Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Craigslist Forced To Reveal a Seller's Identity

Posted by kdawson on Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:19 AM
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Hai Guise (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2008, @11:21AM (#24336685)

    I got two oscar tickets. Anyone want em? Asking $600 OBO.

  • by halsver (885120) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:22AM (#24336701)

    Legal representation

  • by hansoloaf (668609) <hansoloaf&yahoo,com> on Friday July 25 2008, @11:23AM (#24336709)
    they didn't post the hearing notice under rants and raves.
  • by gooseupfront (1120847) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:24AM (#24336739)
    Craigslist. Not only do you get a great deal on tickets, you get a great deal on a date to go with you!
  • by superdave80 (1226592) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:24AM (#24336743)
    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!"
    • Well to be fair I'm sure there are a lot of non-famous people that show up to an event like this: i.e. production crew, makeup and costume people, etc.
    • by eebra82 (907996) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:43AM (#24337043) Homepage
      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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2008, @12:26PM (#24337835)

      I've gone to the Oscars.

      When you are invited, you get a packet of various tickets. The tickets could be parceled out from a production company which gets a lot of say, ten of them. Or if you are a nominee, you may be sent them directly via an agent or manager. In the packet of tickets-- one is for the ceremony, another for the "Governor's Ball" afterwards. The Kodak theater has three or four levels inside-- if you are a nominee you have access to the bottom "floor level" and without the appropriate pass you will be kindly asked to stay up top. You also, if I remember right, get some kind of parking ticket that you give when you turn in your car to the valet, or that your limo driver keeps if you've got one of those. I could be wrong about that last part- cant' remember.

      Here are some reasons for the tickets (and not a list): First of all, the list of attendees changes up to the last second. People are planning to go, then drop out, or have other people go in their place... it's a very fluid attendance list and I think it would be pretty difficult to keep it up to date. I'm thinking its much easier to let individuals deal with the politics of who's using the tickets than to try to centralize it. Plus, there would be people BSing to get their names added on the attendant list all over the place if it was as easy as calling in. Sure, tickets can be forged too, but I think they are individually numbered (?) and have glossy rainbow printing and stuff all over them...

      Also-- have you ever seen the red carpet? It's about the width of a city street. Fans on one side holding signs, and the press on the other holding cameras, both on bleachers. The red carpet is fast moving and chaotic. When you go to the oscars, you are part of a 45-minute flow of people who drop off their cars, head through a giant tent-like thing where they take your ticket, then you pass through one of about twelve metal detectors, then proceed through the red carpet. Among the actors and well-known celebrities are the majority-- these include more technical nominees (sound, sfx), producers, writers, etc. And most people-- celebrities and non- bring dates and family. It would be a real pain to ID every single person who passes through, and the flow of people would virtually grind to a halt...

      I suppose they COULD use a list.. but it would be just as much of a cluster fuck I think.

      Hope this helps...

      • by torkus (1133985) on Friday July 25 2008, @02:43PM (#24340227)

        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.

  • by Khashishi (775369) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:25AM (#24336751) Journal
    Does Daniel have any rights in this matter, or is this strictly between AMPA and craigslist?
  • by AbsoluteXyro (1048620) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:27AM (#24336775)
    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.'
    • Yes, but.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:34AM (#24336905) Journal
      Craigslist might be seedy, but then again, everyone needs a dark alley to buy their fake gucci bags and knock-off soccer shirts. Ebay just doesn't cut it anymore...
    • by Otter (3800) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:34AM (#24336909) Journal
      Isn't Craigslist basically just Craig and a handful of other people? I wonder if they have a lawyer, or even someone there to accept the summons. Their financial dealings with EBay don't suggest massive legal support.
        • With millions of dollars in revenue, they can hardly afford not to have lawyers.

          They should have shown up, they took a chance for good PR and turned it into really bad PR.

          Whether the Academy had any right to that information has no bearing on this, they should have shown up to court and fought. Now anybody who wants their data will just file a suit.
      • by EMeta (860558) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:40AM (#24337013)
        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.
  • Normally I would completely agree that privacy must be protected wherever and whenever possible. Both my heart and my head tells me that privacy is an essential right.

    Having said that, could craigslist use a little bit of "cleanup" from the scam artists, vice decoy hookers (keep the real ones!), and other bad elements that are hiding behind the anonimity of CL as an essential part of their scam?

    I realize that the key word there is "bad"-- who is to judge what is 'bad' or 'good' except the other party in the transaction?

    I just wonder if CL purposefully ignored the court date in hopes of such a cleanup, or if they were simply too busy smoking some dope and selling some old furniture (both are fine hobbies to have) to remember to go downtown.

