UPS Coughs Up $40 Million Because It Delivered Drugs From Rogue Pharmacies
from the uh,-secondary-liability? dept
Whenever we talk about things like “secondary liability” and why it doesn’t make sense to blame a company for something their users do, we’ll often use examples like pointing out that it’s inappropriate to blame AT&T if someone makes a bomb threat over the phone, or to blame Ford for someone driving too fast. Another example in the “of course that’s silly” list may have to removed however: the inappropriateness of blaming UPS or Fedex for what’s in the packages they deliver. That one now has to be retired. Because the good old US government has made UPS forfeit $40 million to the government for shipping drugs from “illegal internet pharmacies.” Details on what actually happened here are sparse, but the DOJ will be celebrating this one, despite almost none of the important details being shared.
UPS put out a statement that doesn’t sound even remotely forced upon it by DOJ people holding guns.
“We believe we have an obligation and responsibility to help curb the sale and shipment of drugs sold through illegal Internet pharmacies,” said Susan Rosenberg, a UPS spokeswoman.
Of course, what is an “illegal internet pharmacy”? There’s a bit of an issue there because the DOJ thinks that an illegal internet pharmacy includes that Canadian pharmacy that is much cheaper, but which is making perfectly legitimate drugs and then shipping them — gray market style — into the US. That’s a very different picture than the “illegal internet pharmacy” selling sugar pills or worse. But, here’s the thing about all that: for all the talk of the risks and dangerous of illegal internet pharmacies there are amazingly few stories of any actual harm. And, in fact, various random tests of the drugs coming from “illegal internet pharmacies” suggest that, for the most part, they’re safe (and frequently appear to actually be what they say on the box). So what is the DOJ protecting us from here? The scourge of more affordable legal drugs?
The bigger issue, however, is the question of secondary liability. I don’t want UPS going through my packages to make sure they’re not illegal drugs. Perhaps the government showed direct plans and strategies by UPS to attract illegal pharmacies, but from the outside, given the information that’s been revealed, it looks like the real problem is why is the DOJ even bothering? If UPS and Fedex are going to have to start checking what’s inside packages to avoid getting itself fined again, that’s a really bad and dangerous precedent.
Filed Under: doj, drugs, rogue pharmacies, secondary liability
Companies: doj, ups
Comments on “UPS Coughs Up $40 Million Because It Delivered Drugs From Rogue Pharmacies”
Whenever we talk about things like “secondary liability” and why it doesn’t make sense to blame a company for something their users do, we’ll often use examples like pointing out that it’s inappropriate to blame AT&T if someone makes a bomb threat over the phone, or to blame Ford for someone driving too fast.
And in those situations, without more, there would be no secondary liability. But other times, when there is more, it is appropriate to hold them liable. You don’t seem to grasp any of the nuance when it comes to secondary liability. I can’t tell if it’s ignorance or willful blindness on your part.
According to the linked-to article: “Prosecutors said UPS was on notice from 2003 to 2010 that Internet pharmacies were shipping drugs without prescriptions, yet the company didn’t put procedures in place to shut down their accounts.” It’s the knowledge that makes them culpable. If you know that person X is using your system to commit a wrong/crime, and you do nothing to stop it, you can be liable.
Re: Re:
It depends if the notice was anything less vague than “Internet pharmacies were shipping drugs without prescriptions.”
Re: Re: Re:
Read the undisputed facts for yourself: http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sf/2013/032913UPS.AttachmentA.pdf
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That?s an interesting list of corporate actions describing an ambiguous relationship between UPS and pharmacies of uncertain validity, including a developing reticence to actually do business.
Well, I?ll see your ?undisputed facts? and raise you a ?Non-Prosecution Agreement? The actual statement from the DEA is here:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sf/2013/sf032913.shtml
and the agreement:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sf/2013/032913UPS.%20signedNPA.pdf
Fact 1) UPS is giving 40 million to the government
Fact 2) UPS is implementing an extra-judicial compliance policy at the dictate of the DEA
Fact 3) UPS was threatened with charges of conspiracy, distribution of controlled substances, money laundering, and misbranding of pharmaceuticals.
Fact 4) UPS must cooperate with the DEA to the extent of providing any document, record, or evidence at the mere request of the DEA.
That?s not too unreasonable, really. Just give up 4th Amendment rights to search and seizure for all your customer and shipping information. Just give up 5th Amendment rights to due process of law for deprivation of $40 million of property. It?s a small price to pay for the heinous crime of dealing with pharmacies that were ALLEGEDLY criminal.
UPS did not do business with a criminal enterprise. Once the pharmacy was shut down, UPS did not do business with it anymore. UPS had a tariff contract, essentially a Terms of Service agreement, to not ship illegal materials through UPS, but the pharmacies were the ones violating that agreement. Sure, delivering packages to parking lots and roadsides may be a bad idea and a bad business practice, but it is not illegal.
Now, I may get all warm and fuzzy when I hear words like ?good corporate citizen?, ?voluntary?, ?compliance?, ?materially assist? and other newspeak, but then I realize that UPS has simply been conscripted by the DOJ and DEA. Remember the cooperation provision? Those ?request(ed)? documents may be shared to ANY agency, at the discretion of the DEA. Remember the ?forfeit? of cash by UPS? The civil forfeiture rules of the DEA are beyond screwed up, as shown by their attempt to seize the Hotel Caswell:
http://ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-release-1-24-2013
I would say they seize first and ask questions later, but that might be giving them too much grace. The DEA could have seized the money from UPS even if UPS hadn?t agreed to let it be seized in an NPA. I can almost imagine a couple of pin-striped, neckless goombas walking into the UPS office and saying ?Nice company you got here, shame if anything happened to it. For $40 million we can protect you from some… unpleasant… legal trouble.
The tech angle: Illicit commerce over the internet involves third parties in non-criminal ways, who then roll over to avoid trouble, and allow the Constitution to be totally mocked. Thanks, internet.
Re: Re:
How exactly is UPS supposed to know wether ant given shipment is to fill a prescription? Keep in mind it’s illegal for the pharmacy to release prescription information to a third party.
