Makes you really wonder if this was an isolated incident or if there are other cases of these tactics that were successful in silencing the victims.
Makes me think of the series DEVS where a big Silicon Valley company also uses their security force in a similar manner, I never thought that would be the part that was the most accurate.
It's scary that this happened at Ebay, I dread to think what kind of shit a company with the funds of google or facebook could pull off.
It wasn't exactly successful in silencing the victim but one of the car companies did this to Ralph Nader when he was investigating their products for Unsafe at Any Speed.
I'm honestly surprised that any company would still do this sort of thing to critics after how that turned out back in the 60s. When the harassment of Nader was discovered, it put extra momentum behind the push for car safety legislation that cost the car companies lots of money and saved countless lives. Nader was then able to get lots of additional consumer safety laws passed in the 70s. Maybe they just think themselves so powerful after decades of successfully buying politicians that they think they can now get away with this kind of thing.
It is a different time. CEO malfeasance was not tolerated nearly as much: when it was clear that he would be caught for paying a bribe to the Honduran President, the Chiquita CEO jumped to his death from his office in a Manhattan skyscraper.
Nowadays, what drove Eli Black to his suicide is considered “business as usual” and is no bar to someone being CEO, staying out of jail, or even elected President.
There's not a single aspect of social opinion that can't be turned into a heated flame war, and stoked for what it's worth. Be that external powers getting this country to consume itself, or internal ones avoiding the formation of a coherent mob.
"I'm honestly surprised that any company would still do this sort of thing to critics after how that turned out back in the 60s."
That's famous. GM had a private detective follow Nader around. He followed Nader into the US Capitol. (Anyone could walk in back then.) Private detective discovered by Capitol cops. CEO of General Motors subpoenaed to appear before Senate committee on national TV.
It's not uncommon for corporations to hire PI and target certain clients/customers/competitors ,for petty reasons or even to dig dirt on them, and it might count as stalking yes. One day when I'm retired I might tell my story.
But this case is just one step above all that. Who knows what these employees and executives did to others before, I hardly believe this was an isolated case at eBay.
Please familiarize yourself with the site guidelines. You've broken several in this thread, beginning with the shallow dismissal "nobody cares about your story."
> Why is everyone more concerned with scolding someone than partaking in discussion?
The purpose of the guidelines is to establish an atmosphere of curious, genuine conversation. If somebody demonstrates dinterest in curious, genuine conversation through repeated violations of those guidelines, it comes time to inform (not scold) them of why their comments are getting flagged to death.
I'm not interested in fighting with you about this topic. But I am interested in maintaining the vibe that you're currently harshing. You have a new account, so I have some hope that you might come around, rethink your approach to online conversation, and become a productive member of our community. If you're feeling anger or frustration, please reflect on how you might better engage with the community here -- if the answer you arrive at is that we're a bunch of mean doodie-heads, then that's fine, you shouldn't associate with mean doodie-heads.
PIs are stalkers for hire. dubdigidob is being blunt, but I think he's right. I don't want rapists chiming in to offer their perspective on stories about rape; nor do I welcome PIs chiming in with their opinions on stories about corporations using PIs to stalk and harass people.
I have a family member who just used a PI to get child support from someone hiding income illegally.
PIs are used to catch cheating spouses, insider trading, theft and corporate espionage.
That doesn't mean PIs or given practices are immune to criticism. However, blunt statements such as "PIs are stalkers for hire" are so sloppy as to be factually incorrect and useless, and comparing them to rapists belays naiveity and an agenda.
A stalker for hire who occasionally stalks somebody who's also a scumbag, if the money is right? Give me a break. Such lame defenses of the profession only serve to further damn it.
> comparing them to rapists belays naiveity and an agenda.
An agenda huh? I guess you mean it's personal to me? Well you're right; a former employer sicced such goons on me and one of them got nasty. That's my "agenda" pal; being a victim of this profession.
Did (or could) you blog somewhere about any details, how these things happened and how you dealt with these tricks, threats and accusations? I reckon it would be very helpful for others in the industry to learn from your experience and at the very least get an understanding of how these things occur, how the other party operates and how you can deal with such situations in an appropriate and self-preserving manner (we often come up short in this important area, as we focus on the technical side of things).
Thanks (also for all the hard work that you do!)
