Ex-eBay Exec Pleads Guilty To Terrorizing Couple With Spiders, Funeral Wreaths (theguardian.com) 40
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A former eBay executive pleaded guilty on Thursday to participating in a scheme to terrorize the creators of an online newsletter that included the delivery of live spiders and other disturbing items to their home. David Harville, eBay's former director of global resiliency, is the final onetime eBay employee charged in the case to plead guilty. Six others have admitted to their roles in the harassment campaign targeting a Massachusetts couple who publish the newsletter EcommerceBytes, which eBay executives viewed as critical of the company.
The scheme included sending items like a box of live cockroaches, a funeral wreath and books about surviving the loss of a spouse to the couple's home with the hopes of getting them to stop publishing negative articles about the company, prosecutors say. eBay employees also set up fake social media accounts to send threatening messages to the couple and posted the couple's home address online. Harville and others were charged in June 2020 over the plot, which authorities say was orchestrated by members of eBay's executive leadership team after the newsletter published an article about a lawsuit filed by eBay accusing Amazon of poaching its sellers, authorities said. Another former executive who pleaded guilty last month, James Baugh, held meetings to coordinate the harassment campaign and directed Harville to go with him to Boston to spy on the couple, prosecutors say.
The scheme included sending items like a box of live cockroaches, a funeral wreath and books about surviving the loss of a spouse to the couple's home with the hopes of getting them to stop publishing negative articles about the company, prosecutors say. eBay employees also set up fake social media accounts to send threatening messages to the couple and posted the couple's home address online. Harville and others were charged in June 2020 over the plot, which authorities say was orchestrated by members of eBay's executive leadership team after the newsletter published an article about a lawsuit filed by eBay accusing Amazon of poaching its sellers, authorities said. Another former executive who pleaded guilty last month, James Baugh, held meetings to coordinate the harassment campaign and directed Harville to go with him to Boston to spy on the couple, prosecutors say.
So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple of high level employees of a company that conspired to commit a crime that benefits only the company and not them themselves.
And the company is not involved in that lawsuit whatsoever.
Only in corporate America...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the first time employees done some incredible stupid shit in a misguided effort to ingratiate themselves with people higher up in the corporate hierarchy. And the problem isn't limited to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is talking about a director of the company, not Joe out at the loading dock.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Even executives answer to someone..
Re: (Score:2)
When Joe at the loading dock breaks the law, it reflects mostly on Joe. When the executives do it, it reflects on the company itself. Corporations are SUPPOSED to be more careful about the character of the execs they hire because they're handing them a lot of power and responsibility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Punishing the company means punishing the shareholders, who were not involved in the criminal activities in any way whatsoever.
So many times, a corporation is fined for misbehavior, and the Slashdot-o-sphere complains that no one is held personally responsible. Then when individual accountability finally happens, you complain about the opposite.
A company can't order an employee to break the law. These idiots took these actions of their own volition. They should bear the full consequences.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
I believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
wouldn't that just be seizing all the assets and revoking their business license?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and that happens sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one in the U.S. in this century.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Punishing the company means punishing the shareholders
So is literally anything else the company does wrong, what's your point?
Re:So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Punishing the company means punishing the shareholders, who were not involved in the criminal activities in any way whatsoever.
So many times, a corporation is fined for misbehavior, and the Slashdot-o-sphere complains that no one is held personally responsible. Then when individual accountability finally happens, you complain about the opposite.
A company can't order an employee to break the law. These idiots took these actions of their own volition. They should bear the full consequences.
personally i think we need to do both punish the perpetrator personally and the company for either encouraging or at the very least not penalizing the behavior. both are culpable both share the responsibility. yes the shareholders are harmed, so maybe next time they will appoint board members that will insure such behavior is not not permitted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
The shareholders should absolutely be punished. They own the damn company and have a voice in how it operates. What sort of a mind envisions a world where you can escape harm when you hire people to commit crimes on your behalf, for your benefit?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both? There is no reason I can see why both the company and the executives shouldn't face consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Individual and corporate accountability are BOTH necessary. The shareholders acted as negligent absentee owners. The (very few) people above the director in the hierarchy failed to notice and block this behavior and the shareholders failed to notice their negligence and vote in someone more responsible.
A company cannot legally order someone to break the law. But it is also responsible for seeing to it that nobody breaks the law on it's behalf and that it's resources are not used to break the law.
So in conc
Re: (Score:2)
Shareholders are almost never directly responsible for the bad acts of a corporation, it doesn't mean they're immune from losses as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
It was pretty dumb action however diced. The more traditional play book is bribes and big ad deals to get more positive comments from the magazine.
Social media practices having their impact in the boardroom too I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So, lemme get this straight... (Score:2)
"The company created 1000 jobs" vs "1000 jobs were lost in a round of layoffs"
Re: (Score:2)
No company in the history of commerce ever created a job. A job position is by default the necessary evil for a company.
You create a job, the moment you want to buy a good or service that a company can only provide if they hire someone to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say instead of stolen money, it was drugs, and you slipped it into their pocket at the airport. In some jurisdictions, they would be perfectly fine with prosecuting them, right up to a speedy execution in some cases. This could be the case even if they had solid evidence that they were not even aware of the drugs. It's called a strict liability crime. Means you don't have to fuss around with that tricky mens rea stuff, you can just get right to handing out punishments for bad things.
Re: (Score:2)
for sending obnoxious packages? Wouldn't suing them for harassment be better than giving the grounds to sue you and ruin your life?
Re: (Score:2)
The packages were obnoxious, but they were more than that. A glitter bomb is merely obnoxious. When you send someone a funeral wreath and a book on dealing with the loss of a spouse, you are making a death threat.
Just managers. Any eBay executives charged? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless some of the others roll over they weren't going to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Unless Wymer manages to find a jury consisting entirely of Baptist millionaires I don't think he'll get off in the civil suit though.
eBay executives allegedly ordered it. (Score:2, Informative)
I hope they take eBay to the cleaners (Score:2)
Fits the definition of terrorism to a T (Score:3)
But because he didn't shout "Allah Akbar", they don't treat it as such.
Re: (Score:1)
There has to be a political or ideological motivation to fit the definition of terrorism. So your subject line is wrong, but the body of your post is actually right... shouting "Allahu Akbar" probably would qualify it as terrorism because it would be evidence that it was motivated by an extremist islamic ideology. Of course, that wouldn't make the crime any more or less morally wrong, but we're talking about definitions.
I assume that this crime was motivated by protecting their financial interests, or may
Why just the employees? (Score:2)