Four years later… turns out my new laptop was a stolen unit

[Analog Kid]

Why or how would eBay (or others) vet all vendors? It’s just not practical. Sympathies to those facing this situation, but usual caveat of “buyer beware“ applies. The buyer needs to check any ratings or feedback for seller, that’s sadly the risk (versus the saving) taken.

Again, an almost impossible task.

Imagine the outcry if new vendors where told they had to wait 14 days before they could sell and that they also had to provide background documentation and pay a fee before they could even list?

It’s not that hard. How does any company vet their vendors? I’m sure EBay goes through a process for vendors they actually buy from. The process for getting a signed SSL certificate requires a vetting process. This doesn’t have to be an anonymous online transaction, it’s just asking for trouble that it is.

These online vendors such as Ebay, Amazon, AirBnB do it this way because it reduces their operating cost.

I'm not denying that there's a problem - there absolutely is.

But whilst there is a buying market sellers will sell and places like eBay will continue to facilitate them.

My solution is that I will never buy anything from places like eBay. Even etsy is getting bad, Amazon is getting worse and right now I'm getting the itch to go back to physical stores.

A regulated market has overhead to it— but it’s a shared expense. eBay could vet every vendor or expect their customers to each vet each vendor themselves which turns out to be a lot more costly (as OP is finding). It’s like the health department— we can pay the government to inspect each restaurant and report what they find, or we could all inspect the kitchens ourselves every time we try a new restaurant. It’s a lot more efficient for a single, qualified, inspector to take on that task for the good of the market.

Otherwise they face what you’re describing— more and more people will find it too much of a hassle to deal with and stop buying. Small honest vendors can’t get sales because the prevailing advice is “look for reputable vendors with a lot of good reviews”— but how do you make your first sale in that environment?

Eventually eBay will become a market only from scammers to rubes and the morally ambivalent. Essentially a black market.

 

[boss.king]

Uh Uh. That’s just a BS excuse.
I repeat, they profit through enabling multi-billion dollar theft rings.

This affects you: It makes the products you purchase more expensive, and it also means you cannot trust these online retailers to sell you legitimate products. If you want to buy a Coach or Luis Vuitton bag, you can’t tell if you’re getting a genuine product through Amazon or eBay. Even spark plugs for your car are very unsafe to buy through these vendors, unless you don’t care that the iridium-coated plugs you install will fall apart inside your engine after 12,000 miles instead of lasting 120,000 miles.

But the real problem is that billions of dollars of goods are stolen from Target and Best Buy and Amazon and eBay are the fences.

That’s not what I asked. My question was what are they supposed to do.

 

[TiggrToo]

I’m sure EBay goes through a process for vendors they actually buy from.

Way to minimize the issue.

The number of eBay vendors must absolutely dwarf the number of vendors who sell through eBay.

Vendors on eBay come and go. Suppliers have contracts with eBay. The two are totally different.

Can’t get the figures for eBay but for Amazon they get one new seller EVERY MINUTE - over 1,500 new sellers sign up each and every single day.

Again, just how do you imagine they’re going to vet each and every one of them? You keep saying they should but you never want to explain the how.

You can’t just get away with “they need to vet them” - how? And do you know just how much such as process costs and how easy it can be for the determined to create valid shell companies that pass vetting but are still scammers, thieves and other undersirables?

 

[Alameda]

That’s not what I asked. My question was what are they supposed to do.

I’m not a supply chain expert. I think they should vet their suppliers and have them show the provenance of their merchandise.

 

[Analog Kid]

Way to minimize the issue.

The number of eBay vendors must absolutely dwarf the number of vendors who sell through eBay.

Vendors on eBay come and go. Suppliers have contracts with eBay. The two are totally different.

Can’t get the figures for eBay but for Amazon they get one new seller EVERY MINUTE - over 1,500 new sellers sign up each and every single day.

Again, just how do you imagine they’re going to vet each and every one of them? You keep saying they should but you never want to explain the how.

You can’t just get away with “they need to vet them” - how? And do you know just how much such as process costs and how easy it can be for the determined to create valid shell companies that pass vetting but are still scammers, thieves and other undersirables?

I'm not minimizing or trying to get away with anything... Maybe take a step back and realize this isn't a life or death struggle. I have nothing invested in this beyond wanting to live in a better world, I suspect you're engaged for the same reason.

If you're looking for a step by step vetting process, then someone else with experience will have to chime in. I'm saying there needs to be one, or the business model is broken, and there are processes in place that most businesses apply to their own vendor relations and that the web service providers have in place for online presence. I'm saying that ebay wouldn't do business with someone without vetting them, so they shouldn't expect us to either.