> I dread to think what kind of shit a company with the funds of google or facebook could pull off
Me too. Sometimes I see these ideas in science fiction. I remember one black mirror episode where a tech company knows more about a suspect than the police. It's really unnerving watching them casually reveal all sorts of information, even the authorities seemed surprised.
Even worse is thinking about the resources governments have and the numberless ways they can abuse these powers.
Edward Snowden will die in exile while the NSA, CIA and others spy on US citizens. This will never change. No one in the ruling class is going to change it. You're a subject in a country ruled by people who aren't like you. Things do not change.
And if you try to change things, they will know. You will be labeled a terrorist, stripped of any rights you think you have and placed inside some hell hole nobody knows about so that you can be tortured until you break.
Edit: ... Holy shit. I think I just described 1984 without realizing it.
There's a heck of a lot more ways the government can make your life miserable before they escalate to force and a great many more of those ways are legally defensible in court.
Imagine if the cops had been menacingly tailing these people for an equally BS reason, what would their recourse be?
Stop being obtuse. The behavior eBay engaged is covered under laws criminalizing harassment or stalking. Try holding the .gov to the same standards and see where it gets you. Even if there isn't a legal carve-out it will be a much more uphill legal battle and the other parts of the .gov you have to deal with along the way will try as hard as they can to avoid enforcement actions against whatever part of the .gov is abusing you.
darknet diaries has a few episodes with similar stories. Check this one out https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/97/ not about a company targeting people, but similar pathological behaviour
I’ve heard multiple early Facebook employees brag about stalking users, checking out who is looking at who’s pictures… having a really good laugh about it. I couldn’t believe it but it was absolutely happening at FB in the early days and it didn’t seem isolated at all. I don’t know if it’s still happening but stalking is core DNA for Facebook.
> Makes me think of the series DEVS where a big Silicon Valley company also uses their security force in a similar manner, I never thought that would be the part that was the most accurate.
This was my first thought when I read about the eBay accusations last year. That said, I've worked for a broad spectrum of Bay Area companies and I think pretty much everything environmental and atmospheric in DEVS was accurate. It was a better take on tech companies and their personalities than, say, "Silicon Valley," and watching it gave me a lot of uncomfortable deja vu. Highly recommended if you are in tech, ever watch TV, and haven't seen it.
> It's scary that this happened at Ebay, I dread to think what kind of shit a company with the funds of google or facebook could pull off.
Ebay is a ~$46 billion company. Yes, that pales in comparison to Google or FB. However, when it comes to going against a couple, any of those three have in essence infinite resources.
Quick true account story. I swear to the universe this happened as described below:
In the middle of the last decade, I moved from a town to which I had just moved, in order to get away from a stalker. I wound up moving into a celebrity's house: a multi-room unit. I listed a room for rent on craigslist, and was contacted by someone closely connected to this celebrity. That evening, I used FB DM to contact an old far away associate about an unrelated matter. The next day at a local coffee shop, a couple sat next to me and started loudly discussing both this potential rental share from the connected party, as well as the content of that private DM.
This was extremely unsettling. If you've never experienced this multiple times, it's difficult to convey how traumatizing this is. I started to question my own sanity/vanity/mental health. "Maybe I'm being self important. Maybe I have an undiagnosed mental illness." This caused me significant life damage, because it was not the first nor second time (nor the last time) that such an unattributed event occurred.
I still don't know if this was due to a corrupt FB insider feeding celebrity friends, hacking, shoulder surfing, or what. FB insider is the most logical guess. I sought help from the local tech community. Shortly thereafter, my landlord and his associate wound up threatening me -- seemingly out of context, but in a pre-meditated fashion -- with murder. Then, I was threatened by a friend of this celebrity when he promised to ruin my career if I "talk(ed) about what happened". This was highly traumatizing; I was alone, scared, and silenced. I eventually talked about it on FB. Thereafter, I was retaliated against with threats of violence and defamation from a local gang member. Based on these escalations, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the initial stalking/harassment was due to my imagination running wild.
In a seemingly unrelated matter in the same timeframe, I was stalked and targeted by two men, related to my failing startup. This occurred at a large, well-connected public establishment, also using supposedly private data (ostensibly gleaned from email this time, related to contractual matter for new client in the five figure range).
There were other incidents of harassment that occurred thereafter, particularly during the last administration. I live in an area with heavily polarized political leanings and entrenched long term racial/cultural tensions.
