Thoughts on public shaming / blacklist of accounts in negative standing?

[MannDude]

Fortatrust used to maintain a public blacklist of accounts that maintained debt with the company, though it appears to be gone now. I personally thought it was a great idea, even if the criteria for listing wasn't. I recall it being controversial.

Is there a reason this practice isn't more widely adopted? Perhaps with more 'reasonable' criteria, such as payment owed exceeds a minimum amount of $100, 3 number of contact attempts have been made with no response and reasonable time for payment to be collected has passed, like 30 days. That criteria is all just an example, but to me seems reasonable.

Do you think such a blacklist that is made public would encourage those to settle their debts or pay up once listed?

 

[sundaymouse]

Well, depends on their privacy policies and the laws governing their privacy policies.

 

[MannDude]

Well, depends on their privacy policies and the laws governing their privacy policies.

Of course, but I would imagine if someone agrees to the terms in the TOS or Privacy Policy stating that failure to pay for services provided could result in the first initial, last name + email address published to blacklist would mitigate any unlawfulness.

It's also in my opinion that those with petty debts who do not make effort to make payment or respond to contact probably aren't in the best position to hire a lawyer to begin with anyhow.

 

[AnthonySmith]

Its a great idea in theory, but it just results in bad publicity if it is a self maintained one, people do wrong then bitch about consequences and before you know it your own the first page of google with a ton of attack threads. 

 

[gordonrp]

The fair debt collection practices act makes such activity illegal;

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text

§ 806.  Harassment or abuse  [15 USC 1692d]
(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 603(f) or 604(3)1 of this Act.

 

[drmike]

Dissecting legal hairs here about the Fair Debt Collection Practice:

"The term "debt" means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment"

Which says if the debtor is a consumer and bought for personal use then you can't public shame.   If the debtor is a business, or was for business use then oh well, feel free to shame them in public.

 

[DomainBop]

Of course, but I would imagine if someone agrees to the terms in the TOS or Privacy Policy stating that failure to pay for services provided could result in the first initial, last name + email address published to blacklist would mitigate any unlawfulness.

It doesn't work that way.  If you agree to my TOS that says I get to chop off your head with a rusty axe if you don't pay, I'll still be going to jail when I follow through on our agreement and behead you.  Throwing an illegal clause in a TOS doesn't suddenly make it legal if the other party agrees to it.

people do wrong then bitch about consequences and before you know it your own the first page of google with a ton of attack threads.

It's more likely you'd be on the first page of Google with a ton of news stories about the lawsuit that was filed against you in federal court for your illegal harassment of the creditor. :

 

[MannDude]

Dissecting legal hairs here about the Fair Debt Collection Practice:

"The term "debt" means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment"

Which says if the debtor is a consumer and bought for personal use then you can't public shame.   If the debtor is a business, or was for business use then oh well, feel free to shame them in public.

Interesting interpretation.

So, if a datacenter provided a VPS provider with servers and that provider then up and left, did not pay what was owed to the DC, for whatever reason, they could then be publicly shamed?

But say, me with a Wordpress blog with photos of my cat that generated no revenue and was not a business could not  be listed publicly as being in debt with a company if I were to up and leave?

These are just examples for clarification. If these are correct, then that's interesting.

 

[drmike]

Interesting interpretation.

So, if a datacenter provided a VPS provider with servers and that provider then up and left, did not pay what was owed to the DC, for whatever reason, they could then be publicly shamed?

But say, me with a Wordpress blog with photos of my cat that generated no revenue and was not a business could not  be listed publicly as being in debt with a company if I were to up and leave?

These are just examples for clarification. If these are correct, then that's interesting.

That language was pulled directly from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text

It is found in 803(5):


(5) The term "debt" means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment

The question posed is fair and good.  If a provider sold you a dedicated server for your VPS business or something that clearly was business goods, then yeah built that bridge to commercial.   If the purchase was done in a business name, inferred business relationship there and bridge built.

If John Sees Dough bought a single tenant thing like a VPS or limited shared package then likely consumer.  But if Dough bought a reseller account then there goes building a bridge again.

