.

If you try enough of the recipees in the Anarchist's Cookbook and you don't give up after trying the ones that don't work, you will eventually maime or kill yourself if you follow the directions as they are written.

My advice is to not try any of it.

IAARLBT

(I am a real live bomb tech)

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[dasmegabyte]

no, i mean a "dead line" has tons of current going through it. I wish I had a multimeter to tell how much, but I know that it's enough to have given me a pretty nasty shock when i was young, dumb and apt to strip wires with my braces.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Gleef]

Anonymous Coward trolls:

The anarchists Cookbook was published by a covert government organization and was intended to cause physical harm to any who tried to execute the plans included in it. Anyone with a rudimentary education in chemistry, mechanical engineering, and explosives can easily see this.

The Anarchist Cookbook (by William Powell; ISBN 0962303208) was written by a naive teenager with little practical experience, and most of the recipies in the book were never tested before the book went to print. It was published, unedited, by Lyle Stuart, Inc. While Lyle Stuart is not the most pristine publisher in the world, it's far from being a government conspiracy.

Check out the Author's Note for the book on Amazon.com for more info.

An update to the cookbook entitles The Anarchists Cookbook 2000 or something along those lines has the same caliber of useless information in it.

The cookbook was never updated. William Powell (the author) regretted the book being published and requested the book be taken out of print, but was rebuffed by the publisher since he signed away his copyrights. He never updated the book.

There are many books, and other publications, with similar names, but they are not updates to the original.

Please do not try any of the "recipes" out of either of these books. You will most likely wind up seriously injured.

Yes, please do not try any recipies for producing explosives, chemicals or pharmaceuticals, without having a clear understanding of what you are doing. Just because it's written down on paper doesn't mean it's correct. Even if it's correct, many such recipies are very easy to have a catastrphic mistake. No recipie book is sufficient to prepare you for such projects, seek instruction under someone experienced.

Disclaimer: I am not "someone experienced" in such projects. This post is not intended to condone illegal activity.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[ryanwright]

Sorry, you're wrong. Phones have the most current going through them on an incoming ring. I used to strip the wires with my teeth all the time. Nothing more than mild tingling, until an incoming call came in at the wrong time once. OUCH! Hurt like hell.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[dasmegabyte]

Must've been it then. It was a bad one.

Re:The Anarchist's Cookbook, was a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

William Powell was a government patsy.

I know by whom and when the book was published.

Mr. Powell was also far from a teenager when he wrote the book. I do not recall his exact age but I believe it was 32 or 33. Also the recipes included in the book were not "written" by Mr. Powell. In fact the only thing Powell really had to do with the book was having his name put on it.

The book was placed on the "Ban" list and Mr. Powell asked it be removed from shelves to generate interest. It worked well then and does to this day even though the truth has been published in various sources.

It has been proven that Mr. Powell was given a sum of money to infiltrate the radical anti-war movement. IIRC the funding came from the CIA (freedom of information act, use it, it has a bunch of great stuff).

The update I was speaking of was an electronic transcription of the Anarchists cookbook that was put online in the year 1998. It contained all the same information but included updates in the fields of electronics and included a new section on computing.

Since you seem to be very gullible, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap.

Thank You
AC

Old news & PayPal's Policy

[tbase]

Those comments were made last winter, so those of you (like me) feeling a sense of Deja Vu - there's a reason.

According to PayPal's privacy policy, your banking info and everything else is safe unless the request is backed by a warrant or court order. It is interesting to note that they do reserve the right to give some of your info to your victims if they find that you've committed a fraud.

Here's the (IMO) relevent passages from the section outlining exceptions to the rule that they don't share your info:

"We disclose information that we in good faith believe is appropriate to cooperate in investigations of fraud or other illegal activity, or to conduct investigations of violations of our User Agreement. Specifically, this means that if we conduct a fraud investigation and conclude that one side has engaged in deceptive practices, we can give that person or entity's contact information (but not bank account or credit card information) to victims who request it.
We disclose information in response to a subpoena, warrant, court order, levy, attachment, order of a court-appointed receiver or other comparable legal process, including subpoenas from private parties in a civil action. "

This isn't 1984 folks

[egg troll]

Am I alone in thinking that the people who are screaming the loudest about how eBay is an Orwellian nightmare, raping any shred of privacy we have would be the same people shrieking the loudest if they got scammed and eBay refused to release info on the scammer without some kinda court order?

Re:This isn't 1984 folks

[wwest4]

Generalizations aside...

I think it's sufficient to cancel the scammer's account. Then they lose feedback. Subsequently, if you buy from the same scammer (who now has no feedback), then you assume a risk. Even that risk can be mitigated further by escrow.

In this way, the system preserves privacy and somewhat lessens the problem of scams. That said, there is no point to the feedback system if seller anonymity doesn't have good-faith protection - and this piss-poor fax-and-go system described in the article doesn't make the cut.

Re:This isn't 1984 folks

[hchaos]

I think it's sufficient to cancel the scammer's account. Then they lose feedback. Subsequently, if you buy from the same scammer (who now has no feedback), then you assume a risk. Even that risk can be mitigated further by escrow.

Also, we should stop putting people convicted of other felonies in prison, and start putting them on probation instead. If you associate with a convicted felon on probation, then you assume a risk. God forbid we violate anyone's rights by actually incarcerating them.

Re:This isn't 1984 folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, it isn't 1984 my dear - but this country seems to be closer to 1984 than any other industrial, "civlized" and democratic nation.
On the one side Patriot act, TIA and oppressive order, on the other side a hegemonial leadership - what a successful combination.

If Orwell would be still alive, he would probably be shocked to see those things happening so soon after writing his book.

Re:This isn't 1984 folks

[xpulsar87x]

How exactly do you define soon? 50 years I don't think really qualifies..

Re:This isn't 1984 folks

[wwest4]

god forbid we put locks on our doors or watch our kids. we can just wait for the crimes to occur and throw the robbers and pedophiles in prison after the fact. once we're all inside the prison, we can recurse into a new level of societal self-discipline.

hey, that would be a great ending to the matrix - if it were a self-imposed, recursively-layered prison.

see you in cell block B!

NBC Weapons

[hadesan]

I guess this kills the auction for all those terrorists buying and selling nuclear, chemical, biological weapons online...

No surprise is right...

[Sarcasmooo!]

...tell me how to get my 55 year old mother to care and this might matter to me.

Ebay is so mainstream, I really doubt they'll see much backlash at all with their policies. Most people simply don't think it will effect them, and don't care if it effects others.

Why only LEOs?

[Sloppy]

They might as well go the extra mile and turn this PR-bug into a PR-feature. Instead of just offering it to LEOs to catch "terrorists", offer it to everyone to help deal with fraud.

RE: BG: There's no consideration of that at this

[pecosdave]

Oh yeah?

Do codecs not count?

Don't worry, WINE will get what we want, but we mostly prefer our own stuff.

So what?

[wo1verin3]

I don't understand what the big deal is here.
E-Bay is a company, and not run by the Government. This means they are in business to make money, and don't need to represent the people.

So as long as they are honest, and upfront about what is being shared, to who, and why, we have enough information to make an informed decision on if we are comfortable doing business with this service, and if we are not then we can take our business elsewhere.

Re:OMFGLOLOL WOMEN R CRAZY!! LOLOLROFLMAGNUMMORPGS

[Anonymous Coward]

Lamest. Troll. Ever.

Re:phirst phuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a phucking homo

The biggest problem I can see...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Is if you have a disgruntled cop as a buyer. What's to stop him from using his superuser privilege to get your personal information and make your life miserable?

It's not like it hasn't happened before.

We've had this talk before

[asscroft]

It all comes down to how easy it is to pretend to be a LEO.
Oh, and how much you trust the LEOs.
Here's what some have done with their access to the License Plate Database:

• Check up on X GFs.
• Run a Plate for a Date.
• Look up a car for a friend who got cut off in traffic.
• Intimidate an enemy.

Personally, I trust the gov and the cops...but only as far as citizen oversight allows.

New Item Listing - EBAY INFO CD *NR* $.98

[halo9]

Get the 'How to get Information on Anyone On Ebay' cd. Learn how to send a fax to Ebay Headquarters and recieve information on anyone who uses Ebay's Service. ALL THIS AND MORE FOR ONLY $.98!!!!!!!!!!!

You get screwed dealing with ebay! Shocker!

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize ebay comes close to being a perfect market for one-offs, but I hate dealing with them, and I always feeling I'm about to be screwed by "super great buyer A++++++!".

Its like going to the bad section of town and overpaying to be cheated.

The answer - Money.

[JonTurner]

No, in this age of state budgets exceeding revenue, it means is that State tax collectors are going ask DoNotCall.gov for a list of email addresses from their area code. From there, the taxman will ask eBay for a list of all sales from each email address along with description of items and amount.

Next, that information is used to demand back taxes + penalty fees, and potential criminal prosecutions for those who have not reported their eBay sales as "income."

Remember, it's only called a conspiracy *theory* until it happens.

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

ebay sales aren't income unless you are making a profit. I've sold a LOT of stuff on ebay, mostly at a monetary loss.

Re:The answer - Money.

[redtape]

I believe that the parent could be referring to SALES taxes.

Re:The answer - Money.

[rot26]

ebay sales aren't income unless you are making a profit. I've sold a LOT of stuff on ebay, mostly at a monetary loss.

You might want to consult a tax attorney on that one. If by "sold at a loss" you mean you sold it for less than you paid for it, doesn't that also apply to pretty much anything else sold used, such as used cars? Ask your local car dealer whether he can squeak out of paying sales (or even income) tax on those grounds.

Re:The answer - Money.

[anonymous loser]

Well, if he's selling cars for less than he pays for them, he can certainly get out of paying income taxes, since he won't have any.

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll teach people to live in states with sales taxes ;-)

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't sold a car, have you?

A.) I buy car for $x
B.) I drive car for some time
C.) I sell car for less than $x, but most likely trade it in on a new or used car purchase
D.) Used car dealership sells it for more than they paid for it, but less than $x

No one necessarily sold anything at a loss. The new car dealer sold it for less than he paid for it, I got utility gains out of the car, and sold it for the original price (hopefully) minus the gains I received for its use, the dealer buys it for less than he can sell it for, and finally sells it to someone else. The dealer didn't *lose* anything, so he does pay income tax on that. I, however, sold it as an individual for less than I paid for it.

Think about it, paying tax to buy something, then later paying tax to sell it? Unless I'm making a business venture out of it (i.e. making money), why would I want to own anything at all if it all gets taxed?

Re:The answer - Money.

[jayratch]

I only sell used cars at a profit. However, when I buy them from customers, sales tax does not apply, with certain exception. When you trade in your car, you pay tax on the difference, not the whole new car price. Thus you are taxed only on the loss itself, since the residual value is basically tax free.

Re:The answer - Money.

[letxa2000]

why would I want to own anything at all if it all gets taxed?

Good question... Go ask the Democrats. :)

Re:The answer - Money.

[carlos_benj]

The government doesn't see 'sold at a loss' the way most folks think of it. If you purchased something and used it for a while and then sold it for less than you bought it for you didn't necessarily sell it at a loss because you're likely not factoring in the value that usage represents. Now, if you buy things just to resell on e-bay and sell them for less than you paid, you've incurred a loss - and you should probably rethink your strategy....

Re:The answer - Money.

[JonTurner]

Yes, I was. Thanks for making that clarification.

Re:The answer - Money.

[poot_rootbeer]

You're kidding, right?