I did contact the police, who were unresponsive. After extensive complaining, I eventually did catch the attention of the FBI, who did offer to help, but it's been a long time and the damage is long since done, with little hope to prove anything. Testimony alone is insufficient to prove a pattern of malicious behavior by others. I've also had traumatizing experiences dealing with attorneys and courtrooms and don't wish to pursue civil action anyway.
These incidents occurred in a small, tightly knit community to which I was a total outsider transplant.
This is wild. I can’t believe I haven’t heard anything about this until now.
Some of this stuff is pretty dark. Mailing them spiders was bad enough but then mailing a married couple books on how to deal with the death of a spouse? jfc.
But yeah, again, I’m surprised I hadn’t heard anything about this at all, I mean the firing of an ebay ceo for stuff like this, I feel either the story was buried, I just glanced over the articles, or it was just lost to the noise of other news (which, given the timing of other stuff happening this is probably most likely what happened.)
Definitely not buried, it's come up on many tech news sites over the past couple years and has been discussed here. You just missed it, happens sometimes :)
This is so terrifying. In this case they were "stupid" as in if they had done it in a more subtle way they could have easily isolated and discredited these victims via gaslighting. It does make me wonder how many politicians and CEOs like this have actually pulled things off. Here's a story how "Big Egg" "joked" about putting a hit on a vegan mayonnaise competitor: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/03/437213511/ho...
It's disgusting to think that these guys will get out of jail pretty soon. I would rather hire someone accused of a more "serious" crime than these twisted ex ebay execs (depending what it was) because this is just pure twisted malice.
While I do not condone any harassment, the American Egg Board's core complaint that "Just Mayo" isn't actually mayonnaise because it doesn't contain eggs (which are an essential ingredient of mayonnaise, to quote Wikipedia: "Mayonnaise is an emulsion of oil, egg yolk, and an acid, either vinegar or lemon juice") was actually true, and I agree with them that it's misleading to consumers for "Just Mayo" to market itself under that name (which implies it is mayonnaise, and not a similar "dressing" or "spread" like Miracle Whip). It seems like both parties are in the wrong here.
Members of a (quasi?) government organization harassed a company and joked about paying someone to murder a CEO because they did not like how the company marketed its products.
I don't disagree with the content of your statements, but debating whether the government organization's concerns had merit seems like it misses the point of this discussion.
> Here's a story how "Big Egg" "joked" about putting a hit on a vegan mayonnaise competitor
And the Egg Board is run by the government! -- "The emails all came to light because the American Egg Board is technically part of the government. It's funded by the egg industry, but it's run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
> With a full license plate number in hand from David’s pictures, the Natick police quickly started to unravel the conspiracy.
> eBay’s team knew it was in trouble, according to their own messages
"Ah yes let's stalk these people and just hope they don't decide to take down the license plate." I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people doing awful things have an awful plan, but that's pretty dumb.
I think the dumb plan comes with the territory. If you think stalking someone as a solution to a problem makes sense, chances are reasoning isn't a skill you've developed very much. You tend to need that skill if you're going to make it hard to catch you. Basically the kind of person who would come up with this kind of a solution is not the kind of person who could pull it off, and those who can pull it off tend not to come up with this kind of nonsense.
Quite apart from the obviously horrific and troubling aspects of this story, a more mundane question arises: how on earth did anyone at the company, even rogue actors, determine that the 'damage' done to eBay possibly justified the level of expense and organisation invested here in attempting to ruin this couple's lives?
What persistent myth about corporate behavior is that it's rational (even if cold, cruel, and calculating). More often than not it's actually just people flying by the seat of their pants and more ego than anything else.
That goes double if the corporate culture tends to be very personality-cult-y, where executives have even more intense power than simply their position in the management chain.
What gets me is that, once again, the top of the chain managed to slide with few consequences. The low-level goons who carried out the attack of this couple got punished, while the exec(s) who ordered it either skated completely, or bailed out with a golden parachute. Truly a consequence-free environment.
Probably not a rational decision. I bet the guy just felt insulted and disrespected by the articles and decided to escalate the situation in an attempt to rectify that.
