
Notorious Airbnb squatter may be the dev behind two flailing Kickstarter games - smacktoward
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/24/5933151/notorious-airbnb-squatter-may-be-the-dev-behind-two-flailing
======
gerner
In some ways, this is the dark side of disrupting established industries:
legal protections aren't in place yet; it's not clear what recourse people
caught in never before seen corner cases have.

We (e.g. HN folks) are quick to applaud people with new ideas that are shaking
things up (e.g. Airbnb, Uber, etc.) I suspect this is the sort of scenario
detractors (e.g. Seattle City Council re: Uber) are worried about.

Terrible situation, clearly. Still, important to see some of these scenarios
actually play out. And it raises all the right questions: what should Airbnb
do going forward? what should legal protections be going forward? should
someone have seen this coming? and should they be held liable for it?

(edit: typo)

~~~
_delirium
I'm not sure these are "never before seen corner cases". This kind of stuff is
pretty much Landlording 101, and it's standard practice for someone engaged in
renting a property to know about eviction laws. This person wasn't even
engaging in what you might call the new, casual-sharing-of-personal-
possessions style of rental, where someone rents their own personal apartment
out occasionally while they're on vacation. She was just doing the old-school
landlord thing: she bought an investment property she did not live in, and was
renting it full-time for profit. That is a line of business in which you can
buy and read books, customized to your state, telling you exactly the basics
you should know about!

~~~
pstuart
But Airbnb, as a service, should at least filter/advise for knowingly stupid
things like renting out for such an extended period.

~~~
chimeracoder
If they're going to that effort, then why can't they filter for knowingly
illegal things, like short-term rentals in cities in which this practice is
illegal?

I don't see them doing either one anytime soon, since it presents a major
PR/deniability problem.

~~~
pstuart
They're pretty much knowingly illegal as a business model, but that doesn't
mean they can't protect their own users from simple abuses.

------
TheMagicHorsey
What we must have is a network that enables a peer-to-peer trust rating for
individuals. Sort of like Yelp, but for people.

No doubt such a system would be a huge privacy problem for people as people
would say that negative reviews reveal their private facts, or that those
reviews are defamation.

However, if the network is decentralized, then it might be possible to keep it
running even in the face of opposition from state actors.

If we have a peer-to-peer rating/reputation network in place, it would allow
people to bypass the elitist inside networks (old boys clubs) to raise capital
from investors based on mass positive reputation.

Rascals and scammers like these failed Kickstarter bros would be shut down
after a single scam ... they would not be able to rent or scam another person
after a single scam.

Implementing a centralized reputation system would be a good first step.

I understand why Yelp and other established companies don't want to be in this
business. Its a liability/privacy nightmare.

Imagine the first time some innocent girl in high school is unjustly called a
slut, and is defamed by her own school as part of some bullying clique.

I believe the network can ameliorate if not outright prevent such clique abuse
by enabling users to rate reviewers based on the reviews they have given. If
you abuse people with your reviews and ratings, it can damage your own
ratings.

~~~
DanBC
Recent revelations show government agencies could manipulate online polls.

It would be trivially easy for them to poison this database.

> Rascals and scammers like these failed Kickstarter bros would be shut down
> after a single scam ... they would not be able to rent or scam another
> person after a single scam.

Well, you don't know they're a scammer until they've been to court and proved
guilty or does no-one care about innocent until proven guilty anymore? And
what's to stop them getting a new identity?

> Imagine the first time some innocent girl in high school is unjustly called
> a slut, and is defamed by her own school as part of some bullying clique.

That is a fucking awful example. You say "some innocent girl is unjustly
called a slut" \- this implies that if the girl was not innocent that it may
be acceptable to call her a slut (as an insult). Then you say "[...] as part
of some bullying clique" which implies that the problem is with the false
accusation of sluttiness, and not with the fact that some bullying clique
exists.

> I believe the network can ameliorate if not outright prevent such clique
> abuse by enabling users to rate reviewers based on the reviews they have
> given. If you abuse people with your reviews and ratings, it can damage your
> own ratings.

The clique just vote-rings and they cancel out bad votes. Or they buy votes
off MTurk.