Do you have any idea how much it would COST the state tax collectors to collect and process all the information necessary to track down, collect from, and/or prosecute every Joe or Jane that doesn't report $11 of income from auctioning off a Beanie Baby?

If they want to crack down on tax avoision, there are MUCH more common and lucrative exploits for them to focus on first.

The thing about conspiracy theories is, they're NEVER proven true.

Re:The answer - Money.

[I.A.N.A.T.]

I believe that the parent could be referring to SALES taxes.

Which only apply if the buyer and seller are both in the same state, and the seller is a licenses reseller or has some other business that requires collection of sales tax. Otherwise you shouldn't be collecting sales tax.

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's people doing $100K/year business on eBay -- tax free. This isn't about your eGarageSale.

Re:The answer - Money.

[I.A.N.A.T.]

Good question... Go ask the Democrats. :)

Yes, and then ask them why we have to pay taxes on our estates when we die. It's not like we didn't pay taxes on all of that stuff at least once, and more likely twice...plus, we're dead and can't fight back. It's fucking grave robbing.
Fuck all Democrats who claim to care about people while in actuality they care about their own personal power and advancement. For that matter, fuck all Republicans who claim they want smaller government and then back entitlement bills and homeland security and some of the largest spending increases in recent history. Hmm. I guess I could have more concisely just said 'fuck politicians.'

Re:The answer - Money.

[I.A.N.A.T.]

The thing about conspiracy theories is, they're NEVER proven true.

Yet another case of inappropriate word choice.
Learn to use the language you're writing in. What you just said is that there has "NEVER" been a group of 3 or more people intent on committing a crime (or who successfully committed one) who got caught. You are stupid. Close your ignorant piehole if you aren't going to engage your paltry intellect first.
You would have appeared much more intelligent simply by changing your adamant NEVER to a more reasonable SELDOM.

Re:The answer - Money.

[blackp]

Some state Sales tax laws specifically state that purchases over the internet are included as taxable purchases. Many states have this included as a box on their tax return, but some don't.

Other states, like California, require out of state companies to collect sales tax (or at least pay it) if their sales from California residents are over a certain amount.

Re:The answer - Money.

[crazyhorse44]

* Not applicable in CA.

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

"in this age of state budgets exceeding revenue"

Think your state government is broke? Go to cafrman.com, look up your state and just see how much money they have stashed away. They're not broke; they're just hiding it.

i.e. "The State of California at the State-level has approximately $63.39 billion of the taxpayer's money it is not using"

Note well - the data for each state comes from the state's own reports.

My own state of Alabama is set to vote on a 1.2 billion dollar tax increase shortly. From the state comptroller's report they already have over 10 billion that they're not using!

Are y'all mad as hell yet? I know this is off-topic, but it's so important, I had to say it.

Re:The answer - Money.

[LauraScudder]

Well, actually, that would be double taxing, which is avoided. In fact, when you run a business, you can get a tax-free account at places like Costco/Sam's to avoid double taxes. The idea is that those items should only get sales taxed once, so if you are going to resale them, then Costco/Sam's doesn't need to collect sales tax, you do. So if you sold your car used to a dealership, you should get out of paying sales tax. IANAA, so I have no idea how it works for income tax, but I would assume that if you don't have income, then you don't pay income tax. (As in, no net income on transaction involving car means no net income tax for you on car). Any accountants out there?

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN!

Re:The answer - Money.

[2short]

"and then ask them why we have to pay taxes on our estates when we die"

You don't. Heck, how could you? You're dead. Sure, your heirs have to pay taxes on the money they inherit (after the first couple truckfulls), but they are not you. Republicans and others opposed to taxes whether they make sense or not clearly have trouble grasping this "seperate legal entities" concept. Hence their innacurate charachterisations of the "death tax" (it's an inheritance tax), and "double taxation" of dividends. Dividends are taxed once, corporate profits are taxed once, they are income for different legal entities; If you don't like it, you are free to form a partnership instead of a corporation. That's what they're for.

Re:The answer - Money.

[brakk]

If I remember correctly from my accounting class. You have to subtract for depreciation first to get the current value of the item. Then if you sell it for less than it's current value it is considered a loss or more than it's current value it's considered a gain (even if you sell it for less than what you bought it for).

Depreciation is the "use" you get from it while you have it. You can't resale your use of it (unless it's something like a tool and you "used" it to create something else), and because of ware and tear, it doesn't have as much "use" left in it so, it's "worth" less and selling it for what it's "worth" isn't selling it at a loss.

Re:The answer - Money.

[letxa2000]

Sure, your heirs have to pay taxes on the money they inherit

But why? If my parents already paid taxes on that income why should I have to pay taxes on it? The government already got "their cut." My parents earned it, paid taxes on it, and never spent it. Now they left it to me. Taxes were already paid by my parents, no additional taxes are necessary or fair!

Republicans and others opposed to taxes whether they make sense or not clearly have trouble grasping this "seperate legal entities" concept.

It's not a matter of not grasping the "separate legal entities" concept. It's a problem that some people have with a "fairness" concept.

If my parents earn 50 million dollars they pay, what, about 15 million in taxes, leaving 35 million. Of that let's say they only get around to spending 10 million in their lifetime, leaving 25 million to me when they pass away. That money has already been taxed. To tax it again is not only unfair to me (since I'm paying taxes on money my parents already paid taxes on), but unfair to my parents (because they paid 15 million in taxes even though they only spent 10 million in their lives. That's a 60% effective tax rate!).

If they want to go that way, get rid of income tax and go to a national VAT/sales tax *INSTEAD* (not in addition to!). That way my parents would have been taxed on the 10 million they spent and I'll be taxed on the 25 million they leave me (assuming I spend it all). But to tax income right away even though the person may not use the money in their lifetime AND then to go one step further and tax me on it is just plain ludicrous.

Hence their innacurate charachterisations of the "death tax" (it's an inheritance tax)

Call it what you will, it's bogus. Income tax is a questionable form of revenue, but multiple income tax is unfair. Forget "legal entities." If rich person #1 has a ton of money and already pays income tax at the highest tax bracket, if that person gives money to person #2 (be it as inheritance or just a gift in life), why should it be taxed again? The government already taxed it, probably at the highest tax bracket. Now person #2 has to pay a tax just because the already-taxed-income was given to someone else?

Forget legal entities for a moment and just recognize that that's just plain unfair. It's a distribution of money for which taxes have already been paid.

Dividends are taxed once, corporate profits are taxed once, they are income for different legal entities

Yes, and that's bogus too. Let me state I don't have any shares of any company, but taxing corporate profits is bogus. A corporation is a fictitious entity that lets a group of people come together to perform a common goal and hopefully make money. The employees earn salaries (which are taxed) and the shareholders receive dividends (which are taxed as income). Why should there be a dividend tax?

Corporate profits should be taxed based on after-dividend-paid income. I.e. earnings - expenses - investments - dividends = taxable income. That encourages dividends to be paid (which shareholders pay income tax on) and/or investment.

I have no problem with multi-billion-dollar-company-X paying no income tax. They shouldn't. Their employees and their shareholders ALREADY ARE.

If you don't like it, you are free to form a partnership instead of a corporation. That's what they're for.

One of the advantages to a partnership is you avoid double taxation. But you can't have shareholders. You can't say "Don't like corporate taxes? Setup a partnership." Yeah, that works if it's relatively small but it isn't a viable alternative for a public company which, by definition, has shareholders.

Current tax policy in the U.S. basically amounts to "tax money every time it moves" rather than taxing money when it's fair or logical to tax it. The best solution is to implement a nationwide SALES tax and eliminate the income tax. The IRS could lar

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually, that would be double taxing, which is avoided.

The IRS is greedy. Did you know that they actually TAX your tax REFUND?!? They do- it's "income" (even though it's just over-paid taxes from last year).

So, don't even TRY to say the govt doesn't double-tax.

The idea is that those items should only get sales taxed once, so if you are going to resale them, then Costco/Sam's doesn't need to collect sales tax, you do.

If i the itemis to be taxes once, who cares who does it, me or the big company? (I'd prefer the big company do it- after all, they already have policiies and procedures in place to do it.)

Re:The answer - Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Im planning on selling a SCSI hard drive & adapter, I got these items free, if i sell them on eBay, is the IRS gonna come after me?

Re:The answer - Money.

[2short]

Your parents earned it, and paid taxes on it. Let's assume that's fair. You get it, without doing anything to earn it, and you think it is unfair to tax you? Every monetary transaction of any kind is a distribution of money on which taxes have already been paid. I won't forget about the seperate legal entities because you are not your parents. When you get the money, you have received income. I don't see why your having done nothing to deserve it means it shouldn't be taxed.

In your example, your parents earned enough money that they can live comfortably without ever working again. And they can leave you enough (even after taxes) that you can live comfortably (for generous, but reasonable values of 'comfortably'), without ever working. Well, OK, it's nice to be you. Under the system you propose (sales tax only) you and your heirs can live comfortably off the interest alone, without working, forever. Hey, I'm sure your parents made some great contribution to the economy/society/whatever when they made their bucks, but sorry, your descendents should still be expected to make their own contributions. (If you and your parents are remotely smart about estate planning, they can have a very nice head start though).

"One of the advantages to a partnership is you avoid double taxation. But you can't have shareholders. You can't say "'Don't like corporate taxes? Setup a partnership.' Yeah, that works if it's relatively small but it isn't a viable alternative for a public company which, by definition, has shareholders."
Sure you can have shareholders. It's just that they're called "Partners". Nothing stopping you from having lots of them, or changing who they are frequently. Except of course that random investors out there wouldn't be interested, because "Partners" are legally responsible for the actions of the firm, while shareholders are not. That's the benefit of being a seperate legal entity. I don't see why it shouldn't come with a price. If they did eliminate the tax on dividends, the court clerks of the country would be overrun as every partnership in the country incorporated.

Don't even get me started on the fact that the dividend tax cut does not apply to shares held in a 401(k)s or IRAs (i.e. all the middle class investors) What's the possible justification for that besides a blatant handout for the rich?

"there'd be no point in people trying to "hide" income offshore or simply omitting it on their tax return"
No, they'd just hide their sales instead.

"illegal businesses who obviously don't report income (drug dealers, black market, etc.)"
They don't report sales either, and I expect under your suystem that 'black market' segment would explode.

Re:The answer - Money.

[letxa2000]

You get it, without doing anything to earn it, and you think it is unfair to tax you?

Yes. It's not a commercial transaction or even income, it's an in-family gift.

When you get the money, you have received income.

So if you are so intent on double-taxation, can we at least agree that the money should be taxed as income rather than some special-case estate tax scenario that has tax rates that apparently go/went as high as 55%? I'm still not happy with a gift being considered income (I didn't earn it, I was GIVEN the money), but there at least shouldn't be any special penalty for receiving a gift above and beyond the normal income tax rates.

And I'll go one step further. I'd be willing to accept gift/estate taxes for money that goes to someone besides children. But parents should be fully entitled to give some or all of their money to their children with no government meddling. Period.

Hey, I'm sure your parents made some great contribution to the economy/society/whatever when they made their bucks, but sorry, your descendents should still be expected to make their own contributions.

My dear sir, it's a free country. I'm all for the work ethic, but if I have a million dollars in the bank and I've calculated that that's all I need for the rest of my life then you have absolutely no right to expect me to make any contribution whatsoever--beyond stimulating the economy by spending my money. Kudos to those that have millions of dollars and keep on working (even though they are labeled "Greedy" by some), but I can definitely understand and would never criticize someone that decided they've made enough money and want to enjoy what they have rather than trying to get more.

No, they'd just hide their sales instead.

