Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Craigslist Forced To Reveal a Seller's Identity

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the limits-to-anonymity dept.

The Courts 314

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nothing to be scared of (1)

hellfish006 (1000936) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336681)

Its hollywood, what could possibly go wro.... ohhhh

That isn't really the point... (5, Insightful)

midnitewolf (673923) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:That isn't really the point... (4, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337345)

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.

Re:That isn't really the point... (4, Insightful)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#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

Since when does Craigslist operate auctions? (3, Informative)

loshwomp (468955) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337477)

Craigslist doesn't manage auctions.

Re:Since when does Craigslist operate auctions? (1)

midnitewolf (673923) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337663)

You're right, I should have said "sale". Apologies on the misstatement.

Re:That isn't really the point... (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337601)

The people at Craigslist thought "What a bunch of fucking tools. I'm not interested in their 'authority', and I'm not going to take time out of my busy life to dignify them by coming and humbling myself before them."

Which is a perfectly appropriate response. When the rule are corrupt, ethical men do not allow themselves to be bound by them. If they are consistent about applying this policy, the seller won't be worse off.

Re:nothing to be scared of (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337373)

Won't someone PULLEEEZZE think of the security!?!

Have you people forgotten 9/11!?!

Re:nothing to be scared of (3, Funny)

Tipa (881911) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337509)

If you sell your Oscar tickets on Craigslist, the terrorists win.

Hai Guise (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24336685)

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

Re:Hai Guise (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337117)

Only on /. can this be considered off topic, I always assumed that moderators would at least read the summary of an article, if not TFA itself

Services not found on Craigslist: (5, Funny)

halsver (885120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336701)

Legal representation

Well it's the court's fault. (4, Funny)

hansoloaf (668609) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336709)

they didn't post the hearing notice under rants and raves.

Re:Well it's the court's fault. (5, Funny)

TornCityVenz (1123185) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336841)

Now they will have to post the judgment in Missed Connections.

mw4mw mw4w mw4m w4mw m4mw w4ww m4mm mm4m (2, Funny)

stretchpuppy (1304751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336719)

Maybe Craig was too busy responding to bots and picture collectors. Real results takes all day!

The perfect place to buy tickets is... (5, Funny)

gooseupfront (1120847) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336739)

Craigslist. Not only do you get a great deal on tickets, you get a great deal on a date to go with you!

Why do the even HAVE tickets? (5, Insightful)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 5 years ago | (#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!"

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336795)

Damn. I just spent my last mod point. You're insightful and funny all at once.

Even many factories have lists of valid guests. You don't just wave a piece of paper around and get in without being on a list.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (2, Interesting)

Alexpkeaton1010 (1101915) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336853)

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.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (3, Interesting)

tommyjt24 (1296759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336979)

Well that wouldn't stop them from putting John Smith on the list the janitor, no one said the list had to be Tom Cruise and above.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (5, Funny)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337313)

And good thing they didn't. Tom Cruise and "-above-" pretty much includes 95% of the human population.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24336987)

They have IDs.

Is it even that important? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24336885)

Its funny that security would be an issue, when the majority of people don't really care anymore. Yes, there is a small portion of the population that wants to attend. And most of that population gets to attend...

The people who can't attend the oscars and WANT to, probably don't have the IQ to understand that they aren't a big deal. And the people who can attend, don't realize that the rest of teh world is mocking them.

Re:Is it even that important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337021)

teh world

Nice touch.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337009)

The tickets are for guests and for people like the writers who most people wouldn't recognize on sight. In any case, if they were worried about who was in the theater they could simply check the ticket to the invite list and to a photo ID. This sounds like a lousy public relations excuse for performing a shakedown. While Daniel shouldn't have sold or have planned to sell his ticket, it isn't as if he is going to suddenly let in Osama bin Laden who will commit a terrorist attack there. They do have metal detectors and a large security force after all. I think they are more worried about maintaining the integrity of the elite from commoners and fanboys.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (4, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337043)

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.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (2, Interesting)

Danse (1026) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337595)

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.

