Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy The Almighty Buck United States

Companies To Be Liable For Deals With Online Criminals 171

Posted by kdawson
from the sees-you-when-you're-sleeping dept.
Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, sends us to DarkReading for a backgrounder on new rules from the FTC, taking effect in November, that will require any business that handles private consumer data to check its customers and suppliers against databases of known online criminals. Companies that fail to do so may be liable for large fines or jail time. In practice, most companies will contract with specialist services to perform these checks. Yet another list you don't want to get on. "The [FTC's] Red Flag program... requires enterprises to check their customers and suppliers against databases of known online criminals — much like what OFAC [the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control] does with terrorists — and also carries potential fines and penalties for businesses that don't do their due diligence before making a major transaction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Companies To Be Liable For Deals With Online Criminals

Comments Filter:
  • Hm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kvezach (1199717) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:49AM (#23197100)
    Does the crime of Slashdot first-posting get you on that list?
  • by Apple Acolyte (517892) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:51AM (#23197128)
    This sounds like quite an onerous burden on businesses, and I imagine it will be struck down by the courts soon enough unless it's much narrower and specific a regulation than the story makes it appear. Private parties should not be expected to do the job of law enforcement.
    • by Serenissima (1210562) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:07AM (#23197312)
      Well fortunately, online criminals have no way of pretending to be someone else so it should be a relatively painless procedure for businesses to check their identities.
      • by Moryath (553296)
        Indeed, but what's that saying again - "anything too good to be true..."?

        Hold companies liable for dealing in bad deals, absolutely. Please, please apply this to the companies that deal with spammers; if companies know it's illegal to contract with the spam companies (because the spam companies break the law in countless ways, what with the botnets and packet/header fraud any everything else), spam will finally start drying up.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HalAtWork (926717)
        Why do they have to check them if no crime is being committed? This is just like gathering a bunch of information on people that could be used as evidence in case a crime will be committed in the future. Do we have to start reading people their miranda rights every time a transaction occurs on the internet?
      • by inviolet (797804) <slashdot@ideasmatt e r .org> on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:14AM (#23198068) Journal

        Well fortunately, online criminals have no way of pretending to be someone else so it should be a relatively painless procedure for businesses to check their identities.

        A solution's effectiveness is a tertiary concern for a government agency when addressing a problem. The agency's primary concern is to increase its own power. The secondary concern is to receive public approbation by doing something very visible. A "no-fly list" like this one is the perfect implemention of an agency's two main goals.

        That's only 90% crazy though. Sometimes, the function of law-enforcement is just to remind everyone that law enforcement exists. After all, whether any random soul will cross the line from dove to hawk mostly depends his assessment of law enforcement's effectiveness. Therefore, an appearance of effectiveness is often just as good as actual effectiveness.

        But not in this case. The bad guys know exactly how to beat the list (fake or stolen credentials) and they can even test whether they've succeeded. Therefore, this "no-fly list" creates a false sense of security, which means that people will be overall less safe.

    • by tha_mink (518151) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:09AM (#23197330)

      This sounds like quite an onerous burden on businesses, and I imagine it will be struck down by the courts soon enough unless it's much narrower and specific a regulation than the story makes it appear. Private parties should not be expected to do the job of law enforcement.
      It depends on how easy it is to do. I think for the most part, businesses that will be affected by this will probably want to insure that they are not helping criminals. I know I can speak for our business.

      Plus, this thing kinda reminds me of the Payment card industry standard which, among other things, requires business that accept credit and bank cards to adhear to a strict policy of security when dealing with these cards. Every year, even on the smallest level, companies should be filling out a "self test" which requires you answer questions about your card security. Among the questions is a whole bunch of requirements you'd expect of a data center but not, say, a restaurant. Glass walls, biometric access, camera systems, etc. Fines start at $100,000 and you risk losing your ability to take credit cards. The published standard is here. [pcisecuritystandards.org]

      I'm sure that 99% of small businesses that accept Visa/MC/AMEX etc have *no idea* about this standard and even if they did, they have no resources to adhear to it. That's why this "Red Flag" deal reminds me of it.
      • by deman1985 (684265)
        I wouldn't be as opposed to these regulations if it didn't basically require the use of third party background checks. If the information were freely and readily available from various agencies for performing your own automated checks, I would be all for it. However, I refuse to have the government impose upon me to pay company X some arbitrary fee $XX to perform checks on my customers.