You mean like the way businesses hide their sales to avoid state sales tax? Sales tax seems to be working just fine and I'll bet there's a lot less sales tax evasion than there is income tax evasion.

And I'm not saying there isn't sales tax evasion, but it's a lot easier to keep WalMart, Albertsons, and Cool Joe Honda collecting sales taxes reliably than to try to keep track of the income of hundreds of millions of people. Mostly because businesses just pass the sales tax on to the customer, they don't pay it out of their own pocket. It's a lot easier to expect someone or a company to be honest when they're passing the buck rather than having to dig it out of their own pocket.

Sure, you're not going to tax the SALE of drugs or illegal goods. But the money that someone earns from that is eventually going to be spent predominantly on legal goods via legal channels where it will be subject to taxe

They don't report sales either, and I expect under your suystem that 'black market' segment would explode.

It probably depends on the product in question. Presumably businesses would always charge sales tax, but if a business buys something for resale then they would be able to deduct that from their taxes--so only the end-user pays the tax. In a black market the goods have to come from SOMEWHERE, and the last transaction in the line is going to get taxed and the black market seller isn't going to be able to deduct what they paid in taxes.

If you're talking about black markets that are supplied with stolen goods, well, you just spend the money that used to be spent on the IRS on law enforcement. It's not even clear that this would be a huge problem. Mexico has occasional problems [not widespread, though, even in Mexico!] with highway robbery where entire trucks are stolen with all their goods looted and sold on the black market, but I think this would be a heck of a lot less successful in the U.S. with better law enforcement, better intelligence, effective GPS tracking of trucks, etc.

Anyway, it's not a perfect system, but it's better than an income tax system that punishes success and thriftiness, encourages income tax evasion, and creates absurd paradoxes where half of my parents' money will be confiscated by the state rather than going to me and my children. You can talk about work ethic all you want, but if my parents have money left over when they pass away my children and I have a lot more claim to it than the state.

Reaming the quick electronic way

[ACK!!]

Great all the Fed has to do is send a fax and they own your ass with personal info in tow and all information that e-bay ever had on you.

That makes me feel safe. Sure.

Why the hell have we allowed our government to intrude into your existences in such an all-encompassing fashion. I got Asscroft ready to puke the Patriot Killer II Act and Lieberman telling me from the other side how bad the mean old pop culture is and what the hell is a person to do. I mean I am not one for hauling ass as if I had a clue of where to run to if I did.

Does this sort of intrusion bother anyone else out there?

Why?

What the hell?!?!?!?!

[pecosdave]

I hit reply on the Bill Gates on Linux story, not this one.

NOW FOR SALE!

[w1mp]

so, how long is it going to be before some idiot starts selling letterhead for law enforcement agencies on ebay? With, of course, a previously stolen identity.

Re:NOW FOR SALE!

[gurps_npc]

Not worth buying. Make it yourself using MS word. They do not care, they make no attempt to verify at all. If you are scared, do it from a Copy center, so they do not get your real fax #.

Re:Not unusual--its the context

[Silent_E]

I fully agree with you. But the question is what info does E-Bay have, and when do they provide it? There is a great case, Jessop-Morgan v. AOL, in which AOL provided J-M's info because she'd posted harassing material about her husband's ex, and so she sued AOL for privacy violation (unsuccessfully) when the cops came looking for the harasser. Thank goodness AOL caughed up the info (though they only did it with a subpoena).

But without needing a court order, there is no independent verification that the info requested is necessary. I'm willing to conceed that sellers (people in a primary position to defraud) should perhaps have less privacy rights within the context of selling. But I do wonder about whether too much info can be given, with zero justification. Court Orders are not that hard to get, though I do acknowledge you need a lawyer to do it, and that does cost something, though not so so much.

I'll show them:

[Anonymous Coward]

eBay
2145 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125

Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

Whether he likes it or not

[The Angry Mick]

Again, here we see a case of an individual unwilling to even make an attempt at a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the issues surrounding what is most definitely a very complex subject. While I fully see the need for a certain level of cooperation with the authorities, I see far more problems with allowing them carte blanche acces to my entire life. When any agency has that much power, there is no point at pretending a democracy exists anymore. Ebay, and Sullivan in particular are taking a cheap and easiy way out simply to avoid dealing with an unpleasant issue.

However, Sullivan may be missing the point that privacy is always a two way street. Customers, like it or not, expect a certain amount - take it away and you drive them off. Advertise that you don't respect your customer's privacy, and you see a flurry of discussion and anger similar to that on display on this page. Sullivan seems to think that bending over for "the man" will make his dealing with law enforcement more pleasant, but he's missing the point that it doesn't grant blanket immunity from personal, or corporate liability, should "the man" make a mistake. God have mercy on the soul of any corporate bigwig who accidentally gets a customer persecuted/prosecuted under false pretenses.

due dilligence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Theoretical question: Does employing six private investigators benefit ebay financially? If not, then perhaps ebay hasn't excercised due diligence on the issue .. which I understand to mean that ebay shareholders could bring suit against them for it.

Ebay saves all search requests also

[bagofbeans]

Ebay saves all search requests also, which could be very useful in profiling a 'suspect'. To me, the ability to pass that across to is the privacy invasion; the sales/buys are public domain anyway for 3 months.

Transparency is key to commerece and trust...

[jordandeamattson]

I only have one problem with this policy: that it isn't extended to anyone one. Why should law enforcement have this right, but I - an eBay buyer - not have this right?

I don't see that someone who is selling things should have a right to hide their identity, background on transactions, etc., from others. Transparency, and the accountability that it fosters, is key to commerece and trust.

Too many people out in the /. world believe that absolute privacy is a right. Well, it isn't. When you enter into certain situations, you set aside your rights, in order to embrace other rights. One of these situations is the area of commerce. If you have business and I am about to enter into a trans action with you, I have the right to perform a background check on you. To determine if you are a con person or rip-off artist.

I'm glad ebay lets the police have any seller info

[A55M0NKEY]

Look, ebay can do what it wants privacy-wise as long as they let their users know. If someone doesn't want to give their info to someone who will let the police view it then they don't have to use ebay to sell their item.

What reasons might the police have to request ebay info? Think about it - probably 98% is fraud related. Being hornswaggled is the most worrisome thing about using ebay. It makes me feel safer to know that the sellers info is easily available to law enforcement. I want dishonest sellers to know they may be being monitored by the police. If you are an honest seller, you are more likely to make a sale if the buyers know that the police can get your info. It makes them feel safer. This is a good thing from the honest seller's perspective.

The other 2% may be odds and ends like possible terrorist sales and child porn and the like. I don't want that crap on any site I go on either. I just wanna buy my used VCR so I can illegally copy rented DVDS ;-).

I would feel differently if ebay was so willing to disclose buyer information. Buying is something everyone must do, and there should be some privacy protections. What you buy is a window into your personal life. Too much can be deduced, and wrongly assumed from that data for it to be a good idea for law enforcement to have it. What you sell is another matter. The only info it reveals is how you made your money. There is not much chance that law enforcement will start persecuting hot dog vendors just because they are hot dog vendors.

It takes more than a fax - seller's DO get privacy

[tbase]

There are a lot of comments about this being any easy hole for the bad guys to exploit by simply forging some letterhead to get a seller's info for identity theft and the like.

First of all, I don't remember ever having given eBay my Social Security number, the Holy Grail of identity theft. Second, eBay is only going to respond to "verified requests" when they have a "good faith belief" that there is criminal activity or the threat of "imminent physical harm."

So, I would say at a minimum they're going to verify that the request comes from a real-life LEA - it only takes about 2 minutes to look up any LEA's address and phone number, and if it doesn't match, to call it any verify. They're not going to risk getting sued for millions for giving out your personal info to a stalker. Come in off the ledge folks.

From eBay's privacy policy:
Legal Requests. eBay cooperates with law enforcement inquiries, as well as other third parties to enforce laws, such as: intellectual property rights, fraud and other rights, to help protect you and the eBay community from bad actors. Therefore, in response to a verified request by law enforcement or other government officials relating to a criminal investigation or alleged illegal activity, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, city, state, telephone number, email address, UserID history, fraud complaints, and bidding and listing history without a subpoena. Without limiting the above, in an effort to respect your privacy and our ability to keep the community free from bad actors, we will not otherwise disclose your personal information to law enforcement or other government officials without a subpoena, court order or substantially similar legal procedure, except when we believe in good faith that the disclosure of information is necessary to: prevent imminent physical harm or financial loss; or report suspected illegal activity. Further, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, street address, city, state, zip code, country, phone number, email, and company name to eBay VeRO Program participants under confidentiality agreement, as we in our sole discretion believe necessary or appropriate in connection with an investigation of fraud, intellectual property infringement, piracy, or other unlawful activity."

eBay has many problems, and no support

[saskboy]

On many occasions people report scam artist's auctions, often on hijacked IDs, and eBay does nothing for days. Shill bidding [bidding on your own items] is strictly forbidden, but if you present eBay with the evidence, they often don't suspend all of the accounts involved.

Remember a few months ago when the chat boards were comprimised because Live World who runs the boards left an admin tool open to users on the Internet? Dozens of people's account information, and snitch information was made available to hackers that just needed to modify an address in Internet Explorer.

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/community/png-user.htm l user agreement

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/policies/privacy-polic y. html privacy policy

The "six investigators" bit is a joke. eBay would be even more ripe with fraud if hundreds of users didn't make reports to the "support" staff.
Read what a joke the support is like:
http://forums.ebay.ca/thread.jsp?forum=7&th read=36 270&start=0&msRange=189

Re:eBay has many problems, and no support

[WC as Kato]

There has been many horror stories about e-bay when things don't go smooth. You get ripped off and e-bay doesn't or won't help you. I hope they can come up with a smoother system to weed out the criminals (both on the buyer side and seller side).

Excuse me...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Before everyone gets carried away with Homeland Security.

Here in the UK (and Europe) we have this thing called Data Protection, which means it is illegal to acquire anyone's personal details from an electronic record without a court order.

Roll on the land of the free hey...

Dear Mr. Sullivan,

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info. Rest assure I have becomed a reformed fellon. BTW, would you be interested in the "sex.com" domain?

Steven Cohen

The difference between ebay and similar sites is..

[jamonterrell]

Ebay admits they do it.

It's not just the cops that scare me...

[Embedded Geek]

I took so long to type this that it's probably redundant by now, but...

It's been pointed out that identity theives could simply use a forged letterhead to get private information, but I'm concerned about other possible misuses:

• Abusive spouses - Someone running from a batterer would likely change bank accounts, etc. but I doubt they'd wipe an eBay account. Likely just change the old one to match those new accounts. Viloa - the S.O.B has an address.
• Scammers might use personal info and a little human engineering ("No, I just forgot my password. Here's my some info as proof of ID...") to hijack an account, then run their scams through it.
• A seller who feels he's being undercut by another might somehow trash their rival (although, I admit, you'd have to be disturbingly obsessed about eBay to even think to pull this one off).
• Stalkers, stalkers, stalkers!

The list goes on and on. I think I'll stick with garage sales, thanks.

Re:It's not just the cops that scare me...

[saskboy]

Unfortunately too, it is a rule violation that can get your eBay account suspended if you provide any false information. Your feedback you leave is even subject for removal in that case.

Don't mind

[xalres]

I see why they did this. All you have to do is look up car stereos on eBay and check the seller's history. More often than not you'll see hundreds of other car stereos in his history as well as a slew of other electronics. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he's probably not on the up and up. And honestly, what's everyone worried about? That The Big Bad Government has nothing better to do than harass innocent people shopping for vintage Barbie dolls and kit kat clocks? Oh wait, they don't.

