If the National Retail Federation (NRF) has its way, selling goods online will soon become far less anonymous and significantly more onerous for any online auction or discount website. The NRF has announced its support and testified in favor of three bills: H.R. 6713, known as the E-fencing Enforcement Act; H.R. 6491, aka Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008; and S.3434, the "Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008." As the titles suggest, all of these bills are (supposedly) aimed at fighting organized crime rings, but don't worry—the burdens the NRF would impose upon you are for your own good. No, really—they actually say so.

According to the NRF's Vice President for Loss Prevention, Joseph LaRocca, the Internet is creating a new, dangerous type of retail thief. "Thieves often tell the same disturbing story: they begin legitimately selling product on eBay and then become hooked by its addictive qualities, the anonymity it provides and the ease with which they gain exposure to millions of customers," LaRocca said. "When they run out of legitimate merchandise, they begin to steal intermittently, many times for the first time in their life, so they can continue selling online. The thefts then begin to spiral out of control and before they know it they quit their jobs, are recruiting accomplices and are crossing states lines to steal, all so they can support and perpetuate their online selling habit."

Selling on eBay: it's worse than a heroin addiction.

Ostensibly, the purpose of these bills is to attack the growing prevalence of Organized Retail Crime (ORC), and no one involved in the discussion claims it isn't a problem. The theft rings referred to in all three bills are far more sophisticated and determined than your average shoplifter, and when they steal, they steal in bulk. The largest networks operate over multiple state lines in territories that span hundreds of miles. The goal of these enterprises is ultimately to redistribute the goods, whether that means selling off the back of a truck or running a major warehouse. Said warehouse's customers, in fact, may be perfectly legitimate businesses themselves, with no idea that the Huggies they're buying to stock on the shelf actually came out of a Wal-Mart two weeks earlier.

Not only are these businesses profitable, they're also considerably safer than drug running or dealing in other illegal substances, and if caught, the punishment under current federal statutes is much lighter. The estimated monetary losses to retailers are serious business, even for the mega corporations; one bill cites the losses due to these operations at $30 billion.

Retailers have a compelling interest in reducing the incidents of such theft, and the NRF has backed the aforementioned bills as one means of cracking down on ORCs, or so the organization claims. Details on each of the bills are presented below:

H.R. 6713: This bill states that online stores and resellers must "disclose contact information for any high-volume seller (defined as a seller grossing $12,000 or more per year, hereafter referred to as an HVS) to any inquirer with

standing under this section to seek that information." Online companies are also required to retain contact information on

HVSs for three years after the information is received. Upon the request of an appropriate party (retailer), the online marketplace must attempt to determine, without undue expense, whether the goods or items in question were lawfully acquired. If the items in question were illegally purchased, or if there's good reason to suspect they are, the provider is required to remove the auctions and ban the seller. Failure to comply with the statute is specifically stated as reason enough to seek relief.

This bill states that online stores and resellers must "disclose contact information for any high-volume seller (defined as a seller grossing $12,000 or more per year, hereafter referred to as an HVS) to any inquirer with standing under this section to seek that information." Online companies are also required to retain contact information on HVSs for three years after the information is received. H.R. 6491: 6491 covers much of the same ground as 6713, but expands on the burdens placed on the online reseller.

According to 6491, online marketplaces are required to "expeditiously investigate" all credible evidence that might indicate

the presence of illegally obtained products. The company is required to maintain a record of all such investigations for at

least three years. HVSs, meanwhile, can kiss any pretense of anonymity good-bye; the online marketplace is required to

maintain a database of information on all such persons. Said database must consist of (but is not limited to) the name,

telephone number, e-mail address, legitimate physical address, any user identification, and company name. Want more? Good. If you're an HVS, the website you do business on is required to maintain a three-year log of all of your transactions, and , your name, telephone number, and legitimate address must be posted in conjunction with any product you intend to sell. High-volume sellers are also required to provide this information "upon request of any business that has a reasonable suspicion that goods or services at the site were acquired through organized retail crime, its name, telephone number, and legitimate physical address." The rest of the bill concerns itself with statute changes and clarifications intended to punish organized retail crime more harshly than is currently permitted under law.

6491 covers much of the same ground as 6713, but expands on the burdens placed on the online reseller. According to 6491, online marketplaces are required to "expeditiously investigate" all credible evidence that might indicate the presence of illegally obtained products. The company is required to maintain a record of all such investigations for at least three years. HVSs, meanwhile, can kiss any pretense of anonymity good-bye; the online marketplace is required to maintain a database of information on all such persons. Said database must consist of (but is not limited to) the name, telephone number, e-mail address, legitimate physical address, any user identification, and company name. S.3434: Finally, we have S. 3434, which pulls no punches. According to it, any online marketplace presented with

evidence that a person is using the site to fence stolen goods is required to file a suspicious activity report with the

Attorney General of the United States, notify the retailer or business in question that the report has been filed, and begin

reviewing the records of the seller for evidence of other illegal activities. Note, please, that the seller is not notified

at any point in this proceeding. This is not an accident of omission, as the bill makes clear. "No operator of a

physical retail marketplace or online retail marketplace... may notify any individual or entity that is the subject of a

suspicious activity report... of the fact that the operator filed such a report... or of any information contained in the

report or account review. Furthermore, S. 3434 allows a retailer who suspects goods are being fenced illegally online to presume the guilt of the seller in question. The retailer (online or off, in this case), may request that the user "present documentary evidence that the operator (reseller) reasonably determines to be clear and convincing showing that the transient vendor or user has not used the retail marketplace to sell or distribute items that were stolen."

The central problem here is that the NRF would place the massive job of policing entirely upon the shoulders of the online resellers. In the past, companies have cited corporate policies that promote trust between employee and employer, but all three of these proposals ask online companies to gather and maintain extensive databases on their most loyal users, simply because those users might be involved in something illegal. The bills in question make no allowances for product type—whether you're selling hand-painted ornaments or Gillette razor blades, if you sell over $12,000 a year of anything, you're on the watch list.

Even more troubling is the fact that passing these proposals would give retailers the right to order an investigation of an individual based on nothing more than a suspicion. None of the bills we've discussed today offer retailers or customers any right to challenge the allegations; S.3434 explicitly forbids notifying a seller that they are, or have ever been, the target of an investigation.

Combine this with the retail industry's refusal to work with online giant eBay (as reported by Network World) because it would have required them to release information, and the proposals don't seem nearly so clear-cut. No one disagrees that organized theft is a problem, but blaming the issue on online merchants and eBay Power Sellers, and requiring that companies take aggressive actions to police and track customers in ways that the retailers themselves avoid, due to cost and negative publicity, is duplicitous in the extreme.