  • Damn it. (Score:4, Funny)

    by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:34AM (#24336917) Homepage
    There goes my prostitution business.
  • by greymond (539980) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:43AM (#24337041) Homepage Journal

    More like CL didn't care. They didn't care enough to show up to court, so they didn't care enough to fight about it.

    The sad thing is, I'm not really surprised. They have warnings in their real estate section of housing wanted/for sale that states that if you post something like "Only Mexican People Can Buy/Live-in My House" you will get fined - so they must be down with sharing your info when asked for it.

  • 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?

  • by faloi (738831) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:45AM (#24337071)
    "De-fault! Woohoo! The two sweetest words in the English language!"
  • by johnny cashed (590023) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:47AM (#24337139) Homepage
    http://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.html [craigslist.org]

    And look at the terms of use, particularly item 2.

    Was Craigslist expected to not reveal the seller?
  • of a corporation dragging you into court on bullshit pretenses

    given that thought, not showing up to court is really the only course of action you can take

    of course, there are also those who want to see someone else fight their battles. this is the only reason in which you yourself who do not respect the legal status quo can expect someone else to respect the legal status quo for you

    and to some extent, this is a valid attitude: if that someone else fighting for you is big and powerful while you are small and weak

    but as others have noted, craigslist really is just craig and a few dudes in san francisco. they may have the exposure of a large corporation, btu they aren't a large corporation. as such, they are in the boat with you and me: someone else needs to fight this battle, or craigslist, due to the legal environment of our modern times, needs to give in to reality and turn into a corporate turd pile and fund a bunch of corporate lawyer whores in order to retain its integrity in the face of such legal bullshit

    i dunno, i'm torn. i say fuck the courts on the issue of corporate chicanery, ignore them. but then they win by default in terms of enforceable rulings. such that you have to fund the legions of corporate lawyer whores

    or kill them all. hard to say

  • "Papers Please" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arthurpaliden (939626) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:59AM (#24337359)

    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.

  • by GrifterCC (673360) on Friday July 25 2008, @12:04PM (#24337453)
    TFA does not say that craigslist turned over the guy's identity, just that they figured out who it was. Granted, AP articles sometimes read like they were written by a high-school journalism student, translated into Bantu, then back into English, but the omission seems glaring. Other TFAs on the same topic also do not actually say that craigslist turned the name over.
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Friday July 25 2008, @12:09PM (#24337523) Homepage Journal

    'If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security.'

    Then require people to show ID. Try to do security like the rest of the world. If you can sell tickets and not know who is at the Oscars, then what stops some one from tying up ticket holder and taking their tickets to the Oscars?

    I'm simply do not understand what legal right one private organization has to enforce its policy on a completely unrelated organization?

  • Silly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sta7ic (819090) on Friday July 25 2008, @12:10PM (#24337547)

    This strikes me as the classic fallacy for suing online service providers, to challenge the messenger for the messages that they deliver. Craigslist is about as fast and lose as sites seem to come, and all that's needed is a legitimate email address to post ~ which costs about five cents and ten minutes to set up. The service has absolutely no guarantees of poster accuracy, honesty, or legitimacy ~ honestly, about on par with a web board. Keeping eBay and Amazon on their toes is valid, in my book, solely for the fact that their sites enable transactions, but beyond that, it's buyer beware.

    This lawsuit makes about as much sense as bringing the FTC in to a flea market. You can't impose any sorts of regulations without completely warping the existing system, in which case it's no longer a flea market.

  • So... (Score:5, 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?
  • Jurisdiction bites (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghostlibrary (450718) on Friday July 25 2008, @02:32PM (#24340027) Homepage Journal

    So, Craigslist is in San Francisco, yes? And the court case was in Los Angelos. Sure, it's the same state, but California is big, that's a full day's drive apart (8-12 hours depending on route). So, as usual, the people suing chose a venue that's not where the supposably offending business is located.

    That's the real problem here. To expect someone to have to take 3 days off to fly or drive a long distance to attend each and every spurious lawsuit just means you can do a Denial of Service Real World... file lots of lawsuits until the airfare bankrupts the given target.

      • Re:Craigslist (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hedwards (940851) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:52AM (#24337211)

        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)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Well I found my current apartment through the site, but it took weeks of combing out the wankers before I did. But in San Francisco it's something of an institution so you've got to use it.
    • by midnitewolf (673923) on Friday July 25 2008, @11:54AM (#24337239)

      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.

      • by xaxa (988988) <slashdot.symbiote@eu> on Friday July 25 2008, @11:59AM (#24337345) Homepage

        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.

        • by SQLGuru (980662) on Friday July 25 2008, @12:16PM (#24337669)

          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

        • by daveywest (937112) on Friday July 25 2008, @02:01PM (#24339565) Homepage

          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.

      • by loshwomp (468955) on Friday July 25 2008, @12:06PM (#24337477)

        Craigslist doesn't manage auctions.