You're saying that Amazon alone signs up half a million new sellers every year. I'll assume that's a global number, but it still seems suspiciously large. Suspiciously like maybe bogus sellers that were found out and blocked are rejoining.

But still, that's only 1500 a day. Hire a few thousand people, give them each a few days to vet each application. I suspect the process will winnow down the number of new sellers so the workload won't be as big when the process is in place. If you're going to try to run a business "at scale", then you need to scale the entire business.

It takes at least 30 days to get approved for a SSL cert because of the vetting process. I think there are probably a lot of those being issued as well. The time and expense is a cost of doing business.

 

[TiggrToo]

If you're going to try to run a business "at scale", then you need to scale the entire business.

You really have this crazy view that vetting is easy and straightforward.

I'm giving up this line of conversation because it really feels you've an exceptionally naïve view on all this.

 

[toru173]

Can this be done on an iPhone?

I don’t know enough about the iPhone activation process to say for sure, but I think some jailbreaks sidestep the activation step. Maybe it’s possible!

 

[toru173]

I attempted both methods - but since my working Mac is M1, the target disk mode method doesn't seem to work. As for the Terminal process, unfortunately I don't know enough to use it. Guess I'll just have to wait for Rapid7 to help me this week.

That’s a pity! Hopefully they get back to you quickly

Edit: I thought Macrumors forums automatically condensed double posts? Hmmm… sorry for the extra noise

 

[Analog Kid]

You really have this crazy view that vetting is easy and straightforward.

I'm giving up this line of conversation because it really feels you've an exceptionally naïve view on all this.

I think I said it takes 30 days to vet an SSL cert. I see nowhere that I said it's easy or straightforward. All I've said is that it's necessary. You've also said it's necessary-- you won't keep buying from these companies because you don't trust them.

But if you want to pull one sentence out of each of my lengthy replies, overlook my broader point, and call me naive, then you're probably right-- I was exceptionally naive to think this was going to be an interesting line of conversation.

 

[boss.king]

I’m not a supply chain expert. I think they should vet their suppliers and have them show the provenance of their merchandise.

Their suppliers are literally anyone that can make an account. I can list something on eBay right now if i want. Vetting everyone isn’t feasible, hence the good return/refund policy that protects buyers.

 

[KeesMacPro]

But still, that's only 1500 a day. Hire a few thousand people, give them each a few days to vet each application. I suspect the process will winnow down the number of new sellers so the workload won't be as big when the process is in place.

We could take a look at just some minor details not from an idealistic , but from a pragmatical point of view.
Lets say 1500 new sellers a day. To vet them you're hiring a few thousand employees for a few days.

-How much will they charge for this job, and where will you get the resources to finance this project?
Should they work from home on their laptop or are you planning to rend an office and invest in a few thousand computers?
Sure, One could charge a fee to the seller and/or buyer to finance this....

-assuming your estimation is correct, for vetting 1500 new sellers per day you need a few thousand for a few days.
A few days is not very precise, but is definitely more than 1 day , lets say : 3days > 500 vetted per day.

Something is not syncronized here.
This means that your employees after 1 day working, next day will have 2500 new sellers, on the 3rd day 3500 new sellers and so on eternally....

Nothing personal but I seriously doubt you're running a business.

 

[KeesMacPro]

Their suppliers are literally anyone that can make an account. I can list something on eBay right now if i want. Vetting everyone isn’t feasible, hence the good return/refund policy that protects buyers.

Absolutely!
One side note though.
When you start selling at eBay , there's a limit for the quantity (IIRC 20 items per month) and a limit in price and/or total amount per month whichever comes first ( IIRC 1000,-) .
Based on the reviews you get, you can apply for higher limits.

 

[appltech]

if this Intel based (should be as you bought it 4 years ago) Mac you can try to bypass it with AppleSetupDone removal (but it will be better to listen Rapid7 first + procedure slightly differs depends on what macOS is used)
As for me, this is due to a profile that was put on your Mac (but why?)
Or your Mac was added to a managed group.

 

[Analog Kid]

We could take a look at just some minor details not from an idealistic , but from a pragmatical point of view.
Lets say 1500 new sellers a day. To vet them you're hiring a few thousand employees for a few days.

-How much will they charge for this job, and where will you get the resources to finance this project?
Should they work from home on their laptop or are you planning to rend an office and invest in a few thousand computers?
Sure, One could charge a fee to the seller and/or buyer to finance this....