The biggest threat to Ebay's business...

[tgibbs]

...is that they are beginning to be perceived as a hotbed of seller fraud. I'm not surprised that they are bending over backwards to cultivate good relationships with law enforcement.

Re:The biggest threat to Ebay's business...

[Petronius]

...is a couple of cases of corrupt cops getting information out of eBay to squeeze people. Then the EFF will sue them into oblivion and if the case is publicized, eBay will have lost a ton of future business.

Re:The biggest threat to Ebay's business...

[tgibbs]

I haven't heard of any cases of "corrupt cops getting information out of eBay to squeeze people." But I've heard of many, many cases of people being defrauded by eBay sellers, and I know people personally that this has happened to. My sister recently called me up because my nephew wanted to buy some stuff on eBay. What was she concerned about? Not the possibility that eBay might share his information with the cops. She was worried that he was going to get ripped off by a dishonest seller.

Identity Theirfs Rejoice!

[PetoskeyGuy]

How many people and companies out there have had their domain hijacked via Network Solutions with just a fax? Now eBay is going to have available NAME, ADDRESS, CREDIT CARDS and BANK ACCOUNTS to anyone who can forge a fax from a law-enforcment agency. Just need to find someone selling some used 72" plasma TV or some other expensive trinket - there's a good mark.

Anyone know if this is this international, or just US?

Re:Identity Theirfs Rejoice!

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Read the article properly... financial info would require a court order, only IP/name/address/email is available without 1

Re:Identity Theirfs Rejoice!

[Cpt_Kirks]

Can you say "Class Action"?

Any lawyer worth his lost soul could shred ebays "magically changing privacy policy" to dust in court.

Sooner or later ebay will be paying out big settlement bucks (this has probably happened, they just kept it quiet).

Re:Identity Theirfs Rejoice!

[letxa2000]

I've never used eBay in my life. I've never even visited the site to see what it looks like. I find it amazing what some people will go for. And with the unholy union that is eBay/PayPal I just don't see any reason to visit either.

Don't like them giving away your personal information? Don't visit the site! Life worked for eons before eBay, I find it hard to believe people really need to visit such a site.

Re:Identity Theirfs Rejoice!

[NoData]

Don't visit the site! Life worked for eons before eBay, I find it hard to believe people really need to visit such a site.

You know, life isn't the same as before eBay. I can't find it now, but there was even a discussion here on Slashdot on the decline of hobby and collectibles stores because much of that business has gone online. If I needed to buy/sell something rare, very specific, or just cheap, eBay is the first place I, and I think most people, think of.

Boycott is fine, but avoidance is not a solution to a blatantly unethical, if not illegal (although with our ever eroding civil liberties, this may not be true) policy. This is like saying, "This restaurant does not serve [minority group]!" "So if it bothers you, don't eat there."
eBay's BS needs to be actively addressed.

You might think this is awful...

[brundlefly]

You might think this is awful, but when I was scammed by someone on eBay, it sure was convenient to have them turn over all their relevant information to the Austin, TX police department so I could get my money back.

Sometimes criminals deserve to be treated like... criminals. Try to see both sides of the coin here.

Oh the irony, an auction MANDATES no privacy

[DrSkwid]

Because auctions are part of the stolen property loop of old.

In the days before UV pens etc. it was nigh on impossible for anyone to know if an item they were being offered was stolen or not. This was a problem if your business was buying and selling used goods. And if you were a police force with a lot of recovered property for whom you have no identified owner. And if you wanted to buy something, it's a bit risky if your goods could turn out to be stolen because the goods are returned to the owner and you become out of pocket.

What was devised was the public auction with public viewing. It was your responsibility to visit auctions and see if any your stolen property was there and then discuss it with the auction house and from there a resolution could be reached.

Once purchased from an auction stolen property is deemed clean. It was the previous owners fault for not turning up at the publicly announced public auction.

Under this situation the privacy of the seller is not an issue, indeed, disclosure of the identity of the seller is of prime importance, only the privacy of the buyer is assured.

Re:Oh the irony, an auction MANDATES no privacy

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It was the previous owners fault for not turning up at the publicly announced public auction.

I have a problem with this assumption. An item can be stolen in one town and delivered to another distant town to be auctioned. It would be silly to expect owners to comb every auction looking for their goods.

As for the main thread, I have to ask if eBay is setting themselves up for some headaches. For one, I would think demanding a warrant be presented would cut down on frivolous requests.

Re:Oh the irony, an auction MANDATES no privacy

[DrSkwid]

I think the system is really to protect the buyers and sellers not the robbed.

You see, if I buy a TV from a guy in the pub for £10 then the police can legitimately ask me "didn't you think that was too cheap in such suspicious circumstances" and if you ask "well, it did sound like a bargain" then you're pretty much setting yourself up for a "recieving stolen goods" rap, at the very least they would take it from you and put it in the evidence room (probably auctioning it off later to boot).

However, if you truthfully said "I got it for a song from the auction, it only cost my £1, it must have been my lucky day!" you will probably get a big smile and a pat on the back for your good fortune.

With all this talk about *sellers* ...

[TheSolomon]

What is more worrisome is what this implies for *buyers*! If eBay can and will, at the drop of a fax, give a seller's sales transaction history for any reason, what prevents them supplying a buyer's purchase history?

All merchants give up a lot of privacy in order to business in any arena. None of this is surprising or scary.

However, what scares the hell out of me is the thought law enforcement officials could see I was the winning bidder on some blacklisted book, movie, object and request my bidding history from eBay.

The potential loss of privacy for buyers is what *everyone* should be screaming about.

Fraud and account Hijacking

[nmg196]

This is the absolute least of the problems with eBay!

Unless eBay can sort out the massive amount of fraud [msnbc.com] that's going on right now then I'm never using it again.

There seems to be an absolutely massive problem at the moment with people hijacking eBay accounts and their associated e-mail addresses and eBay don't seem to want to anything about it.

Anyone who uses eBay and has a weak password on their e-mail account (or an obvious answer to their secret question) is vulnerable to having their eBay account taken over (complete with e-mail account and credit card details) and used by a Western Union scammer.

What's a Western Union scammer? Someone who asks to be paid though Western Union (who offer zero buyer protection or tracking of funds) and then simply never ships the item. Western Union seem happy to dish out funds to anyone so the fact that the account is in the wrong name doesn't seem to cause any problems.

eBay should make it so it's impossible to take over an account by changing the password/and/or e-mail address unless you know lots of personal information (D.O.B., mothers maiden name, etc etc).

I'm finding it very difficult to get eBay to reply or for any news agencies to give this any publicity.

Over the weekend I saw about 30 Sony plasma screens advertised (usually "pre-approved bidders only") - almost none of which were legitiate. When you contact the seller - you get a similar message every time - "The item will be shipped from and I would like you to pay though Western Union". They remove them eventually if you complain, but the point is, the fact that more are appearing means that they're still finding it very easy to hijack your account.

Nick...

Re:Fraud and account Hijacking

[mindstrm]

That's because western union is ONLY in the money transfer business. Not the "Payment processing" business.
They will divulge the details of the payments to law enforcement with the proper orders. Why should they do anything else? Just because someone was stupid enough to not realize what western union's business is?

What's next "I paid in cash, and the government hasn't finished it's satellite cash tracking system... it's their fault I can't track down the guy who ripped me off"

I'm sorry there are scams on Ebay.. but at some point you have to take personal responsibility. You woudln't send cash, why would you use western union?

Unless you are claiming western union gave the money to the wrong person.. it's not their problem.

If you want payment protection, use some kind of service that offers it! Like.. I dunno.. CREDIT CARDS. I don't mean credit cards through a third service, like WU or someone.. I mean.. buy from companies that accept VISA. Oh, it's more expensive? GUESS WHY.

Western union dishes out funds in whatever manner the sender tells them to. If it's a small amount, you can just use a password, no identification required. If it's a large amount, a certain level of ID is required. So long as they followed the ID check requirements you asked for, they did their job.

Re:Fraud and account Hijacking

[nmg196]

Oops - I missed out the link - see here for MSNBC coverage

Re:Fraud and account Hijacking

[nmg196]

You kind of missed my point - I'm not blaming Western Union, I'm blaming eBay for making it so incredibly easy to hijack an account. They should have their security as tight as online banking systems, but it's actually less secure than most public forum systems including this one!

Western Union is just a handy aide they use to almost anonymously get the cash -it's not actually a problem with Western Union - just a problem for the prosecutors and buyers who've lost their money and can't track who's got it.

Nick...

OMFG EBAY IS TEH NEW GESTAPO! LOLOL U R FUNNY! LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Like it; Don't use Ebay

[The Subliminal Kid]

When I choose who I'm going to do business with I make a number of choices and at every stage it is a trade off.

I choose my ISP, connectivity providers, on-line shops and many more on the basis of how I feel about the company ethical and morally. This leads me directly to not having anything to do with ebay or paypal what so ever

It is not as if they are lying (something I have serious problems with) it is laid out in black and white in the EULA.

If you happen to use eBay and never read the click through bits you can get to them here Ebay's EULA.

One request don't wine about it afterwards, it is after all your responsibility to know what contracts you entered into even if as I suspect the click thru EULA will be shown to be indefenceable in the courts.

What duty should eBay have to monitor users?

[kaltkalt]

Should ebay have an affirmative duty to set up a system to monitor what users bid on, and if so, what should the extent of that duty be? If a user named Mohammed keeps bidding on books about bombs, terrorism, and how america is evil, should eBay have a duty to notice that and report it? I personally say no, but that's just MHO. Watching out for this stuff should be the job of the government, not individuals.

There are 3 different levels of duty that are possible:
1) Ebay has a duty to actively monitor/find it and to report it;
2) Ebay has a duty to report it if it happens to notice it, but no affirmative duty to be on the lookout;
3) No duty to either monitor or report suspicious behavior.

I think the duty has to be legally established before ebay decides it will just hand out info.

Hmmm

[SlayerofGods]

Kinda makes me glad I gave ebay/paypal all false infomation.

LEOs?

[TheOverlord]

I can understand giving it to Leos, I just hope they don't start giving out the information to Capricorns, Virgos and Scorpios. That'd be terrible...

The real benefit of requiring a court order-

[kremvax]

-is that it at least keeps a record of which police are asking for what on whom. In the event of inevitable abuse of a system, at least there is a paper trail leading back to the abuser.

A court order can be had with nothing more than a phone call, and are very rarely ever refused.

Why, except for a burning desire for a police-state, would anyone "gladly" open all records to random police inspections? What would motivate a profit-driven company to do this?

Kremvax

- Police States are Bad for Business!

LEOs? Low Earth Orbits?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to send our private data into space? NO!

On The Subject of PayPal Transactions...

[TheSolomon]

From Article, about getting info from PayPal:
"I will hook you up with the Paypal people. They will help you get the information you're looking for.... In order to give you details about credit-card transactions, I have to see a court order. I suggest that you get one, if that's what you're looking for"

Seems like PayPal-to-PayPal transfers are fair game, seeing as they aren't "credit card transactions." With nothing but a fax, sounds like eBay/PayPal would also give up all your money transactions too -- provided they aren't done using a PayPal credit/debit card.

I guess no more money laundering and hiding funds in my PayPal account. =(

So how do I sell all my useless crap

[Anne_Nonymous]

if both Ebay and PayPal are both so unattractive? What other online solutions do people use?

glad it's newsworthy now

[jcphil]

I submitted this story back in February and it got rejected then. What changed?

