Posted on 03/24/2008 9:55:48 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Oregon man's property ransacked after Craigslist hoax
Monday, March 24, 2008
Associated Press
JACKSONVILLE, Ore. -- A pair of hoax ads on Craigslist cost an Oregon man much of what he owned.
The ads popped up Saturday afternoon, saying the owner of a Jacksonville home was forced to leave the area suddenly and his belongings, including a horse, were free for the taking, said Jackson County sheriff's Detective Sgt. Colin Fagan.
But Robert Salisbury had no plans to leave. The independent contractor was at Emigrant Lake when he got a call from a woman who had stopped by his house to claim his horse.
(Excerpt) Read more at kgw.com ...
Are you saying that just because something is law, that makes it good and right? I just want to know what your stance really is so I can remember it when you start complaining about some law passed by the liberals. ;)
So you're saying you want people to be prosecuted for being dumb? Who gets to decide what is dumb?
But that is not the sites fault
No, it isn't the site's fault that people are dumb. It is the site's fault that it is making money off criminal activity.
Doesn't matter. They're both making money off a website. . they both should be vetting what is posted on it.
OK by now you should know that CL made absolutely zero money off of the scam ad, so please stop repeating that falsehood. Go post an ad to CL yourself if you need to independently verify this fact.
Maybe, maybe not. I certainly am not in favor of prosecuting the people who thought the ad was legitimate and letting the owner's of the Craig's list website off the hook. If they make money off the website, a simple disclaimer like this doesn't shift the blame from them to the person who fell for the scam from a prosecutorial viewpoint from my perspective.
They still make money off the website. If they want to vet only the jobs ads, then that is all they should have on their site.
>>Then we disagree.<<
Correct. And I said in my post that the reason I disagreed was: “It is a completely different business model and paradigm - and anyone that has been to both sites knows it. You don’t need a CDL to drive a pickup. There is a reason for that.”
Fact is, you cannot buy or sell on Ebay without a strong identity trail. That is a requirement for, among other things, two obvious reasons: 1. ebay gets paid for your transaction. 2. Ebay encourages purchases where the buyer and seller never meet.
CL is the opposite. It does NOT get paid and it STRONGLY discourages doing business any way other than face to face.
With every category they link to the following:
The overwhelming majority of craigslist users are trustworthy and well-intentioned.
With billions of human interactions facilitated through craigslist, the incidence of violent crime has been extremely low.
Nevertheless, it’s very important to take the same precautions online as you would offline.
When meeting someone for the first time, please remember to:
Insist on a public meeting place like a cafe
Tell a friend or family member where you’re going
Take your cell phone along if you have one
Consider having a friend accompany you
Trust your instincts
Taking these simple precautions helps make craigslist safer for everyone.
For more information about personal safety online, check out these resources:
http://getsafeonline.org
http://wiredsafety.org
That is pretty darned reasonable and responsible. And it is 180 degrees from Ebay.
Bottom line is that if you get screwed by a CL ad, you got nobody to blame but yourself. Hopefully you learn from it.
And if someone posts an ad giging your address and posting offers of sex for money, or “take my stuff, please”, you are a victim of the guy that placed the ad, not CL. The police can investigate it just like they investigate any other anonymous crime. And virtually ALL crime is anonymous.
As I said, they trusted the ad had been vetted by the operators of Craig's list. (Not sure why you are asking what I already answered.)
My issue is with those who think the individuals who fell for the scam should be prosecuted. I believe the operators of Craig's list are more responsible for any criminal activity associated with what is posted on THEIR SITE than those who read the site and respond to what is there.
Fine, go after the guy who posted the ad. He is definitely a criminal. But if you want to go after the individuals who responded to the ad, get the Craig's list owners first.
Care to address the Yahoo email scenario then? Can I sue Yahoo if I fall for a Nigerian 419 scam? Could I sue Microsoft if the scam was typed up in Word? Can I sue the manufacturer of my computer? The inventor of the Internet?
What you are proposing is offensive to the concept of justice. A person should not be held liable for something that was done without their permission and without their knowledge. If the principle that you insist on here were to be applied, there would be no limit to liability anywhere, anytime, and the entire country would grind to a halt under the weight of an endless flood of lawsuits.
>>Ok . . . So please give me your home address . . . <<
Mine wouldn’t do much good. It’s a normal neighborhood.
I think the person that is most exposed to this kind of thing would be people in rural areas.
BTW, if this were to become rampant, I think a law would be required. Like I said in an earlier thread (and I think it is a famous quote) “the less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.”
