Airbnb victim describes crime and aftermath(sfgate.com) |
Airbnb victim describes crime and aftermath(sfgate.com) |
In a corporate statement on Thursday, Airbnb said: "Trust and safety are Airbnb's highest priorities and as such the improved safety processes are being implemented immediately . . ."
A few legal (and other) observations:
1. An Airbnb guest has committed serious property crimes against an Airbnb host, causing not only significant financial loss to the host but also potentially severe emotional trauma.
2. As a contract matter, the Airbnb terms tell that host that the company assumes no legal responsibility for anything that might happen in her interactions with that guest. Contract disclaimers of this type are generally legally valid and enforceable so as to limit company liability.
3. That said, the law will look at the overall relationships between the parties and will not necessarily limit liability when those relationships give rise to legal duties from one party to another beyond those defined by contract. In particular, if a company materially misleads those who use its services, or if a company assumes an implied duty based on its conduct or statements in a transaction, or if any other basis exists by which the law might define a legal duty that, if breached, gives rise to liability, then liability can exist entirely independent of contract. In such a case, the contract disclaimers, though they might limit liability for any express breach of the contract itself, do not limit the legal claims of a victim of a breach of the duties that might exist independently of the contract.
4. The victim of the crime here, in her blog post, very pointedly mentioned her view on this issue when she said: "By hindering my ability to research the person who will rent my home, there is an implication that Airbnb.com has already done the research for me"; and then added that the friendly, community-based site "creates a reasonable expectation that some basic screening of its users has occurred" (my emphasis). Whether intended to or not, the key phrases highlighted in these quotes suggest that the victim here likely sees Airbnb as having violated legal duties owed to her and for which she believes it owes her compensation. In essence, the legal position here would amount to saying (and these are obviously my words and not those of the victim, as I have no idea what her actual position on this is), "I don't care what your stupid contract disclaimers say; you misled me into believing that this was safe and you will make me whole for my harm suffered when I relied on you."
5. Under law, the "make me whole" part will vary depending on the nature of the breach. If it is a contract breach, then it normally means compensating the victim of a breach for either out-of-pocket losses or for the benefit of a bargain, which in this case would mean for the direct financial damage to property. But under tort theories, for instance, the idea of making a victim whole could easily mean compensating her for emotional trauma and the like. In the one case, the number might then be in, say, the $50,000 range while, in the other, it might be, say, $5,000,000.
6. I have no idea about the facts here (and indeed have been distressed to watch the HN family tear into each other over this issue) but, logically, it might be that offers of genuine compensation have been made by the company here (e.g., $50K or $100K or whatever) and equally sincere rejections of such offers have occurred because the victim might be using an entirely different measure of what it takes to make her whole (meaning that a much larger number might be expected to compensate for the trauma involved). This is speculation on my part but it is not illogical to assume this might be happening. It also might explain why discussions over this issue remain "in flux," as noted in the quote from this article.
7. Airbnb has a great business model, and it is one that will survive this incident and indeed help improve people's lives. But it needs to set up stronger procedures to ensure that people understand what they are getting into when they use its services and in helping to minimize the risks to the extent practicable for a company facilitating (but not assuming legal responsibility) for any given transaction. This is no small challenge because the procedures must be both meaningful and cost-effective for the company to implement in order to achieve its business goals. The second quote from the article above confirms that they are trying to do just that. I wish them well in the effort. Based on what pg has said, I would assume these are great founders and I for one am ready to continue to wish them well in their very promising venture while hoping that they have learned some serious lessons from the apparent mishandling of this episode.
8. As for the victim, EJ, anyone who has experienced serious trauma (as many of us have at one point or other in our lives) can attest that it is impossible for words to capture what this means: not just the pain but the persistence of it all, the fact that it does not just go away, that money can help at the margins only, the hopeless sense of feeling violated - all this and more makes us all want to see her get past this with some sense of being restored. That takes time and a lot of slow healing and we can only wish her the best in her path to recovery. It will help a lot if the company does the right thing but that is not an easy thing to work out - it too will take some time.
Out of curiosity: might the fact that - as revealed in this story - there has been an outstanding warrant for the guest at the time of booking have any bearing on airbnb's liability? Can a host reasonably expect that some basic verification on guests is performed against criminal background databases?
But there was one case when AirBnb acted in a way appropriate in dealing with a friend, but questionable in dealing with a customer. The very "we're in the middle of a funding round" thing that caused another wave of public outcry. Basically, AirBnb is saying "Look, dude, here is our situation: we will help you, but can you take down this blog post, it's really going to hurt us?". Did EJ treat AirBnb as a friend? No. Her response was "why on earth would I care about your situation, here is my situation!"
So, do we want companies to treat us as friends? And if so, do we have a moral obligation to treat them as friends in response? Because the approach "I want you to treat me as a friend, but I'm going to treat you as a cold soulless corporation" does not seem fair to me.