For that matter, the DOJ is a third party, so how exactly does the DOJ know which shipments are covered by a prescription, and which ones are not?
Re: Re: Re:
Because they were told that specific shippers were shipping illegal drugs, and they continued doing business with them anyway: http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sf/2013/032913UPS.AttachmentA.pdf
This stuff isn’t hard.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this the same government that told us Kim Dotcom was laundering money, that Dajaz1 stole music, that they had a right to close Rojadirect?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
oh it’s the ‘well they got one thing wrong once, so I am sure they have got everything wrong forever’ argument!.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
By my count it’s 3 things TAC listed that you agree they got wrong.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I did not agree they got anything wrong. I am sure they have but I don’t know if they got any of these things wrong. I made no statement as to the wrongness of any statement or claim, I simply drew a conclusion based on his comment.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I would hazard a guess that the US Government has gotten far more than 3 things wrong too.
GW Bush would have done that in the first 22 seconds of his ‘reign’.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
oh it’s the ‘well they got one thing wrong once, so I am sure they have got everything wrong forever’ argument!.
Which, oddly enough is exactly the SAME ARGUMENT that the DOJ is using against UPS.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually I was pointing out that often what they claim is not actually reflected in reality.
That it is a shame that with a Department of Justice, one has to actually verify the claims they make, as they seem to be given to hyperbole and have been caught many times perverting the course of justice by hiding evidence that disproves their narrative.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
it’s not hard for most people, just most people here !
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
it’s not hard for most people, just most people here !
That’s because most people just take whatever the government says at face value – whilst most people here take the trouble to analyse the situation in greater depth!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Looking over that statement of agreed upon facts, even the DOJ agrees that ensuring a shipment complies with all applicable laws is the responsibility of the shipper. So why is UPS being punished for failing to do something that it has no responsibility for?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they were told that specific shippers were shipping illegal drugs, and they continued doing business with them anyway
I’ve read your link – and I don’t think it says what you think it says.
In any case it is not illegal to do business with someone merely because they have previously been caught doing something illegal. As the UPS terms of service state, responsibility for any illegal shipment lies clearly with the client and not with UPS. The legality or otherwise of shipments is judged individually.
The only possible case the DOJ has against UPS is that they were actively targeting illegal business, and even there it is not entirely clear what law it is that they are breaking.
The evidence for that, given your link, is at best muddy
The whole thing looks more like “pay 40 million to make this go away” than anything else.
Re: Re:
All this means is that people in the US will not be able to get cheap medication, which is sad, but then again it also puts much more pressure on teh administration to resolve the problem with prices sometimes 20x higher than the exact same thing over the border.
Re: Re: Re:
yes, and the US pharm companies can offset some of the very high cost involved in the development and approval of these drugs, so they can reduce their sale price by increased volume and make sufficient profit to enable them to develop, have approved and sell other drugs for the betterment of mankind.
because if the big pharm companies cease to exist, there will be no new developments, and nothing for the cheap knockoff companies to copy.
Not to mention (ok I will) the effects on employment within the US and the benefits to it’s economy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your government is forcing third party companies to take action to protect highly over priced goods in the US market. The is the same issue as the Kirksaeng case, companies protecting large profits in the US market from import of the same products sold at a lower, but still profable price in a foreign market
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that we live in a free market. We don’t. Biomedical research is heavily taxpayer funded, and even the results of taxpayer funded research is locked up behind horrifically expensive private paywalls (journal publishers).
… along with the astronomical costs associated with healthcare, to the point that even if you have insurance, it’s worthless because whatever condition you contract, it’s too expensive for them to cover it. USA! 😛
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“yes, and the US pharm companies can offset some of the very high cost involved in the development and approval of these drugs”
And AZT cost them how much again?
AIDS wonder drug they charged an arm and a leg for…
But ya see, it had been found decades before and was deemed to toxic to be used in chemotherapy.
So we gave them the rights to a drug that had been around for a long time unused, and they jacked the price up to recover their research costs that they never paid??? Or to recoup the costs of advertising.
Testing… where they keep getting caught hiding adverse reactions (read as it kills people) because we gutted the independent testing done by the FDA to make life easier for corporations?
Or the states that passed laws barring people from suing drug makers for issues, even if you can prove they knew it was flawed in the first place….
Maybe if they spent less on lobbying, they’d have more money for research.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“because if the big pharm companies cease to exist, there will be no new developments, and nothing for the cheap knockoff companies to copy.”
If patents cease to exist more new developments will happen and the rate of new developments will accelerate.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“yes, and the US pharm companies can offset some of the very high cost involved in the development and approval of these drugs”
Those costs are highly exaggerated and there have been many developments a long long time ago without patents. In fact, the current rate of development seems to be very slow, partly thanks to patents and partly thanks to the FDA which bases much of its decisions on self interested political motives than the public interest.
“because if the big pharm companies cease to exist, there will be no new developments, and nothing for the cheap knockoff companies to copy.”
Having reasonably priced medicine doesn’t stop new developments from happening. If anything, patents do.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that patents have done anything to help the advancement of medicine and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they have only increased prices and hindered such advancement. The only ‘evidence’ that is presented is self interested propaganda by bought politicians and corporate shills. I want patents abolished. Yes, it will hurt the bottom line of lazy monopolists but it will enable new players to enter the market with new products and it will make it more difficult for the FDA to be bought by some company with the required patents to keep competitors out so that the FDA will only allow the production of their products, not based on science but based on politics. The FDA is a very corrupt organization, restricting my health freedoms for no good reason. The FDA has no business doing so. If I want to eat unadulterated red yeast rice or any other supplement, for example, the FDA has no business saying that red yeast rice naturally containing appreciable amounts of a pharmaceutical substance must be banned. It’s like the FDA putting restrictions on apples or oranges because they contain vitamin C and some pharmaceutical corporation has a patent on it and sells it as a ‘drug’ and so if I want vitamin C I must buy it at inflated rates because this company did some R&D on vitamin C. No, the FDA needs to mind its own business and stop putting selfish restrictions on what I can and can’t eat and the contents of my food.
