Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–189 of 189 posts

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#181

Post by anitil »

milemi wrote: post #27

Since it wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, whoever has been paying attention knows that shutting down backpage has made sex workers less safe and more dependent on pimps. Prostitution should be completely legal and brought into the light, not pushed into the shadows.

Reply All had a great podcast about it [0]. Beware it's very depressing. The expert points out that shutting down Backpage will have a worldwide impact on sex workers.

[0] https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/119-no-more-safe-harbo...

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#182

Post by gnicholas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #171
gnicholas wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the civil liability be under tort law or something else? The first requirement for tort liability is that the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. There are some exceptions to this, but I’d be curious to know the theory here. I understand that people sue Walmart for ammo sales and such, but is there any chance that a shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper…

> Would the civil liability be under tort law or something else? One obvious basis would be in tort, more specifically negligence; similar to (perhaps a subtype of) negligent entrustment. > The first requirement for tort liability is that the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. That's the first requirement for negligence , not all tort liability. > I understand that people sue Walmart for ammo sales and su…

Looks like negligent entrustment is typically limited to automobiles, and then only when the person to whom it is being entrusted is intoxicated or has a reputation for intoxication.

You're right that duty is a requirement of negligence, not all tort liability — thanks for correcting this.

I'm still not clear on how liability would result in this sort of hypo. Are there statutes establishing liability? Is it common law? Either way, what are the legal requirements, bright lines, etc.? Just looking for some good old fashioned IRAC here, if you know what I mean :)

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#183

Post by gnicholas »

will_brown wrote: post #173
gnicholas wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the civil liability be under tort law or something else? The first requirement for tort liability is that the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. There are some exceptions to this, but I’d be curious to know the theory here. I understand that people sue Walmart for ammo sales and such, but is there any chance that a shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper…

>shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper could have even civil liability? I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread, so the answer is: maybe...if the shop owner knew or should have known those items would be used in the commission of a crime, then yes there is potential liability. In your example even if the kidnapper didn’t disclos…

> I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread

Sorry — I'm on mobile and was just looking at this thread via /comments. Didn't realized it had been discussed elsewhere. Thanks for sharing the case info. Sounds like there haven't been (m)any cases where liability was established, which fits with my understanding of the limits of tort law (and lack of similar statutory laws).

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#184

Post by muzani »

thinkingkong wrote: post #2

Seems like this would all boil down to knowledge and intent. I have no love for salesforce but it seems like a big of a stretch to go after a tools manufacturer.

It's not just "tools". It's closer to service, as they would have been aware taking money from a shady company. It seems similar to banks participating in money laundering. They could well have guessed what it was for, but closed an eye to it.

The case really boils down to proving that they had good knowledge of what was going on.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#185

Post by pythonicraps »

This is very different from Apple or Microsoft (assuming they had iphones / windows laptops), they are B2C and are not managing individual customer relationships.

Salesforce is a B2B company and actively manages every relationship that they have with every individual customer, because lots of their customers are businesses that are willing to pay $10K/yr, $100k/yr or even $1M+/yr for their cloud products (why? the world may never know).

This means that "Customer Success Managers" are constantly reaching out to Salesforce's customers to up-sell them. Anyone who works with Salesforce knows that the salesforce folks are constantly schmoozing their customers for an up-sell.

This report shows that Backpage was no exception. So people at Salesforce were emailing, calling, customizing software for, taking out to lunch and making deals with a company selling child sex slaves online. They knew and took the money anyways.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#186

Post by will_brown »

gnicholas wrote: post #183
will_brown wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper could have even civil liability? I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread, so the answer is: maybe...if the shop owner knew or should have known those items would be used in the commission of a crime, then yes there is potential liability. In your example even if the kidnapper didn’t disclos…

> I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread Sorry — I'm on mobile and was just looking at this thread via /comments. Didn't realized it had been discussed elsewhere. Thanks for sharing the case info. Sounds like there haven't been (m)any cases where liability was established, which fits with my understanding of the limits of tort law (and lack of similar statutory laws).

The second case in the first link there was a trial and verdict finding liability for the seller (note there was evidence the gun shop employees had suspicions the buyer was illegally buying the gun/ammo for someone else, they sold it anyway, and the gun/ammo was bought for someone else who used the same to kill 2 police).

Again one must Keep in mind A prime example is The 2nd article Walmart where they settled that case, so we will never know, but if Walmart settles it’s safe to say there were facts suggesting Walmart liability meaning in that case they knew or should have known they were selling ammo that would be used in a crime.

I’d place my money on SF settling this case in the same fashion, not to say they would be found liable at trial, it just seems with the available facts there is potential liability and these facts won’t play well to a jury.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#187

Post by will_brown »

trhway wrote: post #148
will_brown wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do we really want a massive SaaS company to criminally investigate its clients at its own initiative? I think my arms dealer provides a much clearer example of facts removed from tech where people in HN are understandably defensive. The law doesn’t require a seller of goods/services to investigate a buyers intent, but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the…

>I think my arms dealer provides a much clearer example of facts removed from tech where people in HN are understandably defensive. guns are much simpler situation, and this is why it doesn't make the situation clearer. Imagine if that specific gun dealer could look into the brain of a buyer. Would you hold him accountable for not checking the Parkland shooter's brain? >the law does create liability if the seller kne…

>Imagine if that specific gun dealer could look into the brain of a buyer. Would you hold him accountable for not checking the Parkland shooter's brain?

It’s an interesting thought experiment, but that’s not the legal burden of sellers to crawl into the mind of the purchaser. Further, it’s not about selling an item that is used in a crime, it’s selling an item you know or should know will be used in a crime. I don’t know enough about the parkland shooter purchases but it’s at least possible: 1. The shooter didn’t have intent to commit a crime when he purchased the gun/ammo and only developed the intent later after the purchase (no liability for the seller under this theory), or 2. The seller didn’t know the shooters intent and there are no facts suggesting the seller should have known.

The Law and application of the same has more common sense than saying a seller should have known...if only they read the mind of the buyer.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#188

Post by MiroF »

steveeq1 wrote: post #142
MiroF wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No don't you see? It's obviously a feminist conspiracy /s since it can be hard to tell on this site

HN is a fairly socially liberal site.

Not on gender issues it isn't.

It's what happens when a space is very predominately male

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#189

Post by uhhhhhhh »

will_brown wrote: post #99
uhhhhhhh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I needed a "yet" at the end of that for literalists. I stated "waiting for the courts" where they would prove their claims. Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts

>Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts It’s very odd you say the article has “no facts”, yet it provides dates for these business dealings, invoices and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts...what do you consider a fact? Do you believe salesforce had no idea what backpage was doing and how salesforce products facilitated the same? While waiting years for the cour…

>yet it provides dates for these business dealings

That isn't illegal, and doesn't prove what was known by the company at the time.

>and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts

Which again, doesn't prove the company knew anything about the client or what the customizations are being used for.

So far we know that salesforce provided services to a company like it does many other companies. We don't know if it participated knowing the business/use case. Those are the facts I"m talking about.

So while you seemingly make your mind up on allegations without facts, I'll wait for facts or otherwise wait to make up my mind. If those facts don't come out, then my mind just doesn't get made up.

Post reply on HN