Re:glad it's newsworthy now

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the dickhead management here, if someone was selling "Pirated" copies with a Linux OS, CD's and the CD's had Bill Gates picture in the CD, THEN it would be newsworthy.

I own both books does that make me a threat?

[asv108]

Besides buying copies of "Mein Kampf" and "The Anarchist's Cookbook,"

Since when is that an indicator of criminal behavior? Millions of each book were sold, probably only a handful of nasty people in the US were found with those books, with the exception of skinheads.

I own both books, I bought the Anarchist Cookbook when I was 12 just because it was a regulated and semi-banned book. I didn't do anything illegal besides a few backyard experiments.

I read Mein Kamph for two history classes, WW II history and a class on the history of the Holocaust. Should I be investigated for this?

Re:I own both books does that make me a threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought the Anarchist Cookbook when I was 12 just because it was a regulated and semi-banned book. I didn't do anything illegal besides a few backyard experiments. I read Mein Kamph for two history classes, WW II history and a class on the history of the Holocaust. Should I be investigated for this?

depends. are you a republican or a terrorist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdemocrat?

Re:I own both books does that make me a threat?

[zedmelon]

That's exactly my point; I've never read either one, but it's only because curiosity has never reached "critical mass" to push procrastination out of the way.

If I had actually purchased a copy of either book, I would still be the same person I am today: a law-abiding geek with a "live-and-let-live" mentality regarding most anything.

A corallary to my original question could be stated, "is simple, innocent curiosity adequate grounds for my private financial information being freely granted to anyone with the spare time to ask for it?"

Incidentally, those titles were simply the first two examples that popped into my head. "The Satanic Verses" and "Ten Ways I Can Prove Smashing Pumpkins is The Crappiest Band Since The Offspring" are two titles that are also sure to earn me more fan points with other slashdotters.

By the way, http://www.phataudio.org/ looks interesting. Slash me investigates more...

Re:I own both books does that make me a threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I read Mein Kamph for two history classes, WW II history and a class on the history of the Holocaust. Should I be investigated for this?

In the new Amerika, yes, you should. Readers of those books will either be terrorists who can harm the government, or educated individuals who are capable of recognizing the atrocious bullshit the government is doing, which is an even bigger threat.

This is the New World Order, komrad... get used to the fear.

Homeland 'Security' Threat Index: America's head is shoved [ 8 ] inches up its ass.

Re:I own both books does that make me a threat?

[stanmann]

Uh when did the AC get "regulated" or "semi-banned"??? I recently(this past year) saw a copy at B&N.

Re:I own both books does that make me a threat?

[asv108]

A lot of book stores don't carry the book and quite a few require ID to confirm that your over 18.

Re:I own both books does that make me a threat?

[buck_wild]

"In the new Amerika"

I think you meant Amerikkk.

Re:I own both books does that make me a threat?

[stanmann]

B&N does, and doesn't. the alleged secure nature of the book, made me rather a healthy living buying and reselling the book my sophmore year of HS(1994).

you think this is bad.....

[inteller]

....ebay can't even guarantee that your ID and information is completely deleted from their system if you terminate your account with them....either willingly or forcibly. so in theory even though you think you have no relationship with them anymore. They could have all of your personal info somewhere either on a backup or in some active database....scary!

Ongoing massive abuse concerns....

[bastion]

"If you are a law-enforcement officer, all you have to do is send us a fax with a request for information, and ask about the person behind the seller's identity number, and we will provide you with his name, address, sales history and other details--all without having to produce a court order."

What other details are we talking about?

Besides the obvious credit card numbers, bank account numbers, etc. (all transaction data from PayPal) EBay also (if you set it up to do) watches certain types of items which your intrested in (but you know this already) thus we find yet another method of profiling for law enforcement personnel. The Patriot Act bespoke of data mining in public databases (all in the name of Total Information Awareness) thus is it reasonable to assume since EBay gives open access without court orders to law enforcement, that they are also regularly 'mined' for data by goverment?

People are missing the point here

[figa]

The interesting thing about this story has nothing to do with eBay. Slashdot is linking to the Nation! Not Wired, Business 2.0, RedHerring, Fortune, or the IndustryStandard, but the Nation!

Attempt to circumvent Miranda rights.

[David Hume]

Sullivan even offered to conscript eBay's employees in virtual sting operations: "Tell us what you want to ask the bad guys. We'll send them a form, signed by us, and ask them your questions. We will send their answers directly to your e-mail."

Per the above, it appears that eBay is also offering to help law enforcement agencies avoid giving Miranda warnings. However, this could backfire.

"decemination of information"

[kfg]

Is this, like, reading every tenth book or something? :)

KFG

Re:"decemination of information"

[Anonymous Coward]

No; avid readers are usually competent spellers.

Re:"decemination of information"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he didn't want to 'diss' his emination.

Re:"decemination of information"

[Anonymous Coward]

People that diss their eminations and pinumbras probably walk around looking like the last a-probe was feel-good time for them.

So?

[davmoo]

The privacy extended to sellers on eBay is no different than the privacy extended to sellers in the brick-and-mortar world. In most US localities, you have to have a permit even to have a yardsale in your own front yard, and that permit is public record, as are ALL business permits, viewable by anyone who so desires, without need of a court order.

If this were about the privacy of a BUYER that might be different. But it isn't. A person peddling his wares to the general public should have no expectation of privacy.

The title of this article should have read "eBay Provides No Privacy For Sellers...Slashdot, As Usual, Attempts To Make An Issue Where There Is None."

What's the fuss?

[Spazmania]

Not sure what all the fuss is about. eBay has never promised any sort of anonymity for sellers. Quite the contrary, they've made it clear all along that as a party to a transacion, you have a right to any contact information they possess. You need only ask for it. Extending this to law enforcement as well is not exactly big news.

Frankly, if I were in eBay's shoes, I'd do the same thing. If someone else wants to create an anonymous marketplace, let them. I'd want to cater to the folks who are above-board... If for no other reason than sellers who aren't scamming someone else are less likely to try to scam me.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion?

[beavis88]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he's probably not on the up and up.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps he runs a stereo shop? Maybe buys out large lots at bankruptcy auctions?

I saw some guy selling about 100 of the exact same piece of computer hardware. Therefore he must have stolen a large shipment of said hardware, right? Right?!?!?

Do you perchance work in the US Attorney General's office? If not, with deductive skills like yours, I'm sure they have an open position with your name on it.

Gimme a fukin break already.

Re:How can you possibly come to that conclusion?

[xalres]

There's a possibility he runs his own electronics shop, there's also the possibility that they're stolen goods. When you see in the description "slightly damaged, no wires" that doesn't raise any warning flags? And selling 50+ different car stereos in a month's time doesn't do the same? I'd be willing to wager that most of the bulk car stereo sellers on eBay don't own a store.

Your example is strained

[Tolvor]

Your example of the cultivated clerk is that it involves a lot of suppositions and 'ifs'. IF you have a cheated buyer, and IF he knows a clerk he can exploit, and IF that seller feels offended enough to use a gun...

I will use the same number of if's in a different example. IF someone offends me at some place, and IF I know a police officer who owes me some favors (in my dreams), and IF I am willing to use that information to pursue a minor issue that can be easily handled in the courts (easily done if I have real name/address) into a MAJOR issue... The situations are the same and more or less equally unlikely.

I have no real problem with officials poking thru my ebay records since while there is a fair amount of transactions, nothing is remotely interesting. I believe this is true for an overwhelming majority of ebay transactions.

However, if someone on ebay bought, say, a couple of tons of a certain (LEGAL) chemical used by farmers, and some books on bomb making (yes they are sold on ebay), and some army-surplus goods, then I would hope that authorities wouldn't have to wait for a federal warrent to be issued, served, processed, analyzed by ebay lawyers, and have the process drag out.

There is very little of a privacy issue here

[Abm0raz]

This is a good thing. I refuse to buy stuff on Ebay cause I've gotten screwed twice. If I get screwed at WalMart(c), I can goto the store manager. If I get Screwed at "Mom and Pop's Local 5&Dime and Cow Manure Emporium", I can contact the Better Business Bureau or my local law enforcement officials. But when I get screwed on Ebay, I'm screwed.

Ebay ignores everything except the most extreme of cases, at worst cancelling the seller's account and leaving the fleeced buyer up a creek without a paddle. This allows for some culpability on the sellers part. When I go into a store, I can see the business license on the wall (ask, they are required to post it for all potential customers to see, even if that is often in the management offices) and know who is ultimately responsible.

Now, I admit, I would PREFER to see Ebay require by default, Sellers to list verified contact info, but that's a pipe dream cause it would cost too much. I would also PREFER that a warrant or subpeona be required to release information such as credit card numbers, bank accounts, and transactions, even to law enforcement officials.

Anonymity and privacy are great things, but they only extend as far as you are willing to stay private. When you enter a public domain, your expectaion of privacy is highly deminished. Ebay is very much a public area where people freely go (no different than a department store). At a department store, the store is never private, but the customers can choose to be by purchasing in cash, or they can wave that privacy and use traceable credit/debit cards or checks.

-Ab

Re:There is very little of a privacy issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha Yes, go ahead contact the BBB.
Most businesses are not members for good reason; COST! The BBB does in fact do nothing except extort money from the businesses as a yearly fee, and keep a shit list if enough people complain.

But you can go in and bitch for sure. Or protest just outside of their property. It gets better results.

Re:There is very little of a privacy issue here

[buck_wild]

"I would also PREFER that a warrant or subpeona be required to release information such as credit card numbers, bank accounts, and transactions, even to law enforcement officials.
"

The problem with requiring a court order (subpeona) is that once again the little (or poor) guy gets the shaft.

If I buy a $300 widget and get screwed, am I really going to get a $300/hr lawyer in order to TRY to get my money back? Probably not. Is it important to me? Hell yes. Is it worth it monetarily? No, not at all.

Re:There is very little of a privacy issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone toutes eBay as an online auction, but it's really more like an online flea market with anonymous haggling.

It's important to know your rights before you start doing ANYTHING.

I almost got screwed once, but I was clever enough to research my options before placing my bid, which never arrived. Fortunately, I had used PayPal who seem to do everything in their power to avoid a VISA chargeback (because that COSTS them more than doing it themselves). Paypal docked the funds (a few hundred dollars, actually) from the vendor.

The vendor's ebay account was subsequently forced closed, and although after the exchange and fees I we shy around $40, it's not as bad as being out for the who $#.

D

Pre-paid cell phones...

[sleepingsquirrel]

But now you use pre-paid cell phones right?

so

[Alpha_Nerd]

Is it really that bad?? I've heard of plenty of people getting ripped off on ebay(including somethign posted on slashdot aa long time ago about some guys tiBook, and he fought back) It's nice to know that if you get scammed you can fax eBay and show up at the guys house the next day.

Oh, and if you don't like it, don't use ebay. It's that fucking simple =/

Things appear to have changed

[tacokill]

Nor sure what the impact of this will be -- but I definitely know eBay does business in California (and is based there IIRC).

This may change things a bit.

Just read it and consider it. Draw your own conclusions.

I bet you have bad credit

[alen]

Maybe the reason you use cash is because no one in their right mind will give you a credit card or let you open a bank account?

here is what they should do

[geekoid]

ebay should demand a law enforcement officer to arrive in person, with a signed warrant that has the exact specifics of what they can get.

Once an ebay contect has had some dealings with a specific law enforcement agency, that law enforcement agency can then set up a liason with ebay. at this point that liason can call in the request, physically talking to an ebay lawyer, and then fax the court order.

