Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#61

Post by giarc »

chickenfries wrote: post #57
giarc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's quite unethical to remain an employee simply to gain leverage for a lawsuit down the road.

What would the ethical thing to do be? Most people, especially housekeepers, can't just quit a well paying job without first making preparation for their next steps. If your employer is committing crimes and possibly implicating you in them, you might want to stick around to make sure that you have enough evidence to take them to court. Especially if they're a lot richer than you and have much better lawyers.

You are describing blackmail.

Wong - My employee isn't paying me correctly. I better start collecting private information about him and his colleagues, without his knowledge, to use in a future lawsuit.

Also keep in mind the data she is collecting has nothing to do with her complaints about wage etc.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#62

Post by londons_explore »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #47

Something is off here. Why is all of this "dirt" coming out in a nanny employment situation? Plus how in the world did she even know what all these conversations meant and why even remember them all? I do think Lewandowski is guilty but this seems weird.

Sounds like she is a nanny with an interest in self driving cars, and no real interest in nannying...

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#63

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

throwaway_4179 wrote: post #27

Throwaway and being intentionally vague for obvious reasons. I knew Anthony some years ago. It was clear to me from day one that not all was right with his way of interacting with the world. I suppose his nanny apparently had enough emotional intelligence to pick up on this and enough situational awareness to take notes. I wish there were a safe way to share this, especially if it turned out to be useful in any way b…

Sorry but I have a hard time considering your comment a meaningful contribution to the thread, since it is extremely common for people to #metoo with 20-20 hindsight about other people. The more lurid the details the stronger their conviction.

This Uber-Waymo affair has devolved into absolute tabloid-level nonsense and we should all collectively be ashamed of it.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#64

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

cantrip wrote: post #56
throwaway_4179 wrote: post #27

Throwaway and being intentionally vague for obvious reasons. I knew Anthony some years ago. It was clear to me from day one that not all was right with his way of interacting with the world. I suppose his nanny apparently had enough emotional intelligence to pick up on this and enough situational awareness to take notes. I wish there were a safe way to share this, especially if it turned out to be useful in any way b…

What exactly are you sharing? It's not illegal to be an asshole. It's also not important to anyone that you knew him years ago and think he's an asshole, so where is the schadenfreude coming from?

They are saying that they feel schadenfreude about Levandowski going down.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#65

Post by hsod »

This is kind of confusing.

Why does his nanny care about trade secret stealing? And what does it have to do with lost wages? The article doesn't really make this clear.

I might imagine that the nanny was hoping to induce a settlement but I would think she would gain more leverage by keeping this stuff secret (i.e. the cat is out of the bag).

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#66

Post by cantrip »

rayiner wrote: post #58
cantrip wrote: post #3

"Wong also claims knowledge of a large swath of Levandowski’s personal and business dealings. She does so in great detail, including dozens of overheard names, the license-plate numbers of cars she observed at a Levandowski property, and an extensive list of the BDSM gear she claims he kept in his bedroom." This sounds a lot like she was spying on him for trade secrets. Also, the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to…

It’s relevant to the question of whether she had enough access to know those other things.

But her claims about his business dealings and his sexual fetishes are both unverified claims, so it's circular reasoning to say one helps prove the other.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#67

Post by londons_explore »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #51
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In blackmail, you keep the damaging information secret while you try to get the target to pay. Publicizing it doesn't work, because the whole point is for the target to pay to keep it secret. So, unless there is something worse that Levandowski would know she knows that would come out if the allegations in the lawsuit were litigated, this is not likely to be “blackmail as lawsuit”.

Best post here and clears it up for me. I just could not figure this out as made no sense. Once out there there is no black mail possible. But if you put some out there to show you are serious it is very effective. What is unbelievable is how bad this is suggests the rest is off the charts. Well I view this off the charts so the rest thermonuclear.

Or the real blackmail is "pay up or i'll say this under oath in court, which means it can be used against you in other court cases"

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#68

Post by eganist »

vkou wrote: post #54
Blazespinnaker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal way to blackmail. Cool! But, alas, she can be subpoenaed which overrides any gag clause.

Generally speaking, when you sue someone, it's often in your best interests to give them an opportunity to settle, instead of going to trial. You often do this by listing all the awful shit about the other person that you're going to air at trial. We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this.

> We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this

I mean, if we're just going by Wikipedia, my non-lawyerly brain would parse this:

> It is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true [...] information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of [...] criminal prosecution.

as being precisely what's happening here. Breadcrumbs were thrown out in public with an implication to settle in order to avoid more getting out.

That sounds like "legal blackmail" to most laypeople.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#69

Post by scarmig »

giarc wrote: post #61
chickenfries wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the ethical thing to do be? Most people, especially housekeepers, can't just quit a well paying job without first making preparation for their next steps. If your employer is committing crimes and possibly implicating you in them, you might want to stick around to make sure that you have enough evidence to take them to court. Especially if they're a lot richer than you and have much better lawyers.

You are describing blackmail. Wong - My employee isn't paying me correctly. I better start collecting private information about him and his colleagues, without his knowledge, to use in a future lawsuit. Also keep in mind the data she is collecting has nothing to do with her complaints about wage etc.

So your claim is that if one person is employed by another, they're obligated to always act with their best interests at heart, even if the employer doesn't do the same for the employee?

Levandowski didn't purchase her ears, memory, and voice. Just her labor for some relatively low wage however many hours per week.

I'm sure in the end he'll purchase them, but at a much steeper cost than if he had just paid for them up front.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#70

Post by verylongaccount »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #51
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In blackmail, you keep the damaging information secret while you try to get the target to pay. Publicizing it doesn't work, because the whole point is for the target to pay to keep it secret. So, unless there is something worse that Levandowski would know she knows that would come out if the allegations in the lawsuit were litigated, this is not likely to be “blackmail as lawsuit”.

Best post here and clears it up for me. I just could not figure this out as made no sense. Once out there there is no black mail possible. But if you put some out there to show you are serious it is very effective. What is unbelievable is how bad this is suggests the rest is off the charts. Well I view this off the charts so the rest thermonuclear.

This is what I thought, too. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Maybe the nanny is including some damaging information in the lawsuit, but not the most damaging information. She puts in plenty of details to send the message that she has a lot of specific details regarding the real dirt.
Post reply on HN