Techdirt. Stories filed under "craigslist"

Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff

Marcus Carab — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:37:00 PDT

Everyone, no matter how great they might think they are, can benefit from the services of a good editor, especially when they are writing an important document. Say, for example, you were self-proclaimed "America's Toughest Sheriff" and everybody-else-proclaimed "Kind Of A Dick" Joe Arpaio (sheriff for Maricopa County, Arizona), and you had just used Craigslist to catch and arrest two literal dogfuckers before they could get down to their despicable business (thanks to BigKeithO for sending this in). Naturally you would be appreciative of Craigslist for helping you find these people and prevent any pooch-porking, so you might decide to write CEO Jim Buckmaster a nice thank you letter. Unfortunately, without proper editing, that letter might instead accidentally convey the ridiculous notion that you are actually angry at Craigslist for being so useful, and that you believe it contributes to the problem of bestiality. It might even come close to suggesting that you would rather these mutt-divers keep talking about bending Rover over but do it behind closed doors—and that would be downright insane.

Such a letter, it seems, has just been written [pdf]. For the public good, I am providing my editing services free of charge to Sheriff Arpaio, in order to clarify what I assume was his intended point, since shaming Craigslist for helping you get doggy-diddlers off the street is obviously nonsensical. Sheriff Arpaio's complete letter follows, with my recommended edits marked in bold or strikethrough.

Dear Mr. Buckmaster:

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office detectives conducted an undercover investigation that spanned several months during 2010 and 2011. This investigation resulted in the arrest of two individuals for conspiracy to commit bestiality. There is an ongoing investigation of several others. Craigslist provided the forum for these individuals to post, in a very blatant manner, their intentions. We are able to locate and communicate with these suspects using Craigslist. Thank you.

During the course of the investigation numerous other posts were discovered in the Personals sections of "men seeking men" and "casual encounters". These posts included specific description of criminal acts. They were often accompanied by graphic photographs of a fully nude male in various pornographic situations. This constitutes excellent evidence for the State. Again, thank you.

It is clear that the "self-policing" protocol Craigslist relies upon to prevent this activity is inadequate, but its mere existence is already going above and beyond your legal duty. ~~While~~ Not only is Craigslist ~~may~~ not be committing a criminal act, you are undoubtedly providing a mechanism to facilitate ~~obvious criminal activity~~ our law enforcement efforts. ~~Simply~~ The fact that you continue posting your "Terms of Use" and providing a mechanism for posters to do YOUR job, ~~and claiming that~~ even though Craigslist is legally "not responsible for the content" is thoroughly ~~disappointing~~ impressive.

As the Sheriff of one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the nation, I, not you, am responsible for ~~the conduct of my entire organization~~ enforcing the law. In this regard, I strongly encourage Craigslist and you, specifically, Mr. Buckmaster, to accept ~~greater responsibility for your organization~~ my personal thanks for helping us get two perverts off the streets.

~~I ask that you re-evaluate the security measures that you utilize to prevent this type of activity and take the necessary action to improve your procedure.~~ Now if you'll excuse me, I have some pink underwear to sell.

Sincerely,
Joseph M. Arpaio
Sheriff

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Accountant Sues Craigslist Over Negative Post About His Services

Mike Masnick — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:01:00 PDT

And here's a lawsuit that's going nowhere fast. Alex points us to the news of a NY accountant, Leo Kehoe, who is suing Craigslist for $1 million because someone insulted him on the site. He is also suing the anonymous user, who called him a "fraudulent scumbag" who "will botch up your tax returns and forget to submit them." However, it sounds like he got some very bad advice from his lawyer, who he claims told him: "Craigslist should have known the posting was false and untrue and would subject Kehoe to 'ridicule, disgrace and prejudice.'" It sounds like his lawyer is unfamiliar with Section 230 and the long list of caselaw that makes Craigslist not liable for the content created by users on the website. The individual person who wrote the post may have some liability (and even that may be a stretch), but Craigslist should be able to get out of this case pretty quickly. At some point, though, you would think that courts should start sanctioning lawyers who file lawsuits that clearly will be dismissed under Section 230. In the meantime, though, it would seem that a lot more people are now aware that someone out there was quite upset with the service he or she got from Mr. Kehoe than if he'd just let the Craigslist post go away. Also, isn't filing a questionable lawsuit even more likely to result in ridicule, disgrace or prejudice?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Myth Behind Craigslist: It's Not Maximizing Revenue Potential