The law enforcement always gets involved after the fact, so there is no way to prevent someone from being bilked for a few grand. IIRC has to be greater then 5 grand for the FBI to get involved.

The only exception is when an agency sets up a sting. and they only do that after someone has been harmed anyways.

The requested thread was not found.

[SharpFang]

Anyone to post it here?

Terrorism...

[suwain_2]

Is anyone sick of the whole terrorism 'cliche' being applied to the most ludicrous things? You can't bring big bags into the local ramshackle movie theater because of 'terrorism'. Now, to prevent 'terrorism,' eBay will give your information out to anyone who wants it. Might I ask those who insist that this prevents terrorism... exactly HOW it does so? Are people trading bombs and illicit firearms on eBay and I'm just overlooking the "Terrorist" category?

Stupid Execs?

[suwain_2]

I think it was Sony that started bragging about all the cool ways they could cripple technology through DRM. Now eBay goes and starts spouting off about how it is eager and willing to divulge personal information to anyone pretending to be a police officer. Do they simply not grasp what it is that consumers want? Like being able to listen to their CDs, and having their private information kept private? Appologies if I sound like a troll, but this is just absurd. I had intended to sign up for an eBay account and sell off a bunch of old junk this summer, but I'm now terrified to give them my information. Not that I have anything to hide, but I do rather enjoy my personal information being kept private.

As an American You Know it IS for your safety

[BabyBush]

What ever happened to the concept of privacy? And if you tell me its 'for my safety', you deserve to be kicked in the teeth.


It is for your own safety.

In the persuit of terrorists we continue our crusade against the Muslim Filth of the middle east, the Godless Communists of Europe, the Ungrateful Human Rights Zealots of the world, and the Whiney Intellectuals of America. You are either with us or you are against us, and to be a part of Team America!(tm) you are required to divest yourself of any trappings that might label you an intellectual, misfit, pro-choice, or Godless humanist.

As an American(tm) are expected to be a part of our exciting new team. Your failure to cooperate will result in your being removed and placed in a special, reserved cage at Gitmo.

Get with the program. Be a Real American. Say YES to safety, by just saying NO to privacy.

Your President,

George W. Bush, esq.

Sorry, here is the link working right..

[saskboy]

http://forums.ebay.ca/thread.jsp?forum=7&thread=36 270&modifed=20030701134051

I don't know why the other one didn't work.

Whats wrong with court orders?

[tdk2fe]

I'm all for cooperating with law enforcement officials, but I don't see why eBay should offer information to anybody without a warrant. Isn't that the purpose of due process, to act as a check on police power?

Police officers use eBay too, and what should stop one of them from getting pissed off, faxing eBay a letter, and taking things into their own hands with the information they are given. As much as i'd like to have faith in officers, there are corrupt ones out there, and I don't see a problem with requiring a court-ordered warrant.

That's important info

[beavis88]

"slightly damaged, no wires"

Yes, that's just a _mite_ suspicious there...I would not have bothered with my reply had you included that in the parent ;)

Selling 50+ of widget X in a month doesn't strike me in itself as suspicious, however, given that there seem to be a LOT of folks who do their business almost exclusively via eBay.

But add the two together, and I'll certainly concede the point.

Re:That's important info

[xalres]

I see your point too. I think what eBay's doing is the right direction, not necessarily the right implementation. I think a court order should be necessary otherwise your example comes into play where the LEO's just see that JQPublic sold 5 car stereos last month and uses that fact alone to get all his personal information. It's a scary precedent. It's certainly a policy that needs refining before they implement it.

But then, that's applying logic to business policies and the process of law, and that's a no-no heh.

Re:That's important info

[buck_wild]

The problem with requiring a court order is that once again the little guy gets the shaft.

If I buy a $300 widget and get screwed, am I really going to get a $300/hr lawyer in order to TRY to get my money back? Probably not. Is it important to me? Hell yes. Is it work it monetarily? No, not at all.

EGG on my FACE - Using preview now.

[saskboy]

This is the thread in the .ca forum

Re:Not unusual--its the context

[mindstrm]

Why a court order? A court order is there to COMPEL someone to divulge information.. not to authorze the cops to KNOW that information. They are free to investigate and ask.. why should they have to get a court order for every single question they want answered? What's wrong with people cooperating?

We aren't talking about having all records automatically handed over to law enforcement.. and given the amount of fraud on ebay, we should be HAPPY it's easy to track down people who are abusing the system.

Another perspective: not entirely bad.

[DdJ]

On the one hand, there are privacy concerns here.

On the other hand, this makes it far more likely that I, personally, will choose to purchase things via eBay. I am more concerned with personally being protected from fraud than I am with seeing the privacy of sellers being protected.

Now, if they started doing the same thing with buyers, I'd probably stop using eBay. But as things stand, I only make purchases and never sell anything via eBay anyway.

Well Duh!

[karlandtanya]

It stands to reason--these guys are not going to protect my privacy at the expense of their own business.

Ebay is the world's largest yard sale.

Not the worlds largest fence.

Not exactly . . .

[djembe2k]

According to the eBay privacy policy as it appears on their site:

eBay cooperates with law enforcement inquiries, as well as other third parties to enforce laws, such as: intellectual property rights, fraud and other rights, to help protect you and the eBay community from bad actors. Therefore, in response to a verified request by law enforcement or other government officials relating to a criminal investigation or alleged illegal activity, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, city, state, telephone number, email address, UserID history, fraud complaints, and bidding and listing history without a subpoena.

(emphasis added)

They say in this written policy that they will verify the request as coming from law enforcement. This is a contract. If they do not honor it, they are (presumably) subject to legal action, especially if somebody experiences a material loss as a result (maybe unlikely, but still).

I'm not talking about what they do in the real world, or what anybody says in any particular interview. But what they say in writing does have some weight (even if they may choose to disregard it).

IANAL, yadda.

Re:Not exactly . . .

[EddieSam]

This is a contract

No it's not. It's a statement of policy. If you were naive, you could consider it a promise to act in a particular way, but no way is it a contract requiring such actions. For it to be a contract there must be an offer of goods or services, consideration and acceptance. All of these things are missing.

I am also not a lawyer or even a yadda.

eBay's innaction, user innaction, or FBI.com's?

[saskboy]

A few months ago I witnessed an "incident" on an eBay discussion board. A user's auction was posted for people to look at, which is a violation of the board posting rules. The user who's auction was being criticized by some was tipped off by an annonymous coward that they were being talked about and people were "trying to ruin him". This user stormed into the board and accused everyone there of a crime and said he had called the FBI.com to take care of us all. The problem was that the police really did become involved because he started harrassing people, mailbombing them, and making threatening phone calls after bidding on people's auctions so that he could obtain their address and phone number. He was suspended the next day, and then his 2nd ID. His main ID is now registered again last I checked, but his 2nd ID was still suspended.

It is a rule violation to use one eBay ID while owning another that is suspended.

With a name like Nimrod, it has to be good!

[hesiod]

> "cooperation with government was seen as a betrayal of the unwritten contract between the user and service provider," says Nimrod Kozlovski

Nimrod. Yeah, I'll take the advice of a guy named Nimrod.

Lenny, have them pull the LUDs on his townhouse...

[call -151]

Hey, doesn't anyone watch "Law and Order?"

Currently, credit card companies and phone companies happily send info with calling and billing records to law enforcement without a warrant. This eBay policy is a naturally parallel to that and to my mind, no big deal.

Like most privacy questions, you trade convenience and/or discount for privacy. If you don't want there to be a record of your transaction, use cash in a place that charges more but which employs particularly forgetful help and doesn't have videocams. If you want the cheapest price or things delivered to you in your pajamas, expect there to be some record of your purchase.

holy shit

[waspleg]

i didn't even know the anarchists cookbook was real book

and here i was d/l'n it from my favorite BBS

*those* were the days, toneloc and porn call back verifiers baby

Non-US perspective

[heikkile]

Will Ebay be as happy to answer to the French police about who is selling Nazi stuff? How about MPIAA's questions about some Norweigian selling something that sounds like DVD and Linux? Or the Papal Office querying about someone selling contraceptives in South America? Or some Sicilian Don's questions about who is selling pictures of a shotgun wedding? Or Iranian Religious Police about who is selling Salman Rushdie's collected works? Slippery slope, they are on. Where will they draw the line?

maybe but does it matter if your'e already a

[waspleg]

criminal? case in point, my best friend (yes the same one who got fucked by the Apple store if you read that post) is being chased by ebay/paypal right now, why you ask? because he sold a $2k laptop on ebay, what he didn't know was the asshole who bought it was using a stolen card so he took the money and now they're saying he's liable for the damages.. he's talked with several other people in other states who have been fucked over by the same guy.. i wonder if that guy got his information by doing something like this (he's been using stolen account information including CC#'s to rip people off all over the country from New Jersey)

(there is actually a bit more detail to this story, the guy thought the laptop was mine because i was trying to help my friend sell it so he was actually trying to fuck me over as he's the friend of an IRC enemy.. yes sometimes the real and virtual world battles bleed together)

Easy to get away with?

[sleepingsquirrel]

I'm sure they would smack you down pretty hard if they caught you, but getting caught might not be so easy. First you would probably want to get an account with one of those free fax services, which allow you to send and recieve faxes using email. You might also want a phone number to be reached at, in case there are any questions. You might like to try something like vonage which gives you an actual phone number which people can use to call you over the internet. You might also try DialPad or one of the other free voice-over-ip providers. The next step is to war-drive to your favorite open 802.11b network and login (be sure to spoof everything possible). Then you merely chain together 4-5 of those anonymous web proxies in Russia and the Netherlands, so you can't easily be tracked. Easy as...

1. ???
2. ???
3. Profit!

It's trust v. caution

[indros13]

As someone who loves participating in buying and selling on eBay and its associated sites, I'm always disturbed by these kinds of stories. My gut reaction is: this is wrong, they should be trying to protect my information excepting extraordinary circumstances (court order).

On the other hand, how likely is it that my information will be released? It's the kind of thing that can be easy to get up in arms about over the principle even if it doesn't mean much for most people.

I know that in the realm of rights, it's the exceptions that matter (such as free speech for Neo Nazis or permitting polygamy for Mormons). But I can't help but wonder what Constitutional or natural law protects my banking data. Granted, I don't want to suffer from identity theft any more than the next person. However, I wonder what recourse the average person has to preventative measures when the law around information security hasn't kept pace with the technology allowing its ease of use and distribution.

Can a store really refuse cash?

[Kaimelar]

The store does not accept so much cash; I had to buy the two on two separate trips.

Is this legal? On the $20 note in my billfold it states, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Given this, how can a store refuse cash? Perhaps some exceptions can be made if you can't give change or are ordering through the mail/online so cash can't be processed, but other than that I can't see a reason for a store being able to refuse cash for a purchase. I mean, if I wanted to buy a $1400 laptop at CompUSA and gave them 70 $20 bills, 14 Benjamins, or 1.4 x 10^5 pennies, that's legal according to the US Treasury, right? (They being the ones issuing the legal tender I'm using.)

Anyone have an answer?

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[heh2k]

Is this legal? On the $20 note in my billfold it states, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Given this, how can a store refuse cash?

yes, of course it is. it's legal tender for all *debts*. you aren't in debt until the sale has been made. so, they can refuse the sale. you don't have to sell something to someone.

now, if you owe, say $5k on your car, you can deliver 5k $1 bills and they have to take them.

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[brer_rabbit]

if I wanted to buy a $1400 laptop at CompUSA and gave them 70 $20 bills, 14 Benjamins, or 1.4 x 10^5 pennies, that's legal according to the US Treasury, right? (They being the ones issuing the legal tender I'm using.)