(edit: Whoops, misread the date - sorry. This story does still seem to have more info from the SFPD than others I've read.)
>The SFPD said Friday that on June 28 officers arrested Faith Clifton, a 19-year-old in San Francisco, in connection the case. She was booked into San Francisco County Jail on possession of stolen property, methamphetamine, fraud charges and an outstanding warrant in Milpitas.
They also detained two individuals in Belmont earlier that day, but released them pending further investigation. A search of the premises produced some items taken in the alleged theft. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/29/...
I really dislike the word "alleged" in this sentence.
A person is innocent until proven guilty, so you could say "the alleged thief". But to say "the alleged theft" casts doubt on the victim's complaint, and on a crime having happened at all. Saying "alleged theft" conveys the possibility that the theft itself didn't happen.
We don't have a "presumption of no crime", and the word "alleged" is, at present, inappropriate referencing the fact this woman's possessions were stolen.
EJ is presumed innocent of lying about the theft until proven otherwise, therefore the fact of theft must be stated as though the crime did happen unless proven otherwise.
Meth users having some kind of tweakfest is highly likely; you're fortunate to not live in the kind of place where this is common. In the trendy parts of SF, there are enough tweakers that this is an obvious possibility.
We probably make your meth, which you tweak as you fly over us.
Does this mean something other than what I think it means?
That's just... weird for someone to do, but even weirder for someone to notice and care.
The mere fact that such tags usually say "don't remove under penalty of law" may have convinced them it was a listening device. Really.
This is getting out of hand.
I've had an apartment burgled so I do empathize with her to some degree, but I have to say the whole thing is starting to take on an air of melodrama and hyperbole that is becoming offputting. It's probably too soon, and I know I'll be viewed as an insensitive clod, but the time to start healing by rising above it and moving on with her life begins now. If she needs some help, counseling, a support group, whatever; that's fair, some do. But if she does, then get those, and stop using the internet as a substitute.
Was the calendar at fault for the "9/11 attacks"?
She's the "AirBnB victim", conveniently classifying her among all possible victims, by using "AirBnB" as a noun modifier adjective indicating the most notable, newsworthy, or distinguishing difference from other victims.
There comes a time in a successful startup where this kind of thing can make or break. AirBnB looks perilously close to the latter. Which sucks, but it behooves us to watch.
My opinion: Someone let a stranger into their home and there was a negative outcome. Common sense says that's a calculated risk- much like a hotel has both good and bad guests. They have no real obligation to provide support to this user- regardless of what site you use to fill your room (craigslist, airbnb, etc) you are still providing your property to a stranger. Just because its a super-hip start-up doesn't mean everyone involved has the same intentions. It is naive to think otherwise.
Edit: For the record, I do empathize with the victim and hope she gets justice. I feel that she shouldn't be targeting Airbnb for something they were not responsible for.
Of course, that's not going to happen, because of the large contingent of users who want karma and think that this is interesting. This story is a really good way to get karma right now, as well as playing into the current meme of bashing Airbnb that's going around (last week it was bashing G+, before that it was bashing Dropbox. I treasure the moments when HN is not up in arms about something).
EDIT: Am I being downvoted for my (admittedly cynical) analysis of why this story is so prominent? It would be nice if one of you would explain why, so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future.
See this for a clear explanation of how this term is often used in error:
So insofar as the original incident is concerned, you're not wrong. She wasn't victimized by AirBnB.
And in fact initially AirBnB reacted quite admirably - until she posted in public. Then AirBnB stopped reacting admirably.
There have been some rationalizations for the fact that all contact with the company ceased except for some apparent invitation for a coffee, there's been a request and no doubt a fervent desire on AirBnB's part that this not be quite so public, or at least if public, not quite so eloquent - so you tell me. When a company cuts off contact with you because you endanger their funding, then lies about it in the industry press, is that victimization? I don't know - but neither do you. Which is why I said it's a tougher question.
Also, I'd really like to differ with you rather vehemently with your oblique assertion that the Internet should be seen as a "substitute" for a real community. Where do you think you just posted?
It's easy to differ with me vehemently when you're differing with something I didn't say, I guess. Apologies if I was unclear.
I didn't say the internet was a substitute for a real community, I said she is trying to use it a substitute for the help she evidently needs.
Secondly, I posted to a discussion board, to... discuss.
How do you know this? Simply from reading EJ's summation of her communication with abnb? Airbnb as a corp cannot release original communication for privacy issues but she can. What does we have to hide?
Hiding behind "privacy" (as a corporation? wha?) is probably missing the point.
You don't believe the latter would put us(the public) in a better position to judge who all is on tr wrong here?
You believe it is ok for companies to publish communication with a customer? Sorry, I do not--unless it comes out as part of a court proceeding.