It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Trashed after Cruel Craigslist Hoax

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

House Trashed after Cruel Craigslist Hoax


www.kgw.com

Someone with cruel intentions placed a fake ad on Craig's List, inviting people to take whatever they wanted for free from a Tacoma home.

Homeowner Laurie Raye says there's little left now of the house. The outside of the home is trashed, the inside is nearly gutted and covered in graffiti. Raye says she is devastated.

"I was attached to this home because it used to be my mom's," says Raye.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The sad thing about this is nearby residents saw strangers entering the house and never reported it.

I would venture to guess the recently evicted tenant did it or put someone up to it and hope they get caught and dealt with severely this is uncalled for.


I hate to say it but actions like this make me think we need stiffer controls on sites that allow adds of any kind.


www.kgw.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
THat is a shame, but regulation isn't the answer.

If you ask to be regulated, someone will more than happily take that invitation, and in the end you lose.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
THat is a shame, but regulation isn't the answer



OK assuming you are Right how do you stop actions like this? I know I would not like to see you or anyone else put through what this person was, would you.

Now that you state regulation is the wrong approach, what would you suggest surely it cannot be do nothing


apc

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Have a human review submissions prior to posting. Unfortunately even that would have to be by mandate.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Thats awful. I hope they trace the ip of the poster at least. I don't know what can be done but surely there must be some kind of law they broke.


From Craigslist point of view ow can you verify something like that? I would say the animals that went into the house without permission should be held accountable too. Someone must have been the first to help themselves.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
There is one option which is to be a bit proactive.

If I saw a bunch of people continually entering and leaving a house that was close to mine I might take some time to find out why:
1. Question neighbors that might be familiar with their routine-
2. If I knew them well enough, try to contact the home owner at home or work-
3. The last option would be to contact a police officer to possibly do a quick drive by to see if anything seems out of the ordinary to them also.

I am only 29, I have only owned my home for 3 years and I kind of know who my neighbors are.
But in that short amount of time I hope they would think something was odd if more than 5 people walk in and out of my house when there might not be anyone home.

Just my thoughts.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Unfortunately this is something like ordering pizza to another guy's house, but to a super extreme.

It's very hard to do something preventative. Otherwise you make it to hard for everyday people to order pizza, right?

Unfortunately Craigslist can't really do anything. What should they do? Force all people to authenticate themselves before posting anything? It would never work.

The fault, as thepieman said, lies with the people who went into the house. How the hell do you walk into a house and TAKE things without authenticating that the claim was true. Was anyone there? No. This was LOOTING, THEFT, pick a word.

The prank was disgraceful, but those who carried out the looting and defacing are even worse.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

It's very hard to do something preventative. Otherwise you make it to hard for everyday people to order pizza, right?



Pizza ordering in the us is a very bad example because most if not all use caller ID to identify who is ordering the pizza.

Example hello

Yes

I would like oder a piazza please with blah blah

Ok can I have your name please

Mary Smith

OK and your phone number 555-xxx-xxxx

if the nubr does not match a simple call back confirms it is a hoax, well in almost all cases it does, you get my drift and that is not the same as what we have here.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Pizza ordering in the us is a very bad example because most if not all use caller ID to identify who is ordering the pizza.

Example hello

Yes

I would like oder a piazza please with blah blah

Ok can I have your name please

Mary Smith

OK and your phone number 555-xxx-xxxx

if the nubr does not match a simple call back confirms it is a hoax, well in almost all cases it does, you get my drift and that is not the same as what we have here.


Shots the problem is, its bad enough when you give your email out to some websites they take the stuff and sell it, imagine if giving out your phone # became a norm...selling your phone info as well. Craigslist has it pretty much set up decently, you must verify before the post can go through with an email by clicking on a verification link, or at least that what i did months ago...dunno if its different now. Wether those people can create bogus email addy's is another thing. I don't think its fair to blame craigslist really or to force them to have more security. Those people are like barbarians pillaging a village. I still can't get over that free-for-all and not one soul called the cops.


Pie



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I would personally just keep my doors locked. If noone can get in, they won't take your stuff. I'm sure the ad didn't say to break in.

I'm also sure the ad didn't say to vandalize the place, so I would assume the ad really didn't have much of anything to do with the damage. Like you said, probably an angry ex-tenant, or angry ex-tenant in cahoots with a current resident. .



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I was disappointed when Craig's List said "we're not going to release the name of the person who posted the ad until we receive a subpoena." I understand that they want to protect the privacy of their users; I have used Craig's List a number of times to find roommates and furniture. But I am disappointed that they don't see this as one of those cases where they should release the name. Maybe that sets a bad precedent; am I being overzealous in this?