~~~
TheMagicHorsey
I don't have any problem with women or men having sex. I don't think the term
slut is ever appropriate.

Bullying is always bad.

Hope I didn't piss you off too much. I just wrote that example quickly,
without much thought.

------
bane
My god, Airbnb is such a huge liability time-bomb.

All it's going to take is some tenant slipping on a wet bathroom floor or some
other nonsense.

I hope they've squirreled away a huge legal defense fund from their last
fundraising round.

 _edit_

searched and found these, tip of the iceburg

[http://www.sfbg.com/2014/04/29/lawsuits-target-airbnb-
rental...](http://www.sfbg.com/2014/04/29/lawsuits-target-airbnb-rentals)

[http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/airbnb-
legal...](http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/airbnb-legal-
trouble-sharing-economy)

[http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/06/18/airbnb_might_have_j...](http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/06/18/airbnb_might_have_just_won_a_huge_landmark_case.php)

[http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/06/10/stabilized_tribeca_...](http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/06/10/stabilized_tribeca_tenant_may_lose_home_after_airbnb_scandal.php)

[http://www.fastcompany.com/3027798/the-secret-to-airbnbs-
fre...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3027798/the-secret-to-airbnbs-freakishly-
rapid-orgy-response-scenario-planning)

------
sergiotapia
There's legal and then there's moral. These scumbags lack basic human tact. I
wouldn't ever think of doing something like this to somebody even if I were in
the legal side of the law. I hope they get what's coming to them in spades.

Airbnb should do everything in their power to help out this poor owner or it
will set a dangerous precedent for future hosts.

~~~
lotu
I'm not sure that it is legal to stay in an apartment after you lease or
rental ends. It is just also illegal for the owner to force you out without
going through a really complicated and lengthy process.

------
fataliss
I'm pretty interested in the output of this lawsuit. But i think that Air Bnb,
as it's kinda their business, would have spot such a big loophole in the law
if staying 30d in a rental indeed gave people rights over the house-owner, no?
I guess the guy is just trying to stay for free until the case is closed and
cops are putting him out.

------
thekevan
This is a bit of a tangent, but what would there be to stop the woman who owns
the condo to start signing 28 day leases with hundreds of other people?
Imagine if dozens of good citizens showed up to the apartment at once, with a
key, any time they wanted. They could just hang out and of course they also
had a lease and a legal right to be there, so the original two couldn't do
much, could they? That would make it much less attractive to those squatters.

Could it really be that easy?

~~~
_delirium
That would be illegal in any jurisdiction I know of. I'm renting my current
apartment; obviously my landlord cannot rent it out to someone else while I
still live here. Now you might say: but what if you're living there illegally?
Well, I'm not, say I! Now we have a civil disagreement over property and a
contract, which is a matter for the courts to decide. If the landlord alleges
I no longer have a right to use of this property, despite possessing it in
fact (e.g. because I am weeks or months late with my rent, or the rental has
otherwise been legally terminated), they can get an order that I be evicted,
which the police would enforce. There will be some kind of process, where I
would have a chance to reply, for example by giving evidence that actually I
paid my rent on July 1, and the landlord is mistaken in his allegations. If I
lose and am evicted, then _after_ that, the landlord can re-rent the
apartment. But before that, they cannot.

~~~
thekevan
"That would be illegal in any jurisdiction I know of. I'm renting my current
apartment; obviously my landlord cannot rent it out to someone else while I
still live here."

Right, you probably have a lease. If you had a squatter's lease--or a de facto
lease--couldn't she just allow more squatters?

I don't think what you say has direct bearing on this situation because you
both entered into a specific agreement. There is most likely the precedent of
you paying the landlord money, which shows you both agreed to a set of
conditions.

Since these guys are squatters, they probably default to a default "lease" as
defined by law. So the fact whether they are there illegally as held by the
landlord doesn't even enter into it.

