It's crazy to me that this isn't a bigger story. Here in the UK it's not really been mentioned on the news (that I've come across).
Ebay is massive site here, the Beeb should have this as a front page news story.
eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
131–140 of 146 posts
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damages shouldn't be subjective but based on the acts committed.
You're very wrong ! The suffering of the victim matters more than the ability of the culprit to act within a certain legal budget. If someone found a small, legal "act committed = no fine" way to victimize someone to the point of suicide, do you think it should be left unpunished ? Justice MUST be subjective.
>If someone found a small, legal "act committed = no fine" way to victimize someone to the point of suicide, do you think it should be left unpunished ?
Absolutely not. It should be punished. But if two people do the same thing to someone else, that must result in same damages.
>Justice MUST be subjective.
This is abhorrent.
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damages shouldn't be subjective but based on the acts committed.
If I send spiders to somebody who ordered it to feed a pet, or I send it to a museum, it's the same act. So same damages due?
No?
The first one asked for them, the second one didn't.
The question is:
If there are people 1 and 2, without any other information (like motive) available to us, who send spiders to a and b respectively without anything else being done wrong, a and b should receive same compensation and 1 and 2 the same punishment.
If courts can prove that say 2 knew that b was allergic to these spiders and sent them anyways, that's no longer about sending spiders but causing potential bodily harm.
This doctrine is used nowadays in many places already, ie trying to do something even if you don't succeed is criminal in many cases.
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love “computer people incorrectly try to transfer their ‘expertise’ to law”. Gotta be one of my favourite parts of HN.
Sound to me like they're talking (their) philosophy rather than existing law. I for one agree, harassment shouldn't be considered lesser just because the victim admits to having a thick skin.
Exactly
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love “computer people incorrectly try to transfer their ‘expertise’ to law”. Gotta be one of my favourite parts of HN.
Sound to me like they're talking (their) philosophy rather than existing law. I for one agree, harassment shouldn't be considered lesser just because the victim admits to having a thick skin.
There are problems either way.
If the fine is proportional to psychological harm, it punishes the victims who admit to having a thick skin.
If the fine is not proportional to psychological harm, it makes bullying the most sensitive people too cheap.
As an analogy, consider physical harm. We would probably agree that the punishment for slapping someone should be smaller than the punishment for murdering someone. However, what happens if someone is so exceptionally fragile that if someone slaps them, they literally die? What punishment should we apply? If you say "the punishment for murder", the accused will feel that this is unfair. But if you say "the punishment for slapping", then it means that if you know that someone is fragile like this, you can practically murder them for free.
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> court is already to settle dueling theoretical models, and it will still settle them by considering facts and circumstances No, it starts with the facts and circumstances and then lenses them through the law. > should be quite exceptional for a crime to depend on the victim's mental state It is. Emotional damage per se being remediable in law is mostly a myth. This is why we default to actual damages; it largely si…
Are you European by any chance? In the English speaking world, courts are typically adversarial and work by two competing interpretations (a prosecution/plaintiff and a defence/respondent) being fit to what happened. If they don't have different models of what happens, the case usually won't make it to the court.
No, American, and have been involved in litigation and not a lawyer. I spent time growing up in Europe, but never professionally.
Litigators will frequently bring up contrasting legal theories. But you’re not allowed to go into hypotheticals when calculating damages.
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crux is that all crimes have a list of elements which must be proven before the whole thing is a crime, or tort. Breaking this one down hypothetically using California’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress law, the plaintiff must prove that someone did something outrageous, that the defendant intended to cause emotional distress, that there was emotional distress, and that the emotional distress was from…
I don't think that they were confused or in denial about whether it was necessary for purposes of a legal requirement. It seems that they were agnostic on that, and saying that it would be better if the law itself didn't require that emotional distress be asserted and proven.
My mistake. Looks like I can’t edit or delete my post at this point unfortunately.
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you guys are missing the actually comment. The question isn't "can you send live animals" the question is "what happens if I sent a live/dead animal and _don't_ tell USPS". That question is not answered by the section (?) 526 rules [1]. [1]: https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c5_008.htm
There's no problem mailing dead animals: > The following factors are applied to all shipments of mailable live or dead animals: > … Protection of the mail and the environment against the following: … Obnoxious odors and noise. > ...protection of animal specimens against spoilage https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c5_003.htm There's some other restrictions on mailing dead wild animals, but mailing livestock carcasses…
I can't tell if you're being intentionally dense.
Lets do a different example. Lets say I go to checkout at a grocery store and I ring up a bar of soap as a bag of ice. Obviously this is wrong. Nobody is debating you can buy soap at the store but to claim it is ice is wrong.
Back to USPS. Nobody is claiming you can't send live animals. The question is what happens when you send a live animal and don't claim it.
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#139I feel like the GPS tracking device, fake Craigslist sex ads, and pig carcass are magnitudes worse than live spiders. I actually like spiders as long as they are smaller than my palm (and nontoxic of course) Insane story though - what did they think would happen
I feel like all the articles are ignoring the important question: what kind of spiders? Obviously the roaches are dubias. Just hand those off to an employee at the nearest pet store and they'll be pleased as punch. What kind of spiders though? Cobweb spiders, jumping spiders, tarantulas? These are all very different situations. Heck, there's tarantulas that go for 100s of dollars. This could have been a thoughtful gift gone wrong.
In all seriousness these dudes thought they were the internet resale mafia and I've very much been enjoying reading how every piece of their plan blew up in their faces. They thought they were so damn slick. There's internet harassment and then there's sending a couple a book on how to deal with a spouse dying. Glad to see they're looking at jail time.
Re: eBay pays $3M fine in blogger harassment case
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outstanding post. Thank you to share. Page 5, paragraph 12: > Yikes. If the defendants lose, do you have any idea how large the settlement might be?
My guess is that it won't be decided by a judge and we won't find out. But maybe not if the defendants are out for blood more than money.
> But maybe not if the defendants are out for blood more than money.
Did you mean: s/defendants/victims/ ?
If yes: Are you saying that the defendants are likely to lose so they will try to settle? If yes, I am still very curious about the amount! The stuff in the filing was so incredibly egregious. Plus the CEO got a 57M USD golden parachute. I could imagine a 20M+ USD settlement.