It's too much to ask for them to show an ID to be checked against the list?

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337057)

You're assuming that Mr. Cruise is invited. The way he's embarrassed the Academy in recent years, I'd be surprised if they'd want him to come.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (1)

mihalis (28146) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337351)

Tom Cruise is who they are afraid of. Well, him and Xenu.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (2, Funny)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337461)

To be fair, Xenu flew a bunch of people he didn't like into a volcano, coach.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337177)

You do realize that a phony Lenny Kravitz almost got in through the back door of what I recall was an MTV Music Award a few years back. They almost let him in, until someone informed them that the real Lenny was on "business" far away, confirmed. The guy was well dressed like Lenny, but turned out to be one of Lenny's friends. (Or so that's what the article said.)

But this has nothing to do with Craigslist....

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337261)

You make a very valid point but I was looking at it another way..

If they really needed to know an identity for security reasons, surely its the one who bought the tickets. The seller isn't going so no security risk there.

Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (2, Interesting)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337591)

It's not like the tickets have peoples names on them. If 'Daniel' just gave the tickets away, how does this change the security?

Can't anyone just give their tickets to someone else if they are unable to go?

Does Daniel have any rights in this matter? (4, Interesting)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336751)

Does Daniel have any rights in this matter, or is this strictly between AMPA and craigslist?

Re:Does Daniel have any rights in this matter? (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337349)

Even if you follow the plaintiff's argument, who cares who Daniel is? All that matters is who Daniel gives the tickets too.

-Rick

What did you expect? (4, Insightful)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.. (3, Funny)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336905)

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...

Re:Yes, but.. (1)

eh2o (471262) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337551)

Uh... chinatown?

Re:What did you expect? (4, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336909)

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.

Re:What did you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337235)

Craigslist has millions of dollars in revenue, they can afford lawyers.

Re:What did you expect? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336941)

I expected the "We do this for the common good" people to get the same earful for not defending their users from the American movie-people [wikipedia.org] , as Yahoo! and Google (the "Do no evil" people) have gotten for yielding to Chinese government [hrw.org] .

Because to continue holding CraigsList in the same regard as before after this is quite hypocritical...

Re:What did you expect? (5, Insightful)

EMeta (860558) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:What did you expect? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337237)

Legal division.

They certainly have one.

Do we really want Craig to have to start putting ads everywhere so he can protect users that do stupid stuff?

The same argument can be used to defend Google and Yahoo! For example: do you really want us to put even more ads, so we can afford a private army to defend our data-centers in China?

At least, Yahoo tried, and gave up only after exhausting all legal options. CraigsList did not even show up in court — much less filed an appeal!..

Re:What did you expect? (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337645)

Legal division.

They certainly have one.

Really? Is that why no one showed up for the hearing?

Re:What did you expect? (1)

The Assistant (1162547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337431)

I agree with eMeta:

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.

How is Craig supposed to send counsel to present his case if he doesn't have a large source of income.

Of course, I'd like to know how Craig actually profits from Craigslist. I've used Craigslist a couple of times, but haven't looked at the site enough to understand the site's business model.

Re:What did you expect? (2, Informative)

lastchance_000 (847415) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337625)

They do charge for job postings.

Re:What did you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337677)

Good Point. I would likely do the same thing, "fine...here...here is his email address, good luck finding him, we have better things to do".

On a side note, why would you waste money to see an awards show anyway?

craigslist could use some cleanup? (4, Interesting)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336785)

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.

Re:craigslist could use some cleanup? (5, Insightful)

EMeta (860558) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337109)

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?

Re:craigslist could use some cleanup? (5, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337191)

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.