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   
This is a tough call, but I have to agree that Craig's List is right. Our freedoms are being eroded every day, by Laws being signed by the City, County, State and Federal levels ... and WE rarely know about them unless we go to a government site on-line and ask for a list of New Laws to be effective in the next 30/60/90 days. By the time the Law have gotten that far, it takes a HUGE outcry to even slow them down, let alone stop them.

There should be a section of EVERY major newspaper, once a month, that gives us all a list of Bills to be signed - all of them - not just the ones that make Good Press. And then, if they ARE signed, there should be another section showing which ones, and when they become effective. They tell us that ignorance of the Law is no excuse for breaking it ... that's like saying "But I didn't know I wasn't supposed to buy Vanilla Ice Cream on Wednesday because I'm agnostic," as you get written a $300 ticket.

If Craig's List requires substantiation for all items listed for sale or for FREE, their overhead goes WAY UP... and if they give up names of posters without subpoenas, then anyone can claim he/she's been wronged and get private information to which he/she may not be entitled, which could result in great harm.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
I was disappointed when Craig's List said "we're not going to release the name of the person who posted the ad until we receive a subpoena."


Actually, this is the privacy policy that I believe most ISPs/Websites have for their members. This is now in a court's court. A judge needs to issue a subpoena for the information.

Just giving the information would be much more of a shadow on Craigslist, imo. We don't want to undermine the way its supposed to work for a quick convenience, as that starts a bad precedent on the internet.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by shots

Pizza ordering in the us is a very bad example


Shots the problem is, its bad enough when you give your email out to some websites they take the stuff and sell it, imagine if giving out your phone # became a norm...


I believe you misread what I was implying,. It says it was a very bad example to use just because it is so easy to id using caller ID.

I was not implying that they should require it although after giving it more thought most papers require one when you place an add so why not. It would keep most on the up and up and even then you have to absolutes one hoax or two will always slip thru the cracks.

One thing is for certain any of those that sell products or I should say the majority will not take a personel check or if they do they will not ship the item until the check clears all banks or they use pay pal who has already done the checks for them. So if they can and do have mehtods in place to make sure they get the money why shouldn't a person who places the add be able to be identified before the fact. like pay pal and others require potential paying customers?


apc

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I think final fault comes on the owner. Someone could have just posted a sign on a utility pole somewhere saying the same thing.

So why was this place unlocked?

If it were locked, people might have thought twice about breaking the door down for things that were supposed to be "free". With the door unlocked, any old bum off the street could have wandered in and stolen stuff. Since when do you evict a tenant, and then leave the building unsecured?



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I think final fault comes on the owner. Someone could have just posted a sign on a utility pole somewhere saying the same thing.

So why was this place unlocked?



Why should the blame lie on the owner she was not aware someone placed the add. There is also no indication she lived there.

as for why it was unlocked that was not stated however, I doubt the landlord would have done that but there is a very strong chance a ticked off evicted former tenant would.


apc

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Then the tenant is liable. How far along in the eviction process would determine the extent of the owner's responsibility. Not so much a legal responsibility, but a personal one.

If someone reaches into my open car window and steals my cellphone, it is not only the thief's fault, but my own for leaving the window open. I provided the means for a crime of opportunity to take place.

I'm just saying there's really no difference between this ad being placed and someone walking around telling people the same thing.

There was nothing to stop some random person going to door to door and then strolling right in, so the ad itself at this point is rather irrelevant. The responsibility is divided among, in order of priority: the thieves, the ad poster, and the tenant or the owner, depending on circumstance.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
How far along in the eviction process would determine the extent of the owner's responsibility.



The eviction was complete and the owner had cleaned out the unit.

Now I know you are going to jump in and say well then it is the owners fault to which I would reply how do you know the former tenant turned in all keys? It is done all the time and the reason landlords change the locks when there is a change of tenants. IN this case we have no time frame to work with so it is hard to say if she had time to get the locks changed.

But we are really drifting from the main reason for the thread which was the hoax and the way it was carried out. This is not about laying the blame on the owner it is about people who take adds and allow them to be posted without 100% ways checking who made them.

I say 100% because it would be very easy for someone to walk into a wifi restaurant or whatever they call those Internet cafes and place an add from there and leave. No real way of being positive who made the add although not being aware of all the checks and balances used in those places perhaps it is.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by shots]


apc

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Yes I agree the heart of the issue is the ease of ad placement, but in reality that is no different than putting a sign on a hallway bulletin board, or someone carving "Call soandso for a good time 555-1212" in a bathroom stall.

As there is nothing that can be done, short of banning all bulletin boards, bathroom stall walls, and their Internet equivalents, we just have to accept reality and where the real liability rests.



new topics




 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join