Mike Masnick — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:25:00 PDT

We pointed this out a few years back, but there's this persistent myth behind Craigslist that reporters love to repeat, and it's just not true. The latest is that it shows up in an otherwise excellent profile of Craigslist by Gary Wolf in the latest Wired Magazine. The whole article really is worth reading, though Craig plays up the whole Forrest Gump of the internet schtick a bit more than is fair. However, the article again quotes CEO Jim Buckmaster supposedly brushing off concerns about maximizing revenue:

"Companies looking to maximize revenue need to throw as many revenue-generating opportunities at users as they will tolerate."

But Buckmaster's very next claim belies the fact that he knows the first half isn't really true:

"We have absolutely no interest in doing that, which I think has been instrumental to the success of craigslist."

And, that, really is the point. While it may seem paradoxical, Craigslist actually is being much smarter (on purpose or not) in how it "maximizes profits." It's doing it by not pissing off users and not trying to squeeze them for every possible penny today, knowing correctly that doing so is a horrible long-term strategy. But it's difficult to think of many companies that throw off the sort of profits that Craigslist does on a regular basis. It employs 30 people and most estimates suggest in brings in $100 million in revenue per year. What other companies of that size bring in that much in revenue?

Then look at all the companies that claim they are trying to maximize profits. And compare. I can't see how anyone can take the claim that Craigslist isn't doing that with a straight face. The company knows more about maximizing revenue than probably every celebrity CEO or management consultant out there.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Craigslist Forced To Cough Up Name Of Oscars Ticket Seller To The Movie Industry

Mike Masnick — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:23:22 PDT

Apparently, the Motion Picture Academy, the folks who put on the Oscars (also known as "The Academy Awards"), say that the tickets to that event are non-transferable. That's fine. It's their event, they can set up whatever rules they want. However, where it gets strange, is that they are now suing a bunch of folks who tried to sell their tickets online, and even got a judge to force Craigslist to reveal the name of a seller in order to sue him.

So, here's my confusion: if the tickets are non-transferable, why not just check IDs at the door and not let those who were not given tickets?

As for forcing Craigslist to reveal the name of the seller, why is that allowed? The Academy can have whatever rules it wants in terms of letting in or not letting in people, but what law was broken by the seller, and what makes it so that Craigslist should be forced to give up the name of an anonymous seller? All the Academy had to do was not let the person in the door, but apparently it chose not to run things that way. But that's the Academy's choice, not a legal issue the requires revealing the name of an anonymous seller.

Furthermore, the Academy's explanation for this also seems ridiculous: "If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security." Really? Most places that provide security don't know the names of everyone who's there and they seem to do just fine. And, again, if knowing who's in there is such a big deal, then why not identify them as they enter, and verify that they're supposed to be there? None of that would then involve lawsuits. But, then again, this is the movie industry, which has shown a penchant for lawsuits over actually thinking things through and taking the easier path.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

eBay Sues Craigslist, As Craig And Jim Dilute eBay's Share

Mike Masnick — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:43:45 PDT

You may recall that eBay was able to buy approximately one quarter of Craigslist back in 2004. The details of what happened were never made entirely clear (and there are some conflicting stories about those details), but it appeared that the two companies co-existed somewhat peacefully for a while, despite eBay's decision to basically create a Craigslist competitor in Kijiji. However, now things are getting more interesting. Apparently, back in January, Craigslist did something to dilute eBay's share, which eBay now feels was illegal. The company has now sued Craigslist over the matter, though most of the details are hidden, as the lawsuit was filed under seal. Given that Kijiji finally expanded into the US last year (just as Craigslist continued to expand internationally), it's no surprise that Craigslist would seek to decrease eBay's stake in the company. Either way, the perhaps already awkward linkage between Craigslist and eBay seems to be getting even more uncomfortable.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Craigslist Ransacking Was To Cover Up Burglary

