5 ms·

Threadless offering $1000 for positive ID of Chicagoans in these photos

21 points by brandnewlow 17y ago

dschobel 17y ago
Harper (ex-Threadless CTO) just tweeted: Threadless got robbed again - but there are pictures! $1000 to anyone who can identify these two Chicago jagoffs: http://bit.ly/7C8XHn http://bit.ly/7C8XHn http://twitter.com/harper/status/6908083982 http://twitter.com/harper/status/6908083982
- harper 17y ago
  whoops ;)
drc1912 17y ago
Reminds me of the "Human Flesh Search Engines" that form on Chinese BBS's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
brandnewlow 17y ago
Sorry our servers are struggling today...
harper 17y ago
I had just finished reading "This is not a game" about crowdsourcing crime solving using ARG techniques. It was a decent read. When i heard that something terrible had happened to the threadless tech dept. It seemed like a great way to possibly find the alleged crooks. Luckily the dudes who remain at threadless were quick on the execution and had already appealed to the community. They are attempting to use the same method that MIT used to find the red balloons (i.e. a tiered reward for reporting info). Here is some info from threadless: http://www.threadless.com/news/536659/Identify_these_Christmas_elves_for_a_reward http://www.threadless.com/news/536659/Identify_these_Christm... Here is photos from scottv's flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottvdp/sets/72157622921219371/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottvdp/sets/72157622921219371...
GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
I don't like it. I don't like going on a manhunt for no good reason. Are they ex-employees who must be punished dearly? Are they thiefs? Alleged thiefs? Being hassled by the company?
- adatta02 17y ago
  I don't like it either. Doing this without any context is creepy and a little un-nerving. People would probably go to some length for $1000.
- breck 17y ago
  My guess is that they're friends of the company who volunteered for this.
- cmelbye 17y ago
  Exactly my thought. Are these people on the Threadless hit list or something? And the fact that they avoided the question when someone asked...
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  "scottvdp 33 min 29 sec ago We cannot say, for legal reasons. I can tell you that if you find them, we will pay you handsomely. "
icey 17y ago
This whole idea is creepy as hell - someone from threadless just says it's "serious" and refuses to give any details as to who these people are or why they want to suddenly play net-nanny. In the meantime, here's a handful of cash for whoever decides to play big brother. It's a bad thing to start, and a bad thing to encourage.
- simon_ 17y ago
  This sentiment seems a little silly to me - there's no implicit right to anonymity in RL, especially if you go around pissing people off by stealing from them.
  - kordless 17y ago
    > no implicit right to anonymity Check the privacy laws of the United States - they clearly do protect our right to anonymity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Stat... In this case I see both violations of False Light and Appropriation being possible, if these guys didn't do anything, and didn't agree to be involved in this stunt. Personally I like the idea of vigilantism, but these things are better left to law enforcement and the legal system. They are in place for a reason, after all.
    - simon_ 17y ago
      Maybe I'm misreading Wikipedia, but it looks like False Light and Approbation violations would require (respectively) the dissemination of false information or some intent to gain financially. However, it's probably true that these laws will be tested in unexpected ways as everyone gains the power to communicate with "the public".
    - jellicle 17y ago
      You know that that Wikipedia article doesn't even have the word "anonymity" in it, right? There's no general privacy law in the U.S. There's some minor right to write anonymously, extrapolated from the First Amendment, but absolutely no right to be anonymous in general, and in fact the First Amendment goes the other way: Threadless has the right to publish those photos and to make any truthful statements about them whatsoever. In many cases Threadless can even make untruthful statements about the photos and still be perfectly legal.
aresant 17y ago
Tell me that's not Jay & Silent Bob in real life. . .

21 points by brandnewlow 17y ago

Harper (ex-Threadless CTO) just tweeted: Threadless got robbed again - but there are pictures! $1000 to anyone who can identify these two Chicago jagoffs: http://bit.ly/7C8XHn http://bit.ly/7C8XHn http://twitter.com/harper/status/6908083982 http://twitter.com/harper/status/6908083982

harper 17y ago
whoops ;)

drc1912 17y ago

Reminds me of the "Human Flesh Search Engines" that form on Chinese BBS's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine

brandnewlow 17y ago

Sorry our servers are struggling today...

harper 17y ago

I had just finished reading "This is not a game" about crowdsourcing crime solving using ARG techniques. It was a decent read. When i heard that something terrible had happened to the threadless tech dept. It seemed like a great way to possibly find the alleged crooks. Luckily the dudes who remain at threadless were quick on the execution and had already appealed to the community. They are attempting to use the same method that MIT used to find the red balloons (i.e. a tiered reward for reporting info). Here is some info from threadless: http://www.threadless.com/news/536659/Identify_these_Christmas_elves_for_a_reward http://www.threadless.com/news/536659/Identify_these_Christm... Here is photos from scottv's flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottvdp/sets/72157622921219371/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottvdp/sets/72157622921219371...

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago

I don't like it. I don't like going on a manhunt for no good reason. Are they ex-employees who must be punished dearly? Are they thiefs? Alleged thiefs? Being hassled by the company?

adatta02 17y ago
I don't like it either. Doing this without any context is creepy and a little un-nerving. People would probably go to some length for $1000.
breck 17y ago
My guess is that they're friends of the company who volunteered for this.
cmelbye 17y ago
Exactly my thought. Are these people on the Threadless hit list or something? And the fact that they avoided the question when someone asked...
nopassrecover 17y ago
"scottvdp 33 min 29 sec ago We cannot say, for legal reasons. I can tell you that if you find them, we will pay you handsomely. "

icey 17y ago

This whole idea is creepy as hell - someone from threadless just says it's "serious" and refuses to give any details as to who these people are or why they want to suddenly play net-nanny. In the meantime, here's a handful of cash for whoever decides to play big brother. It's a bad thing to start, and a bad thing to encourage.

simon_ 17y ago
This sentiment seems a little silly to me - there's no implicit right to anonymity in RL, especially if you go around pissing people off by stealing from them.
- kordless 17y ago
  > no implicit right to anonymity Check the privacy laws of the United States - they clearly do protect our right to anonymity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Stat... In this case I see both violations of False Light and Appropriation being possible, if these guys didn't do anything, and didn't agree to be involved in this stunt. Personally I like the idea of vigilantism, but these things are better left to law enforcement and the legal system. They are in place for a reason, after all.
  - simon_ 17y ago
    Maybe I'm misreading Wikipedia, but it looks like False Light and Approbation violations would require (respectively) the dissemination of false information or some intent to gain financially. However, it's probably true that these laws will be tested in unexpected ways as everyone gains the power to communicate with "the public".
  - jellicle 17y ago
    You know that that Wikipedia article doesn't even have the word "anonymity" in it, right? There's no general privacy law in the U.S. There's some minor right to write anonymously, extrapolated from the First Amendment, but absolutely no right to be anonymous in general, and in fact the First Amendment goes the other way: Threadless has the right to publish those photos and to make any truthful statements about them whatsoever. In many cases Threadless can even make untruthful statements about the photos and still be perfectly legal.

aresant 17y ago

Tell me that's not Jay & Silent Bob in real life. . .