What baffles me is how many high-level people were sufficiently involved to face criminal charges. A manager, two senior managers, a director, and a senior director? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal#Charges_...) I expect high-level execs to be amoral bastards, but I would not have expected quite so many to be this suicidally stupid all at the same time.
I'm sure this varies from company to company, but it's at least been my experience that a lot corporate executives see their jobs as vehicles for their egos. I'm not sure how to make this sound less trite, because the reality of the situation feels pretty shocking and alien to me. Why would anyone be _proud_ of having some status at some company? In my relatively short experience, it's quite common.
I feel like in a lot of cases there's this weird understanding that if you're doing something for work it doesn't matter if it's illegal (or just amoral), you personally will not be subject to any consequences.
As a counterpoint to Ebay's horribleness: back in the day at Etsy, we were very grateful for Ina's blog and her participation with the Etsy seller community. She was an important and respected voice in ecommerce, especially for small business owners who often struggled to choose between different online platforms. When she offered critique to a particular platform, it was always measured, well-reasoned, and fair.
All the Etsians that I'm still in touch with were horrified and outraged when we learned of this story.
Yeah, it was quite a trip to read this article as a former Etsian (for context to unaware readers: Etsy was a somewhat frequent target of the blog in question here, along with obviously eBay).
I'm not going to pretend we didn't roll our eyes from time-to-time when a new article came out that seemed exaggerated, but the thought of retaliation never crossed anyone's mind.
I'm pretty sure we would've been summarily fired if we had even made contact with Ina, let alone any of the psycho shit outlined here.
I guess a counterpoint to your story: I worked at eBay when the story broke. We were all aware of Ina's blog and followed it regularly. As you mentioned, she was a great voice for e-commerce, and one that the vast majority of us appreciated. So, when the story broke, every co-worker I messaged was horrified and outraged as well. The fact that it went up as high as it did was really disgusting (and honestly, embarrassing).
> Unbeknownst to the Steiners, a group of Baugh’s employees had flown to Boston, rented two vehicles, and checked into the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, according to federal documents.
This is not isolated. This was directed by senior management. I believe such actions should pierce the corporate veil and render the entire c-suite liable for criminal charges. But I am also an experienced adult, and know their c-suite will have zero repercussions beyond the expense of a PR firm.
Our society is unjust, unfair and unsustainable. The longer we allow this to continue, the greater the pain our society will experience in the future. We never left the Dark Ages, we are an immature childish and selfish species.
Yup, let's not mince words. Most upwardly mobile people in the startup world don't do this not because of personal ethics, but lack of opportunity to benefit.
What surprises me most about this case is that there were actual consequences.
Usually this kind of shit ends with, at most, some low-level employees getting thrown under the bus, a manager or two "stepping down" with a generous severance package, and a quiet hush-money settlement to the victims.
Here, multiple directors and senior managers were fired outright, slapped with criminal charges, and IIRC at least a couple of them are doing prison time as we speak.
Something in me, somewhere in a dark and vengeful place of my soul, just wants to see the big companies burn down and let the ashes of the big tech giants be a warning memorial for future leaders that might don't make right.
It would be somewhat bearable if it would at least have consequences for the CEO, it's fucking wild that he gets to walk away from this with $57 million. Do these people have no shame at all? (no)
>The investigation also found that former CEO Wenig had made “inappropriate communications” but did not have advance knowledge of the harassment and stalking. Wenig, who was not charged, was allowed to resign in September 2019 with a compensation package worth $57 million; the Steiner scandal was a “consideration” in his departure, the company has said.
These morally bankrupt parasites somehow get in situations where they get rewarded when things go well and when things go catastrophically wrong under their watch. I wonder what you would have to do as a CEO to actually get fired without getting a huge sack of cash, murder someone in broad daylight?
>It would be somewhat bearable if it would at least have consequences for the CEO, it's fucking wild that he gets to walk away from this with $57 million. Do these people have no shame at all? (no)
It's clear to me that I don't really understand companies. Why give him such a huge exit package? Why would any executive get an exit package? What is the benefit to paying them so much money to leave? Why do most companies do this?
Boards think, or pretend to think, they need to promise such payments at hiring time in order to attract the candidates they (think they) want.
Board members tend to be, have been, or be related to CEOs. So, it is largely a matter of class solidarity. A norm of "CEO always wins" is good for them in general, even if it occasionally makes bad publicity. Bad publicity doesn't really cost them anything, anyway.