If you follow the FDA you will find that very much of what they do is for self interested purposes and I am all for putting stricter restrictions on what they can do. and abolishing patents would be a step in the right direction. Yes, it will hurt the monopolist pharmaceutical corporations who will fear monger us with unsubstantiated lies like without patents there would be no new developments. No, it will not hinder the development of new products. That is just a bunch of fear mongering put forth by those who disproportionately benefit from patents. and I don’t care about the profit margins of these monopolists and I don’t, for a second, believe their self interested claims.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Not to mention (ok I will) the effects on employment within the US and the benefits to it’s economy.”
We should all just start breaking windows because it creates jobs, at least by your argument. You really are an idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Well...
Well, maybe if UPS doesn’t want to get sued over something like this, they shouldn’t be doing illegal deliveries with their “service.” After all, if they weren’t guilty, they wouldn’t be accused.
/s
Re: Well...
…” After all, if they weren’t guilty, they wouldn’t be accused.”
Upvoted as funny.
Re: Well...
Errr ,if they weren’t guilty , they wouldn’t be guilty……………
So you are saying anyone/thing that gets accused of something it automatically guilty
Re: Well...
a 3 year old comment.. I have to wonder.. Was this ironic? “After all, if they weren’t doing something illegal, they wouldn’t be accused?” is that really serious? Is the poster honestly suggesting that the government never makes a mistake in leveling accusations? Never trumps up charges? Never engages in political machinations? It is literally this kind of attitude which gives rise to police states. It’s pretty nauseating. in fact, most of the comments in this forum are pretty nauseating.
UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
from known “illegal internet pharmacies”. They don’t rummage through every package. Sheesh. The strain of making this sound bad got to you. Banning a shipper isn’t unreasonable. And every corporation has a duty to not do business with known frauds.
Wish you’d get back to ranting about the evils of copyright, or the anomalies that prove can do away with copyright, or your advising whole industries they’re doing it all wrong, cause even your fanboys struggle to get into double digits on posts today.
So why do I read Techdirt? … Do doctors treat healthy people? No. Do firemen rush to houses not on fire? No.
Techdirt. It’s where the wrongness is.
Re: UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
So why do I read Techdirt? … Do doctors treat healthy people? No. Do firemen rush to houses not on fire? No.
If a doctor tried treating me without me asking him to in the first place he’d get his as kicked.
Same thing for some idiot who imagines that my house on fire, breaks down my door and rushes in, only to find some friends sitting around talking.
Re: Re: UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
*ass kicked
Re: Re: UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
“If a doctor tried treating me without me asking him to in the first place he’d get his as kicked. “
Ill remember that the next time you collapse on the sidewalk and are rushed to hospital unconscious.
Re: Re: Re: UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
Can you even read a thread?
The ass-kicking comment was in reply to OOTB’s rhetorical postulation of a doctor trying to treat a healthy person, not someone unconscious on a sidewalk.
Re: Re: Re:2 UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
so a healthy person has a requirement for prescription drugs ??
Re: UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
Funny. If that’s the case you should be all over the MPAA press releases.
Re: UPS just doesn't pick up the packages, Mike,
out_of_the_blue, you should really start your own blog, so that I can not read your rants there.
one problem
Only way for UPS to know if there are prescriptions or not is to ‘illegally’ access peoples’ medical records. Now that’s quite a pandora’s box to open….
Re: one problem
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/12063221855/dea-circumventing-oregon-state-law-to-grab-medical-records-without-warrant.shtml
It absolutely is.
Re: one problem
when you take a prescription to a chemist, the chemist does not need to access your medical records.
They just need to see your prescription, and sign it, like you have to do as well.
Fact less article
Your a CEO??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA What a stupid, fact-less article. If i were you i wouldn’t advertise your a CEO.
Re: Fact less article
You don’t even know how to use the right your/you’re and you want to call him stupid? Alrighty then. Also factless is one word. You look stupid as hell boy. You can’t judge anyone.
Gosh, if only UPS had money or lawyers or something…
Mike’s willful blindness to the concept of…
willful blindness,
is endlessly amusing.
Re: Re:
For a company of this size you can’t just draw a line between “paying a fine without whining” and “guilty of something”
UPS Could spend millions or dozens of millions on lawyers and have this event in the news daily. It could have stock prognosticators going on and on, daily, about how they were in a “risky legal action due to shipping illegal drugs” and take a hit across the board. Or they could write a check, send out a fill-in-the-blank apology form and get back to their business.
Re: Re: Re:
If UPS was indeed innocent, they had the money and lawyers to successfully fight this.
They chose to pay the fine instead.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, that’s why patent and copyright trolling simply doesn’t exist as a business model, because it’s always cheaper and better to fight than it is to just pay up. /s
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The DOJ has become a trolling operation, making it seem cheaper to accept there offer than to fight thm through the courts. However giving in to extortion risks being asked for more money in the future.
Re: Re:
As is yours, only more so. 8^p
Next UPS will have to forfit x millions of dollars for delivering cheap CD/DVD’s and books etc. from other countries that are sold cheaply than in the US and will no doubt be seen as illegal by the copyright maximalists as these products undercut them. After all the US government has the right to protect its copyright maximilists.
Re: Book Rate, Reply to Anonymous Coward, #10
That seemed a very odd thing for someone with any actual experience of mail-order book-buying to say. The United States Postal Service has a Media Mail Rate (formerly book rate) which is about half of the standard Parcel Post rate, which I believe is somewhat lower than UPS rates. The Post Office has comparable low rates for catalogs and advertising matter, and for magazines, and a still lower rate for libraries. Books and similar materials practically always come by the Post Office, because that’s the cheapest way to ship them. On occasion, when I was moving, I have just shipped fifty-pound boxes of books, totaling as much as a thousand pounds, and the mailman has brought them to my new address.
In fairness, books can take some fairly rough treatment, compared to other objects, and damage en-route is not usually a major issue.
