5 ms·

Regulating legitimate business activity out of existence to support progressive prosecutors ideas about shoplifting and street crime is the opposite of a soluti

Regulating legitimate business activity out of existence to support progressive prosecutors ideas about shoplifting and street crime is the opposite of a solution.

ohbleek 4y ago
Your comment is not supported by the information in the article. Quite the opposite.
tehwebguy 4y ago
Actually you are both wrong :) Regulating away legitimate secondary markets to sell on leaves us all paying higher prices. If brands and retailers believe it’s really retail theft causing all of this I invite them to track their goods better and run sting operations. I guarantee this type of money is going out the side door a truckload at a time, not the front door stuffed into someone’s shirt. But the “progressive prosecutor problem” is a made up lie. Even in San Francisco where a DA recall vote actually succeeded it was obvious (and immediately proven[0]) that SFPD were actually just refusing to respond to calls: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-policing-17550839.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-...
ryan_lane 4y ago
Knowing your suppliers and that their goods are legitimate is a pretty basic function of a business, and calling people progressive to enforce that is a bit strange. Amazon isn't a pawn shop. They have a lot of choice when it comes to dealing with known businesses.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Amazon isn't a pawn shop Right, pawn shops are held to a higher standard. They have a relationship with the local police and are made to keep records. Amazon is a better fence than your average pawn shop.
- subradios 4y ago
  It is a valuable activity that Amazon and eBay will ship any product to anyone at a fair price with a minimum of obligatory hoop jumping. The more pressure they receive from the public and regulators to put a stop to those dastardly shoplifters, the more room Nike has to stop people from selling Nike shoes without a badge of certification from Nike.
  - ryan_lane 4y ago
    Selling stolen goods hurts everyone, which is why it's a crime. It hurts the companies being stolen from, it hurts competing businesses who have a hard time competing legally, it hurts consumers, who get reduced choice due to reduced competition, and it hurts communities when their local chains shut down because organized crime has a place to fence their goods. It's mind boggling that folks are defending the ability to sell stolen goods, while wanting to harshly punish petty theft.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      > It's mind boggling that folks are defending the ability to sell stolen goods, while wanting to harshly punish petty theft. I’m not seeing anyone defending selling stolen goods just saying it’s nearly impossible to tell where the goods come from. Product gets refused for various reasons and the trucking companies aren’t really in the business of selling goods so they just get rid of it. I’ve seen them refuse a whole pallet because one box was run into by a forklift before. Sometimes they tell you where to take it, sometimes they tell you to just get rid of it (usually only if it’s a couple cases) and if it’s not something you particularly want you just find some random person who does want it or a dumpster. Not to mention all the other cases people have explained in this thread.
    - subradios 4y ago