Boards and corporate officers ganging up against the interests of the stockholders is an old story. Nobody seems to have a solution, or to know how to put one into practice. Typically there is no one but a Board in any position to act on any idea.
I think Wenig was also pushed out somewhat in relation to his opinion on the sale of eBay Classifieds - the rumour at the time was that he was very much against it while activist investors where trying to push it through.
I always thought the CEO should be responsible for what their company did even if they were carefully screened from direct knowledge of stupid things. But obviously that rarely happens.
Captain going down with the ship analogy for CEOs would be to personally pay from their own pockets or their future compensation any misdeeds on their watch. If this were to happen I bet we’d see companies immediately start behaving
On a serious note, I unfortunately don't think that would make companies behave because the problem with corporations is not specifically bad leadership but a more systematic one.
Hierarchies just naturally cause communications to breakdown between different levels of an organisation with sufficient scaling and this will lead to inevitable conflict between workers and management which will further expand to conflicts between the company and their own userbase.
It's something I think about at least once per week.
200 years ago, if the people in power were acting up, the people had the capacity to act...and they did. Heads fucking rolled. And not just some heads, but a lot of heads. Present day, the state is more powerful than people 200 years ago could even begin to conceive of. We have trillion dollar companies that literally do whatever they want. The people have little recourse to do anything anymore (there's a panoply of reasons as to why that's the case, but that's besides the point). We inherently know violent resolution is not the way to go...but let's be honest: nonviolent resolutions aren't working anymore.
I think that's a very rosy view of the olden days.
The rich have always had disproportionate power, but historically there was a lot more top-down violence. When the US started out, it was generally only land-owning white men who could vote, a pretty small proportion of "the people". It took decades past your "200 years ago" to get a vote just for the minority of people who were white men, and it was a very bumpy process. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorr_Rebellion
It wasn't until about 100 years ago that a majority of "the people" could even vote, and it was only 50 years ago that saw voting and economic rights applied reasonably equally to a majority of "the people".
I am happy to complain about what's going on today. But as bad as, say, Amazon is about union organizing, we shouldn't pretend that it's (yet) as bad as it was for most of America's history. And part of what makes today better is a strong-enough set of governments to push back against corporate malfeasance. As the police in this story clearly did.
Um, such actions were very very rare 200+ years ago. If you look at history from the lens of daily life in a given location, you will see that horrible behavior by the people in power would go on for lifetimes. Not only without without punishment or retribution, but sometimes celebrated and extolled. Often completely in the open. Typically, revolts only happened after things got really bad (as in lots of people murdered or starving bad). Even then, the vast majority of revolts ended up with lots of dead commoners and the same people in power.
Until very recently, the idea that those with power could not use that power to extract whatever they could from those without power was laughable. And the shit that the common folks had to deal with hundreds of years ago makes the worse harassment of today seem completely benign. Hell, mass murder to make a few bits of extra gold was common. And no one really batted an eye. Sometimes society not only condoned it but celebrated it.
Not to say that harassment today should be ignored. But harkening back to the good old days that never were is not, IMO, the way forward.
You seem unaware of the history around the Pinkertons.
Short story is that this was a private agency that openly offered services like the ones performed by the Ebay contractors, all the way to the point of directed murder, and did across decades, within living memory.
Nowadays, such services are offered mainly in war zones, by companies like what used to be called Blackwater, later Xi, run by Erik Prince, brother of Betsy de Vos. So there is still a market served, just a bit more circumspectly. But nobody who hires them goes to jail, and they don't either.
The wealthy and powerful like to keep their heads, and have devised complex systems of liability laundering and misdirection to ensure that the general public never get mad enough at the right people to actually start chopping off heads again. In a democratic republic, politicians are ostensibly in charge but in reality are beholden to corporate interests; corporations which in turn serve to hide more degrees of indirection between the powerful and their whims. When something goes wrong and the public gets enraged, by design it is never obvious who's head they should be after. Layers upon layers of fall men and patsies soak up the anger, tanking the outrage, long before the mob makes it to the necks that would actually make a difference.
A good moment to contemplate whether or not the stock market paper-clip optimizers working at Big Tech should have the power to be the arbiter of truth and the judge of free speech on the internet.