 

[lolitseasy]

Doesn't fraudrecord do that? I haven't used the service but atleast helps providers to share information among themselves.

 

[DomainBop]

SPAM advertising this service/site "ebuyersreviewed" just arrived in my mailbox: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12428264.htm.  It's basically the same concept as FraudRecord, a database of "bad customer" reviews submitted by businesses, but for ecommerce store operators.

lets you submit information on fraudulent and risky customers.

We collect information on buyers who have:

    attempted fraudulent returns
    returned used items
    issued chargebacks without cause
    attempted to make purchases with stolen credit cards
    made extortion demands in exchange for removing negative feedback or comments

I'll be sticking with Kount and avoiding this one..

 

[drmike]

SPAM advertising this service/site "ebuyersreviewed" just arrived in my mailbox: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12428264.htm.  It's basically the same concept as FraudRecord, a database of "bad customer" reviews submitted by businesses, but for ecommerce store operators.

I'll be sticking with Kount and avoiding this one..

But they outdid everyone with address gold:

eBuyersReviewed

200 E 69th St.

Trump Palace Suite 5N

New York, NY10021

 

[host4go]

My question is, is it worth the trouble?

I dont think customer will care much. I mean, people who are honest, which would be the ones that would care, already pay their bills.

 

[Servers4You]

I personally disagree in a public blacklist, if you stated this in your Privacy Policy, you would go out of business as it shows that you would make available their information (their data) if they fail to pay invoices.

Also regarding law, most companies are required to protect the data of their clients, specially if you are wanting to abide laws such as the Data Protection Act 1998 (UK Law), companies that don't will not get as many clients as data protection is the main reason why potential customers will stop ordering unless you can show you WILL protect their data.

 

[drmike]

I personally disagree in a public blacklist, if you stated this in your Privacy Policy, you would go out of business as it shows that you would make available their information (their data) if they fail to pay invoices.

Also regarding law, most companies are required to protect the data of their clients, specially if you are wanting to abide laws such as the Data Protection Act 1998 (UK Law), companies that don't will not get as many clients as data protection is the main reason why potential customers will stop ordering unless you can show you WILL protect their data.

If stated in Privacy Policy = would go out of business.  

Well, people don't read legalese.  They just don't.  If you fit it in 140 chars, they might stomach it.

ToS and related docs are dirt vectors all over... Often those docs change in companies with no customer notification.  That's something I am not supportive of but understand the hazards some companies have in communicating with customers and the continued disconnect between humans and their email accounts.

Do others selling in UK see this mass customer literacy and caring about reading terms and especially hip on Privacy matters?

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

I don't see the need of publicly posting details on people that skip out on invoices - after all, we're not stupid enough to let people rack up obscene amounts of overdue bills in the first place.  But I can absolutely see the need of shaming people that try to hide/forget their past - such as joepie being an untalented skiddy, affiliated with Topiary/LulzSec and goading them into DDoSing a provider that happened to be hosting his ex (and to this day STILL thinks he did nothing wrong).  Or Robert Clarke, who was directly responsible for a nasty exploit against RamNode, causing Nick no end of sleepless nights and headache while Daddy's Money didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist for it.

Mark Cayetano, CurtisG, the Clancy kid, Jonny Ngyuen, the Fabozzi/Biloh marriage... there's a bunch of them pretending that their astronomical screw-ups never happened.  Forget the people with 20$ in overdue invoices.  Heap some shame on those that truely deserve it.

 

[joepie91]

such as joepie being an untalented skiddy, affiliated with Topiary/LulzSec and goading them into DDoSing a provider that happened to be hosting his ex (and to this day STILL thinks he did nothing wrong).

