Slashdot Mirror
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..."
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.
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
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.
"I turn away with fright and horror from the lamentable evil of functions which do not have derivatives."
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.
As if credit card and identity theft weren't easy enough already...
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).
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
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?
"Men lie."
"Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
-Dan Brown
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?
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
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...
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?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Well for a while they held out on those usernames.
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?
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
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.
It's not like it hasn't happened before.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
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.
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.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
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."
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
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?
...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.
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.
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.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
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?
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???
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.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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.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
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
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.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
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?
In Murphy We Turst
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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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.
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.