There's a lot more at stake than free speech on the internet[0]. These people merciless ruin the lives of countless people all over the world to extract wealth, externalizing the costs of their business to us and actively working to prevent meaningful reform.
[0] which, again, it is worth noting that free speech is what gives them the right to control what is on their platform.
Free speech on the internet is not in danger. It's never been easier or cheaper to set up a blog and publish to a global audience.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press do not include a right to use somebody else's press. Or the right to override somebody else's freedom of association.
That's the inconvenient thing about rights: other people have them too.
Think of what the children might read on facebook though. Free speech just isn't safe for regular folks who don't know what to make of all of this complicated information.
> They provided additional harrowing details of their experience beyond those disclosed in court documents, which include copies of e-mails and text messages of eBay employees that federal prosecutors say show how they conspired to terrorize the Steiners.
The couple met in the mid-1980s in Western Massachusetts at what was then called North Adams State College and is now called the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts.
ARRRGHHH. I want to know what happened, but for some reason the author decided I need to know their origin story. I completely zone out when this BS comes up. Give me signal. This noisy stuff is worthless to me. Keep the origin story for the eventual movie adaption or something.
Why are news like this these days?
This is basically fear porn for the upscale parts of the Boston suburbs. People are interested because they get to self indulge in pearly clutching because even though these were nice people living somewhere nice this still happened to them. If this had happened in Fall River or Lawrence the globe probably would have covered it with a "look at these poors and their tragic plight" tone and the customers would have skimmed it, said "well at least nobody got beat up or shot" to themselves and then clicked the next article.
I think it's safe to say that it was some rogue eBay employees doing the harassing rather than official eBay sanctioned harassment - but there must be something wrong in eBay communication/policy for this to have happened.
What astounds me is how incompetent this all was - a combination of online and real world harassment is going to get law enforcement involved and the paper and online trail is going to get you found out.
Why is this safe to say? When does harassment change from "just some employees" to "official eBay sanctioned" (whatever that means). It's people making up eBay, and those people harassing. That makes it harassment by eBay.
The CEO wasn't charged. There was tons of evidence in this case of what the people did. If the CEO had any part in the activity the Federal prosecutors (charging eBay CEO would be like catnip to a Federal prosecutor) would have offered a deal to one of the five to act as a witness.
It's deplorable that eBay and other large firms run 'anti PR' campaigns against their detractors - but there's a big step from that to physically threatening people and sending pigs heads to them through the post.
Yeah, no, I don't buy that. When the CEO sends an order to "take [them] down" and then this happens, that's no accident. All that means is the CEO is adept at "not knowing anything."
Props to the Natick police for what seems like good, competent police work. A lot of local police would have blown this off.
> Props to the Natick police for what seems like good, competent police work.
Agreed. But the fact that the paper trail was so easy to follow makes me think this wasn't a corporate conspiracy - you don't need to break the law like they did to intimidate people - look what Amazon did when the Alabama union vote was happening. Any large company can stay within the law and get away with murder.
If I was a CEO and really wanted to do this illegally, I'd hire an external 'security' company to do the dirty work. The payment to them would be legitimate for some security consultancy/background checks etc and the security company would use 3rd party contractors who know they'll get paid to keep their mouths shut. You don't use your own employees charging items to their company Amex.
Did you post the right link? That seems to validate my point.
They broke no law that means they will be meaningfully fined or someone is serving jail time. They intimidated voters and behaved appallingly but NLRB called it "misconduct" and they "committed objectionable conduct". The worst case for Amazon seems to be that the vote will be reheld and their PR might possibly suffer.
Even if you believe the CEO's claims that he just wanted a counter PR campaign or something, the person orchestrating it ran a team named "Global Security and Resiliency" and ebay employees were having cars and hotels paid for.
I think execs, hotels and cars go beyond "Oh isn't it terrible what these rogue employees did" and ebay shares some liability. If a company decides to dump toxic waste in the river because the CEO commented that he was unhappy with how much cleanup cost, they don't get to hide behind "oh, well the CEO was just frustrated with costs, its really some rogue maintenance manager and his employees decided to redirect the waste so we're not at all liable, just the employees"
Makes me think of the series DEVS where a big Silicon Valley company also uses their security force in a similar manner, I never thought that would be the part that was the most accurate.
It's scary that this happened at Ebay, I dread to think what kind of shit a company with the funds of google or facebook could pull off.