{"id":8527,"date":"2007-11-16T19:00:59","date_gmt":"2007-11-17T00:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/11\/16\/derek-buckner-delivers-after-an-e-"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:37","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:37","slug":"derek-buckner-delivers-after-an-e-shaming-push","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/11\/16\/derek-buckner-delivers-after-an-e-shaming-push\/","title":{"rendered":"derek buckner delivers (after an e-shaming push)"},"content":{"rendered":"

S<\/strong><\/em>uch a pleasant surprise at my mailbox this afternoon: A padded envelope with a Pevely, MO, return address, containing the 12 dvds that comprise the Destinos: An Introduction to Spanish<\/a><\/em> video instructional series (52-half hour shows produced by by WGBH<\/a> in Boston). There was no name in the return address and nothing inside the envelope other than the dvds, in paper sleeves. Still, I’m pretty sure the package comes from the only person I know who purports to have a Pevely address: Derek Daniel Buckner, the subject of our November 12th post, “should we e-shame Derek Buckner (the cyber-peddler not the City-painter)?<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

Our earlier post describes in detail “my highly unsatisfactory consumer interaction” with Mr. Buckner (not<\/em> the Brooklyn painter<\/a> with the same name), who was a very responsive correspondent before I sent my check, but who had failed to send Destinos<\/em>, a month after that check had cleared. His last “communication” was a Yahoo Auto Response claiming that he could not access his email in-box but had shipped all items to his DB Liquidations customers as of October 25, 2007.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Because the metered postage label on the package that I received today has the date “Nov 14, 07,” and Derek hasn’t sent any explanation for the delay or timing, it looks like it was our “e-shaming” of him that nudged Mr. Buckner to fulfill his obligations as a Cyber-Seller. So, I’m quite happy that I took the time to memorialize our transaction, and that the post achieved such robust search engine presence. [Today, it’s the 7th result in the Google search \/”Derek Buckner”\/<\/a> (despite the many links featuring the popular painter), and the first result for the query \/“Derek Buckner” Missouri<\/a>\/.]<\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/font> e-shaming can work <\/strong>(at least, when you have a well-linked weblog)<\/em>: I probably would have never received the purchased product or a refund of my money from Derek, had I not brought our situation to the internet. He had apparently lied about his bank holding my check for ten days, and then about shipping the item by October 25th and getting back in touch after establishing a new email account, so there’s little reason to think he was suddenly going to act in good faith and send the Destinos<\/em> discs.<\/p>\n

The Abuse Department<\/a> at craigslist<\/a> wrote back a few days ago, saying that they would not be able to do anything for me, and “this may be a matter for law enforcement.” They suggested that I might try “consumer mediation services available in your area” (with someone several states away who I had no way to contact and no reason to trust!) and that I file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center<\/a> (not noticing that I had attached the complaint I had already filed with IC3 and mentioned it prominently in my e-mail complaint to craigslist — nor that their reply to me had that same IC3 complaint attached to it.).\u00a0 On the law enforcement front, the St. Louis County Police internet fraud officer called this morning, saying they wouldn’t take any action over a $60 dispute (unless they get more complaints about the same seller). So, it looks like a little cyber self-help was apparently my best bet, and it worked this time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Nonetheless, I am sensitive to the issues raised by law professor Daniel J. Solove<\/a> in The Future of Reputation<\/a><\/em> (which f\/k\/a<\/em> reviewed<\/a> on Nov. 8, 2007), about permanently shaming a person on the internet. Therefore, I need to decide what to do with my original posting about Derek Buckner. Naturally, I will place an update blurb in the post tonight, saying that I have now received the merchandise. But, should I expunge it, or otherwise help give Derek a chance to rehabilitate his reputation?<\/p>\n

For many reasons, I’ve concluded that I should not remove the earlier post (or details identifying Derek Buckner of Missouri) — at this time. Here’s why:<\/p>\n