National Retailers Refuse To Apologize For Claiming eBay Leads To Crime
from the lies-are-more-fun-than-facts dept
Earlier this week, we noted that the National Retail Federation, a lobbying group made up of a bunch of large traditional retailers, had claimed to Congress that eBay drove people to shoplift by being so addictive that people couldn't help themselves. According to the NRF, otherwise innocent people, after running out of legitimate things to sell, turned to a life of crime to support that eBay selling high. The whole thing is so preposterous, that the group NetChoice called for an apology from the NRF. The NRF's response? It stands by its comments:"The testimony we submitted reflected the sentiments of many retailers that we work with."Now there's a neat little rhetorical trick there. When called on the fact that they were lying in claiming a rash of eBay-induced criminals, the response is to claim that the statements "reflected the sentiments" of the retailers. So, even though those sentiments are based on pure lies, it's okay, because the statement reflected those sentiments.
In the meantime, it appears that NRF supporters have decided to respond with personal attacks, such as that one, directed at my post. It's also got some neat rhetorical tricks, such as claiming that what the retailers really meant when they said (and I quote), "When they run out of legitimate merchandise, they begin to steal intermittently, many times for the first time in their life, so they can continue selling online" was organized crime. Yet, that's clearly not what the NRF statement was claiming. It was talking about individuals who were selling stuff legitimately, until they couldn't find anything else to sell and began a life of crime.
See? So now that they've narrowly defined the issue as "organized crime" (ignoring what the NRF actually said and brushing over the actual stats on shoplifting being on the decline), the NRF supporter claims that these new laws are just "reasonable duties" for online auction sites to combat that issue -- never once explaining why online auction sites need to step in and do the work that the retailers themselves are unwilling to do. The retailers themselves admitted that they don't want their employees to act as police officers -- but they apparently have no problem demanding that their online competitors act as their police officers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, e-fencing, online auctions, politics, retail stores, shoplifting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mike Masnick's Enemy (Rhianna Daniels)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick's Enemy (Rhianna Daniels)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm not entirely sure as to why I'm bothering to attempt to post this. You obviously don't believe in open and honest discussion about a topic, since you require the author's approval before posting any coments. Now as for my comments regarding the post, this post seems very much a personal attack on the writer at Techdirt. It doesn't seem to contain anything relevent, only trying to make him look like an imbecile. I somehow doubt that his article is completely baseless, as most "organized crime" involves significantly more than one person. Are you trying to state that organized groups of of individuals are commiting theft and then auction their items online? Furthermore, how is a site, especially one as large as eBay, supposed to check each and every item that appears on their site? Have you ever auctioned anything? Do you know anything about the process? In what way are the sites supposed to collect this information you speak of? As someone who has sold items on eBay I can tell you that it would be next to impossible for them to do so, and expecting, or attempting to force them, to so is ludicrous. to say the least. "
Good work Mike, I make Techdirt a part of my daily routine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment on Ms. Daniels' Blog
Ms. Daniels,
I checked out the Techdirt blog and there is a link (ever seen those before...usually blue and underlined) just before the quote which takes you directly to NRF's site with an article wherein it quotes the NRF Vice President of Loss Prevention Joseph LaRocca as making the statement. Might want to rethink your posts contents demeaning Mr. Masnick. Or you could just not allow my comment to show. We will all know who is the bigger person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Blame eBay For Everything!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Blame eBay For Everything!!
(Plus, I hear it's becoming incredibly popular in other countries too!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two comments into the bit bucket
I guess it's become commonplace these days to simply deny facts, if those facts conflict with your personal world view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might be something to it, but......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...your world view, or your paycheck.
I, too posted a polite comment at her blog. Looking forward to seeing some of our comments once they pass the "approval process".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another cross-posted comment
----------
"The least of his claims" is actually the claim of the NRF, from their own press release:
"'The Internet seems to be contributing to the creation of a brand new type of retail thief – people who have never stolen before but are lured in by the convenience and anonymity of the Internet,' NRF Vice President for Loss Prevention Joseph LaRocca said."
As a quick Google search would have told you, the speaker is cited as a "Mr. Langhorst" in the sworn testimony of Steve DelBianco in front of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. And, from the context of Mr. DelBianco's testimony, it is not clear that Mr. Langhorst was necessarily referring to organized retail crime.
Citing an NRF-funded study as proof of NRF's claims, as you did in your post, is not exactly good form.
You claim it requires "online marketplaces to collect information that law enforcement can use to prosecute those that fence goods on their websites [sic]." Unfortunately, that is not true -- I wish it were.
Instead, it requires online marketplaces to collection information that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can get whenever they want. All they need to do is supply a real or forged "signed report made to or received from a criminal law enforcement agency". Online marketplaces have no means of validating such reports, since one hopes the police will not discuss pending investigations with arbitrary outsiders.
Beyond that, the bill is largely useless, since few high-volume fences will actually continue using the same identities, particularly once they're confronted with the need to provide identifying information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We might not even need antitrust laws if we could just prevent all of government-facilitated anti-competitive efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To make a link between shoplifting and online auction sites is silly. The vast amount of money used to protect retailers from theft has nothing to do with the fencing of the goods. People will steal from stores regardless of who or where they can sell the goods. Most of the theft is internal anyway, employees walk away with way more than any customer. Lets not forget, cash registers were invented to stop EMPLOYEES from stealing, not customers.
The money spent combating employee and customer theft is hurting retailers, obviously, but I doubt that restricting one fencing route will make any impact on the amount of money they will need to spend.
Why should online auction sites be forced to verify everything anyone puts up for auction, or be legally responsible for their user's action? This is clearly counter productive, and against the 'safe harbor' laws already in place. Are you also in favor of outlawing all pawnshops, street markets, community bulletin boards, newspaper classifieds, and 'Thrifty Nickel' publications? Whats next.... outlawing cars because shoplifters used one to dreve away from the stores?
How about this... we hold criminally liable any one who steals, or knowingly buys stolen merchandise. Oh wait, we already have such laws on the books. Duh.
This sounds more like the old brick and mortar stores trying to use congress to put pressure on their online competition, in order to drive them out of business, not actually trying to protect themselves from shoplifting losses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like where
It seems here that the anti theft part of the NFR-SDN has worked so well that Rhianna Daniels (not just some babe, again that attribution) might be thinking of shrink in here market of doom and gloom. Hence the need to get more laws and crap to increase her market.
"So that is what this guy from Techdirt (interesting name)" well at least the site mane got listed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa
There were no comments when I wrote it.
Checking back now there are lots and lots of comments, including mine and several seen above.
Mike I think you greatly increased her traffic.
Perhaps you should get ready for one of those ever popular trademark or copyright lawsuits here. You are harming her business by sending her more traffic.
Shame on you.
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoplifting...
I used to own an apartment complex and observed first hand how tenants would give their merchandise orders to shoplifters who would then go out and shoplift the items for them! Nothing was ever sold on eBay! Shoplifters have their own private buyers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iMergent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]