Memex 1.1

From BBC NEWS…

A computer containing a million bank customers’ personal data has reportedly been sold on an internet auction site.

The Daily Mail says an ex-worker for archiving firm Graphic Data sold it for £35 on eBay without removing sensitive information from the hard drive.

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and its subsidiary, Natwest, have confirmed their customers’ details were involved.

RBS said Graphic Data had told it the PC had apparently been “inappropriately sold on via a third party”.

It said historical information relating to credit card applications for their bank and others had been on the machine.

The information is said to include account details and in some cases customers’ signatures, mobile phone numbers and mothers’ maiden names.

It is thought the problem came to light when Andrew Chapman, an IT manager from Oxford, bought the computer, noticed and raised the alarm…

From BBC NEWS:

Conservative leader David Cameron has been reunited with his stolen bike after it was found dumped.

The bicycle disappeared outside a Tesco store in Notting Hill, west London, near Mr Cameron’s home, on Wednesday.

The Sunday Mirror said it had used the contacts of “local community elder” Ernest Theophile, 60, to find the bike. It was found in a nearby side street, minus its front wheel, but with Mr Cameron’s helmet and lock still on it. He said it was great to have it back. The Tory leader told the newspaper: “Thank you very much indeed. I’m very surprised to have it back, it’s incredible. I never thought I’d see it again.

“It’s priceless to me. I’ve done over a thousand miles on it and three sponsored bike rides of 250 miles each, so it’s like an old friend. It’s fantastic.”

He added: “I’m surprised they didn’t take the helmet - you’d think they would get something for that on eBay.”

And, in case you’re wondering, eBay finally got around to removing the spoof auction of the bike.

Here’s an interesting stunt: David Cameron’s mountain bike was stolen recently and has now ‘turned up’ on eBay. Current bid (at 09:55 on July 25) is £1,020. Blurb reads:

Well this bike is not *exactly* new but it is *nearly* new because it has only been used for a couple of photo-opportunities.

It is BIG and BLUE and despite looking quite well-balenced [sic] it leans oddly to the right.

It would suit a real commuter right down to the ground.

I want to sell it because It ‘does not feel right’

I picked it up outside of Tesco. It comes complete with a lock (locked). Hardly a scratch on it to be honest.

Buyer should collect, directions to my South London lock-up can be found here.

Looks like a smart publicity stunt by an online gamer (who also claims to run The Omerta Shop). Wonder what eBay have to say about it. And I suppose now Gordon Brown will have to arrange for his bible to be stolen. Where will it all end?

Wow! I didn’t expect this.

A federal judge Monday came down on the side of eBay, the dominant online marketplace, in an epic battle with one of America’s leading luxury brand names, Tiffany.

The court handed eBay a crucial victory in a trademark case that could help settle how far an online marketplace need go to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods on its Web site.

Tiffany, which has cultivated an image of quality and luxury in its offerings of jewelry, sterling silver and crystal, sued eBay after it found knockoffs of its wares being sold on eBay at cut-rate prices.

But the court ruled that Tiffany was seeking too much control over online sales at eBay, which included not just fake Tiffany goods but legitimate secondhand items as well.

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in New York ruled that it is chiefly Tiffany’s responsibility, and not the Internet auction giant’s, to police and protect against misuse of its brand name…

I expect Tiffany will appeal. This isn’t over yet.

How things change. This from today’s NYTimes.com…

SAN FRANCISCO — The golden era of the small seller on eBay, hawking gewgaws and knickknacks from the basement or garage, is coming to a noisy and ignominious end.

Consumers appear to be tiring of online auctions, and rivals like Amazon.com are attracting more shoppers with fixed-price listings, while eBay has been struggling for growth. To shift toward that model, eBay has struck a deal with the Web retailer Buy.com that allows the company to sell millions of books, DVDs, electronics and other items on eBay without paying the full complement of eBay fees.

The recent change is one of several under eBay’s new chief, John Donahoe, that is stirring rancor among the faithful who depend on the site for their livelihood. The deal with Buy.com has added over five million fixed-price listings to eBay.com since the beginning of the year — for items from Xbox 360 video game consoles to Weber grills.

Since eBay’s search listings favor larger sellers who can add perks like free shipping, which improve their feedback ratings, Buy.com’s presence has hurt many smaller sellers that compete in those product categories.