All I can say is, thank God you are not in any position of power. Out here in reality land, the Sheriff's office has already said that they will be going after the looters, 12 people will look at the facts in this case, and convict after spending approx. 1 minute deliberating. Your defense of the looters based upon an internet ad is preposterous. They knew what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyways out of greed.
>>Are you saying that just because something is law, that makes it good and right?<<
I am with you. I would not agree with that sentence. I often say “what is legal is not necessarily moral, and what is moral is not necessarily legal.”
Based on that statement, I believe there is nothing whatsoever immoral about CL. Now, if they were manually setting the type for the ads, I would have a different opinion. They are simply providing, at no cost, the rooftop from which anyone can shout whatever they want. It is up to the citizens to determine whether or not to listen to the individual and, if it is slander or an incitement for others to do harm, then additional rules apply. But at no time does the owner of the rooftop bear responsibility unless he publicly supported the person, either by giving him access to the roof that others did not have (and even then, specifically because they were in agreement) or otherwise publicly supports the words.
You can shoot the messanger but you can shoot the maker of the paper the message was written on.
I’m getting the sense that the reason he is so interested in pinning the blame on CL is that he would be the type to fall for it.
>>So you’re saying you want people to be prosecuted for being dumb? Who gets to decide what is dumb?<<
No. I am saying they should be prosecuted for doing dumb things - like knocking over liquor stores or taking stuff off other peoples private property strictly because of something they read on the internet.
You never prosecute people for beliefs or feelings or IQ. You prosecute for activities that are illegal. However, behind those activities are one or more of the three.
Hello good sir, my name is Mugabe Ogallelei, my Uncle as you might know was the Minister of BS in BFE Africa. He left me the blessed sum of $25 million dollars but I need a good person such as yourself to help me claim it. Please send my your bank account routing numbers and your SSN, DOB, home address, mother's maiden name, a lock of hair, a recent picture and some DNA. I will transfer the money to your account soon, I promise.
>>It is the site’s fault that it is making money off criminal activity.<<
How are they making money off criminal activity? I am seriously confused here.
If a restaurant has a bulleting board by the cash register with business cards and ads for cars, pets, etc., and a guy posts an ad saying he is going to tear down his house but before he does, he wants anybody that wants to to use one cans worth of spray paint to decorate some part of the outside - and gives an address - do you think the restaurant owner should be held responsible because he is “making money” off the ad? Do you think he should be responsible period?
People that actually DO answer ads like that and then follow through are extremely irresponsible and do not think things through - kinda like bank robbers, who ignore the fact that it is one of few types of robbery that gets the feds coming down on you. IOW, both are committing illegal acts because they are “stupid”. They both need to be in jail, one longer than the other of course.
The lady in this case thought things through and even called the police. It was THAT obvious for crying out loud. These people that took stuff were the equivalent of looters after Katrina but worse. It was personal damage to a single homeowner. It shows much more disregard and lack of respect for others when you steal from someones home vs, say, shoplifting. Both are wrong, but the former takes a different kind of individual.
You know I read on the internet that the IRS and the income tax were illegal. MEGoody, try this, stop paying taxes, then when the IRS goons come to haul you away to prison, you can tell them that you don't think you should be prosecuted because you read something on the internet that said you didn't have to pay taxes, and then when they laugh, you can tell them fine, but that you shouldn't be prosecuted until Al Gore is prosecuted since he created the internet.
>>Doesn’t matter. They’re both making money off a website. . they both should be vetting what is posted on it.<<
Why?
If you cannot see the legal (and moral) difference between the two, there is not much more I can say. Ebay must do it because you never see the other guy. CL doesn’t have to because you DO see the other guy. It is really that simple. That is the foundational difference between the two. It is why CL explicitly tells you to never do business other than face to face.
It is a simple paradigm and I like it simple. It is why I do it. Maybe it is the site for men and the boys should focus on sites where they are more, I dunno, protected.
>>Go post an ad to CL yourself if you need to independently verify this fact.<<
Just dang! The last amp I bought, the guy made me pay the CL sellers fee of $30!
I got screwed!!!
;)
>.As I said, they trusted the ad had been vetted by the operators of Craig’s list.<<
What statement by CL are they “trusting”? CL is plasered with warnings that the ads are NOT vetted by CL. That is why it is free. I like it that way.
It is vetted by the reader of the ad contacting the creator of the ad. Until then it is not to be respected as anything other than fiction. It is pretty obvious to anyone that actually reads the warnings on the site.
Any reasonable and responsible person, that is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.