        That's not to say that I wouldn't be doing this as part of my own policy for larger customers for our own protection, bu
      • by magarity (164372)
        Why do they not strictly follow it? Because Requirement 6: Develop and maintain secure systems and applications is a simple, easy to understand sentence that represents thousands of worker hours and millions of dollars to implement for a large corporation with multiple systems. It's almost certainly cheaper to pay the fine. What's more effective is a loud shame campaign letting customers know about lapses and another positive campaign about compliers. The customers will make quite effective 'fines' by g
    • by hedwards (940851)
      I strongly disagree, why should businesses be allowed to provide support to known criminals?

      Spam is a good example, if Target, Walmart and other businesses that are handing money over to spammers were required to check who they were doing business with, the rates for spamming their ads would go down significantly.

      For quite a while it's been required for pharmacies to only sell pseudoephedrine and similar to people that were identified. And hand over the records, I don't see a huge impact on those stores.

      Th
      • by cas2000 (148703)
        > I strongly disagree, why should businesses be allowed to provide support to known criminals?

        because, when you strip out all the emotive stuff about spammers - and who doesn't want to see a dead-or-tortured bounty on spammers? - there's an important principle here.

        to be a known criminal, you've been caught and convicted. the court has sentenced you to a specific punishment, taking into account the nature and severity of your crime and any previous convictions. now, when you've done your time then yo
  • by MacDork (560499) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:55AM (#23197166) Journal
    No? How about forged packet Comcast? No again? What about exposing most of the internet to id theft and cross site scripting Barefruit? Not a very thorough list, is it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kartoffel (30238)
      Exactly. The FTC needs to clearly define the penalties for doing business with "criminals". If I do business with Comcast (presumably, a known criminal entity) just what, exactly, am I liable for? Can I still buy a Sony PS3, or will there be additional fines for having done business with an criminal organization?
      • by Smidge204 (605297)
        What about companies that pay for ads distributed by spam botnets? If you can't attack the spammers directly, attack their source of revenue.

        =Smidge=
  • Mistaken Idenity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DiceRoller (1178315)
    .. but what happens if I Jason Smith am not a criminal and there happens to be a Jason Smith criminal out there that isn't me. Also who in their right mind uses their real name on the internet? Just gives the goverment more knowledge where you are on the internet. ( I'm still stuck on Baker St on the internet).
    • Changing Idenity (Score:2, Interesting)

      by iamsamed (1276082)

      .. but what happens if I Jason Smith am not a criminal and there happens to be a Jason Smith criminal out there that isn't me. Also who in their right mind uses their real name on the internet?

      Aaaaaannnnnd, changing identity is easy. It's nothing to create a corporate entity - and that's a real one. Fake ones? Ha! So, while they're checking their all seeing database of criminals, the crooks are changing their identity.

      It's even done by legal, although unethical, businesses. Get too many complaints to the Better Business Bureau just change your business' name.

  • by Kartoffel (30238) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:57AM (#23197186)
    At first this sounds like an incentive for businesses not to conduct transactions with criminals. Take identity theft, for example. I don't want vendors consorting with thieves, should somebody steal my credit card info. But how should vendors know it's a thief and not me? It's not reasonable.

    Worst case scenario: this turns out to be another vague No-Fly list that persecutes the innocent while doing little to no actual good. In any case, it will be more work and more liability for vendors.
    • by Zadaz (950521)
      My first thought is that this would provide great protection for criminals. "Dammit, I stole a known criminal's ID and I can't use it anywhere!"

      How do I get on the list?
  • Won't the criminals just switch to doing business with foreign companies instead, to avoid the reach of US laws?

    Oh wait, many of them already have. Just take a look at the guys on the spamhaus list - they do their work just fine without help from US companies.
  • Jail? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sm62704 (957197) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:58AM (#23197198) Journal
    Companies that fail to do so may be liable for large fines or jail time

    They're going to put whole companies in jail?

