So I bought a blacklisted Kindle off Craigslist

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by eisegesis

Atta boy!

You have something against [language edited by moderation team]?

[eisegesis]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

You have something against [language edited by moderation team]?

Heck no. [language edited by moderation team] away!

[suecsi]

Originally Posted by Richey79

I know it has nothing to do with the ethical arguments, but on a practical level all this would have probably been avoided if Amazon didn't use the very cheapest postage they could find, and at least required a signature on drop off.

The company no doubt weighed up the cost of providing a slightly better postage option on super-saver against the cost of a few losses here and there through theft resulting from packages left on doorsteps etc. It seems the latter was calculated to be a lower overall cost to the business.

- I was somewhat amazed that a £149 device was sent out by standard mail rather than a signed for service like RMSD or Registered, or Home Delivery Network, which Amazon use a lot. I've had the same postman for nearly 20 years so I am very lucky but we have had things go missing when he's been on holiday (loaded gift cards my mum sent).

[daesdaemar]

Originally Posted by eisegesis

Jeebus again. The OP asked a simple question... "Do I have to register?"

What possessed you [language edited by moderation team] to go off on a morality lecture and debate?

Because it's an interesting/enlightening (and entertaining) way to gauge the moral compass of the contributors to this thread. On the basis of what I've read, it's also very, very scary.

[DiapDealer]

Because it's an interesting/enlightening (and entertaining) way to gauge the moral compass of the contributors to this thread.

Nobody here has the proper credentials or authority to gauge someone else's "moral compass".

[kacir]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

You have something against [language edited by moderation team]?

In principle no.
I just can't stand [language edited by moderation team] that are insufferably self-righteous

[Wordcrasher]

Originally Posted by kacir

In principle no.
I just can't stand [language edited by moderation team] that are insufferably self-righteous

But I hope your feelings are the same in case of non-[language edited by moderation team]that are insufferably self-righteous !!!

[Robert Minneman]

I'm entertained by all the "moral high roaders" here that are willing to pontificate endlessly about doing the right thing, but are unwilling to donate to the cause of getting that "right thing done".

We've established that Amazon doesn't care about the device.
It's been established that the crime is actually ambiguous: He goods a device from another private party. He received the goods more or less as advertised. How do we know that the device was stolen by the person it was purchased from, etc., etc.?

Yet the "insufferably [language edited by moderation team]" on the board still insist he get law enforcement involved. At this point just the inconvenience of doing so, regardless of "rightness/wrongness" factor of the situation should warrant them putting some cash towards that effort:

He's going to have to spend time (and time = money) reporting it to the police.
He's going to have to drive (and driving costs gas and time, and both = money) to file this report, and deliver the device.

He's ALREADY out 120 bucks, how much more in the hole do you want this poor bastard to go?

C'mon, advice and preaching being as free as they are, sure seems a cheap investment in proving how moral you are.

Again, put up or shut up, or are your morals only worth the bits they're displayed with?

[daesdaemar]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Huh? Morality and the law are not the same thing.

Laws are passed and repealed constantly. Morality remains constant.

There are no loopholes in morality although many people pretend to find them.

I sometimes do things that are not morally correct although I try not to justify them or complain when karma comes back and bites me on the ass.

Helen

A very straight-forward answer that makes a lot of sense. One of the tenets of ethics is that there is not necessarily any relationship between what is legal and what is right (or wrong). Some philosophical theories of morality will argue that all laws are immoral because they limit one's freedom.

Before everyone jumps all over me, I'm only the messenger

[krazy4katz]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

I'm entertained by all the "moral high roaders" here that are willing to pontificate endlessly about doing the right thing, but are unwilling to donate to the cause of getting that "right thing done".

We've established that Amazon doesn't care about the device.
It's been established that the crime is actually ambiguous: He goods a device from another private party. He received the goods more or less as advertised. How do we know that the device was stolen by the person it was purchased from, etc., etc.?

Yet the "insufferably [language edited by moderation team]" on the board still insist he get law enforcement involved. At this point just the inconvenience of doing so, regardless of "rightness/wrongness" factor of the situation should warrant them putting some cash towards that effort:

He's going to have to spend time (and time = money) reporting it to the police.
He's going to have to drive (and driving costs gas and time, and both = money) to file this report, and deliver the device.

He's ALREADY out 120 bucks, how much more in the hole do you want this poor bastard to go?

C'mon, advice and preaching being as free as they are, sure seems a cheap investment in proving how moral you are.