      I am not promoting "punishing harshly petty theft" I am suggesting that the direction current prosecutors are going is to not punish theft at all. I am also not denying that Amazon and eBay can operate as easy targets to fence stolen goods. What I am suggesting is that demanding Amazon "do something" about goods that fell off the back of a truck essentially means that any seller who doesn't get an Official Licensed Dealer badge or equivalent from a name brand company cannot do business on the internet. The only way to combat this from Amazon's side is to ban all sales not authorized by the original manufacturer. There's no way for them to tell on their end whether goods were legitimately purchased or not, and any system used to track these sellers or prevent them from operating would give big brands a "delete" button on sales of their products worldwide. As someone who is not a fan of software licensing for physical goods, this terrifies me, and bringing that regulatory environment as a response when we aren't willing to prosecute people for these crimes seems a bit much.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  The government already has a mandate to prosecute crimes. It doesn't have a mandate to interfere with liberty. If they aren't going to do the job they already have why should they be allowed to find another excuse to avoid doing that job?
- prvit 4y ago
  >Knowing your suppliers and that their goods are legitimate is a pretty basic function of a business No it isn’t. That’s a pretty basic part of living in a country with rule of law. >calling people progressive to enforce that is a bit strange Indeed, it’s strictly regressive.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > No it isn’t. That’s a pretty basic part of living in a country with rule of law. This is an incorrect framing: the law is that companies must know their suppliers, at least to the extent that they can demonstrate good faith compliance with laws around stolen, counterfeit, smuggled, etc. goods. Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance.
    - prvit 4y ago
      That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth. > Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        > That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth. Every US state that I'm aware of makes it a crime to knowingly receive stolen property. Most additionally make it a crime to re-sell stolen property. On top of that, it's a Federal crime if the stolen property crosses state borders. Here, for example, are NY's statutes on stolen property: Penal Law Ss. 165.40 through 165.65[1] (you'll need to navigate on that page to each section). In particular: * It is not a sufficient defense to claim that the original thief has not been convicted or identified: § 165.50, bullet 1. * Possession of stolen property encompasses the intent to sell that property: § 165.55, bullet 1. > Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable. This implies passivity, when the relationship is an active one. If Amazon was an unstructured marketplace with individual business relationships between buyers and (potentially criminal) sellers, this argument might work. But that's not what FBA is, and it's not how these products are sold (you aren't buying Honest Abe's Big Brand Shampoo, you're buying Amazon-fulfilled Big Brand Shampoo). [1]: https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-3-specific-offenses/title-j-offenses-involving-theft/article-165-other-offenses-relating-to-theft/section-16540-criminal-possession-of-stolen-property-in-the-fifth-degree https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/c...
jrumbut 4y ago
Selling stolen goods isn't a legitimate business activity.
- kortilla 4y ago
  Stolen goods don’t come with a “stolen organically” label.
- prvit 4y ago
  Selling goods is a legitimate business activity.
  - wstuartcl 4y ago
    Yes -- but we are not talking about that we are talking about selling goods for which you have no record of purchase and obtained through theft. You are taking a pretty bit straw man here -- is your claim that there is no way to enforce procedures to curb stolen goods while selling other goods? I think every other seller that has been used as a fence in history would beg to differ -- just go to your local pawn shop.
    - prvit 4y ago
      These are criminals, they can install microsoft office and create fake proof of purchase. Completely pointless idea.

