Advertising Ethics - Shoe Marketplace

Brief 

As someone who loves to shop, I am absolutely keen on cool-looking sneakers. I currently own three nice pairs of shoes and the rest are sandals and boots because being in college makes you aware of splurging. Shoe companies: like Nike, Adidas, Puma, New Balance, and many more allow third-party sites access to sell their personal shoes with no penalties. This has worked well for years until it hasn't when sellers on these sites steal money from the buyers by sending fake shoes. 

By the sellers tricking the consumers, it not only affects the credibility of the company itself, but the actual brand of the shoes looks bad. Everyone is trying to make money and these sites are going to milk it any way that they can even if it means that you don't get the real deal.

StockX

Stockx is a forum through which you can sell your shoes through the site as well as purchase them from other users. This site is similar to other outlets like Mercari, Poshmark, eBay, and many more. The idea of reselling name-brand shoes at a lower price than previously bought is a great idea for those who want the latest sneakers, but do not have the equivalent amount of money. 

The problem with the company is that all of the shoes are not authentic- meaning they are fakes or remakes of other shoe brands like Nike for instance. The full Scoop of the issue can be found on complex.com. Around this time last year, Nike was suing StockX for selling fake Nike Sneakers and also calling them out for selling other fake sneakers.

If Nike had not got complaints from customers of StockX about the Nike sneakers, then I feel as though the issue wouldn't have arisen. To add, the representation of Nike Brand also purchased sneakers from the 'legitimate' site, and to their surprise, those sneakers were all fake as well. 

StockXs response to the issue was basically denying the claim, without fully saying that. They explained the process by which sellers send in their shoes for an authenticity test and if deemed real, then the seller would make that profit or deny it with no profit.

The return policy for fake shoes or any of their products depends on the description of the shoes beforehand, so if it doesn't say anything about returns then you cannot. In other instances, if the company feels as if their product is false from a seller, then the matter will be put into the hands of the authorities according to wallstreetsurvivor.com.

My Remarks

If the statement about Stockxs' authenticity test were true, how does this continue to happen? My next question is what does the authenticity test consist of I am not a sneakerhead, but I can spot a fake shoe up close with my left lazy eye.

Outcome

After researching, it is neither confirmed nor denied if there has been a solution or not, but it is very clear that StockX does not care about its consumers and they still continue to sell false name brand shoes on their site.

 CIA Drones Acknowledgment

Brief

What is the Freedom of Information Act? Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), is known to supply the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. This Act was enacted in 1967 by Lyndon Johnson but wasn't effective until the summer of July.

History

According to eff.org, the proposal for the Act was first created by Democratic Congressman John Moss in 1955 during the Cold War when the government began to swear to confidentiality. Though it was pushed by Lyndon Johnson, John Moss was still providing his support in the matter by helping push the bill once again. 

The only issue with the new bill was the fear that the government wouldn't hold up its part of the bargain and ultimately take complete control of it until John Moss pushed for the bill once more, but this time with very specific guidelines and rules that must be applied. The ruling was unanimous, though it was extremely difficult to give the bill legs to stand on.

How it is being used today

After in-depth explorations, the bill is practical to protect all forms of  records that are accessible to the public which include:

Drafts 

Emails

Notes

Recordings of any conversation

CCTV recordings

These are just a few imprints that are secured by the Freedom of Information Act but are not limited by any means since one can find information about someone in a quick matter.

Examples of FOIA

In 2013, Wired expressed that there was an issue with the Freedom of Information Act not being used when asked to do such. This issue was when the CIA refused to come forth to provide the public with the claims of the killer Drones that were used by al-Qaeda.

Though the CIA was not upfront with the information that they had, the past president Barack Obama stepped to the plate and put out a statement that the United States has known about the Drones, the rumors are true, and the US is the one responsible for them.

The CIA still was silent on the matter, though it further exposes the claims of the Freedom of Information Act being broken. The case was brought upon by the American Civil Liberties Union when the CIA was not willing to cooperate in giving further information about the killer drones that were being used in the military without prior knowledge to all.

For many reasons that could be inferred, the CIA's claim to not provide information to the public about this matter is because they felt as if they would be exposing more than needed to be shedding any light on the situation. In basic terms, they just did not want to tell of their plans and now that everyone knows of the devices, it makes it even harder to keep the secret under-raps. 

Honestly, if it were completely exposed, I do feel as though it would make the situation worse since other leading countries have been suspected of using those same devices for years.

My Remarks

The reason that the United States is getting such backlash on the situation is that when any other matters have happened in the United States, all forms of government and securities have been compliant in providing information until now. This country is known as the 'Land of the Free', so when such a statement is made, it raises concerns that the US does not have their civilians' best interest at heart by telling them everything especially when it comes to their safety. 

Conclusion

The United States is not exempt from doing the right thing by protecting its people by any means possible, even if it interrupts their plans, so be it. In the future, the United States has to be up-front with its plans of any such when asked by the public due to the Freedom of Information Act that they agreed on years ago.