~~~
_delirium
It's not really squatting in this case, which is where someone takes up
residence in a property they have _never_ had a contractual right to, like
building a log cabin on your farmland, and then living in it for years. That's
a different set of laws.

This is rather a person who _had_ a legitimate lease, but has violated or
exceeded it. Here they clearly had a legal right to lease the apartment for
the first 44 days: this lease was agreed to via AirBnB. And the renters paid
the first 30 days of it. Now they refuse to pay for the remaining 14 days of
the original agreement, and also refuse to vacate after 44 days. That falls
squarely into eviction law: if someone previously had a legitimate lease but
now the landlord alleges that they don't (because of nonpayment, exceeding
agreed conditions, etc.), they can be evicted. How, exactly, depends on the
country & state/province.

~~~
thekevan
While it is less like squatting which I should have realized and I'm glad you
that pointed out, I wasn't addressing that as much as I should have been.
There was an arrangement for X amount of days, which they have overstayed, so
I am wondering where California law falls there. Because now they are in a
default lease, one exists on the lawbooks. It's enough of a differentiation to
possibly give her a little bit more leverage. I wonder what the loopholes are
that she could utilize to make life un-enjoyable for them.

~~~
URSpider94
Read the excerpts from California law that I posted in some other comments.
IANAL, but the code is pretty specific to point out that the protections
against harassment apply to "any lease or other tenancy or estate at will,
however created, of property used by a tenant as his residence". As a
landlord, I also have been told that judges have a tendency to dismiss
eviction suits where there is substantiated evidence of harassment.

------
cvg
The most interesting part of the article, for me, is that they moved the nexus
of their corporation from two tax free states to California. I doubt they
realize the tax and legal implications of being residents rather than just
visiting CA on holiday.

------
josu
Am I the only one who thought about the McPoyle Brothers upon seeing the
picture?

------
uvTwitch
Could the homeowner not simply have her power shut off to hasten the removal
of these pests? If they're game developers, they'd be dependent on
electricity.

~~~
maxden
There is a sms exchange here [0] where he does in fact say he does require
electricity, and if they cut it off, he will press charges for blackmail and
damages.

Unfortunately it seems it will only be resolved with a lengthy eviction
process.

It is also interesting that there problems within the first few days.

[0] [http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-host-cant-get-
squatter...](http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-host-cant-get-squatter-to-
leave-2014-7)

~~~
fancyketchup
I wonder if a whole-house version of a lamp timer would be useful in this
situation? Suppose there were a device that turned off power on a schedule,
and which could only be reset from inside the apartment. Power would turn off
automatically 12 hours after the lease terminates to "save power in an
unoccupied unit."

That way, the owner isn't turning off power to constructively evict, but the
power is off all the same.

~~~
edwardhotchkiss
"Pacific Heights", 1990 starring Melanie Griffith, Matthew Modine & Michael
Keaton. SF based movie showing Michael Keaton abusing renters rights and even
having the home owner arrested after turning off his electricity. Fantastic
film, these guys (definitely scumbags) unfortunately might be in the legal
right. Very unfortunate.

------
skeoh
I hadn't heard of Confederate Express but their demo looks like a game I would
totally play. Shame it's a scam.

------
S_A_P
I think along with the eviction route I would start trying to get them
arrested for the kick starter scam.

------
lingben
kickstarter is scammer heaven

~~~
makomk
Not only that, they don't give a fuck because they get a cut no matter what
and have carefully disclaimed all liability. For example, remember how they
made a big deal about changing their rules on hardware projects to protect
backers after several scams made the news in a big way?[1] They've now quietly
removed all those restrictions to make it easier to list scams, er,
projects[2]. After all more projects equals more dosh for them!