    But at any rate, after Sony's criminal rootkit vandalism of millions of computers, I'm going to have to see a CEO in shackles before I believe it. And Martha Stewart doesn't count.

    For those of you unfamiliar with Sony's evil, deliberate vandalism, here are two links:
    serious [wikipedia.org]
    content-free [uncyclopedia.org]
    • by arieswind (789699) *
      hate to rain on your sony crusade, but the person who would end up in jail is the person who was responsible for running the check. that may be a salesman, or a manager, or whoever. when it comes to this kind of fine/jail time, there is a lot of finger pointing and assigning blame, and companies will go to great lengths to make sure the blame is placed right. granted, this is more likely to be applied to larger purchases than your 20$ book purchase off amazon.
  • OK, I'm just a bit confused. A quick search for FTC Red Flag returned this site [ftc.gov], which exclusively talks about misleading weight loss claims. What does this have to do with vetting customer lists against known criminal lists?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EricWright (16803)
      Bad form... replying to self... get over it.

      Not paying enough attention, I missed this link [ftc.gov] from TFA. This notice is all about identity theft, while the summary indicates that companies will be required to check customer lists against known criminals.

      If someone steals my identity and uses it to buy something, it will be my name in the customer database, not the criminal's. How would checking the customer list help? As far as I know, I'm not a known criminal or terrorist.

      Although, I guess I would (incorre
      • by Kartoffel (30238)
        If someone steals my identity and uses it to buy something, it will be my name in the customer database, not the criminal's. How would checking the customer list help? As far as I know, I'm not a known criminal or terrorist.

        Unless your name happens to be Robert Johnson or Dan Brown. The TSA has wisely identified all persons having those names to be complete terrorists. ;)
      • "If someone steals my identity and uses it to buy something, it will be my name in the customer database, not the criminal's."

        Have you considered the thought that this is what the Feds WANT to accomplish with this law?
        Follow the logic to its conclusion. Working taxpayers are seen as the enemy of the state.
        Wake up. Theres a purpose behind all this crap.
  • Is it just me, or does this stink of lobbyists?
  • EU Export (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tiberius_Fel (770739) <fel@empirere b o r n.net> on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:02AM (#23197254)
    To my knowledge, European Union regulations already require you to check the people to whom you are shipping goods, to see if they are on a list of known terrorists and their associates.
    • by dargaud (518470)

      check the people to whom you are shipping goods, to see if they are on a list of known terrorists
      If they know his name and address, why don't they go and arrest him ? And if he's too small-fishy to warrant an arrest, why can't the guy purchase his porn online like anybody else...?
      • Jurisdiction issues, more often than not. The US has extradition treaties with pretty much everyone, but most EU member states don't, and invading countries to arrest their citizens for breaking a law which might not even apply in said country is generally frowned upon.
    • Oi, lessee....

      laden, laden....hmmm

      oh yes here it tis....

      o. samabin laden
      666 CaveofBears Drive
      Aghila, Afghanistan, 66666

      SHIP IT!

      Uh I predict, oh swameee, that they only catch STUPID criminals with this one.
      Also predict, theres some company here in the States that the Feds are after.
  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:09AM (#23197324) Journal
    Or are we only counting criminals that aren't considered above the law?
  • by GogglesPisano (199483) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:10AM (#23197332)
    I remember a common threat in grade school was "this will be on your permanent record". We used to joke about it - it seemed ridiculous.

    As an adult, it's starkly clear to me that "permanent records" do exist for all of us, and they control our lives to a large degree. Credit reports, "no-fly" lists, and now this "red flag" list - somewhere out there grim people in small offices quietly compile lists of citizens whom they feel should be "less free".

    What kind of oversight exists for this list? What does one have to do (or not do) to appear on it? If you're on it, how can you be removed?

    I wish I could say I was surprised by this new step towards an Orwellian dystopia, but the past several years have numbed me to it.
    • by alen (225700)
      probably anyone who has a conviction in a court of law for a crime committed online will be on this list. kind of like a registered sex offender
      • I hope they do put me (a convicted felon) on that list. Then I can sue them, because I was a minor, and it got expunged. That'd make me a happy camper, because I'd be able to ensure the death of the program.
      • by jeti (105266)
        You mean the "Sexual and Violent Offender Registry". I recently read an article [thedailywtf.com] about it. Somehow I don't think that it will be effective against cyber criminals.

