5 ms·

What would you have rather AirBnB done in this situation? Do you not think it's a little unreasonable that AirBnB would have to take on the role of the insurer

What would you have rather AirBnB done in this situation? Do you not think it's a little unreasonable that AirBnB would have to take on the role of the insurer here ? People should know the risks they're taking in letting a complete stranger into their house without even meeting in person. Just because someone found you through AirBnB doesn't mean you can take the risk for granted. You're still letting a complete stranger have access to your house and belongings.

danilocampos 15y ago
> What would you have rather AirBnB done in this situation? Make their user whole with a big fat wad of cash that approaches the value lost in the described crime. Relocation assistance. Go completely above and beyond. > Do you not think it's a little unreasonable that AirBnB would have to take on the role of the insurer here ? In general? Sure. Here? Absolutely not unreasonable. This is the absolute worst case scenario. The only way you top this is burning down a house and killing someone's dog. Airbnb did not plan for this and did not appropriately set expectations. What they did set expectations for was "an Ebay of spaces," a safe and orderly way to monetize your home. The victim here argued very persuasively that because you can't contact people before the transaction, the onus is on Airbnb to ensure that they aren't sociopaths who will destroy your home and steal your identity.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  No, the worst-case scenario would be that guest copies keys, returns, and rapes and kills the owner/occupant. Remember: once you've allowed physical access to your resources (computer, accounts, home, ...), all bets are off with regards to future security. AirBnB has a pretty intractable problem here. People aren't fundamentally vettable. It's an age-old problem. TSA, the HUAC, lie detectors, loyalty oaths, pledges, blood bonds, FICO scores, PGP webs of trust, are all attempts to solve that problem. We can identify, authenticate, predict, track, audit, and prosecute. We can't know the future.
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    Whoa. Good point. Shit just got real. Thanks for creeping me out even further.
    - wnight 15y ago
      The risk has always been there. Have you ever seen/used a lock-pick gun? They'll open anything non-specialized in less than a second. Failing that, a lightly skilled (50h practice) lock-picker can open most household locks, even "secure" ones, in under fifteen minutes. Beyond that, the lock/deadbolt/wall is pretty weak. A sledge hammer will open almost any door in a single blow. Windows are essentially just big gaping "serial-killer's enter here" signs, as you can easily break them and gain access to the domicile. Where, presumably you would feed on the brains and organs of the residents. And worse, the phone company publishes a book that lists your name and address. No longer do serial killers need to drive endlessly, trying to stumble upon a Stuart or a Fred, they can just pick up a phone book and they'll find a perfect list of people, indexed by name for easier killing. PANIC! But seriously now, you're over-reacting here. These risks are everywhere and AirBnB was just another way to meet another person. What I'll consider unethical is if they do anything differently for this lady, who got the media attention first, than they'd do for anyone else. I don't necessarily think they're liable, even morally. It depends on how they represent themselves. If they purport to offer screened participants and don't, that's a problem. But if they don't it simply means they're offering a lesser service, pay accordingly. I want a market to exist for cheap and potentially dangerous things instead of offering only padded kid-safe versions. For instance, Lithium-polymer remote-controlled vehicle batteries. Essentially the same tech as the laptop/cellphone batteries that occasionally catch fire. But they don't have protective circuitry built in to prevent this. If you overcharge them they will catch fire. But they're far cheaper and you can draw more power than if they had safeties built in. If you're clear about the trade-offs what would cause a recall and lawsuit in one market can be perfectly acceptable in another.
      - dredmorbius 15y ago
        Entry certainly isn't the problem. Authorized entry is, and in the case of AirBnB you've got a case where someone's contracted for entry, may have notified neighbors / building management that strangers will be present, etc. (though "hey, strangers will be present, would you mind looking in on things might have been another good practice for EJ). Your points on locks are very well made, and there's a long Internet (and pre-Internet) history of attempts at censorship by lockmakers against picking methods. Phone books? How archaic. I don't have a landline -> no phone book entry. My information might be accessible elsewhere, but my perimeter security systems are quite good, and Krell steel resists mosts assaults. Your idea of "unethical" (to say the least of good business sense) is markedly different from mine.
- NathanKP 15y ago
  I really don't understand why the victim would say that it is not possible to contact people before the transaction, because as a user of AirBNB I have talked to hosts before and exchanged details about who I am, including full name, location, age, etc. The hosts had enough information to look me up on FB, find and read my blog, my HN posts, and whatever else they felt like looking up about me on the internet. It is completely possible to vet your guests before accepting them. Now granted I do agree that it would be very kind for AirBNB to compensate her for the damages she suffered, but I do not feel like AirBNB should be held responsible as if they caused this to happen, because they certainly didn't prevent her from looking up this rogue guest before accepting the transaction.
Cushman 15y ago
It's not unreasonable, it's their business model. Airbnb is built on smoothing over the process of renting your house to a complete stranger. If they don't have a solution or even a process for the possibility that a complete stranger will trash my house, they just lost a huge part of their value proposition. I don't think anyone is saying Airbnb is legally liable— just that they should take responsibility for their own sake.