-assuming your estimation is correct, for vetting 1500 new sellers per day you need a few thousand for a few days.
A few days is not very precise, but is definitely more than 1 day , lets say : 3days > 500 vetted per day.

Something is not syncronized here.
This means that your employees after 1 day working, next day will have 2500 new sellers, on the 3rd day 3500 new sellers and so on eternally....

Nothing personal but I seriously doubt you're running a business.

Likewise, I seriously doubt you're running a business based on your arithmetic...

Your math assumes you have 1500 employees (ie. you've given the imprecise 'few' the oddball definition of exactly 1.5).

If there are 1500 new sellers a day and each takes 3 days to vet, as you propose, then if you have a few thousand (say 4500) people assigned to vetting then the on day one you have 1500 people beginning the vetting process and 3000 in their cubes reading MacRumors, on day two you have 3000 people vetting and 1500 people reading, on day 3 you have 4500 people fully engaged in vetting 3 days worth of new vendors. On day 4, the first 1500 people have completed their initial batch and begin work on day 4's new vendors.

The math isn't that hard. If you have V new vendors each day and it takes D days to vet each vendor, then you must have D*V employees vetting. I'm not sure how you got it so wrong...

Ok, so let's take what are perhaps more realistic numbers. Using my estimate of 30 days to vet an SSL cert, let's assume that the famously efficient Amazon can achieve some level of vetting in half that time: D=15. Let's assume that the added unwanted scrutiny and friction of the process reduces the number of new applicants by a third, so V=1000. In that case D*V is 15,000 employees assigned to vetting.

"Oh noes!" you say. That's a lot of new people to hire, how will Amazon ever survive?!

Amazon employed roughly 1.3 million people in 2020, so this is likely less than 1% of their 2021 workforce. Amazon is already growing their workforce by between 20 and 60% a year. This doesn't seem to be a big ask.

Again, my point is that sellers need to be vetted. The counter argument seems to be, "they can't be". Without a third option here, we either allow Amazon to continue functioning as a black market for stolen and counterfeit goods, or shut them down. I don't think "we'd be less profitable" is sufficient justification for allowing a global criminal enterprise to continue. Faced with an existential threat, I believe Amazon can find a way to vet their partners.

 

[KeesMacPro]

Likewise, I seriously doubt you're running a business based on your arithmetic...

Your math assumes you have 1500 employees (ie. you've given the imprecise 'few' the oddball definition of exactly 1.5).

If there are 1500 new sellers a day and each takes 3 days to vet, as you propose, then if you have a few thousand (say 4500) people assigned to vetting then the on day one you have 1500 people beginning the vetting process and 3000 in their cubes reading MacRumors, on day two you have 3000 people vetting and 1500 people reading, on day 3 you have 4500 people fully engaged in vetting 3 days worth of new vendors. On day 4, the first 1500 people have completed their initial batch and begin work on day 4's new vendors.

The math isn't that hard. If you have V new vendors each day and it takes D days to vet each vendor, then you must have D*V employees vetting. I'm not sure how you got it so wrong...

Ok, so let's take what are perhaps more realistic numbers. Using my estimate of 30 days to vet an SSL cert, let's assume that the famously efficient Amazon can achieve some level of vetting in half that time: D=15. Let's assume that the added unwanted scrutiny and friction of the process reduces the number of new applicants by a third, so V=1000. In that case D*V is 15,000 employees assigned to vetting.

"Oh noes!" you say. That's a lot of new people to hire, how will Amazon ever survive?!

Amazon employed roughly 1.3 million people in 2020, so this is likely less than 1% of their 2021 workforce. Amazon is already growing their workforce by between 20 and 60% a year. This doesn't seem to be a big ask.

Again, my point is that sellers need to be vetted. The counter argument seems to be, "they can't be". Without a third option here, we either allow Amazon to continue functioning as a black market for stolen and counterfeit goods, or shut them down. I don't think "we'd be less profitable" is sufficient justification for allowing a global criminal enterprise to continue. Faced with an existential threat, I believe Amazon can find a way to vet their partners.

No time for this , sorry.

 

[lexlevi]

Four years ago, I bought a 15-inch MacBook Pro, new in box, with AppleCare+ on eBay. It worked fine until the crap keyboard gave out, so I sent it in for warranty repair. When I got it back, setup wouldn’t let me get past a “remote management” screen by Rapid7. After an hour on the phone with AppleCare, they recommended I reach out to Rapid7 to try to reclaim my computer.