  • by BoberFett (127537) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:13AM (#23197368)
    The FTC page that the original article links to

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/redflag.shtm [ftc.gov]

    Only talks about financial institutions and creditors. It doesn't seem to indicate that Mary's Online Potpourri Barn has to do a background check on everybody that orders a lemon scented candle.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zappepcs (820751)
      holy flying c-notes batman.... The financial institutions and creditors ARE the criminals. How the hell is that supposed to work?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by iamdrscience (541136)
      You're exactly right. This article is obviously little more than a regurgitated press release for MicroBilt. The reality is that this law is intended for big companies and companies doing big money deals and they're the only ones that are going to have to worry about it. Microbilt is just trying to get some more customers by making it sound like a broader law than it is and given that it's been written up as an article and been posted to Slashdot, I'd say they've done a pretty good job.
  • by Vellmont (569020) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:16AM (#23197396)
    This seems like some kind of backdoor conviction without a trial. If the government "knows" these people are criminals, why haven't they been arrested, convicted, and sentenced? If the government is forbidding people to do business with these people, shouldn't they have a trial or some kind of public hearing where the facts are presented?

    This kind of thing seems like it could lead to rampant abuse, or at least error if someone winds up on one of these lists that shouldn't be on it.
    • by Kartoffel (30238)
      Yeah, really. Are they going to fine everybody who buys Martha Stewart stuff online?
    • by alen (225700)
      probably because they served a sentence and now they are out, or does slashdot now advocate life sentences for any crime?
      • by mini me (132455) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:43AM (#23197672)
        If they have served their time, why are we preventing them from integrating back into society?
      • by Vellmont (569020)

        probably because they served a sentence and now they are out, or does slashdot now advocate life sentences for any crime?

        Was not doing any sort of commerce with any business in their sentence, or part of their release agreement? If not, I'm not sure how this is legal punishment.
        • by Kartoffel (30238)
          Maybe this only applies to "known criminals" that exist outside of the FTC's jurisdiction, like foreigners. For example, the FTC wants you to think twice before you sell your laptop to a Nigerian scammer, even though the FTC can't touch the scammer.
    • ... then it's a list of names of people and the known aliases of people who commit crimes but who haven't been apprehended yet. Usually crimes like extortion, terrorism, racketeering, international stuff that makes it difficult to just walk up to someone, put cuffs on them, and haul them off to jail.

      Which isn't to say this can't lead to rampant abuse -- it certainly can -- but the idea of the list is more along the lines of "this is a guy who is suspected of being involved in illegal activity right this ver
      • by Vellmont (569020)

        "this is a guy who is suspected of being involved in illegal activity right this very moment -- do not do business with him"

        (emphasis mine)
        Which is kind of my point. We have this idea that people are innocent until proven guilty in this country. While it may be difficult to apprehend these people, that's no excuse for doling out punishment before a trial.

    • This kind of thing seems like it could lead to rampant abuse, or at least error if someone winds up on one of these lists that shouldn't be on it.

      Yep. And they got the color wrong, too.

      This is not a "red flag". It's a government-maintained "blacklist":
      - It creates a broad penalty for anyone they put on the list, making it virtually impossible for them to get or hold a well-paying job, buy a house, buy a car, or do most of the other big-ticket business of life.
      - Putting people on it is done
  • by houghi (78078) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:37AM (#23197592)
    ... because nobody will be able to do business with Microsoft. They are convicted in Europe.
  • I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:38AM (#23197602)
    1. Inocent until proven guilty. So why should there be a black list of people who havn't been threw justice system.

    2. Rights after you serve your time. So if the person was an online criminal and served his/her time. Is is really reasonable to block them for using the inernet ever again, espectially in a world with increasing demmand to use the internet for daily communication and comerse.

    3. People on probation is such a small portion of a list that the forced blacklist is an undue burden.

    4. These people are criminals... They have been proven to be untrustworthy, what makes it so they don't lie on an online form or use someone elses idenity.