You can certainly refuse to take 1.4x10^5 pennies. A few years back a city courthouse refused to take approximately $200 when a man attempted to pay his fine with pennies.

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[ryanwright]

You can certainly refuse to take 1.4x10^5 pennies. A few years back a city courthouse refused to take approximately $200 when a man attempted to pay his fine with pennies.

A few years back a local man tried to pay his several hundred dollar debt at the local courthouse as well. He paid with normal money, but came up like 20 cents short after scavenging all that he could. He handed over a US postage stamp and the clerk refused to take it.

This was the last day he was allowed to pay his fine so warrants were put out for his arrest and the fine substantially increased. He sued, and won. Apparently, postage stamps are legal tender and must be accepted - at least by this particular government organization.

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[scrytch]

now, if you owe, say $5k on your car, you can deliver 5k $1 bills and they have to take them.

They do not. In fact, no one is required to accept cash. The term "legal tender" means that cash is a legal financial instrument that anyone may accept. It doesn't mean they must accept it.

I cite the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (cute hostname, eh?) which itself states that the law remains mum. This means that some states might have a requirement to take cash, but it's not a provision of the US code.

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[brer_rabbit]

this wasn't in Issaquah, WA, was it? sounds kind of familiar.

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[swb]

I think you might be misreading that.

A sale, even a retail one, is a contract between buyer and seller. I can sell you a bushel of apples for a bushel of corn, and if that's the contract, then you will be within your rights in refusing cash and demanding the apples.

However, your demand for apples may be hard to satisfy; you can sue me in court, but you must demonstrate a loss which will ultimately need to be denominated in dollars. The court could order me to buy apples, but only to the extent that it covers your dollar-denominated loss. If you denominated your loss at $100 and the price of Apples has gone to $200, you may only get 1/2 of a bushel of Apples, since that was the value of your loss.

I'm not sure there's any debt that's not ultimately settlable in cash, since it is conveniently equivilent to its financial value. $100 bill is actually worth $100, and that's how we denominate value.

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[ryanwright]

this wasn't in Issaquah, WA, was it? sounds kind of familiar.

Actually yes, it was. ;)

Re:Can a store really refuse cash?

[brer_rabbit]

i knew it! that's the story I was thinking of.

Two words....

[Anonymous Coward]

cashier's check. It is how you pay for cars and closing costs on houses. Same as cash.

Re:Two words....

[beta21]

I think the poster wanted no paper trail. A cashiers check can be traced.

Claims

[Thuktun]

But when law enforcement wants data about someone who we can see has sent hundreds of threatening emails to another user, who has posted in our message boards about how they're going to kill their ex- , or who we've had to ban from chat or message boards for repeated abuse... sure, we'll hand it over, no court order needed. And our privacy policy says so.

I think you meant, "when who someone claims to be law enforcement [...] claims that someone has [done bad things]".

This is why court orders should be necessary. It neatly proves that the requestor is who they say they are, that someone in authority believes they have a right to that information, and is entirely verifiable.

straight out robbery

[dintendo]

Okay, I may not be the absolute authority on what should be available, but I do think that having this information available to the authorities is a good thing. Here's my experience:

About a month back, my friends and I came back from class around noon or so to our dorm, and as we walked past our lounge, we noticed that several items were missing: a PS2 including all the connections, a bunch of rare-ish games, some not-so-rare ones, and a couple of Harry Potter DVDs (not mine).

We were kinda suprised, and figured that they'd been stolen. Somehow, one of us got the bright idea of looking on Ebay to see if they were there--I know, silly idea, but get this--they were.

We found all of the items on Ebay, and they had been posted that morning, as they'd been stolen during the night and we hadn't noticed when we left for class around 7 AM.

Anyway, long story short, we proceeded to look up every transaction that they had going, got their shipping addresses, their names (there were two of them--one of whom i kinda distantly knew), and everything else that was available in the Ebay records.

We then walked to the police station on campus, made a report, and a bust occurred within four hours. The kids actually lived in the hall across from us.

Now, had we not been quite as net-savvy, and had I not actually kinda sorta known one of the culprits, I can see how the police would have had to pull up more information--in short, not that eBay should be *too* free with this stuff, but it's definitely necessary to get this stuff handled in an expeditious manner.

Especially considering that they had a Buy it Now on the PS2...

We pay to police e-bay, then

[ianscot]

This is a repeat on /. from months ago.

My question then was, if e-bay has decided it can't afford to police transactions on its site, isn't it basically letting us pay for that aspect of the service? I mean, we taxpayers do pay the cops' salaries, don't we?

What would be the brick-and-mortar equivalent of this policy? A commercial mall that didn't hire security officers, but instead posted signs with "terms of agreement" on the way in -- and that settled for "security" in the form of responding to all police requests for transaction information?

Peer to Peer Auctions

[BlueMoss]

An open source P2P Gnutella that listed auction items and linked people without centralized corporatist servers would be the logical solution to EBAY's privacy breaches.

With P2P auctions, escrow services could provide any trusted money holding, without the PayPal vig.

Stop construing regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Police Offcer != Peace Officer.

Police Officers of the State of California are not peaceful.

California is not a state; California is a Territory.

Penal code section 538d of the State of California applies to members of that municipal corporation, not the securities (chattel, the people); this isolates privileged employees from acting beyond their granted abilities (ie a popsicle salesperson may not make the popsicles, only sell).

A Police Officer is a notary. A Police Officer that acts without commercial liability is perpetuating war!

California State != State of California.

RESEARCH VIA THE COUNTY RECORDER!

State of California is not a state; it is a business fiction of a municipal corporation.

The thirteen united States of America ~! United States (Corporation).

To the best of my knowledge, the states are no more when there are no members. When everyone/everybody is of the State of California and not the California State, then California State will have been replaced. You will never see a Church of California because *most* Constitutions do not allow any respect or prohibition of an establishment of religion; thus, it is said that the people is a Church. Also of note, the State of California may be observed as a Church because it acts on its own laws and deals unto others with its own laws. Remember, just because they're business fiction is "State of California" does not mean they are a State. A State is a mere servent. When they refer to you as a Mr. or Mrs/Miss/Ms, you are deceived to act outside of the Constitution of the thirteen united States of America by accepting a title of nobility and are no longer one of the people.

DO THE RESEARCH BEFORE TALKING!

California State is dead. State of California is the new kid on the block perpetutating an unlawfully implied state of war by use of the Emergency War Powers act...if you aren't acting as a church.

Re:Stop construing regulation

[I.A.N.A.T.]

whew...please give me a line on what you're consuming. I don't want any, myself, I just want to know what to avoid.

Here's the scam they can't stop

[stankulp]

My company recently had a Linux server with an open port that was used to spoof email from an eBay seller. We know because we were contacted by the FBI. Needless to say, the server is no longer open.

Here's what the Serbian hackers were/are up to.

They place an ad on eBay for an item at a very attractive price. When they make a sale, they choose a valid credit card number from their list whose owner lives within 100 miles of the buyer. They place an order for the item using the purloined credit card number and have it drop-shipped to the buyer. The purchase meets with the buyer's approval, and he makes payment by PayPal.

A few weeks later the cops arrest the buyer for using a stolen credit card. It takes a while for them to figure out what is going on before the buyer is cleared.

That's what eBay is trying to stop.

Dude, it is called commerce!

[appleLaserWriter]

Commerce only works in the presence of a free flow of information. The buyer and seller should know something about each other, or have reasonable confidence that they can gain relevant information to conduct a transaction. Then they need to know about the stuff they are exchanging.

As there is a lot of money in commerce, fraud is a serious danger. In order to mitigate fraud, law enforcement needs to be invited to the party. The law brings government along, and more information becomes available as a result.

While this intrudes on the privacy of the people conducting business, it also multiplies the value of business people who maintain a good reputation and are in good standing with the relevant authorities. Thus is born the merchant class, those who sacrafice some personal freedom and anonymity in exchange for the potential to profit.

Now if you just want to do a one off transaction, feel free to hire a merchant. This is particularly common when purchasing a house or condo. Rather than become familiar with the law, standards and precadent of the real estate industry and relevant government, buyers typically work with Real Estate Agents. Agents must have their orders finalized by a broker, who must satisfy further educational requirements.

See also, Stock and Commodities brokers, shipping agents, car dealers, etc.

Now recal the last big art sale at Sothoby's. At least one of the bidders was representing an anonymous billionaire or maybe even Saddam Hussein back on their yacht a thousand miles away.

The internet is growing up, it is not just a private club anymore. Welcome to the real world.

Promises promises

[pommiekiwifruit]

The note on my cash promises to pay the bearer five pounds sterling, but I bet they wouldn't give me a lump of the stuff (silver) if I went to Threadneedle street and asked them to deliver on that.

I seem to recall that coins have a limit on how many you can the right to use at once (in some countries anyway).

Re:Promises promises

[Nick Harkin]

I don't know about any other sums, but you can only use 1 and 2 pence coins for transactions up to £10.

Any more and they aren't legal tender.

Here's this for a thought...

[aksansai]

Your personal information would be handed to law enforcement in the event an alleged "crime" has been committed. If you sell items on eBay and don't screw over a bunch of people, then you're more than likely going to have your private information nested in the depths of their Oracle database.

If you sell your items, take the money, and refuse to ship - you've committed a crime! I would certainly hope that your ass would eventually be found in a cold jail cell thinking that an anonomous entity such as your "eBay account name" was sufficient protection for a livid buyer find out who you are.

Your personal information on eBay is not as private as one would believe. Upon creating your account you agree to eBay's Privacy Policy which is laid out in black and white. It states as follows: "In order to facilitate interaction among all eBay community members, our Site allows you limited access other users' contact and shipping information. As a seller you have access to the User ID, email address and other contact and shipping information of the buyer or winning bidder(s), and as a buyer or winning bidder you have access to the User ID, email address and other contact information of the seller." As a regular "eBayer", I have no problems with their policy as the idea behind my information being handed out to other eBayers (again, if they are the seller/winning bidder) is completely rational. eBay allows me to opt in or out of advertisements that may be targeted for me, but does not hand out my personal information with my name attached to it to people that are interested in it for the sake of it.

Theoretically: you sold me one of your pieces of junk through eBay for $150. I send payment with a money order. You send me absolutely nothing. I am going to be pissed and immediately request your personal information from eBay (since we've had a direct transaction).

If you didn't ship me the item, you're at fault for theft of my money. If you lied to eBay and did not provide a correct address and contact information, you are a fraud for selling on eBay, and your account would be shut down for violating the terms that you would have had to agree with to use the service.

Point? If you're an honest seller dealing with honest bidders (or vice versa), then your information is as safe as any other service on eBay, except that people that you do business with would get your personally identifiable information. If you're a crook, eBay's letting you know that it will make it as easy as possible for law enforcement to deliver their own goods right to your doorstep.

Not necessarily a bad thing

[stanwirth]

One electronics company I know fairly well caught an employee selling units over e-bay that he'd pulled off the assembly line (he was in QA). Not the brightest move. He was led out of the plant in handcuffs by the police. The point is, though, there are sometimes legitimate reasons for not protecting everybody's identity.

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing

[vegetablespork]

I'm sure in those circumstances your company could have obtained a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction for the information. Due process? Hell, we don't need no steenkin' due process!

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing

[stanwirth]

I'm sure in those circumstances your company could have obtained a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction for the information.

I'm sure they did. In fact, I know they did. Jpwever. the information that gave them probable cause to get the court order...now where would that have come from..?