EBay is signaling that its future lies with big, reliable sellers, not the mom and pop shops that are objecting so vociferously to the Buy.com deal, said Tim Boyd, an Internet analyst with American Technology Research. “It’s a tragic ending to what was once a warm and fuzzy Silicon Valley story,” he said…

This morning’s Observer column…

Regardless of what happens on appeal, these lawsuits, and others like them, are bad news for eBay. It now seems likely that at least some of the jurisdictions in which the company operates will insist that it becomes much more rigorous in policing activity on its site. And that spells trouble for the company’s business model because policing is expensive, and eBay relies on skimming modest fees from billions of transactions run entirely by software with no human intervention. The key to its success is scale - it has 84 million active users, handles more than 500 million auctions every quarter and last year the total value of everything sold on its sites approached $60bn.

Policing is a labour-intensive business, so eBay’s profitability would be drastically impaired if it were compelled to do it on any realistic scale…

From The Register

eBay must pay £30.6m (€38.8m) in damages to posh handbag group LVMH for allowing fake versions of its designer bags to be sold on the auction site.

The online tat house said it would appeal the decision and accused the French company of using the issue of fakes to crack down more generally on online sales.

The case was brought on two separate grounds - that eBay failed to take enough action to stop counterfeit goods being sold in 2006 and that it allowed genuine, but unauthorised, sales of certain perfume brands.

The Paris commercial court awarded damages of €16.4m to Louis Vuitton, €19.28m Christian Dior and €3.2m to the perfume brands. It rejected eBay’s claim that it was just a host and that individual traders were responsible for the legality of their lots.

There’s also a legal case in the US involving Tiffany. And Newsnight on BBC2 uncovered a thriving trade in Marks&Spencer credit notes for ‘returned’ (i.e. shoplifted) goods. All in all, not a great period for eBay.

Forgive me, but I thought this account in The INQUIRER from a frustrated PayPal user was worth quoting extensively.

1. Paypal account used happily for 3 years.
2. January: Sold a laptop computer on Ebay. Buyer paid with fraudulently accessed Paypal account. Paypal charges the cost of laptop back to my account, leaving it -£700 (and me out of pocket, despite being the victim of internet fraud enabled by Paypal).
3. Crime therefore reported to London Metropolitan Police. (Crime ref xxxxxx/2008). Officer investigating asks me to hold off paying account balance until crime investigation resolved or ended as account details may be needed as evidence.
4. Paypal requests balance of account payment for £700.
5. I contact Paypal, give crime reference number, mention advice of Met officer. Expect this to be the end of the matter until crime investigation resolved.
6. Receive frequent Paypal emails asking me to restore balance. Do not, as against advice of police investigating.
7. My parents (?) receive call from debt collector instructed by Paypal at their house asking for payment. Obviously distressing to them as elderly.
8. Call debt collector, give crime reference number and explain situation. They promise not to call again given police advice.
9. Call Paypal, where customer service rep explains that there is no way to prevent debt collection proceeding despite police advice. Despite advising that interfering with a police investigation is a criminal offence, simply restates that Paypal requires payment and will be proceeding with debt collection and regular calls to my mother’s house.
10. Receive call from debt collection agency regarding outstanding balance. Explain situation, restate crime reference number already on their file, they promise not to call again (again).
11. Receive call from debt collection agency two days later. Am unable to return call.
12. Finally cave and attempt to pay off account balance against advice of London Metropolitan Police in a bid to prevent further calls to the house of my elderly parents by debt collection agency acting on behalf of Paypal.
13. Paypal rejects payment attempt through website, stating that I am not allowed to add the requisite amount of funds in one go - and that this is a measure taken in order to prevent fraud.
14. Proceed to pay half the total in a bid to pay the second half when Paypal ‘allows’ me.
15. Paypal closes account, preventing me from paying off balance, and requests that I contact ‘appeals@paypal.com’. Presumably now sending hit men around to collect payment that system itself refuses to take.

And so here I am, emailing the address requested. Unable to pay off a Paypal balance that the London Metropolitan Police advises me not to pay, yet receiving calls from my parents who are being harassed by debt collection agencies who are distressed by the situation.

At this stage I would simply like to be allowed to pay off the balance, close my Paypal account and be content never to use the service ever again. Would you be able to call me on 44 (0)xxx xxxxxx so that we can please arrange this?

Yours in hope,

W.H.
Beleagured Paypal customer.

What comes next? You guessed it:

We apologize but we are unable to respond to inquiries sent to this e-mail address. Your e-mail was routed to an unmonitored mailbox and as such will not be reviewed.