Hippies are lazy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24336809)

...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.

they were probably "mellowing out" to Phish shortly before the trial and couldn't make it

Speaking of expectations... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336819)

Hash slashdot ever stood up when threatened with a lawsuit? Co$ lawyers complain -> comments deleted. Microsoft lawyers complain -> comments deleted. Maybe the goatse lawyers need to complain :-)

Re:Speaking of expectations... (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337585)

sort of [slashdot.org]

No Small Wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24336837)

Craigslist is one of the worst sites online. I would never post there, nor expect the owner of it to protect my privacy.

In a nation of cowards... (-1, Troll)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336871)

...Why does anyone expect anything different than what we see here. McCarthyism is alive and well under the new management that has relabeled communism as terrorism. Power mongers mongering their power.

Re:In a nation of cowards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337171)

do you even know what mongering is?

Re:In a nation of cowards... (1)

Ann Coulter (614889) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337455)

There is nothing wrong with power sellers selling their power.

Craigslist (1, Insightful)

99luftballon (838486) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336877)

When it comes to Craigslist then it's a case of buyer, and seller, beware.

The site originally started out as a good idea but rapidly became spammed up with dodgy sellers, fake ads and boring rants.

While there are still a few nuggets of gold in among the trash (best of rants and raves is always worth a look) it's increasingly becoming irrelevant.

I'm not surprised they didn't bother to show, since they take such a lax attitude that getting into a battle to protect user anonymity would just be too much effort.

Re:Craigslist (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337029)

I'm not surprised they didn't bother to show

Neither am I, though it seems more like arrogance and stupidity than laziness, to me. "We don't have to show up, they can't make us do anything! We're all the way up in San Francisco, why should we have to go to Los Angeles for this?"

Re:Craigslist (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Craigslist (1)

Thalagyrt (851883) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337185)

Honestly the only useful thing about Craigslist in my opinion is the musicians board. Everything else is so polluted with scams, but the musicians board is actually useful. I found the singer and bassist for my band there, for example. :p

Re:Craigslist (2, Informative)

99luftballon (838486) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337267)

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.

I FLY RC (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337399)

and let me tell you, it's been a boon to get used gear cheaply, and locally. TY CL!

Oh, and the hookers are funny to browse when your bored (not that I'd every pay 1 red cent for sex)

Damn it. (3, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336917)

There goes my prostitution business.

CL is still a Mikey Mouse site (1)

Darkk (1296127) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336939)

CL been around for years and makes me wonder if the servers are still running in some garage somewhere?

You think by now they would mature the site with better policies and practices but lately it's being used for alot of illegal activities and scams due to lack of police control.

I don't take CL seriously anymore, I just browse through some stuff just for kicks.

Re:CL is still a Mikey Mouse site (1)

absent_speaker (905145) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337067)

I completely agree with you. As much as I love CL, and still find use from it, there are so many sections of the site that are all but broken.

If I post into CL gigs, I get 50 responses from India and then my posts gets flagged down to legit responses can't get through.

At a certain point, any new start-up gets to a place where the original founders do not have the capabilities to grow or even sustain the business. The skill sets that make a good entrepreneur rarely translate into the skills necessary to run a 20+ person organization.

I love that CL is trying to maintain community un-monetized focus, but I think this focus is blinding them to the fact a lot is wrong on CL.

ID? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24336957)

Here's an idea: Check people's ID at the door if you want to know who's in the theater.

Oh, it was posted (1)

bigjohnny59 (1332931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336981)

The summons probably got *flagged for removal*

Are we making an assumption here? (0, Troll)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24336997)

Just because Craigslist didn't show up in court doesn't mean that the judgement is worth even $0.02. Granted, it's not the smartest thing you could do, not showing up in court when you're sued, but it doesn't mean that Craigslist couldn't still appeal the decision, right?

Re:Are we making an assumption here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337143)

No. Default judgements are generally not appealable. If you didn't show up the first time why would the courts let you appeal. The more important question is why should Craig's list care. I don't think they have any interest in whether or not their users get sued. The guy/gal probably was in violation of some EULA by selling the tickets. Why should Craig's list spend any money to hide them?