It'd be much appreciated if you stopped making things up.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

I was so hoping you'd say that again :3

Jun 02 18:10:38 joepie91 uh
Jun 02 18:10:40 joepie91 Topiary
Jun 02 18:10:40 joepie91 ..
Jun 02 18:10:43 joepie91 that is a Frantech IP
Jun 02 18:10:48 Topiary FIREFIREFIREFIRE
Jun 02 18:10:52 Topiary FUCK YOU FRANTECH\111
Jun 02 18:10:52 joepie91 DDoS it

Jun 02 18:13:42 joepie91 Topiary: just a tip, Frantech has an automated nullrouting system in place. If you DDoS Laurelais IP, he will disappear from the internet for a while, and if you keep doing it he will be booted from their service.

(full log)

It really doesn't matter what fairytale you want to make up - you encouraged attacks against our network, and you're a known skid affiliate.  Just because you pretend it doesn't happen doesn't change reality, and the more you try to act like some innocent self-proclaimed guru, the more I'll rub that in your face.

I do believe last time you claimed you were 'testing for leaks' and that you 'never encouraged Topiary to attack'.  I can't wait to hear the story this time.

<3

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

(that was a lie btw - I really don't care what your new excuse is)

 

[joepie91]

I was so hoping you'd say that again :3

(full log)

It really doesn't matter what fairytale you want to make up - you encouraged attacks against our network, and you're a known skid affiliate.  Just because you pretend it doesn't happen doesn't change reality, and the more you try to act like some innocent self-proclaimed guru, the more I'll rub that in your face.

I do believe last time you claimed you were 'testing for leaks' and that you 'never encouraged Topiary to attack'.  I can't wait to hear the story this time.

<3

And as expected, you don't even understand what part of your statement I'm refering to. For example, what exactly makes you think that Laurelai is my "ex"? And how exactly does "is a known skid affiliate" translates into "is a skiddy"? And how do you translate a clear admission that it wasn't a good idea, into "to this day still thinks he did nothing wrong"?

Oh, and perhaps I should remind you of the crap you've pulled yourself? Such as terminating my services and removing all my data without bothering to even let me make a backup, and then lying about it a year or two later, claiming with a straight face that you'd been perfectly reasonable and offered a backup?

Or how about this gem? Where you quietly nullrouted me from your network edge for months, including from all customer services such as VPSBoard, without even bothering to let me know - over a personal dispute, after I'd explicitly gotten permission-by-proxy to be on your network?

<Aldryic>Here's the deal.  You cannot get to vpsb because I nullrouted your IP months ago after your repeated ban evasions.

<Aldryic>You leave this ircd, for good, I'll lift the null.

<joepie91>repeated ban evasions?

<Aldryic>I've made it very clear that due to your past actions, you are not welcome on our network.

<Aldryic>Leave, and I'll lift the nullroute.

<joepie91>I was under the impression that I was allowed to be here, after vld supposedly asked you guys permission for that

<joepie91>I had no intention of ban evading

<joepie91>:/

<Aldryic>I have told you DIRECTLY that you are not welcome.

<Aldryic>This will not change.

<joepie91>right, but I'm not sure why I wasn't just told that instead of "sure it's okay for you to come back" (via vld as proxy), rather than nullrouting my IP :/

<joepie91>and no, I'm not complaining/disagreeing

<joepie91>just explaining the confusion on my side

<Aldryic>I really don't care what the excuse is.

<joepie91>anyway, I'll leave here then

<Aldryic>One of two things will happen.  1) You will leave voluntarily, and NOT come back;  and I will lift the nullroute that is apparently causing your VPSB issues.

<Aldryic>2) I continue to place new nullroutes until you give up trying to com back.

<joepie91>I already said I have no intention of ban evading... I'm about to remove this net from my ZNC

<Aldryic>Ensure that the removal is permanent.

<joepie91>it is

But no, I'm sure that in your world it all makes perfect sense, and you're the flawless guy, and I'm a skid. Sure. Go ahead with that if you really believe that, but stop spreading bullshit about me every chance you get.

Seriously, I'm sick of your shit. Cut it out already.

EDIT: Oh, and for clarity: I've never disputed that log or event. I've been completely transparent about it, and explained my rationale. And should I remind you that your own investigation confirmed that indeed no attack had taken place, as I had expected?