Regulating legitimate business activity out of existence to support progressive prosecutors ideas about shoplifting and street crime is the opposite of a solution.

ohbleek 4y ago

Your comment is not supported by the information in the article. Quite the opposite.

tehwebguy 4y ago

Actually you are both wrong :) Regulating away legitimate secondary markets to sell on leaves us all paying higher prices. If brands and retailers believe it’s really retail theft causing all of this I invite them to track their goods better and run sting operations. I guarantee this type of money is going out the side door a truckload at a time, not the front door stuffed into someone’s shirt. But the “progressive prosecutor problem” is a made up lie. Even in San Francisco where a DA recall vote actually succeeded it was obvious (and immediately proven[0]) that SFPD were actually just refusing to respond to calls: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-policing-17550839.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-...

ryan_lane 4y ago

Knowing your suppliers and that their goods are legitimate is a pretty basic function of a business, and calling people progressive to enforce that is a bit strange. Amazon isn't a pawn shop. They have a lot of choice when it comes to dealing with known businesses.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Amazon isn't a pawn shop Right, pawn shops are held to a higher standard. They have a relationship with the local police and are made to keep records. Amazon is a better fence than your average pawn shop.
subradios 4y ago
It is a valuable activity that Amazon and eBay will ship any product to anyone at a fair price with a minimum of obligatory hoop jumping. The more pressure they receive from the public and regulators to put a stop to those dastardly shoplifters, the more room Nike has to stop people from selling Nike shoes without a badge of certification from Nike.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  Selling stolen goods hurts everyone, which is why it's a crime. It hurts the companies being stolen from, it hurts competing businesses who have a hard time competing legally, it hurts consumers, who get reduced choice due to reduced competition, and it hurts communities when their local chains shut down because organized crime has a place to fence their goods. It's mind boggling that folks are defending the ability to sell stolen goods, while wanting to harshly punish petty theft.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    > It's mind boggling that folks are defending the ability to sell stolen goods, while wanting to harshly punish petty theft. I’m not seeing anyone defending selling stolen goods just saying it’s nearly impossible to tell where the goods come from. Product gets refused for various reasons and the trucking companies aren’t really in the business of selling goods so they just get rid of it. I’ve seen them refuse a whole pallet because one box was run into by a forklift before. Sometimes they tell you where to take it, sometimes they tell you to just get rid of it (usually only if it’s a couple cases) and if it’s not something you particularly want you just find some random person who does want it or a dumpster. Not to mention all the other cases people have explained in this thread.
  - subradios 4y ago
    I am not promoting "punishing harshly petty theft" I am suggesting that the direction current prosecutors are going is to not punish theft at all. I am also not denying that Amazon and eBay can operate as easy targets to fence stolen goods. What I am suggesting is that demanding Amazon "do something" about goods that fell off the back of a truck essentially means that any seller who doesn't get an Official Licensed Dealer badge or equivalent from a name brand company cannot do business on the internet. The only way to combat this from Amazon's side is to ban all sales not authorized by the original manufacturer. There's no way for them to tell on their end whether goods were legitimately purchased or not, and any system used to track these sellers or prevent them from operating would give big brands a "delete" button on sales of their products worldwide. As someone who is not a fan of software licensing for physical goods, this terrifies me, and bringing that regulatory environment as a response when we aren't willing to prosecute people for these crimes seems a bit much.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
The government already has a mandate to prosecute crimes. It doesn't have a mandate to interfere with liberty. If they aren't going to do the job they already have why should they be allowed to find another excuse to avoid doing that job?
prvit 4y ago
>Knowing your suppliers and that their goods are legitimate is a pretty basic function of a business No it isn’t. That’s a pretty basic part of living in a country with rule of law. >calling people progressive to enforce that is a bit strange Indeed, it’s strictly regressive.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > No it isn’t. That’s a pretty basic part of living in a country with rule of law. This is an incorrect framing: the law is that companies must know their suppliers, at least to the extent that they can demonstrate good faith compliance with laws around stolen, counterfeit, smuggled, etc. goods. Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance.
  - prvit 4y ago
    That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth. > Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth. Every US state that I'm aware of makes it a crime to knowingly receive stolen property. Most additionally make it a crime to re-sell stolen property. On top of that, it's a Federal crime if the stolen property crosses state borders. Here, for example, are NY's statutes on stolen property: Penal Law Ss. 165.40 through 165.65[1] (you'll need to navigate on that page to each section). In particular: * It is not a sufficient defense to claim that the original thief has not been convicted or identified: § 165.50, bullet 1. * Possession of stolen property encompasses the intent to sell that property: § 165.55, bullet 1. > Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable. This implies passivity, when the relationship is an active one. If Amazon was an unstructured marketplace with individual business relationships between buyers and (potentially criminal) sellers, this argument might work. But that's not what FBA is, and it's not how these products are sold (you aren't buying Honest Abe's Big Brand Shampoo, you're buying Amazon-fulfilled Big Brand Shampoo). [1]: https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-3-specific-offenses/title-j-offenses-involving-theft/article-165-other-offenses-relating-to-theft/section-16540-criminal-possession-of-stolen-property-in-the-fifth-degree https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/c...

jrumbut 4y ago

Selling stolen goods isn't a legitimate business activity.

kortilla 4y ago
Stolen goods don’t come with a “stolen organically” label.
prvit 4y ago
Selling goods is a legitimate business activity.
- wstuartcl 4y ago
  Yes -- but we are not talking about that we are talking about selling goods for which you have no record of purchase and obtained through theft. You are taking a pretty bit straw man here -- is your claim that there is no way to enforce procedures to curb stolen goods while selling other goods? I think every other seller that has been used as a fence in history would beg to differ -- just go to your local pawn shop.
  - prvit 4y ago
    These are criminals, they can install microsoft office and create fake proof of purchase. Completely pointless idea.