I wonder if the outcome would have been any different had it been the USPS
Re: Re:
(the government established monopolists generally get special privileges. UPS is more a free market competitor, while many pharmaceutical corporations, benefiting from a bought FDA and from patents due to a bought Congress, get special protections. Can’t have ‘rogue pharmacies’ competing with government established monopolists, our bought legal system will ensure of it)
Re: Re:
Don’t they have programs where USPS finishes the delivery of UPS/FedEX packages? Wonder if they delivered any of these?
Perhaps the government showed direct plans and strategies by UPS to attract illegal pharmacies, but from the outside, given the information that’s been revealed, it looks like the real problem is why is the DOJ even bothering?
They’re protecting the USPS. Put UPS and Fedex out of business and people will have to use the Post Office.
How Would UPS Know Every Shipment Was Illegal
The USPS is losing money, will be closed on weekends, so they need to look for a reason to slow down growth at UPS.
Re: How Would UPS Know Every Shipment Was Illegal
they same way they know where to ship it too, because THEY FREAKING FIND OUT !!!!
The DOJ is an instrument to protectionism.
One that I dare say is more harmful to economic interests than any other competitor out there in the world.
Re: Re:
The DOJ is an instrument to protectionism.
That statement bears repeating. Thumbs up.
Re: Re: Re:
The DOJ is an instrument to protectionism
and a third time, because that’s a GOOD THING.
We’ll done DOJ for achieving your goal and title.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Protectionism is economically inefficient, and generally harms the public by making goods more expensive, while benefiting a smaller group of producers.
Protectionism is generally not good.
ups-coughs-up-40-million
Follow the money: big pharma.
And this is a surprise Because?
It’s North Korea, and Syria etc. that have the fascist dictator governments, and not the US.
The government was elected in the US by the people. Do they represent the interests of the people? Or do they represent the interests of big business and big money? You know the ones who pay to elect them? Did any of the bankers get tried or go to jail in the US for stealing trillions of dollars and almost wrecking the world financial system? They did in Europe.
No some citizens got put through hell and fined millions of dollars for “stealing?” some songs. A citizen committed suicide because of legal pressure, and all he did was make some research papers publically available, that was paid for by TAX dollars in the first place. And this insanity goes on and on, while the world looks on.
The political system needs fixed, the financial system needs fixed, the legal system needs fixed, the patent system needs fixed, the copyright system needs fixed. Yet they are out there trying to foist these broken systems on the rest of the world, all in support of their very “special interest” buddies. The interests of monopolies and big business, that use the systems that are supposed to serve the citizens, as their puppets.
Re: And this is a surprise Because?
Or do they represent the interests of big business and big money
seen any big business or big money lying around not being attached somehow to PEOPLE ???
basic set theory, intersecting groups, big business, big money the intersecting group “people” can we in either both or none, but big money and big business cannot exist outside the “people” group.
Re: Re: And this is a surprise Because?
A democratic government is meant to represent the interest of the electorate. The number of people running Big business is a very small fraction of the electorate, or foreign owners who are not part of the electorate. The US government is largely representing the interests of this minority, and acting against the interests of the majority.
Re: And this is a surprise Because?
I have no problems with big businesses. My problem is with those, big or small or individuals even, that attempt to use the government to stifle competition.
Abolish IP, even pharmaceutical ones.
Abolish govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies into the hands of commercial interests and abolish any commercial use of such monopolies.
Abolish govt established taxi cab monopolies.
Abolish all anti-competitive laws. This is what I’m against.
How does on know?
The puzzler to me how anyone would know what was in the package without opening it. Yes, illegal shipments are made every day but the courier does not know what is inside a sealed package unless the contents break or someone tells them.
A related issue is whether any of the shipments met the requirements for hazardous material labeling and were not labeled correctly. This is solely the responsibility of the shipper.
Re: How does on know?
because it’s a felony to post anything without providing who you are and what you are sending.
That’s probably how they do it, remember the anthrax attacks, it got a good start there.
If you are in Australia and want to post something to the US, via Australia post, you have to give your ID, address and pack the item inside the post office, so they can confirm you are not sending anything illegal or dangerous.
So UPS is allowed to send parcels from anonymous posters ? and without any knowledge of the content of the parcel ?
Re: Re: How does on know?
“because it’s a felony to post anything without providing who you are and what you are sending.”
Not in America.
“So UPS is allowed to send parcels from anonymous posters ? and without any knowledge of the content of the parcel ?”
Yes. UPS is not an enforcement agency.
I’m terribly sorry to hear about your situation in Australia with the post office there. You don’t have to accept the fact that the government treats you like a stupid slave.
Re: Re: Re: How does on know?
“Not in America. “.
no, not IN America..
Yes, INTO America..
Re: Re: How does on know?
Take a look at the rules that one of UPS’s competitors must operate under. The United States Postal service must accept mail from anyone, with no ID requirement beyond the ability to pay for the service. Mail must be delivered to any valid postal address in the Untied States, and inspecting the contents of the mail is forbidden by law. What is wrong with UPS attempting to meet these same standards?
Re: Re: Re: How does on know?
do you understand the difference between ‘domestic’ transportation of letters and parcels and the ‘importation’ of good from other countries???
United states postal service is a domestic service, you are not importing materials, when you use USP… you are using UPS. get it ?
“There are very specific and deliberately tough import laws to comply with when sending a parcel to America. Most of these are to crack down on illegal imports and with the introduction of recent terrorism laws, customs are getting even more difficult to comply with. “
http://www.parcel-to-america.co.uk/
______________________
Customs & duties
Customs rules and regulations across the world are set by national governments, bodies like the European Union and the World Customs Organisation. We are bound by these rules, as are all of our competitors.
In brief, it is always your responsibility as the shipper to:
?Ensure you do not send anything which is prohibited by law
?Check you know any prohibitions and restrictions set by governments overseas for the types of goods you are shipping.
?Complete and attach any necessary documentation required for customs clearance overseas. This will vary by country, and will depend on the types of goods you are sending.
?Explain to overseas customers that their imported goods may well be subject to import duties and taxes which will need paying before parcels will be released for final delivery.
Re: Re: How does on know?
I have posted a lot of packages to America from Australia and I have NEVER had to show ID or pack the parcel in the Post Office.