Re:Are we making an assumption here? (0, Troll)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337293)

*shrug* fair enough, I guess. After all, it wasn't illegal to sell the tickets, it just pissed someone off enough to sue over it.

Re:Are we making an assumption here? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337357)

What exactly would they appeal? They didn't show up and presumably didn't notify the court that they couldn't show up either.

Appeals are done for procedural errors in the way the case was handled. They don't address the guilt or innocence nor do they change the verdict. Once a person is found to be guilty for instance, that question isn't dealt with after that point. A court may overturn a ruling, but they aren't going to do so in the case of a default judgment. There may be grounds if it could be proven that the case were filed in the wrong jurisdiction or that the plaintiff made it overly burdensome to appear, but I'd be surprised if that would fly.

IANAL, but allowing an appeal of a default judgment would cause anarchy in the system as it would be impossible to know whether or not it would stand as well as much more difficult to guess what would happen in terms of the case.

Craigslist Forced? (3, Funny)

greymond (539980) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337041)

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.

morons or liars? (2, Insightful)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337045)

"...invitees to the Academy Awards show are explicitly told they cannot sell or give their tickets away."

What does "explicitly told" mean? It doesn't sound like a binding contract. Why don't they issue tickets that say non-transferable right on them and require id at the door?

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

If you're too stupid to keep a list of the people you've invited, with their ticket numbers, then providing security will indeed be difficult.

Typical Hollywood idiocy.

If they're worried about who's in the theater... (4, Insightful)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337049)

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?

Re:If they're worried about who's in the theater.. (1)

RembrandtX (240864) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337423)

I'm thinking they were more worried {pissed off} about who was selling their free tickets. 'Security' being the code word for 'whom should we exclude next year, because we don't like scalpers.'

You know .. similar to what the NFL did a year or so ago with the tickets they give players.

Obligatory Simpsons (4, Funny)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337071)

"De-fault! Woohoo! The two sweetest words in the English language!"

Have you seen the CL privacy page? (5, Informative)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337139)

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?

Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (1)

Oh no, it's Dixie (1332795) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337279)

Not Found

There is nothing here

No web page for this address

404 Error

Apparently, you're not going to find privacy here. Perhaps parent should be modded funny?

Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (5, Informative)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337287)

Ok, to be fair, here is the correct link:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.policy.html [craigslist.org]

The first link I got from the craigslist home page. I thought it was funny that it was 404ed. The correct link I got from the terms of use page.

However, if you read the correct privacy page, it says this:

We don't share your information with third parties for marketing purposes.

I'd say this isn't marketing purposes.

Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (5, Informative)

smussman (1160103) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337393)

Or, even more explicitly in Section 5:

Craigslist may disclose information about its users if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to respond to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process.

If you look at that, there's really no deal at all. Craigslist is doing exactly what they said they would

Exactly (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337435)

I'm surprised it even got to court. Though I guess they allowed it to go forth, such that they can abide by their own policy.

Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (5, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337667)

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.

Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337651)

Not to mention if you read number 5 on their Privacy Policy. They are fully willing to share your information if there is proper cause to do so.

5. Circumstances in which craigslist may release information

        * Craigslist may disclose information about its users if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to respond to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process.
        * Craigslist may also disclose information about its users to law enforcement officers or others, in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to: enforce our Terms of Use; respond to claims that any posting or other content violates the rights of third-parties; or protect the rights, property, or personal safety of craigslist, its users or the general public.

How many more reasons do you need (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337167)

to obfuscate your real identity for these sites? Do not, I repeat, do NOT give your real names!

Re:How many more reasons do you need (0)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337597)

I always use my real name when I sign up at a site. I have nothing to hide.

Signed,

John Smith

1313 Mockingbird Lane

Anytown, AA

Sucks, but... (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337205)

I can't say Craigslist has nearly the money Google, AOL, etc has to afford lawyers.

