
Airbnb victim describes crime and aftermath - gcampbell
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/30/BUQ51KH2FR.DTL
======
grellas
_She said the subject of compensation from Airbnb is still in flux, declining
to provide further details._

 _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.

~~~
lemming
Thank you for this. I am continually amazed by the technical detail and the
wonderfully human aspect to your writing. Your contributions make HN a much,
much better community. The HN family, indeed.

------
azov
Here is what I find interesting about the story. Much of the public outcry is
centered around the fact that Airbnb didn't go far enough, hasn't been more
proactive, didn't offer enough emotional support. Basically, didn't treat her
as a _friend_.

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.

~~~
hk43
Wow.... EJ got into this situation because she trusted the nice words on the
AirBnB website. They need to clearly warn about that stuff - just like
craigslist does.

------
gcampbell
I submitted this article (a little warily because I know the front page has
been inundated with this story) because it appears to contain the new-to-me
information that an arrest in the case was made on June 28 and that the SFPD
verified this on July 29.

(edit: Whoops, misread the date - sorry. This story does still seem to have
more info from the SFPD than others I've read.)

~~~
danso
Yes, new to me as well...as now we have an actual name for a suspect. And
according to the SFChronicle, the SFPD is characterizing it as being connected
to EJ's case, which is more or less what Brian Chesky said:

>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/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/29/BUQ51KH2FR.DTL#ixzz1Tbvic4GB)

~~~
Terretta
> "produced some items taken in the _alleged_ theft"

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.

~~~
sorbus
My understanding is that if journalists don't say that things are alleged then
they open themselves up to lawsuits - or at least that's the rationale I've
seen presented for things like this in the past. It fits the meaning of the
word, too: "asserted to be true or to exist".

~~~
Terretta
Today's journalists overuse this word. It's only relevant when speaking of the
"alleged" _suspect_ or the suspect's "alleged" actions when the person's
participation or their actions are not yet proven. Once proven, the word
alleged or allegedly is inappropriate, and it's also inappropriate to describe
a crime or characteristics of a crime as it wrongly casts doubt on the victim.

See this for a clear explanation of how this term is often used in error:

<http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/alleged.html>

~~~
sorbus
Thank you for the clarification (and especially that link; it's an amazing
clear and concise description of the issue).

------
ddw
It's amazing what a real journalist will be able to confirm compared to
TechCrunch.

------
Vivtek
Huh. Methamphetamine. Color me less sanguine about my take on that particular
theory, then. (I thought meth was improbable.)

~~~
rdl
Meth lab is IMO implausible (the neighbors would have complained to the police
earlier; the place would have probably burned down too).

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.

~~~
Vivtek
A-haha, no, I live in the place where people are too poor even to do meth.
(This is hyperbole: I know specifically that there are people here doing pot
(which grows fine here), cocaine (which doesn't), and pills of diverse nature.
Also, last year, witnessed some adroit customer service across the street
involving oxycontin, an overdose of some sort, and assurances that the
oxycontin was legit. Ah, capitalism in action.)

We probably make _your_ meth, which you tweak as you fly over us.

------
burgerbrain
_"sliced tags off pillows"_

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.

~~~
gojomo
Meth addicts do bizarre things for reasons that only make sense in their
manic/paranoid hallucinations. Compulsive and repetitive cleaning,
redecorating, arranging, painting, burning, cutting, whatever.

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.

~~~
burgerbrain
Yeah, I get that, but we are all aware that that warning is meant for the
retailers of the pillows not the owners, right? I'm really just confused that
it would be even worth mentioning in the same sentence in the other things.

~~~
rkudeshi
I did not know that. Makes a whole lot more sense now.

~~~
burgerbrain
Yep, the tags are meant to inform the purchaser of safety stuff and whatnot.

<http://money.howstuffworks.com/removed-mattress-tag.htm>

------
axiom
"Airbnb victim"? Really?

This is getting out of hand.

~~~
Vivtek
Well, she's certainly a victim. Which victim? The one associated with Airbnb,
at least around here. I think the abbreviation "Airbnb victim" is pretty
logical - even if it makes you feel uncomfortably as though she was victimized
_by_ Airbnb, which ... well. That's a much tougher question.

~~~
michaelcampbell
The question is quite simple IMO; the answer is "no, she wasn't victimized by
AirBnB".

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.

~~~
Vivtek
Well, the reason this is not as simple as you would like is this: clearly, the
original incident was not AirBnB's fault; it was a crime that happened in the
same context as any other rental or lease situation, and (as I've posted in
volume elsewhere) it happens. I've had tenants, so I empathize with her
immensely, but it's still not even close to AirBnB's fault.

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?

~~~
michaelcampbell
> 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.

~~~
Vivtek
I can't think of a way to respond to this without it descending into (probably
poorly aimed) flamage, so ... never mind, then.

------
badclient
Release. All. Your. Original. Communication. With. AirBnB.

------
acabal
Can we please stop posting this stuff? I get it, the woman had a tragic
experience, and Airbnb is getting blamed. I still think this is getting wildly
overblown--the number of rehashed posts on this topic here is like watching
CNN. I don't think HN is for blow-by-blow updates to the story of the hour.

~~~
Vivtek
When the story of the hour is a YC grad tripping over their feet in PR and the
shit hitting the mainstream fan, then yes, I find it multiply pertinent.

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.