[1] [https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-
kickstart...](https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter)
[2] [http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2014/06/04/kickstarter-
ren...](http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2014/06/04/kickstarter-renders/1)

~~~
aikah
IMHO Most backers are "religious" , in the sense it's spare money for them and
they get some satisfaction in backing an idea,i really believe only a tiny
minority of the backers really want a concrete product in the end ,otherwise I
cant believe how some ridiculous projects could be backed 10xtimes the initial
money asked. For businesses,backing something can be good PR too,a lot of
business do it ,no matter what the outcome is.

People like me that are too paranoid or skeptical to give free money would
never back anything to begin with.

------
lgierth
I guess Airbnb got hacked, eh.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
It's called disrupting the disruptor.

~~~
dictum
Moving fast and breaking the social contract.

------
darren884
Whatever happened to physically grabbing someone and violently throwing them
out of your house?

~~~
McGlockenshire
See the previous coverage for the long version, but the tl;dr is that renters
that rent for more than 30 days are protected as tenants by California law,
including (normally proper) long drawn-out eviction proceedings.

~~~
darren884
Does that not mean you could live in the house too with a nice guard dog?

~~~
thirtyseven
They probably could sue you for tenant harassment.

~~~
edwardhotchkiss
Please see: Pacific Heights (1990)

------
damian2000
If I was the owner, I'd be looking at all the possible ways I could to make
their stay less comfortable - music at all hours of the night, faulty hot
water system, power outages. Not very ethical, but what these guys are doing
isn't ethical either.

~~~
URSpider94
That is clearly illegal under California law. In addition to exposing the
landlord to civil damages, it's also a pretty clear way to get your eviction
suit thrown out.

As I posted in another comment, see
[http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~asucrla/Harassment%20by%20Your%...](http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~asucrla/Harassment%20by%20Your%20Landlord)
for the details of the law.

------
aikah
[http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/23/travel/airbnb-
squatters/](http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/23/travel/airbnb-squatters/)

a cnn story too,an interesting one.

So the guys ran 2 scams on kickstarter and is now scamming an airbnb host...
well not really ,since he is just using the law against his host.

> Eviction procedures in California can be lengthy and complicated, often
> taking three to six months to evict a tenant.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-host-cant-get-
squatter...](http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-host-cant-get-squatter-to-
leave-2014-7#ixzz38R6v3hoU)

> On day one, after the guest checked in, he called her and complained about
> two odd things, Tschogl says. He didn't like the tap water (complained it
> was cloudy) and he didn't like the gated entry to the condo complex. He
> asked for a full refund, according to Tschogl. She had a bad gut feeling
> about him, she says, so she agreed to a refund.

This guy is really ...

EDITED:controversial expression.

~~~
DanBC
> I would be the owner i would not ,care.I would break the door and a few
> windows.and camp in front of the condo/house,while waiting for the guy to
> leave.

It's probably really important that owners don't do this - renters (even
terrible renters) have some legal protections and intimidation is a quick way
to increase the legal costs and possibly end up in jail.

EDIT: Wait, did you put "nut case" in after I posted? I missed it before.
Please would you consider using different insults? The person you're insulting
doesn't care less about being called a nut-case, but by using such language
you are subtly adding to the stigma faced by people with mental health
problems. It's already harder for those people to get jobs or to rent homes,
and one of the reasons is that people fear "unpredictable behaviour", and that
fear is to some extent caused when we use terms to describe poor mental health
to people who are displaying poor behaviour. This is a gentle request and
you're free to ignore it.

~~~
Steko
The owner is doing exactly the right thing here: turn the media loose & Airbnb
will hopefully cover her losses.

The scammer - Maksym Pashanin - is essentially trading what was left of his
reputation for just a few thousand bucks. Heroin's a hell of a drug.

Edit: added scammer's name in case he uses some bullshit right to be forgotten
on other articles.

~~~
DanBC
I thought the US inherited all that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff from
England.

~~~
Steko
We did, it applies to courts not public opinion.

