51–60 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think it could have come out over coffee one day?
I have to assume there was no evidence of that, or else he'd be charged too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"While there’s no suggestion in court papers that Wenig knew of the plot, prosecutors say his angry emails triggered the scheme, and they play a central role in the narrative spelled out by the government. "Take her down," Wenig is alleged to have written in response to a post by the blogger." That would be the smoking gun, but who's alleging it? Article didn't say.
Is that even a smoking gun? Surely that one text message is not enough to prove that he meant "harass and cyberstalk her" rather than "sue her for libel" or some other non-criminal action.
From a “reasonable” perspective, there are two possibilities, both of which implicate the ceo.
1. “Take her down” was enough information, in which case he is at fault.
2. It wasn’t enough information, in which case further discussion was had offline.
I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there is no option: 3. The employees thought it was enough information incorrectly and began a criminal conspiracy because they’re just so eager to please.
It's stalking and harassment incidents like these that I'm reminded of any time someone tells me they've got nothing to hide.
any time someone tells me they've got nothing to hide. Has anyone ever actually uttered that particular strawman argument to you? I think it may be the second most commonly used one.
Impressive how they managed to nail seven underlings for doing it (five plead guilty; two went to trial[0]) but not CEO Devin Wenig for ordering[1] it, instead giving him a $57 million golden parachute straight into GM's Cruise. I wonder if Wenig being CEO of Thomson Reuters Markets from 2008 to 2011 has any effect on the way Reuters reports on this eBay scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_Wenig [0]: https:/…
Rich people don't go to jail.
John Kapoor, Bernie Ebbers, Scott Sullivan, Jeff Skilling, Martin Grass, John and Timothy Rigas, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Richard Scrushy, Joseph Nacchio, Martha Stewart, Ivan Boesky, Jordan Belfort, Sanjay Kumar, Allen Stanford, Raj Rajaratnam, Walter Forbes, Eddie Antar, Dennis Kozlowski, Sam Waksal, Alfred Taubman, Russell Wasendorf, Samuel Israel III, Stewart Parnell, Chris Collins, Kareem Serageldin, Andrew Fastow, Charles Keating, Martin Shkreli, Barry Minkow, Michael Steinberg, Phil Spector, Bill Cosby, Michael Avenatti, Harvey Weinstein, Suge Knight, Jeffrey Epstein, Ken Lay (escaped prison by dying)
To this list you can add hundreds of bankers from the Savings & Loan crisis that went to prison, and a large number of famous embezzlement cases involving large sums (eg John Doorly, Sujata Sachdeva, Melissa King, Omino Siddiqui).
It's too bad the Obama Admin intentionally chose not to pursue almost any prosecutions after the most recent financial crisis, or you could probably staple many more names to this list. One of the greatest avoid-jail corporate hand-outs in US history, representing hyper corruption at the highest levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that even a smoking gun? Surely that one text message is not enough to prove that he meant "harass and cyberstalk her" rather than "sue her for libel" or some other non-criminal action.
I just know from my big Corp training manual that things like “crush” and “take down” should never be in corporate communication for legal reasons. From a “reasonable” perspective, there are two possibilities, both of which implicate the ceo. 1. “Take her down” was enough information, in which case he is at fault. 2. It wasn’t enough information, in which case further discussion was had offline. I am convinced beyond…
Let’s say they had previous conversations about how to handle hostile media.
Ideas included raising concerns with editors, pulling advertising, raising concerns with platforms/ISPs about “disinformation”, suing for libel, etc.
So yes the CEO is implicated. He’s clearly in the decision chain - no doubt about it. But there’s nothing here about how much was deferred to subordinates.
I guess that falls into the category of “offline discussion” - but that doesn’t mean anything nefarious.
Who wants to follow up to see what this guy gets after 18 months of prison for keeping his mouth shut?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like Bridgegate. The way these people become powerful is by being smart enough to both delegate crime and never write anything down about it.
Former director of homeland security Janet Napolitano has actually stated that she avoided e-mails, and did everything in-person of via phone calls (presumably to avoid documenting her actions and motives).
There was scandal in a city I lived in. It turned out city council members were turning off their cell phones and actually talking face to face during council meeting bathroom breaks.
The press was ticked, because they were used to accessing the SMS messages.
The council members pushed back hard - nasty blog posts were written - and the press ended up looking a little silly and spoiled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone got a link to the newsletter? I'm really curious what the eBay execs found so offensive.
Based on the name it would be: https://www.ecommercebytes.com it still contains the authors names on the posts and on the about page.
The comments below each article are indeed salty about eBay, but no more so than your typical eBay seller on the official forums.
I have no idea what got the execs so riled up. There's gotta be something more to this story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
any time someone tells me they've got nothing to hide. Has anyone ever actually uttered that particular strawman argument to you? I think it may be the second most commonly used one.
Yes. It happens a lot when pointing out privacy consciousness to a layman. Not that I do that often, but when I do, it's the overwhelmingly disproportionate response. Only followed by something about being worth it for the convenience.
If you are feeling particularly bold, you can always ask them to remove their pants.
People who claim they have nothing to hide just don't realize how much they hide on an active basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Let's take this offline"
I once worked on a startup founded by lawyers and they would do this all the time. Never put things in writing that they might be flexible on later. I hated that part.