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing

[alecto]

From their internal investigation that suspected that employee--having seen their items on eBay would be sufficient. But that's not what they're talking about here. The article's talking about allowing J. Random Cop to trawl eBay's database for fishing expeditions. And that's not due process.

IF you are a law-enforcement offer?

[cyclist1200]

How do they know the supposed LEO isn't channeling Jon Lovitz?

"Hi. My name is...Bob...Jones...yeah, that's it. And I'm a detective...that's the ticket. And I need information about a seller..."

Even worse...

[sleepingsquirrel]

Not only will they want to look for the items on their "blacklist", but they'll also want to see if any of the items you purchase match a terrorist profile. You know, obviously terrorist-like items such as box cutters, nail files, fingernail clippers, etc.

I tried it! It worked!

[MickLinux]

aye - den - ti - tee

Th- eff - t

There! Ta Da! I did it!

A little competition goes a long way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that eBay is getting worse and worse, let's all send them a message. I suggest we start here.

There are many other starting places, but they need our help to get big enough to challenge eBay. Please start buying/selling elsewhere, and if you have any other good auction sites, post them here!

WHO CARES about the seller?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. As a big E-Bay user, I am amazed on the level on confidence I, the buyer must place in the sellers. Some refuses even personnel checks, only cash, money orders and other untraceable means. You send your money to strange places like PO boxes, as for Paypal, since I read about that fraud where the perp used a hotel address (with room) to get a credit card, then a Paypal account, and sold non-existing items for several weeks on E-Bay before he left!

If you want to see how many fraud there is check items like the Nikon DX1 digital camera (usually 4K+). Sellers from Australia a few months ago where letting it go for one or two thousand. Of course they also had sells at 3 and 4. All using images from other (valid) auctions, with feedback from only 10$ or less items (or too old to even look at).

I have never heard of a buyer fraud (except using Paypal to get a refund while keeping the item "never delivered"), so yes the seller should be the one easy to trace.

As for the answer >> However this also covers buyers NOT!!! E-Bay does not have my credit card OR home address. The online form can be filled with false information. (They only ask for a CC# from potential buyers to access adult sections, as a proof of age)

not shocked, not impressed

[nanojath]

this was reported a while ago and I cancelled my eBay account immediately with a terse note on why. Sure it sucks but such as it is; stand on principles or lie down and let them roll over you. eBay has no legal obligation to maintain my privacy. They SHOULD do so for the sake of customer care and good corporate citizenship (encouraging law enforcement to expect information about private transactions to be treated like public information is totally against what the Constitution of the U.S.A. used to be about pre-P.A.T.R.I.O.T.). They failed me so I am no longer a customer, and no, I don't expect they are losing much sleep about it. The rest of the sheep can just keep trading - remember, you have nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong!

A strange side effect I can't explain, since then my budget has been much easier to manage...

The obvious answer to this question....

[Anonymous Coward]

.... in a free and open society (and not one playing lip service to these notions) would be of course not.

Now, to the question of whether you will be considered a threat.....

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about sellers, buyers.

ac

Re:RTFA

[zedmelon]

RTFA?!? UYFH (Use your f*cking HEAD)!

The anonymous coward thinks he's noticed a detail which has somehow escaped the other 50 or 60 posters replying to the parent, and he prattles into the din:

"It is about sellers, buyers."

1. With such an astute statement as this, the only point you seem to be able to relate is the fact that you're a jerk. Are you trying to say:

a) "It is about sellers," and you're simply ADDRESSING me as "Buyers?" Feel free to call me "zedmelon;" this is an informal gathering.
b) "It is about sellers AND buyers," and you're just not completely clear on which conjunction to use, so you left it out but felt compelled to use a comma anyway?
...or the by far most likely
c) "It is about sellers, NOT buyers," and you're merely too stunted to flame me and process a coherent thought at the same time?

2. If I gamble on option (c), then I have to say you're right (at least up to the point where you challenged my post):
According to the article, it is the sellers' identities that could be compromised. However, when I made my original post, I was wondering to what EXTENT the privacy invasion would REACH. Though I didn't specifically state that buying--rather than selling--was the only way to draw Big Brother's attention, I can see how someone with impaired cognitive abilities might assume that I meant exclusively buying (rather than selling).

3. Even if I were to give you two things:

a) I didn't read the article.
b) the article, as you've been so kind to (sort of) point out, names "sellers" as the primary target of this YRO issue.

still, c) What makes you think that eBay would cave to law enforcement and flood them with any available information about sellers, only to remain steadfast in denying the same type of information pertaining to the parties on the other ends of those same transactions when requested by those same law enforcement investigators?

Even if I hadn't read the article before posting (and even if you HAD conveyed a complete thought), your flame sucks, because there's more to my question than "what if I buy a naughty book?"

Go flame someone else now. Maybe if you plan it out this time (be sure to have someone proofread it for you), you'll feel better.

Do the "Agent of the Police" rules apply?

[narzola]

As a network administrator, our security training pointed out that we become "agents of the police" when we ask for their (police) asssistance or cooperate with their requests. If you are an "agent of the police", then you are bound by the same rules, laws, procedures, etc, that the police themselves are bound by.

As I understood it, the purpose of these rules was to prevent the police from violating the public's rights by using a third party. For example, an undercover police officer can't walk up to you and offer to see you cocaine and then arrest you -- its called entrapment. If the police use a third person to walk up to you and offer you cocaine, the entrapment rules still apply. At least that is what I understand about these rules.

Are there any lawyers out there who could comment on this? It seems to me that E-bay has made themselves an agent of the police by advertising their cooperation.

Haven for crime, too.

[EvilStein]

Check this out. eBay has done nothing to this guy. He's been scamming people for months, all for small amounts, yet eBay doesn't do a damned thing because the amounts are all too small for them to worry about. I'm pissed off enough that I have an attorney friend looking into legal action against this little pissant.

Screw eBay.

Ebay shields honest customers very poorly

[northwind]

And this goes both for sellers and buyers
As a seller PayPal (which is owned by Ebay) states that should the buyer reverse payments for whatever reason then PayPal/Ebay is under no obligation to assist you in persuing the crime now committet, but you as the seller are legally liable to reverse payment to PayPal/Ebay.
This leaves a wide gap open for fraudulent persons to work undisturbed under the Ebay/PayPal umbrella.
Opening this by obliging anybody putting forward a request for info on sellers basically makes it a "white page" index for criminals to find possible targets for their next activity.
But of cause Ebay doesn't stand to loose anything.

Another 640K call?

[youaredan]

It appears as thought this will be another "no computer would ever need more than 640K" ... Thanks bill! My 1024M says YOU'RE AN IDIOT

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Taco should change the name of this section to "Your Paranoia Online"...

Aren't /.ers mostly nerds?

[NewToNix]

If so where are they in this thread?
Any nerd I know would be in hysterical gales of laughter any time he/she sees the two words "internet" and "privacy" combined.

I live in the USA, that means for me privacy is a commodity like everything else. You can have all of it you can afford.

Hmmm...new business model: eBay privacy auction. It would have to be a dutch auction....

Sound of NewToNix running to patent office.....

Ha! I smell a Ferengi...

[twoslice]

I've sold a LOT of stuff on ebay, mostly at a monetary loss.

Ferengi rule of acquisition #302 - Anything stolen is pure profit!

Not a debt yet

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe someone should sue Best Buy on the grounds that the cash actually says ``This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.'' (emphasis mine)"

IF Best Buy doesn't sell you the item, then you don't have a debt.

Stores reserve the right to not sell to people for any reason they see fit. The only real challenge to this is discrimination... not selling because you are black,white,arab,asian,gay,straight,etc.

You are right.

[mindstrm]

The credit card info belongs to the CREDIT CARD COMPANY.. not to me. It's a token that, along with other things, validates ME as a customer of the credit card company, who has a line of credit.

If someone uses my number somehow, it's not MY problem, it's between the merchant and the credit card company.
YEs, I relize having to replace your card and whatnot is a pain in the ass.. but, again, that's an inconvenience that the credit card companies are more worried about than you or I are, as they will lose customers if those cards are no longer convenient for people.

There is certain information where privacy laws come into effect, laws that I agree should be strengthened.. but things like "Who is that guy?" "what's his name", things you could get from any meatspace storefront, are not there. Your credit purchase are NOT secret.

I agree, hiding it is wrong, and that the policy shoudl be out in the open... but the point is, just because a company has any type of informationa bout anything doesn't mean they are required by law to demand a court order to do anything.

Well, here's a good hack then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Social engineering: create fake stationary,
set up a phone line, and fax a note to paypal/e-bay
claiming to the police chief from some small
town. Order up on confidential information from
paypal/e-bay and proceed to steal the victim's
identities. You could even screen the results
to pick victims with higher credit ratings and
such.

Without a COURT ORDER, I suppose any renta-cop
can start to play this game. Perhaps soon we will
have cops from Nigeria faxing requests for
info on hot sellers....

So opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, require financial institutions to allow their customers to "opt-out" of having their financial information being shared with non-affiliated companies/entities.

Of course, everyone knows this, b/c you read those long sheets of paper with small print you get with your credit card statement.

Authoritative answer here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/lega l-tender.html#q1

Re:other details (OT)

[omynous]

BTW, if anybody has information on when/how/by whom this was legislated (the food labels), I'd love to read more about it

Alas, I don't have any information about food labels law. I do know of other law that has similar features.

In Ontario, Canada, we have a set of business safety regulations that are written in a curious way. The Occupational Health and Safety Act specifies that safety is the business of a joint employer/employee committee (Joint Health and Safety Committee - JHSC). This committee MUST safeguard all employees, and are personally responsible (to the tune of $25000/ infraction) if they know of a safety problem and fail to correct it.

The committee's findings have the force of law, and if the decisions of the committee are ignored, the Ministry of Labour can be contact, who will examine the decision, and fine the company $250000 per infraction. Further, a trained member of the JHSC, either employer or employee, can call a halt to work, and even an evacuation, if they have found a condition that endangers employees.

Without getting into some of the protections placed into the law, the idea is to both empower the people of the business (both employee and employer) with tools to bring about safety improvements, and to place responsibilities such that every person in a company is responsible for safety. All while not imposing safety regulations that may make no sense, or could actually themselves be unsafe.

And finally, no-one can say, 'Well, we followed regulations!', because if they knew about a safety issue and did nothing to correct it, they already have violated the regulations!

This approach would be a good one to apply to other areas of law, especially things like Accounting, where not knowing if there is a problem isn't a shield from prosecution, as, you are REQUIRED by law to know, and if you don't, you have already been derelict in your duties and are exposed to the full brunt of legal recourse, including criminal charges.

I would have sent this directly to the orig poster, but, I couldn't find a way to do this

Shannon Mann

I have a dream ...

[forsakne]

I have a dream that one day big corporations and single person will have the same power, and will be equally and undiscriminately protected and punished by the law!

The Anarchist's Hoax - poor attempt at humor....

[ckaminski]

Do you have one of those T-shirts with:

I am a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to keep up!

written on the back? I mean, the Russian bomb technicians have them. Morgan Freeman in the Sum of All Evil told me so... :-)

Safe disposing to you!

PayPal Terms of Service Acceptance Coming Due

[IgnacioB]

I've specifically said no to the various acceptances to their latest terms of service and expect my account will expire in the next couple of days. I'm wondering if enough others have performed the same civil disobedience and we'll show up as a blip on their user radar. Regardless, I'm going to try my account again next week and see if they've actually locked out my account and then raise a stink if they have...or force me to accept. I'm not usually an activist, but this issue of police getting information without a warrant is a big problems as we increasingly live and work as netizens.