Re: Re: Re: How does on know?
do you see how what you posted is opinion, as opposed to what I posted which is FACT !!!!.
DO you understand the difference between opinion and fact ?
or have you been worshipping masnick for so long that you have forgotten how to differentiate between the two, as Masnick has.
In other news UPS announced today that it was writing off $40 million and legal fees from it’s taxes. Improving the overall cash flow for the company this quarter.
Re: Re:
While that would be funny, section 12 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement specifically forbids UPS to consider the forfeiture a write-off.
Every time I hear “non-prosecution agreement”, a little part of my soul dies.
Re: Re: Re:
CORRECTION/UPDATE: In other news, UPS did not announce today (secret internal memo) that it was setting up a “special handling fee” price list for anything shipped from a U.S. federal government address. It also did not announce today (another secret internal memo) that they would be passing on the cost of future compliance with the governments program of unwavering subservience to any DEA requests for information, to all its other customers (guilt by association. I.E. If you use UPS, you must have something to hide, along with something to ship). This is to compensate for the recent loss of a $40 million “agreement” (“doing business that the government doesn’t like” penalty) and associated legal fees.
No word yet on when the $40 million mark is reached, whether the secret “special handling fee” will ever be removed (don’t hold your breath, government).
This is an indirect form of protectionism, you cannot carry parcels from these foreign companies into the US. This is trying to enforce isolation between regional markets to keep the profits in the higher priced market.
what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
“Of course, what is an “illegal internet pharmacy”? There’s a bit of an issue there because the DOJ thinks that an illegal internet pharmacy includes that Canadian pharmacy that is much cheaper, but which is making perfectly legitimate drugs and then shipping them — gray market style
Asked and answered..
Just to make sure you are clear Mr Masnick, an ‘illegal internet pharmacy” is a pharmacy that is on the internet that is conducting some activities which are against some law.
Sorry, it’s not your flimsy and clumsy definition of “illegal but moral so sort of ‘legal'” things.
It’s a good thing you are a blogger Masnick and have not gotten into politics, technology, science, business, economics or industry or anything at all creative. You have found your calling !!!
you should know it is not legal to send post or parcels without disclosing the contents, and if the contents are illegal both the senders and the carriers are liable.
And providing your id, and address details.
IF UPS is provided a list of clients who conduct illegal activities using UPS, and UPS does nothing about it, but knows those clients are using their service they are profiting from crime. And are complicit in that crime.
Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
“you should know it is not legal to send post or parcels without disclosing the contents, and if the contents are illegal both the senders and the carriers are liable.
And providing your id, and address details.”
Actually, that is not the case in the USA. Logically, how should a carrier be liable for contents that were never disclosed to them? The UPS is not an enforcement agency.
“IF UPS is provided a list of clients who conduct illegal activities using UPS, and UPS does nothing about it, but knows those clients are using their service they are profiting from crime. And are complicit in that crime.”
America has this great thing called “rule of law” that we strive to live under. The goal is to keep the rules clear. To the best of my reading, none of the DOJ documents show that UPS was served an injunction against dealing with certain clients, nor do they show that UPS continued to do business with people after they were convicted of pharmacy drug crime. A request from a police department is neither a court order nor a law, and does not have the force of either. It may be immoral for a company to do business with a likely criminal, but it is not illegal. An accused criminal is not guilty until proven so.
Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
Actually, that is not the case in the USA.
actually, obviously IT IS !!!!
Logically, how should a carrier be liable for contents that were never disclosed to them?
They are liable, and they are required to know the contents of the parcels they transport. They are required by law to follow all the importation laws, and all the laws that relate to the transport of illegal materials.
Also it has been shown that UPS DID KNOW, therefore they are liable on all fronts..
If these Canada drug companies are allowed to legally sell drugs in Canada, then they are not criminals or conducting criminal activities … UNTIL… they box up some of their drugs and post it via UPS..
Until they use UPS they are not breaking any laws, as soon as they DO USE UPS, they AND UPS are committing a crime.
The Drug company is committing a crime by box up drugs and trying to post them to the US, UPS is committing a crime by taking those boxes and shipping them to the US.
When UPS Officers visit these drug companies and makes deals with them to transport those drugs, they are at the company and can SEE WHAT THE COMPANY DOES.
UPS then offers them a deal for the illegal transportation of the drugs, fully aware that said transportation is illegal and against US laws (although not Canadian laws).
Re: Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
actually, obviously IT IS !!!!
Saying something multiple times does not make it true. If I send a letter to you without a return address it will still be sent. The post office will have no idea who sent it and will deliver it anyway. This is not illegal nor even against policy. The same is true of UPS.
They are liable, and they are required to know the contents of the parcels they transport. They are required by law to follow all the importation laws, and all the laws that relate to the transport of illegal materials.
This is also not true. I worked for UPS for three years. The only time packages were “inspected” is if they gave indications of being hazardous; i.e. leaking, smoking, moving, etc. Packages would often break open if not properly packed and these would be placed in a new box (and obviously employees would see the contents). There were never any notices to watch out for packages from a specific sender and the only address we were concerned about was the destination address. I packed hundreds, maybe thousands, of boxes with no return address.
The action may have been illegal for another reason, but it certainly isn’t because UPS was required to know what was in the packages and take action to avoid transporting illegal material, because such a requirement simply does not exist.
This is not black and white. The drug company may be committing a crime in the U.S., but not in their own country, so their action is not illegal. UPS is not required to inspect nor deny packages based on suspicion of illegal activity without a court order (which would then have to be more than suspicion).
UPS would have had to spend far more than $40 million fighting this in court, so they took the cheaper end of the deal and moved on. They’re just another company trolled by the DOJ, as has been happening for years.
Given the DOJ’s recent track record I believe they need to regain the U.S.’s trust and cannot assume they have it. The entire justice system has become corrupt and are not being held accountable for their actions. This is far more of an issue than UPS sending drugs that are legal to purchase and use in Canada, a country with arguably much better health care standards than the U.S., to U.S. consumers.