danilocampos 15y ago

> What would you have rather AirBnB done in this situation? Make their user whole with a big fat wad of cash that approaches the value lost in the described crime. Relocation assistance. Go completely above and beyond. > Do you not think it's a little unreasonable that AirBnB would have to take on the role of the insurer here ? In general? Sure. Here? Absolutely not unreasonable. This is the absolute worst case scenario. The only way you top this is burning down a house and killing someone's dog. Airbnb did not plan for this and did not appropriately set expectations. What they did set expectations for was "an Ebay of spaces," a safe and orderly way to monetize your home. The victim here argued very persuasively that because you can't contact people before the transaction, the onus is on Airbnb to ensure that they aren't sociopaths who will destroy your home and steal your identity.

dredmorbius 15y ago
No, the worst-case scenario would be that guest copies keys, returns, and rapes and kills the owner/occupant. Remember: once you've allowed physical access to your resources (computer, accounts, home, ...), all bets are off with regards to future security. AirBnB has a pretty intractable problem here. People aren't fundamentally vettable. It's an age-old problem. TSA, the HUAC, lie detectors, loyalty oaths, pledges, blood bonds, FICO scores, PGP webs of trust, are all attempts to solve that problem. We can identify, authenticate, predict, track, audit, and prosecute. We can't know the future.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  Whoa. Good point. Shit just got real. Thanks for creeping me out even further.
  - wnight 15y ago
    The risk has always been there. Have you ever seen/used a lock-pick gun? They'll open anything non-specialized in less than a second. Failing that, a lightly skilled (50h practice) lock-picker can open most household locks, even "secure" ones, in under fifteen minutes. Beyond that, the lock/deadbolt/wall is pretty weak. A sledge hammer will open almost any door in a single blow. Windows are essentially just big gaping "serial-killer's enter here" signs, as you can easily break them and gain access to the domicile. Where, presumably you would feed on the brains and organs of the residents. And worse, the phone company publishes a book that lists your name and address. No longer do serial killers need to drive endlessly, trying to stumble upon a Stuart or a Fred, they can just pick up a phone book and they'll find a perfect list of people, indexed by name for easier killing. PANIC! But seriously now, you're over-reacting here. These risks are everywhere and AirBnB was just another way to meet another person. What I'll consider unethical is if they do anything differently for this lady, who got the media attention first, than they'd do for anyone else. I don't necessarily think they're liable, even morally. It depends on how they represent themselves. If they purport to offer screened participants and don't, that's a problem. But if they don't it simply means they're offering a lesser service, pay accordingly. I want a market to exist for cheap and potentially dangerous things instead of offering only padded kid-safe versions. For instance, Lithium-polymer remote-controlled vehicle batteries. Essentially the same tech as the laptop/cellphone batteries that occasionally catch fire. But they don't have protective circuitry built in to prevent this. If you overcharge them they will catch fire. But they're far cheaper and you can draw more power than if they had safeties built in. If you're clear about the trade-offs what would cause a recall and lawsuit in one market can be perfectly acceptable in another.
    - dredmorbius 15y ago
      Entry certainly isn't the problem. Authorized entry is, and in the case of AirBnB you've got a case where someone's contracted for entry, may have notified neighbors / building management that strangers will be present, etc. (though "hey, strangers will be present, would you mind looking in on things might have been another good practice for EJ). Your points on locks are very well made, and there's a long Internet (and pre-Internet) history of attempts at censorship by lockmakers against picking methods. Phone books? How archaic. I don't have a landline -> no phone book entry. My information might be accessible elsewhere, but my perimeter security systems are quite good, and Krell steel resists mosts assaults. Your idea of "unethical" (to say the least of good business sense) is markedly different from mine.
NathanKP 15y ago
I really don't understand why the victim would say that it is not possible to contact people before the transaction, because as a user of AirBNB I have talked to hosts before and exchanged details about who I am, including full name, location, age, etc. The hosts had enough information to look me up on FB, find and read my blog, my HN posts, and whatever else they felt like looking up about me on the internet. It is completely possible to vet your guests before accepting them. Now granted I do agree that it would be very kind for AirBNB to compensate her for the damages she suffered, but I do not feel like AirBNB should be held responsible as if they caused this to happen, because they certainly didn't prevent her from looking up this rogue guest before accepting the transaction.

Cushman 15y ago

It's not unreasonable, it's their business model. Airbnb is built on smoothing over the process of renting your house to a complete stranger. If they don't have a solution or even a process for the possibility that a complete stranger will trash my house, they just lost a huge part of their value proposition. I don't think anyone is saying Airbnb is legally liable— just that they should take responsibility for their own sake.