When I rang them, they said they’ve received a number of similar calls recently and their theory is that one of their asset/recycling partners has been skimming units off top for the years and reselling.

Rapid7 will be calling me Monday or Tuesday to (hopefully) resolve the issue. Have you heard of this? Has it happened to you?


Screenshot is here:

AppleCare remote management?

I sent my 2017 15” MPB in for keyboard repair and it came back with a screen I’ve never seen before. I’ve tried wiping the drive several times and it still shows up. Any idea why this is here and how to remove it? Is someone trying to spy on me?

forums.macrumors.com

Update: Rapid7 got back to me (incredibly nice people) and removed the laptop from their management system. Will attempt to reinstall later and provide you with another update.

 

[Bustermd]

Lots of back and forth about the safety of purchasing from eBay and Amazon. Long story short, is that it is not safe to purchase electronics from ebay and nothing anyone can do can change that. ebay also has no motivation to change anything as it is working just fine for them. And its not just stolen goods, it is also so-called "scalped" items like PS5s, GPUs, sneakers, etc that are bought up by organized groups with bots and then resold at a ridiculous markup.

Amazon is OK, but I personally only buy items that are "shipped and sold by Amazon", never 3rd party sellers unless it was something completely random that wasn't profitable enough to counterfeit or steal.

 

[boss.king]

Buying used from eBay is perfectly safe. Do a bit of research, check the thing when it arrives, and return it if anything is wrong. Had OP wiped and restored his laptop (as anyone buying a used laptop should do anyway) they'd have found this issue 4 years ago and been able to get a refund no problem. This paranoia over buying used electronics is really silly.

I don't have much experience buying used from Amazon though, so I can't comment on that.

 

[lexlevi]

Update: Rapid7 got back to me (incredibly nice people) and removed the laptop from their management system. Will attempt to reinstall later and provide you with another update.

And we're MAC in business! (had to...)

 

[laptech]

And we're MAC in business! (had to...)

Well you lucked with that company because legally they have every right to ask for the machine back because it was effectively stolen property.

 

[960design]

I'll spare you my tales of woe, but I've taken to buying nearly everything direct from the manufacturer's site whenever possible or practical.

For full coverage... ordering directly from manufacture has its own issues as well.

My daughter (teen) worked her butt off to save and purchase an Apple Watch. It arrived in a very slightly damaged package at our door step. Camera showed delivery driver drop it off as expected, with no others approaching home. Opened box to find a bend in the white packaging and the watch missing. Everything else was there, the bands, documentation, ect.

Happy Ending:
Daughter called Apple and they sent out another watch right away. The only pain point is that she could not show off the new watch on "release day", she had to wait a week or so for delivery of the new one.
Apple probably earned a young, life time customer from that phone call.

 

[TechRunner]

For full coverage... ordering directly from manufacture has its own issues as well.

My daughter (teen) worked her butt off to save and purchase an Apple Watch. It arrived in a very slightly damaged package at our door step. Camera showed delivery driver drop it off as expected, with no others approaching home. Opened box to find a bend in the white packaging and the watch missing. Everything else was there, the bands, documentation, ect.

Happy Ending:
Daughter called Apple and they sent out another watch right away. The only pain point is that she could not show off the new watch on "release day", she had to wait a week or so for delivery of the new one.
Apple probably earned a young, life time customer from that phone call.

I'm glad Apple stepped up and worked that out for her. No purchasing system is perfect, for sure. All we can do is our due diligence and hope for the best!

And...you did help prove my point about the value of ordering direct from reputable companies, and I appreciate that

 

[Bustermd]

To each their own: at some point, to me anyway, the time you have to invest checking, returning, filing disputes, etc if there are issues with an eBay purchase isn't worth it. Not by a long shot. Your mileage may vary.

But, we are kidding ourselves if we think that buying expensive electronics off eBay isn't rolling the dice every time, no matter how much due diligence is put in.

 

[diamond.g]

You really have this crazy view that vetting is easy and straightforward.

I'm giving up this line of conversation because it really feels you've an exceptionally naïve view on all this.

I know StockX vets each item sold on their platform (for like a 100$ fee). Not sure how easy that would be to scale for a vendor that sells thousands of items a day.

 

[TiggrToo]

I know StockX vets each item sold on their platform (for like a 100$ fee). Not sure how easy that would be to scale for a vendor that sells thousands of items a day.

Vetting costs time, and money. The less time you're willing to spend, the more money it'll probably cost.

Even at scale.