    5. Small ISP and companies don't have resources to do this. a 10-15k project for a big company is a drop in the bucket for for a small ISP it is a huge undertaking, which could kill it.

    6. Why punish honest/trusting people. America's growth was based on contract by handshake. There are a lot of companies that still want to keep that type additude. But laws like this make it so you need a lawer for everthing... (on a side note why the hell do we keep electing lawers into government)

    7. In a slumbing echonomy is it prudent to make it difficult for people to do business.

    8. If it forces criminals to be smarter and hide their tracks more, doesn't it make it more difficult for authorities to track such people.

    9. If the criminals cannot work online they will still be criminals and be on the street with guns and drugs.

    10. What happends if your name matches a criminal.
    • by aztektum (170569)
      Good gravy, man. Hopefully English isn't your first language or you're 8. Otherwise that was just severely painful.
    • by geekoid (135745)
      1. I would argue there should be an open record after the person has left the justice system I.e. server their time. I would also argue that if someone is found innocent, all the record regarding that person are destroyed, or hidden.

      2. No, it is not.

      4. no it doesn't, they have been proven of a crime.

      6. No, lawyers advise getting a contract, but it's the company the decide whether or not to follow that advice.(on a side note, why do you think all lawyers are bad?)

      7. No

      8. Yes.

      9. Not true. You seem to be suppo
  • From the article: OK, pop quiz. A local car dealership sells a car to a new customer. A week later, that same automobile is used in a terrorist car bombing. The business can't be held liable for what the customer did, right?

    Now the idea that terrorist would buy a car to blow up rather than stealing one so it can't be tracked back to them seems rather ridiculous. But we here at slashdot love a car analogy so let's stick with that.

    Businesses, unlike airport screeners apparently, KNOW where most modern terror
  • by LauraLolly (229637) on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:48AM (#23197740)
    The "Do Not Fly" list already has shown how well false positives work - it's caused trouble for people who are wrongly put onto the list. Those with particularly common names will have particular trouble.

    Unless there's a swift and clear grievance system, this will cause so many false positives that positives will be worked around. And who says that any bad people wouldn't steal or set up identities under which to do business?

    The end result in three years? There will be lots of news about false positives, and the bad guys will just use more ID theft. Which will put those with stolen IDs into still more of a mess.

    I don't think that this passed the "run it by a six-year-old first" test.
  • by clovis (4684) * on Friday April 25, 2008 @10:51AM (#23197782)
    It appears to me that if I get on that list it will greatly reduce my exposure to Identity Theft.

  • If any value came out of Germany in the '40s is its meticulous use of lists and record keeping about its citizens. That way when history repeats itself there's a clear and concise roadmap of what needs to be done. No need to reinvent the wheel.

    -[d]- br.
    • by geekoid (135745)
      Lists are a good idea and could solve a lot of problems. The problem is implementation, and abuse.

      I believe that they can be done right to limit or prevent abuse, it just hasn't been.

  • by Pagey123 (1278182) on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:11AM (#23198044)
    I work for a small community bank, and we are in the process of developing our program now. The regulations implement sections 114 and and 315 of the FACT Act. Section 114 requires all covered institutions to create and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program consisting of four elements: 1. Identification of Red Flags 2. Detection of Red Flags 3. Responding to Red Flags 4. Updating the Program To be covered, an institution must offer what is called a "covered account." A covered account is (1) an account primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, that involves or is designed to permit multiple payments or transactions, or (2) any other account for which there is a reasonably foreseeable risk to customers or the safety and soundness of the financial institution or creditor from identity theft. The regulatory bodies go on to offer guidance on 5 categories of potential Red Flags, including: 1. Alerts, notifications, or other warnings received from consumer reporting agencies or service providers, such as fraud detection services; 2. The presentation of suspicious documents; 3. The presentation of suspicious personal identifying information, such as a suspicious address change; 4. The unusual use of, or other suspicious activity related to, a covered account 5. Notice from customers, victims of identity theft, law enforcement authorities, or other persons regarding possible identity theft in connection with covered accounts held by the financial institution or creditor. Section 114 also requires the issuer of a debit or credit card to verify the vailidity of an address change followed by the request for a new, additional, or replacement card if requested within 30 days of the address change. In other words, if you receive a request for a new card within 30 days of an address change, you are required to validate the address change with the customer to be sure it is indeed a valid request before mailing the new card. Section 315 requires the users of consumer reports (i.e., credit reports) to verify the identity of the consumer if the report notes a substantial difference in the address provided by the institution versus the address last on file with the Credit Reporting Agency. This applies only if a continuing relationship is established with the consumer. One of the ways to comply with Element 2, detecting Red Flags, is to use various software programs (such as those for BSA/AML) or databases to run checks against, but the regulations clearly state that the program must be appropriate for the size of the institution and the scope of its operations. I highly doubt they'll expect mom & pop types institutions to deploy extraordinary measures to verify that Jim Bob is not a terrorist. Now, if you're Bank of American or Fifth Third, for example, you'll be expected to do a little more. Also note that bank's service providers are required to have a Red Flags program in place. Meaning if I am generating mortgage or auto loans for a financial institution, I'm required to detect and respond to Red Flags, and the bank is required to assess my program. Hope this helps!
  • by 44BSD (701309) on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:15AM (#23198080)
    From the federal register item linked to in TFA:

    The final rules require each financial institution and creditor that holds any consumer account, or other account for which there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft
    to do these things. If you sell something to someone for cash, you are not a creditor. If you were a financial institution, and thus covered by GLBA, you'd know it already. Unless you extend credit, you're not a creditor. Not much to see here, and the fact that this article had its origin in somebody selling a service to help you comply with this may be meaningful.
    • by dbcad7 (771464)
      Where's the mod points when you need em ?.. That's exactly what my search on the subject came up with. I think the article the parent links with, is FUD.. that article names no sources, and spouts off BS about terrorists and car dealers.. when this is meant to be something like a credit card company checking the list before issuing a card.
  • The article/summary completely misinterpreted what this is. It's not a no-fly kind of list. This is just requiring financial institutions to "red flag" unusual activity. It's quite common for credit card companies to call you and verify purchases if you make a sudden string of online purchases if you don't typically do that or make multi-$1000 purchases somewhere geographically remote from where you live. That's all this is.
  • With these lists, you can make sure no one can work, buy food or have a place to live.
  • by tygt (792974) on Friday April 25, 2008 @12:31PM (#23199232)
    Can someone explain how we have a list of known criminals and their location (name = location, on the internet, and if you can access them on-line you can figure out where they are) and they're still free?
  • Even though there is no nominal fee for using GMAIL, and it kinda looks like it is free (though you're trading your value as an advertisement target, actually), shouldn't this new regulation also include GMAIL, and for that matter all free services in the internet (like free email services, free hosting, personalized search engines, etc)?
    I mean, these services are undoubtedly businesses that handle private consumer data, aren't they?
    If that's really the case I see no way this law can ever be fully enforc
  • 1. Provide an unnecessary, unwanted service to perform background checks on the entire population of the US.
    2. Lobby to have your service legislated into a legal requirement.
    3. Profit.

    There is no step ?.

  • Start using cash.
  • Banks snitch to the government if you do something "suspicious" like put a thousand too much in cash in your account in one transation or take a thousand too much out. Many businesses must snitch about various sorts of purchases like too much gold or silver bought (about $10000 at a time IIRC). ISPs are increasingly forced to open their doors to all traffic being examined for anything the government doesn't like. No fly lists that it is impossible to get off of or challenge can list you or I for no reas
  • eBay screwed! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dahamma (304068) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:52PM (#23201248)
    Wow, this would exclude half of eBay's customer base...
  • "Contract with specialist services".....

    Smells like the leavings of a lobbyist.

    Interestingly enough, its amazing how much the government wants to regulate our lives, but dosn't wan't to pay for it, and make us foot the bill in order to comply with their whims..... Whims that are conjured up by some of the most power hungry, ass-backward, demented, half-witted individuals on the planet. This is another case of placing blame where it doesn't belong. You have the right to do business with anybody, and you cann
    • by Tuoqui (1091447)
      Yeah just remember what Vin Diesel taught us. You can kill someone with a teacup. Therefore we should register all teacup sales.

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...