If legal issues were so simple as you describe, we wouldn’t need incredibly expensive lawyers that spend years and years in school in order to understand and manipulate those laws. But we do because it really is that complicated. The American public has every right to be skeptical when it comes to rulings passed by the DOJ.
Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
“Actually, that is not the case in the USA”
again, not IN the US.. but certainly INTO the US..
where the US has to like every other country uphold the international customs laws, or import and export of goods.
Learn the difference between ‘domestic’ and ‘international’ would be a good place to start for you.
Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
“IF UPS is provided a list of clients who conduct illegal activities using UPS, and UPS does nothing about it, but knows those clients are using their service they are profiting from crime. And are complicit in that crime.”
If lawyers are given a list of people who commit illegal activities and they still defend them, they are aiding and abetting and making money off of crime.
Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
if those lawyers were invited to assist those criminals to conduct activities that are against the law in the country the lawyers are from, then yes they are aiding and abetting and making money off of crime.. what they are not doing is being a lawyer, but rather conducting a criminal activity. And in that case, they had better get a lawyer to defend them.
But being hired by a criminal to function legally as a lawyer is not aiding and abetting the crime.
A lawyer who is defending someone charged for murder, are not profiting of the proceeds of that murder, and are not guilty of committing the murder, although they may profit from the fact that he is being charged of murder, and might of even done it.
UPS on the other hand are ‘complicit’ in their acts by being aware (by being told, and COMMON SENSE) that their activities (illegally importing drugs) were aiding another entity (the drug company) to form an agreement where both parties profit for the supply and distribution of illegal goods.
All imported goods require proper customs and a “Bill of lading” or it’s equivalent land based documentation.
This “NOTE” that goes with all imports, must have THE TITLE OF THE GOODS”. Ie what is inside the box.
You MUST BY LAW disclose what it is you are importing into another Country, especially the US. It is also an offence to import any goods that would be illegal in the country you are importing them too.
It IS the responsibility of the original company (drug company) AND the transport/import company (UPS) to ensure these laws are upheld.
If they are not they will probably get a $40 million dollar fine (or liability charge), if they continue this activity they will be fined far more and can probably expect prison time.
So all your Oxy addicts and speed heads will have to get your codeine from other LEGAL Sources..
Re: Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
I would think you are a troll, but you’ve put way too much effort into this thread.
I would think you are mentally incapable, but you write lots of words that are, outside of the context, fairly coherent.
You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you have a motive other than truth and justice.
“All imported goods require proper customs and a “Bill of lading” or it’s equivalent land based documentation”
This is true. This document is generated by the shipping party (not the shipper).
“It IS the responsibility of the original company (drug company) AND the transport/import company (UPS) to ensure these laws are upheld.”
First of all, “transport/import company” is not a thing. A freight company is not the importer. The company that owns and sells the object is the importer.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/importer.html
Second, your definitions suck. A court upholds a law. The responsibility of your drug company is to OBEY the law. The responsibility of an enforcement agency (law enforcement, DEA) is to enforce, or “ensure” as you say, the law. Again I say, UPS is not an enforcement agency!
Finally, as far as I can tell, no discussion of importation is even relevant to the question! Nothing in the press release, agreement, or the Attachment A you cite often refer to shipments from foreign companies. The term “Internet pharmacy” is used often, but no one is located on “the internet”. The only geographical location noted, in point 23 of your Attachment A, is the State of Florida. In the context of THIS case, please do not refer to “import” again. It has utterly nothing to do with UPS here.
Re: Re: Re:2 what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
“So all your Oxy addicts and speed heads will have to get your codeine from other LEGAL Sources..”
I figured it out.
Oxy: potent overperscribed drug bogeyman. Pain reliever and depressant
speed heads: dirtbag users of illegal stimulants
codeine: cough syrup you can abuse if you’re really, really desperate, just to group it all together
“other LEGAL Sources…”: Get with the program, slave! We have a great circle jerk going with the healthcare-industrial complex. Get your Oxy from a pharmacy, prescribed by your physician, paid for by your insurance company, supplied by pharmaceuticals, subsidized by government, protected by patent. We have ALL the good meds, just complain about your back a little more. Don’t you dare get high without paying into our system!
Wow, sorry about that. I think the American drug problem is complex, and needs to be approached in a very measured, rational way, but it’s interesting to watch those with a vested interest in the system and status quo freak out when there’s an alternative to playing their game.
Re: Re: Re:3 what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
Codeine, including Oxy and Speed is MORPHINE,
codeine is 3-methylmorphine, is an opiate, (like Opium) .
Oxy is short of Oxycontin or Oxycondone) is an Opioid, it is in the same group as Codeine and Morphine, and Percocet, Methadone or narcotic cough syrip that contains CODEINE.
So it’s an Opiate and a narcotic it’s also the base product used in the illegal manufacture of speed or Amphetamines.
Amphetamine addiction is a massive world wide problem.
Re: Re: Re:2 what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
Interesting: and No I have no bone if this dog fight, I just find it amazing that people (mostly) do not seem to understand even the basics of this situation.
transport/import, refers to the FACT that UPS entered into a contractual agreement with specific drug companies to supply and deliver drugs, in clear breach of the law.
that contract means that UPS IS a part of the commercial enterprise responsible for the supply and distribution of products that are illegal in the Country being supplied, the contract forms a type of limited company. The function of which is to create, transport and sell products that are against the law at the place where the client is.
Courts decide (or rule) on specific possible breaches of the law, no upholds it.. everyone who does not commit a crime (that is against the law, uphold the law). Courts decide if you have upheld the law or not (they rule the law).
It’s the responsibility of EVERYONE (and everything) to obey the law.
The responsibility of an enforcement agency (law enforcement, DEA) is to enforce, or “ensure” as you say, the law. Again I say, UPS is not an enforcement agency!
It is the responsibility for all things and people to obey the law, those groups DEA, police and so on, ENFORCE the law, but if you own a bar and you know that someone is under 21 and drinking, it is your responsibility to ENSURE the law.
A barkeeper is not ‘law enforcement’, but they are “law ensurement” it is their legal responsibility to uphold the law, part of that is to be aware of the age of the people drinking in your bar and ENSURE they are not breaking the underage drinking law because you know you are also liable for not ensuring that law is upheld.