Again, put up or shut up, or are your morals only worth the bits they're displayed with?

Oh Pooh. This argument is for children who only care about their toys. Apart from whether he SHOULD do it or not, all he has to do is call the police. They probably will come to his house to fill out the report. At least, that is what I have experienced. Whether he wants to do it or not, the additional suffering is minimal, except, of course, for having to repeat this sorry story. Yes, it's inconvenient to be scammed, but it is possible to get over it.

[dougmwpsu]

There are already ample legal incentives against receiving stolen property. If a potential criminal record hasn't convinced OP to absolve himself of responsibility, then 120 bucks will do nothing as well.

Generally speaking, laws are used as incentives to encourage people to conform to society's morals. So as a matter of fact, I've already put up money to incentivize the OP in the form of taxes.

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

I'm entertained by all the "moral high roaders" here that are willing to pontificate endlessly about doing the right thing, but are unwilling to donate to the cause of getting that "right thing done".

We've established that Amazon doesn't care about the device.
It's been established that the crime is actually ambiguous: He goods a device from another private party. He received the goods more or less as advertised. How do we know that the device was stolen by the person it was purchased from, etc., etc.?

Yet the "insufferably self-righteous [language edited by moderation team]" on the board still insist he get law enforcement involved. At this point just the inconvenience of doing so, regardless of "rightness/wrongness" factor of the situation should warrant them putting some cash towards that effort:

He's going to have to spend time (and time = money) reporting it to the police.
He's going to have to drive (and driving costs gas and time, and both = money) to file this report, and deliver the device.

He's ALREADY out 120 bucks, how much more in the hole do you want this poor bastard to go?

C'mon, advice and preaching being as free as they are, sure seems a cheap investment in proving how moral you are.

Again, put up or shut up, or are your morals only worth the bits they're displayed with?

[PharaohsVizier]

Again you are assuming it is stolen.

[krazy4katz]

Originally Posted by PharaohsVizier

Again you are assuming it is stolen.

So the fact that Amazon told him they blacklisted it because it was either lost or stolen and the fact that the seller can no longer be contacted doesn't make you in the least suspicious???

[J. Strnad]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

I'm entertained by all the "moral high roaders" here that are willing to pontificate endlessly about doing the right thing, but are unwilling to donate to the cause of getting that "right thing done".

We've established that Amazon doesn't care about the device.
It's been established that the crime is actually ambiguous: He goods a device from another private party. He received the goods more or less as advertised. How do we know that the device was stolen by the person it was purchased from, etc., etc.?

Yet the "insufferably [language edited by moderation team]" on the board still insist he get law enforcement involved. At this point just the inconvenience of doing so, regardless of "rightness/wrongness" factor of the situation should warrant them putting some cash towards that effort:

He's going to have to spend time (and time = money) reporting it to the police.
He's going to have to drive (and driving costs gas and time, and both = money) to file this report, and deliver the device.

He's ALREADY out 120 bucks, how much more in the hole do you want this poor bastard to go?

C'mon, advice and preaching being as free as they are, sure seems a cheap investment in proving how moral you are.

Again, put up or shut up, or are your morals only worth the bits they're displayed with?

B.S. It was his choice, his loss. Just because we "moral [language edited by moderation team]" tell him what he should, morally, do, doesn't mean we have to make up his loss. It's an opinion, no less valid because we don't pay money to reimburse him for his mistake. Unless, of course, he's willing to pay ME for the money I lost buying a hot canoe back when I was his age, which the police tracked down and took away from me. (I'm betting our OP is under 30! )

MY morals cost me money. I'm not paying for somebody else's morality, or lack thereof!

And, as I've said twice, for me it isn't even about morality, it's about revenge. Put some time and effort into screwing the guy who screwed you. Read The Count of Monte Cristo for an example. If you aren't willing to go to some trouble, you aren't pissed off enough!

"Lost" or "stolen" makes no difference, BTW. The guy who sold it, didn't own it. He knew it. He sold something that wasn't his, and our OP bought it, saving a whopping twenty bucks.

So, lesson learned.

The only thing that surprises me is that the seller still got within twenty bucks of the price of a new, legit Kindle! When you buy stolen goods, you should pay AT MOST 50%. The fence is paying AT MOST 20% and probably closer to 5-10%, so there's a lot of wiggle room.

[eisegesis]

LOL @ "moral [language edited by moderation team]"