This is certainly a crappy decision, but what could they have done being a relatively ad free company? I'm sure whatever revenue they do have go to salaries and server maintenance; I'd be surprised if they were very profitable at all - that's not the point of Craigslist. The rich guys won.

Airline Argument (1)

SirWillae (74480) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337285)

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.'

I don't know how that's scary. Isn't that exactly what the airlines do? If I have a ticket to LA, can I turn around and sell it on Craig's List? Maybe, but I bet there are fees involved and it's not easy to do.

Default (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337295)

I think default judgement is the stupidest idea for a legal system ever, sure it probably saves a bunch of money but the amount of hassle it appears to cause. /fix legal system plz.

It's probably a good thing they didn't show up. (2, Insightful)

wreave (1282730) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337297)

Seriously. Not that Craigslist was sued for this name, or that the awards organizers are so willing to co-opt "security" as their excuse for this action, but think about it... could CL have won?

Here's a handy tip I've come up with to determine, in a business vs. business lawsuit, who will win: Who has the most money to spend on lawyers?

If CL had attempted to fight the suit, with its meager resources, it would have lost. Then, the case may have stood as a precedent to future such cases.

CL was smart, not only for its own limited resources, but also for the larger communities that it and others serve, to not attempt to fight this suit. Let someone with deep pockets stand in and try to win a case that can stand.

(IANAL)

nobody here respects the concept (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337299)

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

That's a poor argument (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337321)

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

Seems like a stupid statement at face value. But suing Craigslist for the identity of the seller won't even achieve the stated goal. If the seller sold the tickets, then he/she is not inside the theater, and thus they won't need security customized for his/her particular super-powers.

"Papers Please" (4, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24337387)

I think cls pretty open about the fact you have to tell people who you really are when you sell something. You get flagged if they figure out your not being honest about who you are, but at the same time its silly you can't sell an oscar ticket.

One possible explanation (3, Interesting)

GrifterCC (673360) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

conform with the rest of the industry. (5, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337523)

'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 (3, Insightful)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

security is an excuse (2, Insightful)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337633)

Security has nothing to do with it. They just want to control who has access to the ceremony. "Knowing" who is there really has little to do with whether a place is secure, especially when there is no checks on who has access other than being "in the know" or "in the cool crowd."

Not about security... (3, Interesting)

jdcope (932508) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337671)

How would craigslist know the seller's name? I sell stuff on there, and I have never put my name. And even if I did, Craigslist still would not know WHO I SOLD THEM TO. So this is just stupid all around. And besides, this isnt any different than if I were selling them on the street, the Oscar peeps wouldnt know the name of the buyer, they would never even know the sale happened. Bottom line is, its not about "security". They were suing other people for selling tickets back in March, and they are looking for more people to sue.

Easiest Way to Avoid Expense/Conflict (2, Interesting)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 5 years ago | (#24337673)

It sounds like Craigslist didn't want to give up the name outright, but they didn't want to enough to spend money to defend it in court either. Sort of like waiting until you get a subpoena before giving it up and then it's "Oh well, nothing I could do--don't sue me."

I wonder if the person in question knew about the lawsuit and, if so, could have sent his own representative.

A bigger question I have with these increasing attacks on privacy: How long before we start getting fake ids to protect our privacy from companies who seem all too will to give us up. For example, I found out my credit card now offers a different CC# to use on line so you have some layer of protection between your actual number, identity, etc. Not sure on how well that works, except that it should stop someone who has the number from using at large. I suppose it's a bit like PayPal. Although that still wouldn't help you if the company contacted Visa, MC, etc. and were able to get your ID through them. It would have to be like an off-shore PayPal that could verify a purchase or whatever needed verification, but kept your ID safe from even the ISPs.

How long before we need more layers of protection--where companies (and governments) can't just shut us down on a whim because we said something bad about them or sue us. Even if the individual is correct, very few people can afford to be sued by some company.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?