Mike Masnick — Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:09:00 PDT

Remember that story last week about someone posting a fake ad on Craigslist, leading to people ransacking a house and taking all sorts of stuff? It turns out that the folks behind the fake ad were simply trying to cover up their own burglary of the house. Apparently, they had stolen some stuff from the garage and figured the best way to hide the theft was to get a ton of other people to steal stuff as well, via the Craigslist ad. Of course, by posting the ad, they made it that much easier to track them down, as police retrieved the IP address and were able to figure out who was responsible. Once again, despite those who tried to "blame" Craigslist, it looks like Craigslist helped the police catch the crooks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Craigslist Blamed Yet Again For Something It Didn't Do

Mike Masnick — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:58:00 PDT

Weren't we just pointing out that everyone seems to want to blame Craigslist for things that it has no responsibility for? The latest is Connecticut's Attorney General, who has attacked Craigslist for allowing ads for prostitution. This is hardly a new charge. Last summer, the mayor of Atlanta lobbed similar charges at Craigslist. But, of course, just like that time, the blame is misplaced. Craigslist is the tool provider, not the content provider. To blame Craigslist isn't just wrong, when it comes to illegal acts like prostitution, it's downright backwards. Why? Because as some police have realized, Craigslist is actually a really useful tool for police to track down and arrest people breaking the law.

So not only is it placing the blame on the wrong party, it's doing so in a way that would only drive the prostitution further underground, making it harder for the police (and the Attorney General's office) to do their job. How smart is that? But it sure does generate headlines... The Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, had this to say in a letter to Craigslist:

"I am astonished and appalled by Craigslist's refusal to recognize the reality of prostitution on its Web site -- despite advertisements containing graphic photographs and hourly rates, and widespread public reports of prostitutes using the site."

To which I can only reply: I am astonished and appalled by Richard Blumenthal's refusal to recognize the reality of liability and section 230 safe harbors -- despite it being the law of the land and widely known and discussed in legal circles.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If It's On The Internet... Blame The Service Provider (Especially If It's Craigslist)

Mike Masnick — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:08:00 PDT

There's a jokey saying that people like to spout when they hear stories of people believing the most ridiculous things found on the internet: "If it's on the internet, it must be true." That saying certainly showed up in the story earlier this week about people ransacking and looting a house in Oregon after someone put up a post on Craigslist saying that the house had been abandoned and everything was free for the taking. When the owner came back to the house telling people to stop, they pointed to the Craigslist ad as "proof" that they could continue their looting. Hence, "if it's on the internet, it must be true."

However, in the aftermath of this event (which is actually a copycat from a similar event nearly a year ago), we're seeing a different, but perhaps equally as common, fallacy come out: If it's on the internet, blame the service provider, rather than those actually responsible (okay, it's not quite as pithy). This seems especially true when it comes to Craigslist. Remember, Craigslist has been blamed for discriminatory posts as well as many other illegal things found on the site... including child prostitution. It's not just Craigslist, of course, but for some reason it's extra common with the site. So, it should come as no surprise to already see some asking if Craigslist should be responsible.

I'm trying to figure out why so many people gravitate towards blaming the service provider, rather than whoever was actually responsible for the crime (in this case, the guy who posted the claim as well as the people who stole stuff form the guy). There are three potential thoughts that come to mind. The first is that they go after the service provider because that's easier. Fortunately, the law isn't supposed to attack the easiest target, but who's actually responsible. The second is what I like to call The Steve Dallas defense after an old, old, old Bloom County cartoon where lawyer Steve Dallas explains why he's suing Nikon after Sean Penn beat him up for taking a paparazzi photo. It can be summarized as: just blame whoever has the most money. The third option might really just be a repeat of the first, but it's that people still see the internet as new and confusing, and find that it's too complicated to parse out the nuances of the different roles of different players online. So in trying to parcel out blame, they work backwards to the first recognizable player.

People would never blame the telephone company for an extortion scam using the telephone. And they wouldn't blame Ford for making a getaway car used in a bank heist. Yet, they want to blame Craigslist for one of many postings on the site? If a crime happens on the internet... blame the service provider.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story