UPS in this case is the barkeeper who did not check ID’s and let kids drink in his bar, the kids drinking under age are breaking a law, and the barkeeper in not ensuring those kids did not drink is guilty of supplying alcohol to minors.
As for locations, in this case that is a red heiring, it’s not about importing drugs, it’s about providing drugs that require a prescription with a prescription. So in this case yes, location is not as relevant apart from masnicks comments about it being about importing cheap drugs from Canada.
Which it is not, it’s about supplying prescription drugs without said prescription, in fact, if you have a prescription there is nothing stopping you (from this article) from buying your meds from Canada.
It’s the fact that this is a mechanism to get illegal and dangerous and highly addictive drugs (Morphine and it’s derivatives) into America, without a prescription for the manufacture of very addictive and much more dangerous drugs like Meth, and speed.
my reason is truth and justice, and reason and logic, I take objection to the ‘spin’ placed on the writings of Masnick, where he gets a vague idea of something and builds it into something completely different to meet some predefined bias. That is what I take objection too.
IF you were just to read Masnicks take on it, you would have come out with the belief that it’s got something to do with stopping cheap drugs from being available to Americans, (to help US big Pharm).
This is not the case, if you have a script you can still get your legal drugs cheaply from Canada and still legally ship those products to the US via UPS
The other fact MR Masnick does not get is that all imported goods have to be cleared by customs, and you cannot anonymously post parcels into another country, and you HAVE to declare what it is you are sending.
So, if you enter into a contract with a company to work together to commit a crime, you are equally guilty of that crime. Which is what UPS did. UPS at that point is a ‘partner’ of the drug company, and as UPS and the drug company were aware of what is being shipped (by law they must do), they are also guilty of this act.
the fact that UPS is based in America means they are bound by the laws of that country, they broke those laws, they paid a fine for it, they probably will think twice in deciding not to “ensure” the laws are obeyed.
Re: Re: Re:2 what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
“You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you have a motive other than truth and justice.”
It would be either deliberately obtuse, or very astute, my motive is in making sure the facts as they really are really exist, in that I would have to say that Masnicks original article is at the far end of obtuse, whereas my analysis of the facts is leaning towards the actual FACTS of this case, not some scare mongering attempt to twist the truth and facts into something to forward his opinion and bias, or simply lack of understanding that Mr Masnick has displayed. His article is obtuse, my response, if I may say is astute.
Really, by definition the only real way you could be deliberately obtuse is if you were in fact very astute.
A dumb person cannot ‘deliberately’ be smart, just as people with bad memories are poor liars. (you might want to ‘try’ to remember that one in the future Mr Masnick.
If I need a motive pinned on me, my motive would be to keep Masnick in check, and for the enjoyment (and ease) of exposing what is written as biased, spin intended to influence the unenquiring minds that hand off Masnicks every word as if from God herself.
Also, Masnick has a bad habit of linking his past articles into future articles, and ‘painting’ his own world view with the “here I have said it before, and I will say it again, so it must be true” common thread.
I always read the comments of his linked articles to see not if, but how many people provided honest, fact based arguments that counter Masnicks original ranting’s.
It’s also fun to see just how far Masnick will ‘push it’ and try to get away with, if no one fact checked him, and trusted him for his word that would be very sad indeed.
But it’s enjoyable to see to what lengths he will go to for page clicks and for the promotion of his own personal biases.
This article is a classic example of that, take a few facts, then ignore those facts and build a completely different story based on NOTHING !!!!
Masnick tries to alarm people that every post and mail will be searched in detail, and NO drugs at all are allowed to be imported to the US.
based on UPS being fined for their part in the supply and distribution of PRESCRIPTION DRUGS WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION..
It has nothing at all to do with US pharm companies, it has to do with obtaining prescription drugs without a script.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sf/2013/032913UPS.AttachmentA.pdf
please everyone especially Masnick READ THAT DOCUMENT !!!!
then read Masnick’s interpretation of it, and judge for yourself!.
Para 7 is particularly interesting! and shows how Masnicks mind “works”..
“If UPS and Fedex are going to have to start checking what’s inside packages to avoid getting itself fined again, that’s a really bad and dangerous precedent.”
It’s already a precedent, and it SHOULD be a requirement. It actually IS.
read para 2,3.3 (prohibited by law)..
Re: Re:
OMG…you are touching upon the doctrine of “respondeat superior” at a site that is unable to cope with even the mention of “secondary liability”, no matter how egregious the facts in each may be. Why am I left with the sinking feeling that TD would immediately come to the aid and side with a shipping company that regularly picks up and delivers packages from a company named “No prescription? No problem! Cheap Drugs-‘R-Us for anyone needing a quick line of cocaine and other mind bending drugs”?
At some point in time even a rock would come to realize something was amiss.
Re: Re: Re:
some people would argue that rocks are in general more intelligent than the average TD reader.
After all, masnick provides ‘crystal balls’ for the TD readers to consult whenever they don’t understand something.
Prohibited by Law
3.3 Prohibited by Law
No service shall be rendered by UPS in the transportation of any shipment that is prohibited by applicable law or regulation of any federal, state, provincial, or local government in the origin or destination country.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SHIPPER to ensure that a shipment tendered to UPS, and any UPS shipping System entry that the shipper prepares for that shipment, does not violate any federal, state, provincial, or local laws or regulations applicable to the shipment.
Re: Prohibited by Law
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…
You do realize that the shipper in your added emphasis is actually the pharmacy or the middleman, not UPS, right? You do realize that the UPS Tariff/Terms and Conditions of Service document is an agreement between UPS and their customers, not an actual law, right?
Re: Re: Prohibited by Law
3.3 PROHIBITED BY LAW
NO SERVICE shall be rendered by UPS in the transportation of any shipment that is prohibited by applicable law or regulation of ANY federal, state, provincial, or local Government in the origin or destination country.
