Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Craigslist Forced To Reveal a Seller's Identity

Posted by kdawson on from the limits-to-anonymity dept.

mi writes "The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts has won a judgment compelling Craigslist to reveal the identity of 'Daniel,' who tried to sell two tickets to the Oscar ceremony recently. The plaintiff's argument against such sales is scary and can be taken very far very quickly: 'If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security.' Craigslist's handling of the case may be even scarier, however — instead of fighting tooth-and-nail for the user's privacy, as we expect Google, Yahoo, and AOL, and even credit-card issuers to do, Craigslist simply did not show up in court and lost by default."

17 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Why do the even HAVE tickets? by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they want to know who is in the theater during the ceremony (for 'security' reasons... dun dun dun!), why do they even have physical tickets? Why not just a list of who can get in? Do the invitees REALLY have to show a ticket to get in? "Sorry, Mr. Cruise. No ticket, no entry!"

    1. Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? by eebra82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Using Tom Cruise as an example is a poor one. Of course the super celebrities get in without any hurdles. The people that are harder to keep track on is the people "behind the scenes". A lot of sound techies, video techies and crew are invited as well.

      --
      Full Tilt
    2. Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? by torkus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Besides this, has anything illegal actually happened?

      They say 'our tickets can not be resold'. That's not a law, that's not a court order, that's not anything other than a company whining about someone doing something they don't like with a piece of paper they gave away or sold themselves.

      This isn't even software with a stupid license agreement. It's a physical ticket.

      Going further, one has to assume the 'seller' really does have the ticket and really will make a sale. Why do you think they wait on drug busts until AFTER an undercover has completed the purchase? Even if the sale were somehow illegal, it hasn't actually happened.

      All this in addition to their insane claims about 'security'. If it was so important they WOULD be checking ID.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  2. What did you expect? by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Craigslist has to be about the seediest place to do business on the internet. Nothing about their service screams 'high quality,' much less 'we care.'

    1. Re:What did you expect? by EMeta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the problem. Craig doesn't want a huge organization. He doesn't want ads. He just wants to live semi-comfortably and have a functional website so people can use it.

      Things this does not include:

      Ads.
      Huge profits.
      Legal division.

      Do we really want Craig to have to start putting ads everywhere so he can protect users that do stupid stuff? I don't.

  3. If they're worried about who's in the theater... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're worried about who's in the theater, then it seems like they'd be more interested in the identity of those *buying* the tickets, no? Do they have prohibitions against giving the tickets away if you get them legitimately? Can I donate them to a charity auction, and do they send the Oscar Gestapo to the auction to fingerprint and photograph the winners at the charity auction?

    If not, then why is Craigslist such a security threat?

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  4. Re:craigslist could use some cleanup? by EMeta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should Craigslist be forced to pay for lawyers whenever someone posts something they shouldn't on their site? I say no. What did this guy ever do for them? Craig's not making any money off his posting. None. Why should it pay for lawyers for him?

  5. Re:craigslist could use some cleanup? by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this Craigslist's problem? There is no requirement that they fight to help you keep your anonymity. If Daniel doesn't like the result of the court's decision, he can hire his own attorney to fight it.

  6. Re:Craigslist by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Possibly, or they realized that they'd lose the case and chose to not bother wasting money on it.

    While the reason is bunk, the people running the event do have the right to keep people out if they want to. People who are invited don't have the right to sell.

    I'm not really sure how it's in the best interest of people that use Craig's list to have them wasting money defending such clear cut cases in court.

    I mean seriously, you don't really have to be an attorney to recognize that a private event run by a private organization that stipulates as a condition for receiving an invite that the tickets are non-transferable would have the legal right to deny entrance to those people.

    The suit here is so that they can figure out who it is and avoid giving the person tickets in the future.

    I'm not really sure what part of that is actually shady. (Excepting of course the explanation of why it's necessary to make the tickets non-transferable)

  7. That isn't really the point... by midnitewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't blame the academy for wanting tighter security, and they have a valid reason for WANTING to know the identity, but security at the Oscars isn't Craigslist's responsibility, and they're not ENTITLED to that identity.

    Forcing Craig's to stop the auction and prevent the sale? Reasonable. I would think that the extent of their liability would be to remove the auction of (what are presumably) non-transferrable tickets. Had they actually shown up in court, they could have had a good shot at protecting the sellers identity.

    There's potential here for an unfortunate precedent.

    1. Re:That isn't really the point... by xaxa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's potential here for an unfortunate precedent.

      IANAL, but I think a judgement without representation from the accused isn't very good precedent (if at all) and is easily overturned.

    2. Re:That isn't really the point... by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I believe it's pretty standard. In a case of "your word against his", if his is silent, yours wins. I was told that you should always fight a ticket if you think that the officer won't show up (but more and more officers are being required to show up, so I think this is less true now)....it's basically the same thing. If Craigslist didn't care enough to show up, they didn't care enough about the outcome. Of course, there's also something to be said if notification was not properly handled.

      Layne

    3. Re:That isn't really the point... by daveywest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Explain to me why Craigslist would want or bother to pay for the legal defense of someone selling something they have no right to sell?

      Perhaps if this had been an actual privacy issue, Craigs might feel inclined to step up.

      Consider that the Academy has an established precedent of defending its legal rights. Ever wonder why you can rarely buy an Oscar on eBay?

      Also, where does Craigs make any promise of privacy to it's users? The randomized emails they offer posters are just one step above the security provide by lock on your front door. If someone wants to get in there, they're not going through the lock, they're going through the decorative glass window.

  8. "Papers Please" by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You:But all I want to do is to see the movie.

    Clerk:Sorry Sir but we have to know who is in the theater. It is afterall for your own protection.

    --
    Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
  9. Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? by LandDolphin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This thread of replies should be mod'ed +5 informative. Why is it even news if it is in their privacy policy that they will turn over the information? Reading that kind of makes this a total non-story.

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  10. So... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this Craiglist's fault? "Daniel" was doing something he was barred from doing. Shouldn't people be more upset that Daniel is doing this instead of being upset at Craigslist for investing massive amounts of money to protect someone else's dubious behavior?

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  11. Re:The perfect place to buy tickets is... by catmistake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real question is why the MPAA spent the money on lawyers and court costs when the could have just bought the tickets!

    --
    The Admin and the Engineer