“It is clear policy of UPS, as stated in our Tariff, that illegal products of ANY TYPE are PROHIBITED from being transported through our system”
Re: Re: Re: Prohibited by Law
3.3 Citation of UPS policy document declaring intent not to break the law. This is a company policy, NOT ITSELF A LAW.
Still having a hard time finding laws that were clearly violated. I can see that the idea of someone not rendering “unwavering subservience”, as DogBreath said elsewhere, to an actual employee of the DEA, a tentacle of the almighty FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, throws you into absolute panic. There is a difference between a suggestion and a law. Our country was founded on ideas about exercise of liberty, not begging permission from our superiors.
Re: Re: Re:2 Prohibited by Law
It is NOT a companies ‘policy’ not the break the law !!
it is simply a statement of fact, a reminder if you will, that UPS like everyone else must obey the law.
it is both their policy and THE LAW that they broke, that ‘policy’ is obvious as it is a legal requirement.
It’s not different to you write down “I will obey the law, or accept the consequences if I do not” well DERR !!!!
do you believe the fact that you wrote it down makes any difference to the facts ? Write it down or not it applies to you, and UPS.
Re: Re: Prohibited by Law
UPS and the drug company entered into contractual agreements, making UPS a ‘limited partner’ of the Drug company.
The Tariff/Terms and Conditions is just a stating of the fact that UPS is required to obey the law. It’s sounds obvious but clearly it was necessary to remind UPS of this, as they breached those terms/conditions and the law!
It is NOT an agreement between UPS and it’s customers, it is a statement, stating UPS will obey all laws in which they operate.
Next up, UPS gets sued for delivering things to terrorists. The FBI probably have a few they could spare.
They’re not going to run out of excuses, so eventually it’ll come down to UPS either being nationalized or bankrupted. Then they’ll keep going until they have complete control of every delivery service.
I expect eventually I’ll hear about them installing keyloggers on all computers that pass through their control. You know, to fight terrorism.
Re: Re:
No, the USPS has to be bankrupted. It’s strongly protected against unwarranted search and seizure.
UPS can be co-opted with things like non-prosecution agreements and national security letters, to give them color of law, or just with a warrantless wiretap style program.
Why is UPS even involved in this anyway? Talk about Secondary Liability its hard to even write a good essay on the topic and still mention UPS’s specific involvement of which has to be zero. Lets see now… the (people buying drugs internationally) problems are… Congress. The related (domestic prices of drugs are ridiculous) problems are… Congress. The tertiary adjunct (UPS ships internationally) problems are… unrelated!
Since UPS’s involvement is zero their liability should be zero. What we need is a section 230 clause for shipping. (and allowing of re-shipping too for anonymity. Who would want their viagra usage frequency know to anybody especially the government?)
The connection to guilt is also presumption. Who know what is in a package until its opened? Is the cat alive or dead? A suspicious address… which one?
To draw any relation one has to sacrifice privacy and personal property purchasing rights. The ability to buy what you want, at the price you want to pay and from whom you want is at steak.
Its probably a hard choice for UPS to pay up on such weak claims, because its easier and less publicly controversial, but it encourages others to emulate it.
big pharma was worth a three page rant -save for later-
The U.S.P.S. brings my uncle his perscriptions, from a rogue pharmacy. I say fine them to.
I for one welcome the future when each and every package I order is personally opened, rifled through, laughed at by underpaid screening staff, and then jerked off into for good measure, all in order to appease vague non-sequiturs we’ve told ourselves so many times that we believe to be true, I’m sure this violation of our privacy will bring great pleasure to people like Bob, Blue, the legions of ACs, and the other yiffing dickgirl sperglords
DOJ: “Thanks to the patriot act we can snoop though all those electronic mails, we need to find a way to get the snail mail too!”
If you are wrapped in a plain brown wrapper, you must be a terrorist!
what amazes me Masnick that this is not even about the high cost of drugs in the US or stopping anyone from LEGALLY buying their drugs from Canada, if you have seen a doctor and have a prescription you can buy your drugs from Canada and have then LEGALLY shipped by UPS to the US.
Have you not understood this Mr Masnick, or are you just stupid ?
what issues do you have with requiring a prescription for dangerous drugs to acquire them ?
Do you have a problem with there needing to be a valid Doctor/patient relationship and a valid/legal prescription before you can legally buy your drugs from Canada and ship them to the US legally ??
New York just ‘won’ another case like this against FedEx. FedEx’s statement was to the affect that it was cheaper to negotiate a fine vs. going to court, paying lawyers, and going through whatever bull that New York put them through after they won. (Ok, the last part was what I wrote, and not what FedEx said.)
But things like this is why I don’t support municipal ISP’s. It’s hard to compete against the person who makes the rules (and frequently exempts themselves from it).
someone I know orders drugs from overseas pharmacies. Once its transferred to the US the main carrier is almost always the USPS.
Re: Re:
yes UPS as an international carrier often makes deals with various countries domestic carriers, so the final leg of the delivery (to your door) might come from USPS, and the first leg (if from Australia) might be Australia Post, the ‘out of Australia’ will be UPS and the ‘into the US’ will also be UPS, it is the responsibility of the ‘out of’ and ‘into’ carrier to ensure compliance with the ‘into’ Countries laws, they do this by ensuring that with each parcel is a clear and detailed description of what is inside the parcel, and all the carriers have to ensure they are not transporting good deemed illegal or dangerous.
We used to import from America Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) from a US science and chemical supplier, TiO2 looks JUST LIKE COCAINE, it is shipped with a “safety materials data sheet” that is a legal requirement, that means if there is a fire the fire fighters can be informed of what it is that is burning and take measures.
Every time we received a delivery of TiO2 the package has been opened, a small hole has been made in the plastic bag and a sample taken for testing, the hold is covered up with a bit of take with “Customs” written on it.
If you try to send chemicals via post you MUST BY LAW have a material safety sheet attached, otherwise the post simply will not accept it.
That is why by law when posting internationally you must state clearly the contents of the parcel you are sending, and any other information required by law.
Re: Re:
I can hear a million lawyers around the world yelling “hearsay, irrelevant!!!!”
Judge: Agreed strike it from the record.